Episode 2 Sunday Morning Live

Intolerant and judgmental, that is how a gay Tory minister described

the Church of England's language about gay marriage. Is the church

right to defend the sacred institution of marriage or is it

Good morning. At least 60% of the public agree with a marriage, but

the Church of England still poses it, saying that marriage should

only be between a man and a woman. Are they right or out of touch?

Figures this week show that black and Asian people are more likely to

be stopped and searched by the police than white people. Some

claimed it was one of the reasons for last we're -- last year's riots.

This novelist says she is happy to be targeted because of her race.

believe racial processing -- racial profiling is necessary when it

comes to fighting crime and delivering results. Children are

being raped because young boys are acting out poor and they have seen

on the internet, so says the deputy Children's Commissioner. Is a time

for the Government to block internet pornography? My guests are

known for fighting their corner. John gourd how it -- is a radio

talk-show host, going to the European Court of Human Rights to

defend his right to call someone a Nazi on air.

Andrew Marsh is a campaigner from Christian Concern, campaigning

against gay marriage. In the past he has cleaned toilets with Chris

Martin from Coldplay. We want to know what do you think.

We want to know what do you think. Colin to challenge our guests. You

can give your views on Twitter or by phone. Calls from mobiles may

The Church of England is threatening to divorce the state.

The grounds, the Government's plans to legalise gay marriage. Bishops

say it is one of the biggest threats to the church since Henry

VIII. Are they right or is it rather unnecessary trouble and

strife? The Government and the Church of

England squared up to each other this week over gay marriage. David

Cameron backs gay marriage, because he believes it only makes society

stronger when you make vows and support each other. I do not

support a marriage in spite of being a Conservative. I support gay

marriage because I am a Conservative. At the moment, same-

sex couples can only enter into civil partnerships. Many gay people

want equality in the eyes of the state, the same rights as

heterosexual couples. They say that means marriage. But the Church says

that legalising gay marriage is against loch -- Canon Law, the

historic walls of their faith. They fear that a loving gay people to

marry will undermine the institution of marriage itself. --

allowing gay people. The Church of England says marriage should be

about a man and the woman, and its main aim is to produce children.

They say this is why gay people They say this is why gay people

should be excluded. Marriage is a union between one man and one woman.

There is no such thing as civil marriage and a separate little --

religious marriage. This is a fundamental change. The Government

says it will MoD for its religious organisations to conduct same-sex

weddings but senior Anglican and Catholic clergy are worried there

is the possibility that same-sex couples will use the human rights

act to force them to conduct gay act to force them to conduct gay

weddings in church. Is the church the last line of defence for the

sacred institution of marriage, or is it out of touch and fighting to

hard to prevent gay marriage when the British public, largely,

supports it? The British public largely supports it. Fighting to

hard? It is the role of the Church hard? It is the role of the Church

to speak with clarity and with compassion of got's good purpose

for human relationships. In the context of this debate, to set

forth how these changes are not just small tweaks but represent a

fundamental challenge to our understanding as a society of

marriage, family, gender and how we marriage, family, gender and how we

structure our society. That is the structure our society. That is the

structure our society. That is the question for our text vote. If you

think the Church is wrong to oppose gay marriage, text of the word Vote,

followed by a Yes. We will show how followed by a Yes. We will show how

you have voted at the end of the programme. Peter Tatchell, civil

partnership, was that not the answer for gay couples? I think

segregating gay and straight couples in two separate legal

institutions is fundamentally wrong. To have a system of sexual

segregation were gay couples are banned from civil marriages and

heterosexual couples are buried -- banned from civil partnerships is

not right. You want it both ways? We are not only campaigning for the

right for gay couples to have a civil marriage before the Rite of

heterosexual couples to have a civil partnership. If we believe

the issue of equality goes both ways. Straightforward a quality,

John? I find it hard to get too worked up about the issue. I think

there are more important things to discuss. I think the Church has a

right to say no, and I think personally that it is between a man

and a woman. There are civil partnerships and I do not

understand why the homosexual and lesbian community wants to eight

per heterosexual communities. -- relationships. As usual, Peter

wants to push back the barriers. What will happen is that as soon as

it happens, churches will be challenged through the human rights

act, and they have a right to do that. If the Church wants to stand

up to it, they should. A liberal society should work both ways. If

you have strong religious views, they should be tolerated. Hang on,

neither the Government nor myself want to force churches to conduct

same-sex religious marriages. you know that will happen. It will

not happen. No legal challenge will be successful. We have had civil

divorce as for a long time. There are some religious organisations

that and divorce. There has never been a successful challenge on the

basis that we have civil divorce, therefore religious organisations

have to agree to divorce. It will not work. Churches have nothing to

fear. I'm glad that according to a YouGov poll, 50% of people of faith

say that they support same-sex marriage because they believe that

the principle of equality and they believe that discrimination is not

a religious value. Churches have nothing to fear? I agree with John.

