NEW GALAXY POLL for AMF: Reframes the same-sex ‘marriage’ debate

Galaxy launch DvGNEW POLL: A child's right to a mum & dad trumps right to gay 'marriage' & parenting


  • By a margin of three to one, Australians agree we should try to ensure that children, where possible, are raised by their own mother and father.
  • By a margin of three to one, Australians agree that the right to marry includes the right to create a family.
  • By a margin of three to one, Australians think it is more important that a child should have a mum and dad than that two men should have the right to marry and create a family.
  • By a margin of three to one, Coalition voters would be "MUCH LESS likely" to vote for an MP who supports same-sex marriage.


Society is faced with an inescapable choice.

Same-sex 'marriage' forces us to choose between giving priority to:

  • children's rights to have both a mum and dad
  • homosexual adults' claims to marry and create a family.

Faced with this choice, Australians overwhelmingly give priority to the rights of the child, not the rights of homosexual men.

 That is an important new finding.

Australians need to know that gay 'marriage' and gay parenting is a package deal which discriminates against future children.

Coalition MPs need to know the strength of feeling, among their voting base, against an MP who supports same-sex 'marriage'.



“We undertook this survey to resolve two contradictory findings on the public record”, said Dr David van Gend, President of the Australian Marriage Forum, at the launch at Parliament House Canberra today of a new survey of “Australian attitudes to laws affecting marriage and parenting”.

“Australians have given the same strong support in previous polls to two mutually contradictory propositions on marriage and parenting” he explained.

  • In 2011, Sexton Market research found 73% supported the child-centred proposition that “where possible, as a society we should try to ensure that children are raised by their natural mother and father and promote this”.
  • In 2014, Crosby-Textor found the same 72% support for the adult-centred proposition of “allowing same-sex couples to marry in Australia”.

“We cannot, logically, have it both ways”, Dr van Gend said.

“If we want children to be raised by their own mother and father, we cannot give two men the right to marry – which gives them the right to create a motherless family."

Dr van Gend quoted noted Australian ethicist Margaret Somerville AM, Professor of Law at McGill University:

“Same-sex marriage creates a clash between upholding the human rights of children with respect to their coming into being and the family structure in which they will be reared, and the claims of homosexual adults who wish to marry a same-sex partner. Itforces us to choose between giving priority to children's rights or homosexual adults' claims”.

Dr van Gend concluded, “This study aims to find out which claim is given priority by Australians when they are 'forced to choose' between the rights of the child and the claims of homosexual adults.”


“Our first question benchmarks the question from Sexton 2011 and finds the same high level of support for the fundamental rights of the child: 76% of Australians agree that “where possible, as a society, we should try to ensure that children are raised by their own mother and father”.

“We get the same figure, 76%, in response to our question about marriage as a compound right: whether people agree “that the right to marry includes the right to found a family”.

“Significantly, that means a quarter of Australians (24%) do not understand that the right to marry includes the right to found a family, as defined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights Article 16. That means they do not understand that laws for homosexual marriage include the right for two men to create a family by surrogacy or adoption – with the consequence that any state laws which presently prohibit same-sex adoption or surrogacy will be overturned.

“If every fourth Australian fails to understand that gay marriage, gay adoption and gay surrogacy are a package deal, then the public does not know what it is buying when it signs up to laws for gay marriage”, Dr van Gend said.

“A second point of confusion uncovered by our survey, and of concern for the quality of public thinking on this issue, is that almost a third of Australians (30%) do not understand that there is a logical incompatibility between children's rights and homosexual adults' claims”.

The 1242 respondents were asked this question:

Which of these two conflicting claims do you think is more important?

  • “A child should have the right, where possible, to both a mum and a dad.”
  • “Two men should have the right to marry and create a family.”
  • Both equally important.
  • Don't know.

“A third of Australians in our survey chose “both”, which is not a coherent option” Dr van Gend said. “We cannot defend a child's right to both a mum and a dad if at the same time we are defending the right of two men to marry and create a motherless family. Something has to give.


“Of the 65% of Australians who did understand that we are forced to choose between children's rights and homosexual adults' claims, it is encouraging to see that the vast majority of them give priority to the child:

  • 48% of Australians said it was more important that a child should have the right, where possible, to both a mum and a dad, while only 17% said it was more important that two men should have the right to marry and create a family.
  • A full 36% of Australians felt “very strongly” that a child's rights should come first, while only 12% felt “very strongly” that the homosexual couple's rights should come first.

“How does that strength of sentiment for the rights of a child square with the apparent public support for homosexual 'marriage'?” Dr van Gend asked.

“Where does this strong defence of a child's right to a mum and dad leave those simplistic surveys like Crosby/Textor? Or the more recent surveys with lower levels of support for same-sex marriage (Essential 59%; Fairfax 68%). Those surveys ask if people are OK with changing the law on same-sex marriage without asking if people are OK with the package deal of changing the law on same-sex surrogacy and adoption.

"Simplistic surveys about “marriage equality” never ask people about the inequalityinherent in same-sex marriage, the unequal and discriminatory treatment of certain children who will be forced to miss out on either their mother or their father”, Dr van Gend said.

"In public policy we should not artificially separate marriage and the creation of children, since that is the compound reality upon which the institution is founded. 
That means we should never take seriously any opinion poll that asks about marriage rights for homosexual adults without asking about the loss of a child's birth-right to a mum and a dad.

"Our survey shows that, when you do put both sides of the gay marriage and parenting issue to Australians, 'gay marriage' gets the thumbs down and the rights of the child take priority. That is a very significant new insight into public sentiment on homosexual marriage and parenting in Australia,” Dr van Gend concluded.



“Our study finds strong feeling on this issue among almost a third of Coalition voters – the sort of strong feeling that might change votes” Dr van Gend said.

  • 29% of Coalition voters would be “MUCH LESS likely” to vote for their MP if he or she supports same-sex marriage, with only 10% “MUCH MORE likely”.

