The fellow defending marriage here is of course wrong. Everyone should not be able to live and love as they please. Destructive vices such as homosexuality should not enjoy the favour of the law and homosexual acts ought in principle to be punished by the criminal law. Nevertheless, his arguments are logical and sound as far as they go. They are reasonably and calmly expounded. The ‘chairman’ is absurdly partial and tendentious. His counter- arguments and those of his guest consist exclusively of insults, claims that more and more people are coming to agree with him, and emotive rhetoric. I suppose they make only two real points (and the second only implicitly), that marriage is not about procreation and that the withholding of the word marriage implies social disapproval of the use of the generative organs in an inherently sterile way. The second point is true. Because of his position that all should be able to ‘live and love as they please’ Mr Anderson is unable to answer the second point. His answer to the first is interesting as it is essentially to say that marriage is a remedy for concupiscence. So long as the married couple unable to beget offspring are sexually satisfied by each other they will not be begetting illegitimate offspring elsewhere and thus depriving those children of the right to their biological parents. This is quite true but very unfashionable. Once again it shows that without the full resources of the Church’s tradition it is not possible to present a watertight case. At one point Mr Morgan says something along the lines of ”I find your views increasingly offensive in this day and age”. Here is the voice of the future. A very short time indeed will elapse between the legalization of homosexual ‘marriage’ and the criminalization of opposition to it. This is logical. If it were reasonable to legalize ‘gay marriage’ opposition to it would be something akin to incitement to racial hatred.