There is an incremental strategy behind this. What we're seeing here

is a false distinction being drawn in the consultation between civil

marriage and religious marriage. There is no such thing in this

country. We have civil weddings and religious weddings but we have one

institution of marriage. That is one of the things that whole

society together. Most people don't get married. Why would you object

to more people are bracing that institution? Your Right, we have

seen a dilution of marriage in this country over the last few decades.

That is not the fault of gay couples. Therefore we need to ask,

do we want further dilution? Has it been a success? No. The sexual

liberation agenda has not produced a society where we have flourishing

human relationships, it has produced a society of sexual

anarchy and the pain and heartbreak, and the children that brings. Why

are we going down that route? Andrew, you support marriage and

love. Gay couples love each other just as much as you or any other

heterosexual person. They love is just as real and ballot. If they

just as real and ballot. If they want to get married, an institution

want to get married, an institution want to get married, an institution

that you support, that does not attract a one iota from

heterosexual couples. It strengthens marriage and

strengthens love and commitment. Surely that is a Christian value?

As you know, this is a deceptive strategy, love is an important

marriage -- part of marriage and there are many loving relationships.

To pick out love and commitment is to say important things about

marriage but not all there is to say. What we are being intimidated

into believing... No one is bullying you. What is it that you

think marriage is sacred for apart from love and commitment?

Homosexual relationships do not give rise to children. Yes, they do.

They do, as we know but in different ways. Not through two

partners. So it is about procreation in the traditional way?

If we redefine marriage in this way, we are saying as a society that we

have abandoned the ideal that children should have the

opportunity, if possible, to be brought up with a mother and father.

That is a change. There needs to be more support for marriage,

heterosexual marriage. You spoke about this freedom, but we have a

situation where children are not being brought up in stable

relationships. That is why we had the riots. The introduction was

talking about whether it was about black kids being picked on by

police more than white kids, that is not why we had riots. It is

because we do not have fathers. Successive governments have demoted

the role of mother had and also of fatherhood. We need stable families

in this country and we need that old-fashioned idea, how about

getting married before you have kids? I am the first to admit, I

lived with my wife or seven years before we got married, but

subsequently we have been together for 22 years. I don't care if that

sounds old-fashioned. The best way to bring up kids is West a mother

and father. That does not mean that a lesbian and gay couple cannot

adopt and bring up children well. However, as the basis of our

society, we need a man and a woman living in a stable relationship and

that needs to be united by marriage. We should not be diluting it.

