I fail to understand why the word “mother” is being substituted for “a person who gives birth” unless there are ulterior motives. The word mother refers also to those who adopt children, so where do such women stand vis-à-vis this law?

The union of homosexuals, under whatever name we choose to call it, must always be different from that between heterosexuals. I am not saying their rights should be different but it is pointless to pretend or, indeed, legislate to this effect because that would still not make them identical.

In my opinion what the homosexual community really lacks at this point in time is not legislation (although I accept that they must have their rights protected) but respect. Unfortunately, no amount of legislation will give them this.

There are many homosexuals who are respected and many who are not, just as there are many presidents, prime ministers, ministers, judges, priests etc who are respected and others who are not. Respect is something that every individual must gain for himself.

However, it is also true that, very often, people will also judge a whole group merely because a member of it gains our disdain. Hence, we say politicians are corrupt, priests are paedophiles, gays are ridiculous and so on.

Perhaps exhibitionism has, to a large degree, contributed to disrespect and non-acceptance of this group.

I ask all members of Parliament to seriously consider the consequences of what they are voting for. It’s not that great to be the first to introduce certain concepts when it’s a case of fools rush in where wise men fear to tread.