“Even if Coalition MPs feel their own margin can withstand the loss of a significant number of conservative votes, they would have to consider the consequence for the Senate of a reduction in primary votes for the Coalition” said Dr van Gend.

“Part of this strength of feeling among Coalition voters might be because the Coalition went to the last election with the policy that marriage is only between man and woman, and for an MP to move away from that policy in favour of their own private opinion is akin to breaking an election promise.

“For the Coalition to keep faith with the people who elected it, they must keep faith with their policy. Any change from the present clear party policy on marriage to a position of having no policy at all - just a “free vote” by individuals - would have to be taken to the people at the next election.

"However, given the findings of our survey and the strength of feeling shown for a child's right to have both a mother and father, there is firm political ground for Coalition MPs to stand on with their present child-centred policy on marriage.

"There should be no change for the present child-centred, principled Coalition policy, since it defends the rights of the vulnerable third-parties in the marriage debate. Politicians can affirm the fact that same-sex couples are already treated exactly the same under Australian law as any other couple, but they can also stand with 76% of all Australians and affirm that a child should have the right, where possible, to be raised by both their mother and their father.

"And that is only possible if marriage remains between a man and a woman ", Dr van Gend concluded.




 This study was conducted online among a representative sample of Australians 18 years and over. The sample was 1242 respondents, distributed throughout Australia including both capital city and non-capital city areas. Fieldwork commenced on Friday 12 June and was completed on Thursday 18 June, 2015. Following the completion of interviewing, the data was weighted by gender, age and region to reflect the latest population estimates.

Share Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail
Follow us Facebooktwitterrssyoutube

47 Responses

  1. I question the original premise of this survey, which states:

    “Australians have given the same strong support in previous polls to two mutually contradictory propositions on marriage and parenting” he (Dr van Gend) explained.

    – In 2011, Sexton Market research found 73% supported the child-centred proposition that “where possible, as a society we should try to ensure that children are raised by their natural mother and father and promote this”.
    – In 2014, Crosby-Textor found the same 72% support for the adult-centred proposition of “allowing same-sex couples to marry in Australia”.

    “We cannot, logically, have it both ways”, Dr van Gend said.“If we want children to be raised by their own mother and father, we cannot give two men the right to marry – which gives them the right to create a motherless family.”

    What I don’t get is why the latter necessarily negates the former.

    Personally, I agree that the best environment for a child is to be raised with a Mum and a Dad – but that statement could also be largely predicated on societal attitudes to those that are not raised in this supposed optimal environment, rather than any study that actually demonstrates this is the case (although I AM aware of a few studies that have shown this NOT to be the case). Society can be very cruel to those not born into a ‘Nuclear Family Environment’.

    Or, is it necessarily a better thing for a child who was an ‘unwanted accident’ of a night of passion to be raised by a set of opposite sex parents or for two same sex parents, who have had to fight long and hard and have been made to go through all sorts of legal, financial and personal hardships and hoops for the right to have a child – whether through IVF, adoption or surrogacy, to raise that child – will they treasure that gift less than the opposite sex couple? I don’t think so.

    And also I would ask, is it better for those unwanted children to be raised in institutions (and there are many, many of such children) rather than be adopted by a same sex couple, who can raise them in a loving and caring environment, simply because we find same sex attraction ‘icky’ (well – some people do let’s face it)?

    The premise of this survey is incorrect in it’s correlation of the two questions presented. One does not negate the other and therefore the faulty conclusions that the author of this article makes cannot be taken seriously.

    It puzzle me somewhat that any professional would promote this survey, as the faulty design is rather an obvious one.

    • Gay marriage will eliminate the need to “fight long and hard … for the right to have a child”. Poor parenting by male and female couples will not be solved by handing their unwanted children to same-sex couples who only need apply.

      • Every couple (heterosexual or homosexual) who adopts has to fight a long and hard battle to bring it about. Same sex marriage does not and cannot change that fact.
        Furthermore, same sex couples already have the right to legal parental status, and the right to adopt. Bestowing or withholding the right to marry will not change that.
        This entire “but what about the children” argument is a nonsensical red herring.

        • C

          That needs to change too. Although, last time I looked it up only lesbians can currently use IVF, not gay men. I’m sure that will change if SSM is legalised. I don’t believe homosexual couples should be allowed to use IVF or adopt. That actually is a more important question to ask people. Were we even asked btw if we agree with that before they allowed it?

    • So in order to present gay couples raising kids as just as good, you have to compare “wanted” children of gay couples (who of course are in wonderful committed relationships) with “unwanted” children of straight couples who don’t love eachother and made a child during a one night stand. If someone actually did a study based on these completely biased comparisons would this be a credible study? No way. So why are you using it as an argument to try to discredit their study? Of course not all traditional families are great families but does that prove gays raising kids doesn’t negatively affect children at all? No, it does not. Does that mean we should allow two men, for example, to deny a child the right to their mother? Especially when we know breastfeeding is what’s best for babies? Are we going to minimise the importance of breastfeeding now after a huge amount of pressure from health professionals about the need to breastfeed? Don’t tell me that all goes out the window because it might be offensive to gay men who will never be able to breastfeed. I think this is the problem they’re pointing out. We are being asked to choose between what’s best for children and giving gay people what they want. Well, of course I’m going to choose the children. When children of straight couples don’t have a mother or father in their life for whatever reason -whether it’s abandonment, death, divorce- we say that’s a sad thing. When gay couples purposely deprive a child of a mother or father we’re supposed to say that’s a wonderful thing and society needs to just get over it and accept it. I will not.

  2. I would like to be able to reference this poll. Where is it available online?

  3. I’ve been married 59 years, with my wife raised three children. That, we believed, is what God wants for us. People who want same-sex marriage talk of ‘marriage equality’. What a ridiculous nonsense1 How can a child raised in such a family ever fully understand the different roles and characteristics of a father and mother, so that they can properly participate in marriage themselves when they become adults. No, it is ridiculous, I hope no Australian government ever bows to the demands of a 2% minority.