have gay and lesbian friends to have been together as a couple for

30, 40 and in one case almost 50 years. Their love is just as real

as that of any heterosexual person. It is so insulting to say that the

law should ban them from celebrating that love and that

stable commitment. They are celebrating its through civil

partnerships. That is what you campaign for an you were given. It

is incremental and you are now trying to attack the basis of

marriage. I never campaigned for civil partnerships. By campaigned

for full equality, for the right of everyone to get married to the

person they love. This is not a discrimination issue. This is about

being honest about the differences. This is about not going into an

agenda which was intended to protect difference but is now being

used to punish difference and impose ideological... It wants to

punish those who want to disagree and say there is a distinction,

that homosexual relationships are different. We do not want to punish

you. What about this idea that gave families are different from

straight families and that marriage straight families and that marriage

does not apply to you? Gay people deserve equal marriage because gay

people are equal. Yes, I had a civil partnerships and I have been

in my civil partnership for six years, but when you have civil

partnership for gay people and marriage for straight people,

you're creating a division and that division is saying that gay people

are not worthy of the institution of marriage. That hurts. That hurts

me, families like mine, and I think it hurts Society. Tell me about

your children. How do they feel? is completely normal for them. They

know they have two mothers who are married and they have -- I have not

gone into the terminology of civil partnerships because by the time

they are old enough to understand, gay marriage will have become law

anyway. There was a time when black and white people have to drink from

separate water fountains and there were people saying, what is the

problem. As you know, that is not a parallel. People were saying, what

is the problem, everyone has water. People are saying to us, what is

the problem, you have civil partnerships. I'm sorry, we want to

be equal. I do have a personal faith, and I really am struggling

with the way the Church of England are behaving at the moment. I do

not feel that their argument is rational and it is not robust. If

they are saying, can I just say, if they're saying marriages between a

man and the woman, and it is about children. Well, I have married a

woman and we have two lovely children. In this game age where --

day and age where gay people are We must distance ourselves from

this parallel. This is about love and commitment between two people.

It is not about sex. Let's be clear this parallel is not valid with

race. Race is a given. Sexual relationships, including love and

sexual relationships, our choice driven. No one chooses to be gay.

Sexual behaviour is controllable, that is part of being human. It is

not a fair parallel to draw between race and sexual activity.

choose your faith, does that mean you should be discriminated

against? Of course not. I would defend you or anyone who suffers

discrimination. Shame on you because you would not defend me

because of my choices, lifestyles. That is double standards. You want

equality but you are not prepared to give it to other people. I am

happy to participate but I don't expect everybody to agree with me.

You will be disagreeing with my views and the behaviour I subscribe

to as a Christian. I'm not saying that is the same as race. For those

who subscribe to being Christian, we need to remember and be clear

that our fundamental foundation for that our fundamental foundation for

authority is the person of Jesus Christ and he was no stranger to

challenging social convention. He helped people, but when he was

pushed on this particular issue, he went out of his way to uphold the

fact that marriages between one man and one woman. The there is no such

thing in the Bible. Not to a press. No, but to bring liberty and

reinforce flourishing relationships. I want to bring in Andrew, the

Conservative MP here because this is your party pushing gay marriage

on a church which says their values are traditional. Do you think it is

a mistake your government has tied itself to pushing this issue?

think, if for no other reason, the Conservative Party made an election

commitment. Equality's was part of our manifesto, saying it would

bring forward consultation on equal marriage and we would be questioned

if we weren't bringing that in. Funny, I think the Conservative

Party is trying to create a stable society. As the Prime Minister said

in your clip, society is stronger when we make vows to each other

because they are strong values that keep our communities together. This

is something that should be embraced. Jon Gaunt? They also said

they would have a referendum on the EU so that is hardly an argument.

It was full of hypocrisy, like all the politicians' manifestoes. I

don't think there is a great groundswell within the gay movement

for gay marriage. Yes, the areas. don't think so because I was

reading Conservative home, and Tim Montgomery was making a point that

they raised no groundswell. This is an argument that the Conservatives

didn't need to pick at this time. There are much more important

things such government should be concentrating on. Let's take it on

because I want to bring in Sharon James from the Coalition for

marriage. You got half-a-million signatures on a petition against

gay marriage, you think the Conservative Party is wrong to push

this? Yes because marriage is not just representing people of faith,

representing people up and down the country whether they have faith or

not. As you know, Poles are very unreliable. -- polls. If you ask

people whether they believe in equality, of course they do, just

like they believe in Christmas. This isn't just about faith, it is

a much bigger issue. Andrew, the comparison with race - into racial

marriage used to be to book in the 60s and those attitudes have

changed, haven't they? Yes, and that is a good thing. There is no

place for racism but that is different from categories such as

sexual behaviour, relationships, or sexual choice. We have a choice in

those things so it is a category confusion that clouds the debate.

It is very clear the YouGov poll, highly respected, it interviewed

2000 people and found that 58% of people of faith support gay

marriage - not equality - gay marriage. That is fantastic that

people of faith stand for the principle of non-discrimination.

