Journalism Done Ugly: Piers Morgan on Gay Marriage

It wasn’t an interview. 

It wasn’t journalism

It was a professional talker using his podium to hector/lecture/cross examine Ryan Anderson.

Ryan Anderson is co-author of a well-written book called What is Marriage: A Man and a Woman, a Defense. All I can say is that it took a lot of courage for him to go before this hanging judge and allow himself to be treated the way he was on CNN Live.

His attackers were Piers Morgan and Suzie Orman. I think Ryan Anderson handled himself well. When you consider that he was up against two television professionals, he handled himself very well.

Rather than go on about this, I going to provide you with links to excerpts of the interview and let you decide for yourself. I need to warn you that it’s tough going. This “interview” is one-sided and rude to say the least. If you are interested in supporting Ryan Anderson, you can buy his book on Amazon.com. Or, you can go to a Facebook page supporting him here.

American Christians need to stop focusing on the nit-picking nonsense we allow to divide us and stand together. 

Ryan Anderson on Piers Morgan, Part 1 YouTube Preview Image

Ryan Anderson on Piers Morgan, Part 2 YouTube Preview Image

 

  • Pingback: Who made Piers Morgan the Zeitgeist Torquemada?

    • AMacmillan

      Stay with it. The argument is unsustainable. (please refer to my comment on Bastards)
      AMM Ascot

  • CathyLouise

    I was very impressed with Ryan Anderson. He must have known Piers was eventually going to attack him, especially when they put him in the audience rather than at the table. It was petty psychological intimidation, an effort to rattle him so he would feel uncomfortable and thus not be able to answer the questions coherently. In many ways I found putting him in the audience the most offensive aspect of the entire segment. Another step down the road of “you’re not really considered a person because you don’t agree with us, so we don’t have to show even minimum respect.” Bad form. I haven’t thought much of Piers Morgan, this just confirms it.

  • Mike

    Agree it was plain rude.

  • Sus

    It was very rude that Ryan was sitting at the table with Suzie and Piers.

  • http://fpb.livejournal.com/ Fabio P.Barbieri

    Piers Morgan is in America because, in the old-fashioned expression, he had made Britain too hot to hold him. And if you have any idea of British tabloids (he was editor-in-chief of the second largest, the Daily Mirror), it means that he must have done something pretty bad; it’s like being dismissed from the Mafia for excessive immorality. As a matter of fact, Morgan had done at least two things that should have seen him spend a few years at Her Majesty’s expense: he had turned his whole finance desk into an insider trading operation (a scandal for which everyone under him went to jail) and his newspaper had faked evidence that British soldiers had been torturing and murdering Iraqis. (What may have annoyed some of his colleagues was also that the fake was remarkably bad.) After that, his prospects in Britain were noticeably dim. Even as an all-purpose pundit, which is what failed or pensioned-off public figures tend to become, he’d have been no use to anyone: too many people in the audience would remember and ask for a stock tip,or whether he had photoshopped any military pictures lately. So he came to America. It may interest your readers to know (you, I know, are too much of a lady to use it) that he is commonly known in the UK as Piers Moron.

  • Susan

    Piers is mean to have done that to his audience guest, Mr. Anderson. The guy wasn’t even invited to the “elite” table.
    A civil union is a democratic term for allowing two people, man-woman, man-man, woman-woman, to be together, get a certificate at city hall and have the same legal rights as anyone.
    The separation of church and state should be observed here.
    If a church wants to marry a gay couple it is up to the individual church to do so.
    By traditional standards, a marriage is a consecrated union between two people, a man and a woman.
    Terms and terminology should not be confused.

  • Dan

    Ryan deserves a round of applause for keeping up with the ‘professional commentators’ he was dealing with. Numerous disadvantages aside, he managed to provide a good starting argument for the defense of an institution already under much degradation!

  • Korou

    As I understand it, Morgan got a bad reputation for being something of a bigot in the UK.
    Then he came to the USA and, by comparison with the real bigots, looks like something of a liberal.

    • http://fpb.livejournal.com/ Fabio P.Barbieri

      That is wrong. He left the UK because he had committed a number of crimes and was virtually unemployable, as I pointed out upthread, And he always was on the “progressive” side.

  • Jack

    “American Christians need to stop focusing on the nit-picking nonsense we allow to divide us and stand together.”

    It’s hard when many American Christians support gay marriage and are divided among other issues.
    You have to clean up and no one wants to do it. In fact, you get called a dictator for doing so. These social-phrenic liberals don’t even see the irony in having it their own way and calling some one else an aggressor.
    Start by cleaning up Patheos. Yesterday. Do it.

    • Rebecca Hamilton

      We’ve talked about this before Jack. Patheos has its share of people I disagree with, but they don’t scare me.

      I feel your pain about Christians who subvert the Gospels to their politics and then attack both believers who don’t follow them in this and the Gospels themselves. FWIW, this isn’t just liberals. Conservatives do it, too.