    • There shouldn’t even be any debate over this. It goes totally against nature and logic.

  4. Ana

    Greg Iverson,
    In response to your question:

    “What I don’t get is why the latter necessarily negates the former”.

    The research supports the belief of many Australians that children’s rights to a mum and dad should not be removed.

    This is essentially what will happen if SSM is legalised in Australia. The current family laws will be reviewed and reformed to suit the ‘rights’ of gay people wanting to start a family at the expense of children’s rights to be raised by a mum and dad.

    You cannot have same-sex marriage law and at the same time ‘prevent’ children from being raised by same-sex parents. It’s either one or the other.

    Those who support children’s rights are not saying gay people can’t be good parents – but rather that the right for children to be raised by a mum and dad should not be removed – which is essentially what will happen if SSM becomes law.

  5. Greg Iverson greetings. Greg if you are seeking to discredit the premise of this survey you need to look beyond the ‘professional’ promoting it. If you believe there is a design fault, your problem has not been created by any professional; your irrational protagonist is natural law.
    At issue as this survey indicates are on one hand, the civil rights of a very small minority of adults in society who possess an abnormal sexual orientation and on the other hand the human right of each and every child to be born to and raised by the two people responsible for giving them life.
    The very cleverly orchestrated social engineering exercise conducted by those responsible for the marriage equality push has demonstrated that the unfortunate human behaviour featured in the society of the Emperor’s New Clothes children’s story is alive and kicking in ours.
    Amongst other notions the push to redefine marriage has given us the following;
    LOVE IS EQUAL. Utter nonsense! Life is not equal and love never was equal isn’t now equal and never will be equal.
    LOVE IS LOVE. An improvement on ‘love is equal’ but how is it relative? Marriage is marriage. The latter has never been a natural consequence of the former, not even in the context of all heterosexual adult couples who profess to love each other.
    SAME SEX ADULTS NOT BEING ABLE TO MARRY= DISCRIMINATION (….and the emperor’s new clothes are the height of fashion!) Marriage acknowledges a complementarity that same sex relationships can never attain regardless of any proposed legislation. This complementarity has the potential to create Australian citizens who have the right not to be discriminated against that they may have childhood equality as no doubt experienced by the majority of SSM activists and supporters ….in relationship with a mum and dad……biological or not. If children come first then redefining marriage fits somewhere else but they don’t fit together.

  6. This survey had less than 2 thousand participants. How on earth could that possibly show how many australians agree with legalizing same sex marriage or not? In actual surveys of more than 50 000 people, 76% said they agreed with the legalization of it. Like.. come off your high horses guys it’s going to happen whether you like it or not. Be on the wrong side of history.

    • A social experiment that happens, can be made to un-happen at any time in the future. A proportion of any population will naturally be attracted to the same sex. It needs to be understood that another portion of any population will naturally find that odd. The parenting outcomes of same-sex couples will always be scrutinized more rigorously because as parents, they are unnecessary.

  7. Please provide a link to the survey itself including the exact wording of all the questions asked and the full results. I can find no reference to it at all on the Galaxy Research website. I notice that another poster has already made this very straightforward request but the question was completely ignored. If you have nothing to hide regarding your interpretation of the results, then surely you should have no objection to this?

    A very skewed interpretation of the results is immediately evident from the ‘Political Implications’ section above. You seem to be rather desperately trying to present as an argument in your favour the fact that only 29% of Coalition voters indicated that they would be “much less likely” to vote for an MP who supported same-sex marriage. What percentages indicated that they would be “somewhat more likely” to vote for an MP supporting same-sex marriage or that it would make no difference to their vote at all? Your selectivity with these results provides a very strong hint that those who said they would be MORE likely to vote for an MP supporting marriage equality actually outweighed those who said they would be LESS likely to do so. No? Publish the full results so everyone can see for themselves. A recent (11-13 June) Ipsos poll found that 57% of Coalition voters now support same-sex marriage. I strongly suspect that this poll actually found a very similar result.

    I also agree that the whole premise of the poll is completely flawed and would be very happy to elaborate on my reasons once access to the full survey and complete results has been made available.

      • Thank you for the link to the Survey.
        If this is the the complete report including the EXACT wording of ALL the questions asked and the FULL results for each question, then it’s even more concerning and lacking in credibility than I had thought.
        I’ll use the example of the ‘Political Implications’ section again.
        The relevant question, as stated in the report, is: “If your federal member of parliament supports same-sex marriage, would that make you more or less likely to vote for him or her at the next election?”. However, the only results shown in the report are for percentages of Coalition voters who would be “much more” or “much less” likely to vote for him or her. Obviously this begs the question of how you managed to obtain results ostensibly gauging “Coalition voters’ strength of feeling” if that question was not even asked?
        Clearly either the question has not been fully and/or correctly stated in the report, the results have been misstated/misrepresented or there were other results regarding this question which have been concealed.
        Perhaps you can clarify this for everyone?

  8. […] A new Galaxy poll released last week revealed that a majority of Australians think it is more important for a child to have the love of both mother and father, than for two men or two women to have the right to marry and create a family. […]

  9. Patricia fair request. Pity we can’t have the SSM supported surveys and gay promoted evidence of the health and wellbeing of children raised in gay relationships scrutinised with the same transparency. Do you think Q&A would arrange a show with one panelist from the gay lobby and the rest of the panel made up of adults raised in gay homes who are now bravely speaking out against gay marriage. Rev Nile might like to join the audience.

    • I really don’t know what you mean. The research conducted by others on this issue has been completely transparent and is quickly and readily available for scrutiny by whoever wishes to do so.