That is confusing because a lot of people think civil partnerships is

my game version of marriage so when you put that into the frame 58% is

not an overwhelming majority. This should be left to people's own

moral conscience, not the government. So you think the law

discriminates? I haven't interrupted you once, to be fair. I

believe there are much more important things to discuss,

however I do believe marriage is about a man and a woman and if we

protected the sanctity of marriage more through government help and

tax breaks, we would have a better society and we would not have

problems like internet pornography. I want to bring in a couple of

comments. Jonathan in Bournemouth - yes, the church is very wrong. I am

a strong Christian and I am gay and I say leave us alone. Anonymous -

this is an example of bullying by democracy. This is marriage plain

and simple. That is our text poll today - is the Church of England

wrong to oppose gay marriage? You have around 20 minutes before it

closes. Picture this - someone who looks

Muslim walks into her poor security, they are searched and questioned

whilst the white people walk by. Some people say that is racial

discrimination but this novelist says it is a price worth paying for

security and it is time people stopped moaning about it. I believe

racial profiling is necessary when it comes to the police fighting

crime on our streets and delivering results. Figures show that black

and Asian people in certain areas commit more crime, so if that means

one has to stop and search them in order to prevent crime, then that

is all right so long as it is done with respect. I would rather the

police went out and looked for the culprits rather than sat back and

avoided taking tough decisions for PC reasons. In fact, when they try

to be politically correct it has often lead to disastrous results

and we have been the first to condemn them. Following recent

terrorist attacks, Muslims objected to being singled out and yet

Muslims carried out most of the attacks. How can you prevent racial

profiling? Those of us from an ethnic background have often been

humiliated when we have been singled out, but I would rather be

humiliated for a moment than prevent the police from doing their

job, because what is the alternative? To allow a dangerous

terrorist to get away? I remember a terrible incident at an airport in

Italy. I was prevented from catching my flight and my luggage

was offloaded as well. It didn't matter to them that my husband is a

British parliamentarian, they were suspicious about something and I

didn't protest too much because they were only doing their job.

Once they had done their cheques, I got the next flight home. If this

cuts down on crime, it is time for communities to stop protesting and

support the police. You can join the conversation on

Twitter, phone, text, or e-mail. Our guest joins us in the studio.

Tell us why you think it is OK then you get stopped and treated in this

appalling way. Wouldn't bother you if it happened every week? Yes,

obviously if it happened every week, but if it is done with respect and

for good reasons, the police only doing a stop and search when they

have a reason to suspect there is something going on which they need

to keep an eye on, and we know there are certain areas in this

country were the black and ethnic community have indulged in anti-

social activities as we saw recently. That was the first time

for me also, it came as a shock, that if we are too politically

correct we can put people in great danger and we need to step back and

say sometimes it is OK for the police to do what they are doing.

The Home Office says Rowe -- racial profiling is not allowed. Asians

are 10 times more likely to be stopped than white people. The

effectiveness is very small - only just over 2% of those searches

resulted in an arrest. You can't object to the airport example. Why

would you want to stop people who don't much a potential Islamic

profile? I don't think they should be profiled on the base of their

race but on solid evidence. Just because a person is Muslim, it is

no excuse to stop them. Most of the time, this evidence is based on

witness reports, based on what people think the perpetrator is

like, based on evidence the police might have. The person might end up

looking like me but that is a price I have to pay if my community is

indulging in certain practices that they shouldn't be doing. There is

the airport example of course, and Muslim people should be expected to

stop more than people who are white, although you can be white and be a

Muslim of course. I was at Luton airport a few weeks ago and four

year-old child was being told to take their clothes off and it was

garbage. We should be profiling people because not all Muslims are

terrorists but the threat we are facing at the moment is Muslim. It

is great to hear people from that background saying it is sensible.

Going on to black people being stopped, it isn't black people, it

is black youth and there is a problem with certain aspects of

black youth carrying knives. It should not be a front for racism, I

agree, but there are black people, particularly Somalia and

communities, who are carrying knives and who have brought that

culture to the country at the moment. That's not to say that in

the 50s the grade twins didn't use knives and so on, of course they

did. To make our police politically-correct is ridiculous

and it is the same actor bought as well. Let's get real about this and

work together to make the community safer. I want to talk to someone

who has had an experience of being stopped. You are the official

Olympic poet and I think we have you on the webcam. Do we have to

accept this is part of the deal you might get stopped more? I was

stopped consistently as a young growing black male and most of the

black men I know have also been stopped consistently by the police.