      The single best piece of advice I can give to all of us, myself included, is to begin by walking the walk in our own lives. I support traditional marriage, and I’m not backing off of that. But I am aware that my first calling in that matter is as a wife and mother to my own husband and children. If I fail in that, all my words are sounding brass.

      I support the sanctity of human life, but I am also aware that if I don’t take care of and cherish my own elderly mother and (back when I was having children) make decisions for life in my own behavior, then nothing I say matters.

      Too many Christians are not walking the walk, but instead of confessing their sins and allowing the Holy Spirit to convert them, they fall into blaming God for the evils they create and then, ultimately, denying the Gospels to claim that they, and not God or the Church, is right about what is moral.

  • Jack

    Then good luck.

  • Julia

    Brave man. He was treated really rudely. He did a great job defending marriage, but he was up against a brick wall with an army of children throwing stones down upon him from on top of it. How do they justify dismissing someone’s opinions because he’s in his thirties? Do our beliefs become irrelevant when we hit a certain age? That’s just ridiculous. Younger than both of them, that’s for sure. If it had been someone in their twenties, they would have said he didn’t have enough life experience.

  • http://ezedavid@facebook.com David Anyaegbu

    Talking about the U.S constitution, I thought America is the home of democracy? Why then are they punishing people if they voice an opinion which isn’t in support of homosexual movement? The notion of freedom of speech and opinion ought to be exercised by all. If people like Piers Morgan are given the podium to canvass their views in support of homosexuals, why can’t Americans accord the same privilege to people who don’t support such? Why the call to punish and repress antagonistic views? What is source for the goose should and ought to be source for the gander unless Democracy has now changed to become ‘The More Crazy’?

    • Rebecca Hamilton

      Actually, piers Morgan is exercising his freedom of speech. Freedom of speech means the gonverent can’t tell you what to say. There’s nothing in it to prohibit a person from being a total jerk. The cure for people like piers Morgan is don’t listen to them and, if you feel strongly enough, boycott their sponsor’s products. It is within your freedom of speech to write their sponsors and tell them you intend to do that, btw.

  • http://ezedavid@facebook.com David Anyaegbu

    According to United Nation Charter on Human Rights which was made popular by the United States government, where another person’s right stops is where another’s right begins. Thus, freedom of speech is expressed within the confines of not infringing on the rights of another. If Piers Morgan takes to the public apparatus to voice an opinion which covertly affects my right to associate, are my supposed to change the channel and do nothing about it? Worst still is the agitation that people who condemn homosexual marriages should be punished with similar measures as that of discrimination or racism. But are these one and same? Racism finds its foundation in the struggle for an egalitarian society for all humans irrespective of your colour, race, gender or social stratification as against the homosexual movement which is primarily founded on taking away the rights of fellow humans to exist and be brought up in an environment of opposite sex marriage and given it to homosexuals by way of adoption of children born by opposite sex marriage. This is wrong, suicidal to the society; detrimental, preposterous, absurd, fictitious, fallacious and calls for outright condemnation by all and sundry. What is sauce for the goose should be sauce for the gander.

    • Rebecca Hamilton

      I don’t know about the United Nation Charter on Human Rights. Could you give me a link to it?

  • http://ezedavid@facebook.com David Anyaegbu

    According to United Nation Charter on Human Rights which was made popular by the United States government, where another person’s right stops is where another’s right begins. Thus, freedom of speech is expressed within the confines of not infringing on the rights of another. If Piers Morgan takes to the public apparatus to voice an opinion which covertly affects my right to associate, are my supposed to change the channel and do nothing about it? Worst still is the agitation that people who condemn homosexual marriages should be punished with similar measures as that of discrimination or racism. But are these one and same?

    • Rebecca Hamilton

      This country is governed by the Constitution of the United States.

      Having said that, there is nothing I know of in the United Nations Charter that says this. If you are referring to the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights, I don’t think think that says this, either.

      The United Nations Declaration of Human Rights does contain a clear definition of marriage as between “a man and a woman.”

  • http://ezedavid@facebook.com David Anyaegbu

    Racism finds its foundation in the struggle for an egalitarian society for all humans irrespective of your colour, race, gender or social stratification as against the homosexual movement which is primarily founded on taking away the rights of fellow humans to exist and be brought up in an environment of opposite sex marriage and given it to homosexuals by way of adoption of children born by opposite sex marriage. This is wrong, suicidal to the society; detrimental, preposterous, absurd, fictitious, fallacious and calls for outright condemnation by all and sundry. What is sauce for the goose should be sauce for the gander.

  • AMacmillan

    The USA argument and elsewhere is all, all, based on National Legislationj There is no objection to Gay Persons Civil Partnership. The major issue arising is Parentage! Any child born outside wedlock is a Bastard, with no legal rights! This cannot be changed by redefining Marriage.
    AMMinAscot


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X