      I was able to access within minutes the full results and exact wording of the various surveys regarding marriage equality that have been conducted over the last few years via the internet. Simply go to the following website and it’s all readily available there including full disclosure of who commissioned the various polls, who they were conducted by and when:

      What’s clear from ALL the surveys is that public support for same-sex marriage has been steadily increasing over the last few years and is now overwhelming. What’s more, that support now spans all age groups and political persuasions.

      As for evidence of the health and wellbeing of children raised within same-sex relationships, again I was quickly and easily able to access full details of the very latest research which actually analysed all the results of the many previous studies on the subject. The findings, published recently in Vol 53 of the journal ‘Social Science Research’, were that “the literature on outcomes for children of same-sex parents is marked by a scientific consensus that they experience ‘no differences’ compared to children from other parental configurations.”

      Completely transparent and available for scrutiny to anyone at all with internet access! It only seems to be your organisation that feels a need to keep the REAL findings from your ‘research’ secret.

      As for Q&A, that obviously has nothing whatsoever to do with making the full details of your recent survey available. Perhaps you are trying to deflect attention from my simple request for some reason?

      • admin

        AMF has published these key findings with the exact wording and full results of those questions as put to the respondents. This report also specifies who it was that commissioned the poll (AMF – as stated on the Galaxy cover page) and who conducted it (Galaxy) and it provides all the methodological data as well. That is the standard procedure with poll results published by other organisations, and that is what we have provided.

        • If the link you provided previously contains the exact wording of your survey and full results as you claim, then you have clearly misrepresented those results. How can you possibly claim that 29% were “MUCH less likely” and 10% “MUCH more likely” if you didn’t actually ask how “MUCH” more or less likely they would be to vote for the candidate, only whether they would be “more or less likely”. You should therefore delete the word “much” from your published results.

          What I actually believe you’ve done, however, is offer the survey respondents some sort of scale of possible answers to choose from. These probably ranged from “much less likely” at one end of the scale, through something along the lines of “somewhat less likely”, “neither more nor less likely”, “somewhat more likely” and “much more likely” at the other end. The wording may have differed slightly and there may have been more or less possible choices on your scale but I’m sure everyone gets the drift.

          Unfortunately for you, I think the combined total of respondents who indicated that they would be ‘much’ or ‘somewhat’ MORE likely to vote for an MP who supported same-sex marriage, or that it wouldn’t affect their vote at all, significantly OUTWEIGHED the total of those who indicated that they would be ‘much’ or ‘somewhat’ LESS likely. The only flimsy straw you could grasp at to try to support your argument was that the total number of respondents at the ‘much less likely’ end of the scale outweighed those at the ‘much more likely’ end, so I think you just chose to ‘cherry pick’ and publish those two extremes. Revealing all the other responses would have completely destroyed your argument regarding ‘Political Implications’.

          Either way, your manipulation and misrepresentation of the results is highly unethical, misleading and deceptive. It is most definitely NOT the “standard procedure with poll results published by other organisations”. Either delete the word ‘much’ from your published results or come clean and admit that there were other results which you have concealed. As you’re fond of saying yourself, something has to give!

          • The survey does not deceive, but makes clear that it is interested in the area of response for “COALITION VOTERS’ STRENGTH OF FEELING”, which it has been upfront in declaring. This nominated area of interest is the key. You might have a case if the declared area of interest was ALL voters and the results said it then was of Coalition voters only, but no such evidence for the claim exists. You might also have something of a case if the area of interest was not nominated.

            A line, however is crossed when you state that “your manipulation and misrepresentation of the results is highly unethical, misleading and deceptive”, as this is libellous. And who are you to state that the word “much” should be deleted? Do you have evidence that this was not asked?

        • Oh dear, Ms Lovelock raises some salient points. Perhaps one should pray for an honest response from you.

          • Gerard, my evidence is the clear and unequivocal statement of the AMF themselves that they have “published these key findings with the exact wording and full results of those questions as put to the respondents”. This is a direct quote from the AMF – see above.
            The exact wording of the relevant question as published in their report is: “If your federal member of parliament supports same-sex marriage, would that make you more or less likely to vote for him or her at the next election?”
            So it is the AMF themselves who have stated that the respondents were not asked how “much” more or less likely they would be to vote for the candidate, only whether they would be “more or less likely”.
            Therefore, in order to act ethically and remove an obvious misrepresentation of their results, the AMF would need to delete the word “much” – or admit that there were actually other results which they have deliberately concealed.
            The truth cannot be a libel Gerard!

            You have also (unwittingly I imagine!) exposed another area where the AMF have, in my opinion, acted most unethically.
            As you have pointed out, the report published “Coalition Voters’ Strength of Feeling” on the above question.
            In the ‘Methodology’ section of their report, however, the AMF only state that ” this study was conducted online among a representative sample of Australians 18 and older”, that “the sample was 1,242 respondents, distributed throughout Australia including capital city and non-capital city areas” and that “the data was weighted by gender, age and region to reflect the latest population estimates”.
            No mention whatsoever of it being only Coalition voters who were asked certain questions, a fact that would obviously skew the results enormously! On the contrary, it makes it sound as if the survey canvassed the opinions of a random sample of ALL Australians 18 and over on each question – which clearly wasn’t the case.
            So were there also other questions in the survey which were only asked of Coalition voters? Unfortunately, we just don’t know because the AMF have failed to disclose this aspect of their methodology.

            Completely unacceptable behaviour for anyone purporting to conduct a reputable piece of social research! The survey is, as I have said, a nonsense.

      • Patricia, you said, “I was able to access within minutes the full results and exact wording of the various surveys regarding marriage equality that have been conducted over the last few years via the internet. Simply go to the following website and it’s all readily available there including full disclosure of who commissioned the various polls, who they were conducted by and when:

        I have tried that myself. I did find the full survey for one of the surveys once, but certainly not every time. Nor did I consider the survey I found to be without problems.

        The truth of the matter is that there will be different readings of relevant results, but there is a difference between legitimate interpretation and illegitimate interpretation – and people do not always recognise when they are doing the latter. I haven’t checked the AMF survey yet, but certainly the Galaxy survey commissioned by AME contained what I considered to be both legitimate and illegitimate interpretation – as well as some pretty leading questions.