In 1981, a report looked into policing, in 1994, the Macpherson

report looked into the police and there is a history to this that

goes back to the childhoods of most black men. But you know there is a

crime problem as well, or do you think that is exaggerated? They

resource there were a problem with insurance fraud, does that mean

people should start knocking on the doors of every white person who has

not paid their insurance. Let him finish. I was just saying that is

proportionality of the racial profiling at present is exactly the

same as if people were to knock on people's doors and tell them they

had cause to crime by not paying insurance and therefore you could

say caused deaths on the roads. until the case recently in Rochdale,

a lot of black and Asian people used to make the point that all

paedophiles were white. These generalisations are there, and it

can be dangerous, but when support... Let me finish. When the

point was made about young black men carrying knives, he also went

on to say that most burglars are white, which has been forgotten. We

just have to be sensible. It doesn't mean all black youth are

carrying knives or they are all gangsters, it just means we have to

Your response to that? My response would be that in England, two point

8% of section 60 stop-and-searches resulted in arrests. Two point 8%.

That decreased to 2.3% in 2012. Most black and Asian men and women,

boys and girls are educated and stylish and living their lives as

stylish and living their lives as normal. They are finding themselves

stopped by the police, which is a terrifying and, terrifying thing to

happen should you not be a criminal. It does not mean that you will

respond in an articulate way. Because you're frightened. I want

to respond to that. As I said in my film, it happened to me when I was

stopped at an airport. It is terrifying because your baggage has

been offloaded. I do not exactly look like a terrorist but I still

an ethnic. So therefore I am pulled out because I look like -- I look

in a particular way. But I think it was the security at the airport

doing its job. They had reasons to suspect, and even if I was

terrified, if I knew I was innocent I would go through it and say fine,

they are doing their job. I would rather they got even 30 or 40

people like me that led one guy get away with it, because ultimately I

would have been on a flight. I would be dead right now if they had

real evidence. So... Can I make one more points? I totally accept your

point that do can be an overdrive by the police at times because they

are over-enthusiastic. The result was a simpler solution, which is

educational bowside. -- there is always. It is for the police to

understand what is happening but also to induct more people from

that particular community into the police force, and I have to say

this, for the community itself to try and ensure that their children

and people from their community are not indulging in anti-social

activities. I support the police and fighting crime and they know

they have a difficult job. But I think what is dangerous about the

stop-and-search powers is that the police do not have a specific

reasonable suspicion. They can do what randomly and this randomness

often impacts. On my estate a young black man was stopped. He was short,

stocky and had appeared. The police were looking for a tall black man,

no description of a beard. Why was the young guy stopped? We used to

go to Central London I used to cross over Blackfriars Bridge for

nine months. It may be a year. I noticed on every single time the

police pulled over a driver and every time that driver was black.

After nine months I ask the police why is it that every time you have

stopped the car, the person is black? The police threatened to

arrest me. For asking a reasonable, polite question. To me, the fact

that every one of those drivers was black struck me as racial profiling.

Let me ask about the impact of racial profiling. We have a

representative from the Henry Jackson society. Does it work?

Based on our research into terrorism, we found that in the

majority of cases there was a typical profile. Not necessarily

based on race, but we found that in terrorism cases in the UK, there

are often young men who were often British nationals. And they came

from a particular ethnic background. Of South Asian descent. Certainly,

in terms of terrorism cases, there can be a typical profile. At the

same time, while I agree with the panellists that profiling should be

led by intelligence, because a threat can emanate from an on

typical profile, take this for example. A couple of years ago we

almost had a terrorist attack from a white male convert, in a

restaurant in the UK. A few years ago, our security services were

concerned about the threat emanating from Yemen where they

believe that Al-Qaeda terrorist groups, there was a possibility

that they were dispatched female white converts. Did they change

their profiling as a result? think it was intelligence led. I

think it should be that way. Thank you for your her contribution.

You're from the Mannheim Centre for technology. Terrorism seems to be

more complex at airports. It is important to say, before we get

into the evidence, that if police officers are engaging in racial

profiling in the UK, they are breaking the law. As for the

evidence, it is pretty clear that stop-and-search has a marginal

impact on crime prevention. The Home Office's own research

indicated that 0.2% of crime was prevented by stop-and-search. It is

easy to understand if you look at the arrest rate. The arrest rates

are very low. That is what you would expect if the police were

being indiscriminate. Using their power base on general

characteristics like race. It is interesting because the previous

speaker said that even the terrorists are changing their

profile. That is why it is important to have a profile to

begin with, because the police begin to look at a particular kind

of Trent and then that drives the terrorists to look at something

else. -- trend. These statistics, why do we have these statistics? It

is because the police are giving these statistics and they are being

monitored. This atmosphere coming over from our poet was that the

police are institutional a racist. I do not think that is true. There

have been some charges against certain people, let us have that

investigation. We do not want that coppers but the majority of police

officers are not racist. -- bad coppers. We're going to lose 16,000.

