David Norris (Independent)

I listened with great interest to what my colleagues said and I was particularly heartened by the Minister of State's comments. I do not anticipate that we will succeed in respect of this matter. I cannot speak for Senator Bacik but I will not push my amendment to anything other than a voice vote. However, we will seize the opportunity to take on board some of what has been said. The Senator and I have agreed to work together to produce a composite amendment to be moved on Report Stage. This amendment will contemplate some of the matters that have been raised.

To a certain extent I am pulling my punches when I state that no amount of high-octane smarm will conceal attitudes. It is one thing to make a ritual gesture in the direction of dispassionate, intellectual inquiry, debate and so forth, but that is just not the case. If I am tempted further, I will place certain matters on the record of the House. At this point, however, I will not do so.

I would certainly take some of these things personally. I have no desire to become a parent but I recognise the extraordinary nature of the discrimination that has existed during my lifetime. I come from a fairly respectable background. However, I have known eight people who were murdered simply because they were gay. The source of this is the Christian church — one church in particular — and the kind of pastorals that usually emerge during Lent. I must state that I am not taking any more of it.

The comments relating to young males who are gay committing suicide are, of course, true. However, what the hell else do people expect when the various churches continue to be exempted from the operations of the equality legislation? There have been numerous reports in respect of this matter. One recent report indicated that 80% of bullying cases in schools involve a homophobic element and that in 80% of such cases nothing is done. The main reason is that people who are paid by taxpayers are afraid to take action. The person who has the final say, namely, the manager of a school, is almost invariably a member of the church. That is not tolerable. The Minister of State is a very decent man and I ask him to bring this matter to the attention of his colleagues.

The notion of the right of a child to have a father and a mother is absurd. Who can deny that right? It is an observable fact. A child's parents may not be present but I cannot understand how he or she could come into existence in the absence of an admixture of male and female. He or she may be conceived in a test tube or in some other way but he or she will certainly have a father and a mother. Let us put this notion to one side.

What we are dealing with is the nurture of children. Let us forget the various points regarding the possible longitudinal defects of certain studies which have been impugned by people who apparently did not even read them. I thought that was an engaging admission, as was the admission made by the other person quoted by Senator Mullen who stated that she has no expertise whatever in the matter, that she has never written any academic papers on it and that she does not possess any qualifications in this area. That is splendid. These are the types of people to whom we should listen. How impressive.

I react very badly to the notion that in the single instance of gay people we are going to reverse the procedure that usually applies to every citizen and state that they are guilty until proven innocent. No thank you. Let us see the studies which indicate that children adopted by gay people can be damaged. There are no such studies. It is one thing, as happened on previous occasions, to impugn the background and reputation of people engaged in the production of results on one side but it is quite another to signally fail to produce any evidence that damage can be caused to children adopted by gay people.

I wish to return to the issue of the rights of children. As stated, we already possess the evidence provided by children adopted by gay people. Why are theirs the only voices to which those who strongly oppose what I am suggesting absolutely and adamantly refuse to listen? Yesterday, as part of my day's business, I met two people who want to start a radio station in Dublin which will cater to the gay community. After approximately 45 minutes, I asked the individuals with whom I was meeting whether either of them is gay. They both replied in the negative but indicated that there is a need for such a radio station to fill a gap in the spectrum. That is both interesting and heartening because it suggests that this matter has really entered the mainstream. One of the people in question said that I might recall a letter he sent me in which he indicated that both of his parents are gay. He is of the view that he has been enriched by his experience.

In all the newspaper articles and television and radio reports relating to this matter, I have never heard a child of gay parents state that he or she was damaged by his or her upbringing. What damaged people was the disgusting, immoral and hypocritical way in which individuals were forced into marriages to which, in light of their deepest instincts, they were not suited. Children were born in such marriages, which eventually collapsed and broke down. Let us be honest and not engage in a theoretical approach to this matter. Let us consider the rights of children and what they have to say in respect of it.

I feel strongly about this issue and I am not prepared to be a second-class citizen. When I hear people use phrases such as "well they are not equal" and "forms which do not work so good", it is not the grammar that particularly offends me — the word "well" as opposed to the word "good" should have been used — rather it is the idea that I will continue to be defined in a certain way. If one examines the language used by my colleague, one will find that regardless of whether he states that he is representing the Roman Catholic view — he indicated that this is not necessarily the case — all the language used, such as "complementarity" etc. follows, very directly, the line taken by the Vatican. That line is deeply destructive in respect of gay people and I strongly resent and repudiate it.