        I’ll be interested to check out AMF’s survey.

  10. I’m from South America.
    Here the caos generated by those “new laws” and re-definitions is outrageous.
    I would cry a lot if Australia is lost too. I like the english language, british or anglo-saxon culture, and so, but I feel too, that it’s a shame what they (english speaking countries) did these last years with Humanity.
    Please, keep Australia aways from that crazyness and non-sense.

  11. Marriage IS AND ALWAYS MUST BE between a man and a woman as God intended it to be – Every child born should have GOD’S GIVEN RIGHT to live in a happy family life knowing their mother to be a woman and their father to be a man – Two men or two women bringing VULNERABLE – CLUELESS young children up in an abnormal way of life will DAMAGE them for the rest of their lives – They have a right to know the difference between the two sexes and what their role in life should be – THE RIGHT WAY and NOT the inhumane – filthy – disgusting – immoral – degrading way of portraying love towards another.

  12. Has anyone recently checked out the statistics on hiv/aids amongst homosexual males in Australia? The facts are that its continuing to increase in Australia and by far the largest percentage of cases {approx 80%} are male to male sex. The real scary part is that the report states that many homosexual males in Australia are in the early stages of this disease and are not even aware that they are infected yet continue in their lifestyle with multiple partners. How can we consider telling our young people that legalising homosexual marriage is a healthy and safe environment when its actually the opposite. We banned cigarette ads and promoting it at sporting events due to health concerns yet continue to push for legalising homosexual marriage onto our young generation {at what cost}?

    Would be interesting to check truthful well researched data overseas with hiv/aids cases over a period of 5 to 10 years since the inception of legalised homosexual marriage in a particular State or country {America would be a case example} to see if there were any substantial increases. Of course this would not take into account the many homosexual males who were already in the early stages of infection but weren’t aware of the disease.

    • Nowhere in Australian law is a person’s PROPENSITY for health problems used as justification for denying civil rights and human rights.
      Since women have significantly higher chance of dying in childbirth than men do, should we restrict the rights of women?
      Since people under the age of 5 have a higher propensity to die from measles, should we deny them rights?
      Since men have a higher propensity for prostate cancer than women do, should they be denied rights?
      Since people of African descent have a higher propensity for sickle cell anemia, should they be denied rights?

      Why does this restriction of rights resulting from a higher propensity to a particular healthcare problem only ever apply to gays?

      Furthermore, consider the fact that half the homosexuals are lesbians. Lesbian sex is by far the least risky form of sexual contact when it comes to transmission of HIV. Worldwide there has only been a single definitively proven case of female to female sexual transmission of HIV. Of the nearly 300,000 women living with HIV in the USA, only 9 of them can be described as PROBABLY contracting it through lesbian sex, and only one (the case mentioned earlier) definitely contracted it through lesbian sex.
      Why deny lesbians the right to marry because gay men are at higher risk? Do you intend to add a further discrimination on the basis of gender by allowing only female homosexuals, but not male homosexuals, the right to marry?

      Also consider the fact that the best possible path towards avoiding contracting an STI is to engage only in monogamous sex. Marriage is a committed monogamous relationship. Marriage is a potential solution to the problem among homosexuals, just as it was for heterosexuals when Syphilis and other diseases were the deadly STI’s of the day.

  13. Having exposed the AMF’s highly misleading and deceptive behaviour in relation to the ‘Political Implications’ section of this survey, it’s time now to have a look at some of the other areas where it is deeply and irretrievably flawed:

    Firstly, the completely erroneous statement that: “Australians need to know that gay ‘marriage’ and gay parenting is a package deal”.

    You have attempted to scare people into the completely false belief that a change to the Marriage Act will somehow give male same-sex couples a right to ‘found a family’ that they do not already have.

    People should be aware that:

    – The ‘Universal Declaration of Human Rights’, although undeniably an extremely important document, IS NOT LEGALLY BINDING. Therefore, it creates no direct legal obligations on Australia and cannot, of itself, be used to overturn any State laws.

    In any case, overturning State laws would be unnecessary because male same-sex couples in Australia ALREADY HAVE THE LEGAL RIGHT to ‘found a family’. They can do this in a number of ways:
    – They can legally ADOPT a child in NSW, the ACT, WA, Tasmania and, very soon, Victoria.
    – They can have a child via an altruistic SURROGATE in QLD, the ACT, Tasmania, Victoria and NSW. The non-genetic father can then adopt that child through existing ‘step-parent adoption’ laws (except in Qld). In many States, adoption by the non-genetic father is not even required because they are automatically recognised at birth.
    – An individual gay man can ADOPT a child in all States except SA.
    – They can raise a child together that one of them fathered during a previous heterosexual relationship.

    In reality then, there is NO LINK between gay men having the right to marry and whether or not they can or will ‘found a family’! Many gay male couples are ALREADY raising happy, healthy, well-balanced children in secure, loving homes. They will continue to do so in ever increasing numbers irrespective of any change to the Marriage Act.

    Further, let’s not forget that there is now COMPLETE SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS (based on an analysis of all previous research on the subject) that there is “no difference” between children raised by same-sex couples and those raised in other parental configurations.

    In a nutshell, the whole premise upon which this survey is based is COMPLETELY FALSE!