That will make a difference, let me tell you. The indiscriminate use of

stop-and-search has not only effective but also damaging for

good community relations. It destroys the confidence of --

confidence in the police. We want to have good support for the police.

We need the community to come out and say something when they see

something going wrong. That you're very much. Some quick responses.

Tom: "Racial and proper filing people is what makes communities

feel marginalised. -- racially profiling." Later, one in four

searchers -- searches on the internet is for porn. His is a new

age of freedom where anyone can explore sexual interests online or

would it be good for us and our children if the Government made it

children if the Government made it harder to access internet porn? You

can make your views known by phone, can make your views known by phone,

can make your views known by phone, e-mail or online. Remember to keep

e-mail or online. Remember to keep voting. If you think the Church is

wrong to oppose gay marriage, get You have about five minutes before

Time for our moral moments of the week where our guests pick the

stories that have got them contemplating. The food blogger in

Scotland was your choice. I thought this story was so delightful, 39-

year-old kid decided to start a lot about her school dinners. It was

wonderful how everyone has jumped on her side, despite the fact that

the school tried to ban her. the school, the council. I think it

is important, the moral moment is that you can be young,

insignificant, and just a little school kid, but you can make a

difference. She has raised a lot of money. And also, it is a positive

of the internet. The democratisation of our society.

This was a story from the Daily Mail -- this was not a story from

the Daily Mail, this came from a girl who wrote about it in -- on

the internet. This is a positive thing about the internet and

Twitter and Facebook and we should applaud it. It is absolutely

brilliant. It is a lovely story. Mind you, we had no choice about it

when I was at school. Either you eat it or you do not eat it! What

are your thoughts, Peter? I think it is great that a young girl can

get his message out to millions of people. Fantastic. That is what

democracy is about. I wonder if you were struck by how quickly the

authorities were trying to shut it down. Why on earth would they want

to stop it? What harm could it cos? A thing faded not realise she had

such a following. And the pictures are so telling. 32 grains of corn

or something as part of a school dinner. It made everyone sit up and

say, that is terrible. It was a moronic Council response. They

cannot cope with Twitter. People talk about the Murdoch thing, it

was not the Guardian who brought that down, it was Twitter and

Facebook and ordinary people. There is something powerful happening in

society through social media, very powerful. Peter, your choice, Saudi

Arabia's version of Britain's Got Talent. The organisers have

announced that women are banned, and so is singing and dancing. But

religious chants and prayers are permitted. This is just absolutely

medieval. When you think about this, Britain supports this regime. We

sell them guns and by their oil and sustain the dictatorship. We treat

women -- are they treat women in this way and it is shocking that

women can be so degraded and that our Government backs his regime.

all like it. Simon Cowell has reinvented Saturday night TV. I

cannot see why the Saudis are bothering to do it if that is the

roles they are putting in place. Frankly, it is ludicrous. It is

very sad. Especially if women do not have the right to do what we

think our normal things. But we have to be sympathetic that that is

the religion in that area. That is the upbringing that most of the

people there have. I am not saying that they should not have the

choice, they should definitely have a choice, and I wish they had it,

but it is difficult for them to go against that. There are some

contestants on our programmes here, who I would like to be fully

covered up and not saying it! Maybe they have got it right. -- not

saying. Yours is about a grandfather and some good deeds?

is one of the greatest Tories ever. It is like the movies get Shorey

comic sketch. -- greatest stories ever. He comes out of the back and

he has �1,000 in cash. All these young children pick up the money

and you would think they were going to run off with the money. You know

what they did, they took the money back to him and he only lost a very

small proportion, probably blown away in the wind. Is that not

fantastic? Too often we say that young people are feral and feckless

and running wild but obviously there are a lot of great kids out

there. It is an uplifting story. has to a much the reverse of the

riots, when we saw people grabbing things and running. Here they are

just giving things back. What is lovely, this is truly British.

