[Volume:622;Page:17610] 
I would like to read a very significant article that was sent to me which has influenced my thinking. It is entitled “Civil Unions—A Question of Justice”. It states: “In many respects the debate about according legal recognition to homosexual relationships be it through civil unions or marriage licences is an argument about justice. It is unjust some say to limit marriage’s legal benefits to one man and one woman who commit themselves to a lifelong exclusive relationship. In modern times the word ‘discrimination’ is often used as a synonym for injustice. On one level this echoes the fact that every human being by virtue of being human enjoys equal dignity. They are thus entitled to be treated in certain ways. But does equal dignity automatically translate into equal treatment? The short answer is not always. There is for example nothing discriminatory about declining to issue a gun licence to a child. This does not mean that the child is not owed equal respect as a person but the child may be legitimately denied a shooting licence because a child person is different from an adult person with regard to guns. In this example discrimination is not unjust. It is in fact an act of just discrimination. 
“When we apply the same logic to the question of extending marriage’s legal benefits to homosexual couples which is what civil unions do we begin to see that denying such benefits is not unjust. Those claiming that homosexuals should be allowed to enter civil unions often argue that a homosexual couple’s relationship can be equal to a man and woman’s relationship. They maintain that such elements such as the duration of the relationship between two persons its sexual character its mutual dependence its exclusiveness may be as present in a homosexual couple’s relationship as in a heterosexual relationship. These elements do not however constitute the basic reasons why marriage is accorded legal privileges. They are rather the necessary preconditions for the feature that makes marriage different from other restricted dependent sexual and lasting relationships. This element is the distinct function of procreating and raising children.” 
Tonight as we finish the Committee stage that is what I want to focus on. For me the deciding factor in this matter is: what do we think and what are we considering? Are we considering the rights and the desires of adults who want some formalisation and status for their adult relationship or are we thinking past that to what we see developing in terms of family units in which children are to be raised and where there is no intention from the outset of giving those children either a mother or a father? 
This issue is not about whether the adults involved are caring people—whether they are suitable to be in contact with children and raising children. That is not the question here. It is not a judgment on whether gay people are able to be suitable parents. But when we talk about children in the law we talk about their welfare their immediate safety their nurturing and well-being and then we talk about their long-term best interests. It is in that area where I have some serious concerns. Certainly to date and historically social parenting arrangements for children have always ended predominantly with those children needing to search out their biological parents to help provide the important pieces of the jigsaw that determine their identity.