    • Complete scientific consensus? This conveniently overlooks at least the following:

      For Kids’ Sake: Repairing the Social Environment for Australian Children and Young People, by Professor Patrick Parkinson AM with Antoine Kazzi, Faculty of Law, University of Sydney, July 2011 –

      Or the work of Lauren Marks: Same-sex parenting and children’s outcomes: A closer examination of the American psychological association’s brief on lesbian and gay parenting, July 2012 –

      There is a paywall, but the abstract is very illuminating:


      In 2005, the American Psychological Association (APA) issued an official brief on lesbian and gay parenting. This brief included the assertion: “Not a single study has found children of lesbian or gay parents to be disadvantaged in any significant respect relative to children of heterosexual parents” (p. 15). The present article closely examines this assertion and the 59 published studies cited by the APA to support it. Seven central questions address: (1) homogeneous sampling, (2) absence of comparison groups, (3) comparison group characteristics, (4) contradictory data, (5) the limited scope of children’s outcomes studied, (6) paucity of long-term outcome data, and (7) lack of APA-urged statistical power. The conclusion is that strong assertions, including those made by the APA, were not empirically warranted. Recommendations for future research are offered.


      ► A 26 of 59 APA studies on same-sex parenting had no heterosexual comparison groups. ► In comparison studies, single mothers were often used as the hetero comparison group. ► No comparison study had the statistical power required to detect a small effect size. ► Definitive claims were not substantiated by the 59 published studies.

      In terms of the state laws, they violate the right of a child to a mother and a father and on this basis alone need to be repealed. They are battles in state parliaments, whereas the question of marriage law is contested at the Federal level.

      The division of levels of lawmaking does not divide the principle of the child’s right to a mother and a father, the redefinition of the crucial institution that protects and upholds this right and essentially creating the lie that the sexual ordering of marriage towards the creation of life is the same as exists with two men or two women.

      The study is right to presume the existence of the “packaged deal”.

  14. Now to the ‘Rationale for this Survey’ as stated by the AMF. No surprises here, a feeble attempt has been made to compare apples with pears – and ancient apples at that!

    Firstly, contrary to your claims, it has already been established above that the two previous poll results you have relied on are in NO WAY “conflicting” or “irreconcilable”.

    Secondly, you have used a survey as your ‘benchmark’ that is so old (2011) as to be completely irrelevant. The reason for this is that there has been an absolutely seismic shift in public opinion on marriage equality since 2011!

    Let’s use the example of the independent ‘Ipsos’ polls on the subject which show a HUGE INCREASE of 11% in those supporting marriage equality between Dec 2011 and June this year and corresponding DECREASE of 10% in those opposed. A massive turnaround of over 20% in total!

    According to your report, a 2011 Sexton poll canvased public opinion on the question: “Where possible, as a society, we should try to ensure that children are raised by their natural mother and father and promote this” – with 73% in agreement.

    If a similar turn-around in public opinion to that found in the Ipsos polls (and numerous others) was applied to the Sexton poll, then it could be predicted that the result would now be right down to around 52%. And, despite your desperate attempts to manipulate the figures in your favour, that’s actually almost exactly what your very own Galaxy poll shows!

    In fact, your own poll shows an even LOWER result, with only a 48% MINORITY of respondents now believing the proposition that: “a child should have the right, where possible, to both a mum and a dad” is “more important”! Perhaps, the lower than predicted figure could be attributed to the rapidly increasing momentum towards marriage equality and recent decisions in favour in other countries.

    Astoundingly, you have then attempted to deceive people into believing that the poll was favourable to your views by simply ELIMINATING all those (a full 30%!) who indicated that they believed the above proposition and the proposition: “two men should have the right to marry and create a family” were “both equally important”. This was on the breathtakingly ridiculous basis that it was “not a coherent option” i.e. that all those people’s considered opinions should simply be discounted because, in the AMF’s opinion, they didn’t understand the question!! Which REALLY means that you have arbitrarily refused to count the votes of a large number of respondents (almost a third) who didn’t agree with what the AMF was trying to prove.

    I sincerely hope no-one from the AMF ever gets a job with the Australian Electoral Commission! I can just imagine the conversation:
    Returning Officer: “I just can’t understand why there wasn’t a single vote for any of the candidates who supported marriage equality”.
    AMF member: “Oh we burnt all those votes because they didn’t agree with us so obviously that meant they didn’t understand the question”.

    WHAT AN ABSOLUTE NONSENSE YOUR SURVEY IS! Blatant deceit, misrepresentation and manipulation. You should all hang your heads in shame.

    • The use of the 2011 survey question “Where possible, as a society, we should try to ensure that children are raised by their natural mother and father and promote this” highlights the fact that the surveys since have failed to make this line of inquiry, avoided perhaps, and thereby papered over its significance.

      That same study also showed how asking the same question different ways produces different results – a point that should not be lost.

      If anything polls are showing a decrease in support for refining marriage, even those with sympathetic questioning, such as the recent Newspoll which showed a drop, by the redefiners own standards to 58% in favour. This is lower than the purported 2010 figure and shows the volatility of such results – hence throwing them all under a cloud. Ask the question differently and probe other areas, and the results do shift.

      Your claims of the “”ELIMINATING all those (a full 30%!) who indicated that they believed the above proposition and the proposition: “two men should have the right to marry and create a family” were “both equally important”” are strange as they were counted and are there. The survey identifies the contradiction of the support for wanting “children to be raised by their own mother and father” and giving “two men the right to marry – which gives them the right to create a motherless family.” The two are not logically possible, but the 30% is noted and is there in the results. A fair claim.

      • No, not a fair claim at all Gerard.
        The AMF have made the extraordinary claim that: “By a margin of three to one, Australians think it is more important that a child should have a mum and dad than that two men should have the right to marry and create a family”.
        This is quite obviously COMPLETELY FALSE since the results published by the AMF actually show that less than 50% thought the first proposition was more important!
        By their OWN ADMISSION, the AMF have achieved their “margin of three to one” by simply DELETING the votes of the entire 30% of survey respondents who thought that both propositions were equally important. Yes, that’s right Gerard, the AMF have arbitrarily chosen to IGNORE the considered opinion of all those people! They have ELIMINATED a full 30% of perfectly valid votes because those people’s views were ‘inconvenient’ and didn’t support the AMF’s outlandish claims.