Truly British values. The honesty, the generosity, things we celebrate

about this country. It is a good news story. It is a fantastic

example of altruism, and people are essentially good. We must never

lose sight of that. All the bad news we hear, there are so many

good people in this country who do wonderful, amazing things. And are

very happy moral moment to end on. You have been voting in our poll.

Is the Church wrong to oppose gay marriage? The polls are closing so

do not text as your vote will not Should we restrict access to

internet pornography? That is the question the Government is

considering at the moment. It is in response to horrific stories in the

papers at evidence in Parliament, like a 12-year-old boy who raped a

nine-year-old girl. He told the court that he was copying explicit

images he had seen online and that he wanted to feel grown-up. Some

MPs are suggesting an automatic pre-set blocking on adult material

on the internet. Anyone over 18 would have to sign him to get

access to it. Would this protect our children from the growing tide

of internet porn or is it just the nanny state?

Children are learning how to carry out sex attacks from internet

pornography. That is the finding of the deputy Children's Commissioner.

Young people are accessing very extreme pornography. There is no

question about that. We have had boys say to us that it was like

being, some of the boys I have spoken have said it was like being

in a porn movie. They have watched things and then they have enacted

them. It has led to calls for tighter restrictions by internet

service providers. And it ought in system for anyone over 18 to you

adult content. Critics say this is mass censorship and that it would

block access to many harmless sites. It could restrict access to pages

on sex education or religious debates on adultery. This say the

responsibility rests with the parents, not the Government.

starting point should be to give parents more ability to control how

at their children use computers. That is a good thing. But we cannot

have the Government setting up some blacklist will wear a bureaucrat

decides whether sites can or cannot be seen in the UK. -- blacklist

where a bureaucrat. Many argue that children could still access porn

sites via wifi or mobile phones and tablets. But would creating an opt-

in system which automatically blocked all adult material be a

good first step towards protecting our children? Or is it a knee-jerk

and effective solution which simply punishes and restricts the liberty

Peter, we have the technology, we could lock this and make people

ought to end - isn't it time? have sympathy for parents who want

to protect their children but there are practical problems. If someone

is doing research about safer sex, putting in the word sex might mean

their search is blocked. If people are looking up gay rights, the word

gay might block their search. I did a search on toys and gay, the

sprinter, and that was blocked. -- Tyson Gay. I don't think the course

and link has been shown, and even if it was in a minority of cases, I

don't think that means it should be blocked for everyone. I would

oppose any trafficking or exploitation of a porn actor,

otherwise for a elderly or disabled people, or people in isolated

communities, this is often their only outlet and I would not want to

remove it for them. K newsy there is a social service to pornography

almost? I am a writer and I do write sex scenes but I have never

had to look at a pornographic site, nor have I wanted to do so, and I

do think the most dangerous part of this entire sexual freedom that we

have on the internet is the fact that it is a massive industry. The

reason why a lot of the search giants like Google and so on are so

low at to do anything about it is because they are earning a lot of

money. The search engines own something like $10 billion just

through search engines and most of them are linked to a pornographic

website so that is the key link we have to look at. I worry about

anything when we talk about banning it because if we allow the

government to start banning things like the last government...

would be changing the where you access it, it would be opting in.

Effectively it is banning it because you start with this and you

wonder where it goes to next. Before you ask, yes I have looked

at it like any man or any female, apart from your good self-, but I

remember speaking to an expert on this who made the point and said

"John, didn't you have secrets when you were a child? Where did you

hide your magazines?" of course as a child I had secret. Because of

mobile phones and tablets, this is available everywhere. You can block

this but kids will get it elsewhere. I know a teacher who said kids were

watching this on their smartphones at school. We need a mass education,

a bit like the Green Cross Code. If we can spend that much money on the

Green Cross Code, encouraging people about the dangers out there,

why don't we do that now? Rather than a knee-jerk reaction, let's

educate parents to say do you know what your kids are looking at? How

many parents know how to get on to Facebook and other websites?

have Suzie Hayman joining us on the webcam, an agony aunt. What does

your evidence about how internet pornography is affecting children?

