Rónán Mullen (Independent)

The Senator referred to Professor Susan Golombok.

Will we be so mindless as to ignore statistics? Surely we must factor them into the debate and consider the evidence. As to different types of family form and outcomes for children, other countries, including Britain and the United States, tend to be far ahead of us. I am concerned that, as a small community, Irish academia may be disinclined to go against the trend of opinion and treat these issues dispassionately.

To clarify an issue for Senator Alex White, who is no longer present, in saying something could be destructive, I mean it could have damaging effects. I believe this could be the case if the amendments were accepted, although I do not argue that the family would be destroyed in every scenario. Such an interpretation of my words would be radical and illogical. The Senator correctly said that just because something is stated in the Constitution does not mean it ought to be stated in the Constitution. My point on the Constitution is that I believe that what is proposed would be unconstitutional. The logical course, therefore, is to seek to change the Constitution in the first instance rather than introduce an amendment that would, in my view, clearly fall foul of the Constitution — others may differ from me on that issue.

The Minister of State correctly spoke of the love and goodness there can be in other family forms. He also spoke in positive terms about same sex couples fostering children. The logic of his position is that he believes the civil partnerships Bill should envisage adoption for same-sex couples and the Constitution should be changed to accommodate that. If that is his belief, he should say so.

The Minister of State also stated that marriage is about permanence and that having two parents is preferable to having one parent. He is correct to identify these factors as two of the key ingredients marriage offers, both of which make married couples particularly suited for adoption. He omitted to mention the concept of complementarity, a word Senator Norris believes is derived from Catholic church thought. The Senator appears to believe I am much better read in Catholic church teaching than is the case. That men and women are different and bring something different to the party, so to speak, is my own thought. I point out to my colleagues, especially those who appear to believe I have a problem with adoptive parents, that I am not against this Bill and believe that adoption is wonderful, but I recognise that adoption often comes about as a result of unfortunate circumstances.

I have cited reputable surveys which show that two biological parents in a low conflict marriage offer the best chances. Those who deny that are either extremely sensitive or unconcerned about considering what data can show and teach us, and that is wrong. We can applaud adoptive parents, as I do, for all the good they do and the love they bring, particularly in difficult circumstances, without closing our eyes to realities that can be demonstrated through statistical analysis and otherwise.

I do not know whether the word "complementarity" is a word used by the church. Senator Norris insists on seeking to link my views with those of the church of which I am a member. I remind him, however, that he too is a religious man who has a different view. I do not claim that his views are those of the Church of Ireland. The Senator also stated that he would place on record certain matters if provoked. He should do so as a full debate is needed. I do not believe anything he chooses to say will be disadvantageous to me.

I am ultimately the only judge of the origin and source of my opinions. When I say they are rationally held and I hold them independently of my religious views, I am entitled to be taken at my word. To second guess that is to engage in a sinister form of thought control that would seek to characterise sincerely held traditional views as religious.