        That 30% of respondents have obviously been wise enough to recognise the fact that there is no contradiction whatsoever between the two propositions. Being accorded the right to marry will NOT convey upon gay men any right to create a family that they do not already possess.
        All gay men (and women) ALREADY HAVE the legal right to create a family in Australia!!
        Marriage equality will make no difference to the fact that there are ALREADY many thousands of happy, healthy, well-balanced children being raised in loving, caring homes by same-sex couples throughout Australia!!
        Nor will it make any difference to the fact that their numbers will continue to grow very rapidly as acceptance of same-sex relationships, and the children of those relationships, grows at an amazing rate throughout Australia.
        In Australia, the right to marry is COMPLETELY UNCONNECTED to the right to raise a family – both for heterosexuals and homosexuals alike.

        The only ones NOT ‘thinking of the children’ here are the AMF and all those supporting their outdated and bigoted views. By seeking to deny the children of gay couples the opportunity to have happily married parents, it is YOU who subject those children to the potential for discrimination and disadvantage.

        You should all hang your heads in shame.

  15. Marriage originally meant to join with a wife. And matrimony means motherhood. It is simply, rationally, and literally impossible for two men to marry.
    Someone needs to invent a new word for this new type of union. There’s no need to redefine the traditional, accepted meaning.

    Lot was a foreigner in Sodom. I was born in Australia, if the laws change and I don’t want to be a part of it, I guess I gotta move then! This minority 2 % is just creating a division and a diversion.
    Aboriginal rights are a far more important issue here. It would be a shame if gays influence the state to get their so called rights, celebrating and dancing in the street, before the indigenous people are recognized.

  16. […] asked for a source to substantiate his statement, Bernardi’s spokesperson referred to a 2015 poll commissioned by the Australian Marriage Forum (self-described as “an organisation that has been […]

  17. These statitistics may well have a bias. It is obvious that there is bias on both sides of this issue.
    After reading the link from ‘FactCheck: is having a mum and a dad the very best thing for a child?’, I’ve realized the word ‘parent’ is also being redefined. There are biological parents, birth mothers in the case of surrogacy, adoptive parents and step parents.

    Who can deny that the biological parents, (that is the natural progeny of a man and a woman), are the real, natural, literal parents?
    Gay marriage is a misnomer. It is in fact a defacto marriage/civil union. And no one is being discriminated against if it remains that way. There is an obvious difference.

  18. Marriage is indisputedely a union of a man and a woman. Always has been. A child raised by two males or two females is not being given the information on normal life as is required for any child to grow into a stable man or woman. Patricia states above that there is no difference in children raised by same sex partners and those raised by normal married couples. As far as I can see from the demonstrations shown of the news , is that same sex couples only want access to Centrelink benefits now only available to normal married couples.
    What is the big problem? At the present time gay and lesbian couples live together, if they want children there is only one normal way to get them, and that is a union between a man and a woman. Think of the rights of the child for a change.
    For all those same sex couples, live the way you want, but don’t try to force the rest of the majority of Australians to allow you to have anything you want. You behave like spoilt brats. Be satisfied with what you have and have some common sense.

  19. I personally think that this debate in relation to other matter facing the Australian people has way to much attention and is stopping the Gov of the Day from conducting more important business such as:
    1. The economy
    2. Transition from traditional business in manufacturing to other employment in the primary industry making Australia the food hub for Asia
    3. Citizenship the debate needs to be on no dual citizenship your either Australian or go home to your dual citizenship country or origin, Multiculturalism needs to be viewed holisticly good & bad
    4. The distribution and importing of drugs particularly ICE
    5. Old age care regulations in Australia

    Just to name a few

    In closing Adam & eve had a baby not Adam & Steve or Helen & Rhonda, no problem with SSM but they should then accept they are in a relationship which does not allow them to have children naturally therefore they cannot be said to be equal, yes you may view this as red neck however ask your self this this the first step then in having designer babies?

    I live in a defacto relationship recognised by the law therefore there is no problem why SSM cannot do the same go over it and get on with your lives and stop wasting the government’s time with side shows there really are more important matter to dealt with at the moment.

    • John, you are spot on, why does 2% of the population get so much attention? This is the tail wagging the dog !

    • If you think your ability to earn and the health of your bank account is more important than the human rights of other Australian citizens, then you are part of the problem with the economic well being of the country.

  20. Keep ranting and raving over there on the left. No matter how much you carry on you’ll never be right!

  21. Australia leads America in caring for it’s own when it comes to gun ownership.
    We will increasingly now be recognised as a nation leading in the love and care of children; safe guarding our children’s right to the kind of childhood enjoyed by the gay community; in familial communion with their mothers and fathers. CHILDHOOD EQUALITY FOR ALL!

  22. I strongly NOT agree with same-sex marriage! When we looking to our future, we should action against this matter now, if not our Children’s future will be in danger. God made Man and Woman for what? Please follow the God’s word’s and say no to same-sex marriage.

    • Carol

      I completely agree that God’s word tells us that he made Male and Female and made them in his own image. For them to be fruitful.Sad thing is the enemy is rising up more and more these days.As was in the days of Noah so shall be in these last as born again christians we need to be praying for these people to get their spiritual eyes open to see that the way they are going is the ways of satan.For the blind to see , their dungeon doors to be open and their chains to be broken.For the Holy Spirit to touch their hearts and for them to see they need Jesus in their lives.For them to see that the wages of sin is death but the gift of God is eternal life.
      Remember God’s word stands forever.and satan has been defeated at the let all christian people come together in one accord in prayer for the souls of these people who have warped minds . For God to turn their thinking back to the ways God had always ment marriage to be.Male and female.
      REMEMBER It is not God’s will that any should perish.
      Mankinds own sin will put him/her into hell,unless they confess with their mouth they are sinners and repent of their ways and place Jesus into their hearts, only then they will have eternal life in heaven.
      Praise God.

  23. This is the first time i have entered into this forum and put down what i think and believe – thank you for this opportunity.