It has changed in the last few years. I used to get lots of

letters from Fifteen-year-olds saying their boyfriends have asked

them to sleep with them to prove they love them, now I get letters

from people saying I get asked my my boyfriend to do a long list of

things that I would say belong in an adult relationship. What is

available at the touch of a button in their bedrooms anywhere is now

so much more extreme. I am not saying controls are the only thing

- I think it should be opting in rather than opting out because I

don't think that would prevent people from accessing this, but

what I think is more important is education of parents. I want to get

one more response on the webcam. We have a guest who makes adult

pornographic films. Isn't it time you accepted that young children

are being damaged by some of the stuff they are stumbling across and

this is no good saying it is for consenting adults because there is

no control on it? We have no evidence saying kids are being

damaged. The Government is listening to a very biased set of

data from people who deal with... People who are psychologist dealing

with people who have difficult situations with pornography. That

is something like less than 1% of the population. The vast majority

of people don't have issues with pornography and they should take

that into account. The adult industry does not market to under

18s and when people are talking about young people and children,

they are talking about people under 18. You deny there is any corrosive

impact on children today? I am saying that blaming the adult

industry for under-aged pornography used is like blaming Smirnoff for

alcohol problems. I definitely disagree with her because I think

there is a correlation. I used to make documentaries, I used to be a

film-maker, not making pornography films, but we did get a lot of

feedback about the effect of what was happening. The visual medium

does have an impact, but I want to talk about games. I was reading

about an online game which has been written about recently, where are

apparently the age group supposed to be playing that is under 15, but

most of the time what this undercover reporter found out was

that there were people who... The moment the kids came online they

were told to remove their clothes. Pornography has pervaded the

internet and it is normalising extreme behaviour for very young

children. I think it may for some very small minority and therefore I

don't think the majority should be penalised. I want to Flett the

terms of engagement, what about that, rather than children

stumbling across it so they are opting in. Why are we obsessing

about hard core pornography and not hardcore violent. That is a much

bigger issue and violence to me... Let me finish, violence is much

worse than sex. Education is Vicky, we need to educate pupils have

responsible loving mutually fulfilling sexual relationships.

This is why the government are washing their hands of it. The

simple facts are that people might opt in at home but will they check

children have on their mobile phones? We need the government to

put the money in their rather than doing what they're doing at the

moment. I am no great supporter of pornography, I'm talking about

education. Just a moment. I want to bring in another guest, because

everyone is saying they can't do it technology wise. Miranda is from

Save the media, why aren't the internet service providers doing

this? It is difficult because of the commercial angle. They are

making an awful lot of money through extra traffic as a result

of internet pornography searchers because it means people end up

paying more money for their package. What we are talking about here is

not banning it, it is an opt-in filter which means you can very

easily get the pornography turned on if you are over 18 and you go

through an age verification process. This has been done for gambling

website already and it is easy to do, and when the cross-party

inquiry was done, they said practically it is not a problem,

technically, and they also said there was a massive problem with

children, that they saw a lot of experts and they said that good

parents are having real issues with putting on these filters and this

is why we should have this spot in system. The internet service

providers would block the pornography, but adults would go

through an age verification process so that people who want to access

pornography would be able to and customers would be able to access

this but it would make it harder for their children. That seems like

a good idea, and I am wondering why we can't have ethical search

engines. Why are we so dependent on the old ones like Google? Wigan

Builder different search engine that begins with the premise there

will not be pornography on it. see nothing wrong with pornography

which is ethical, where no actors are the worst or exploited, and I

think there is a great virtue because we hear from young people,

many young people finding their best sex-education comes from

pornography. They don't get it from there parents, so pornography can

have the benefit. Thank you. We do have to end it there because your

text poll is in. We asked is the Church of England wrong to oppose

gay marriage? These are the result. What are your thoughts? It is not

scientific, no disrespect to your programme. We need to look at it in

its entirety. I wouldn't use that to beat Peter up. We need more

debate about these issues and more discussion. It is good we lived in

a democracy where that is allowed. I think people should have choices

always, and if they want to be married in the church, whether they

are gay or heterosexual, they should be able to. They don't know

if they are marrying child sex abusers and so on, they don't do a

check on anybody, so if two people want to get married, let them get

married. The same in a mosque? respect how people have voted, but

I would that at that a lot of people are under the mistaken

belief that the government will force churches to make same-sex

marriages and that is not true. The government has made it clear there

will be no compulsion on people of faith to conduct these marriages.

They will only take place in registry office. Thank you to

everyone who has taken part today, to my guests as well. Don't text or