    I am amazed at the results of this poll – we have been sold the story that gays are not equal to a married man and woman. Bull dust! Who stepped down? To believe you are unequal – you actually have to step down and believe you are unequal. Most Gays i know are very confident great individuals and are certainly NOT unequal. Gays are recognised in their relationships by the LAW! They count – 2 men – two women – just like a man and a woman who live together unmarried – there are LAWS governing this situation. i do wonder at the agenda of a group who are demanding marriage and the average man and women choose to live together rather than get married. i have been told by family and friends – it is just a piece of paper! The man and women are covered by LAW why don’t the Gay couples recognise this? And why when average Joe and Elaine decide that marriage isn’t for them, would same sex couples believe it is going to be good for them? Changing our laws to include same sex couples is only the beginning – we are already hearing from the threesomes etc who are DISCRIMINATED against. Then what of marriage? what is it’s purpose anyway. Please think about the purpose of marriage – it is supposed to be a safe place of nurturing for Mum and Dad and children at it’s best – just because a lot of us don’t do marriage well doesn’t change it’s purposed. There are unwritten laws within marriage, I believe it will be like taking down a boundary that seems unnecessary because you don’t understand the boundary – you take it down and the laws governing the boundary kick in! – to go this way means destruction to Marriage – it will be put aside – unnecessary because we are all doing our own thing anyway and how do you legislate for that.

    Your average Australian person believes that children should be raised by their mother and father – we have history here to show the damage done, even in an adoptive family of man and women where the child has been raised happily, in the teen years there can be issues. The search for who we belong it is well documented. We don’t even need to go near the removing children from Aboriginal families, yes THE STOLEN GENERATION – I wonder what we will call this new move in the future.

    I note from some of the comments that it has been said there is research that is positive for same sex couples raising children. I am blessed to be a senior person – with the privilege of having seen quite a few generations come through – yes there is support for gay marriage but because this has been promoted! Hitler also influenced a generation in Germany to despise and hate Jews by media – and if that was tried again (and it has been) we can make a informed comparison. However, it can’t be denied that when a group wants to promote and get something accepted by the public, Media is their best option. Show it to us over and over, in movies, TV programs – eventually we will say – i can’t see anything wrong with it. I am sure the average German in the 1930’s felt quite justified as they abused Jews. The Jew deserved it. Even now there are people who say the Holocaust didn’t happen, this despite the best documentation, photographic and written evidence. ( I AM NOT COMPARING GAYS TO HITLER – MANY GAYS WERE GASSED ALONG SIDE THE JEWS – I AM SAYING YOU CAN INFLUENCE PEOPLE BY THE POWERFUL MEDIA)

    I met a group of gays who had an influential community radio station in one our larger cities – they were Doctors, Lawyers and influential people who wanted to make a change. Very intelligent bright minds who knew what it would take to get your average Mum and Dad to believe that Gays were discriminated against. They were kind and very thoughtful people who’s target audience were 13 – 18 year olds. Wow – influence this age group and you are laughing.

    I have seen a generation influenced by Doctors who told mum and dad how to bring up their children – i have seen the embrace of the teaching only to see that teaching refuted – one Doctor said “I WAS WRONG!” Germaine Greer – as an older women – apologised!! Yet she influenced a whole generation. We have taken debate out of the arena – if i don’t accept the Gay agenda i am accused of discrimination. Am i not a free Equal person with my own thoughts and reasons for why i believe the things i believe. Are my belief’s not valid? please don’t tell me that my democratic right to disagree has been taken from me? I have wisdom of an aged person – i have an intelligent mind too – what i have seen over the years i have been alive on planet earth tells me that Yes this idea of gay marriage may be accepted over time – the human mind is pliable in the right hands – but i should be free NOT to accept the lifestyle CHOICE if that is my CHOICE.

    Also i have to ask this question: why is it when two ladies get together that one starts to take on the outside persona of a man – i have mistaken one partner for a male several times. I am sorry i just DON”T get it!

  24. It used to be when a baby was born there was no question as to who the mother was, but the paternity could be questionable and only proven by dna.
    Now with gay (male) surrogacy, motherhood has been taken out of marriage altogether.
    Gay marriage is an oxymoron.

  25. We wholeheartedly support marriage between a man and a woman only. We will NEVER support same sex marriage. Please uphold the sanctity of marriage between a man and a woman.

  26. Ahh, so it’s not just gay rights you want, it’s ‘children of gays’ rights now. You do know that it is impossible for gay couples to “have” children. It ALWAYS involves adoption or surrogacy.

    In Australia, the right to marry requires a man and a woman . Gay couples already have all the rights afforded to everyone else as you have said, now you say gay marriage is a right for the adoptive or surrogate children of gay couples.

    To help them feel normal because of the strange conditions inflicted on them by their “parents”. The poor kids have no choice in the matter.

    When only 2% of the population identifies as homosexual, it is by no means normal to have two parents of the same gender.

    Apparently it is not the ones who deviate from the norm that cause their children harm, it is the people who respect the natural law? This is nonsense.

    I don’t think the supporters here are hanging their heads in shame. The pro gay marriage lobby may hold their heads up in pride but it’d be better if they used their heads to think.

    If we are bigots, then you are homophiles.

  27. […] most Australians still believe that children have a right to a mother and a father. In fact, the latest Galaxy poll shows that ‘By a margin of three to one, Australians think it is more important that a child […]

  28. […] This poll notes that.. […]

  29. […] NEW GALAXY POLL for AMF: Reframes the same-sex ‘marriage’ debate – Australian Marr… […]

  30. […] NEW GALAXY POLL for AMF: Reframes the same-sex ‘marriage’ debate – Australian Marr… […]

  31. […] NEW GALAXY POLL for AMF: Reframes the same-sex ‘marriage’ debate – Australian Marr… […]

  32. […] NEW GALAXY POLL for AMF: Reframes the same-sex ‘marriage’ debate – Australian Marr… […]

Leave a comment