I will try and find it for you. It was a study commissioned by the Obama Administration a few years ago.

In the meantime, feast your eyes on this which indicates the legal hurdles to SSM Adoption and family law. 

https://brba.org/Images/CLEmaterials/bench2016/6_same_sex1.pdf

EDIT: found the source to be University of Texas.

Now looking for the report. 
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/kids-of-gay-parents-fare-worse-study-finds-but-draws-fire-from-experts/

And found the report.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0049089X12000610

You need to pay for it....(35USD)

Why do you lie?  Do you not think people can use the internet?

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-04-17/marriage-in-australia-how-love-and-law-have-changed-in-130-years/8430254
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/05/27/1085461876842.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage_Act_1961_(Australia)
http://jacquitomlins.com/2016/09/27/why-exactly-did-howard-change-the-marriage-act-when-he-did/

I'm not lieing. He only added some words to the definition to make it less tamper proof. He didn't change the definition that marriage is between a Man and a Woman. 

What is being proposed now is a wholesale complete change of definition to SSM. 

He only added the below DEFINITION:

"Marriage means the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life".

You're the one going after "SJWs".

You're such a weasel.  That was done specifically and explicitly to exclude SSM.

Prior to that there was no such exclusion and a test case was actually scheduled to be heard in the High Court the week prior to the legislation being jammed through parliament.

And wholesale change my arse.  

"Marriage means the union of 2 people to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life"

Done.

Yep and not just Mouflon. 

Yes maybe it was done to exclude SSM and make it beyond any doubt.

But the fact of the matter remains, it was not a complete change of the definition of SSM. It merely clarified and added the definition of SSM as being between a Man and a Woman as it was intended when the law was made. 

No job not done.

Without the people getting their say, there can be no change. Only with a plebiscite will the views of everyone be taken into consideration. 

Also news flash, gay couples are already allowed to have kids so parenting is completely irrelevant to the discussion.

Doesn't make it right. Did they look at all the social implications?

Still doesn't absolve the plebiscite. 

In WA they have been allowed to adopt for many years too. So same sex marriage wouldn't affect adoption laws (in WA anyway).

Plenty of research has been done into the effects of "forced" marriage because of pregnancy in heterosexual relationships, the impacts that loveless marriages have upon children, the impact of divorce in heterosexual marriages when the kids have left home (or old enough) ... etc etc. yet all these remain perfectly legal.

Imagine if people could have children outside of marriage without society calling them names and shunning them ...

Doesn't affect adoption laws in all states, as stated adoption laws already allow homosexual partners to adopt in WA.

The definition of a nuclear family (do people even use the term anymore) is fluid as it already stands. Two married parents and their children ... there you go I refined the defintion ... "the sky is falling!"

The other comments have no support, it really depends on the situation, environment etc. rather than the sexuality of their parents.

In regards to a Church (religious point of view) ... I would think churches already have a fair bit of say here. A church / mosque / temple already can pretty much decide who they do and don't wed in their establishment if I am not mistaken?? Not being religious myself but wouldn't it be an requirement to firstly be of that religious denomination and secondly uphold the tenements of their religion in regards to marriage (which I would imagine homosexuality is not accepted by many religions of the world).

Yes Religious institutions have a very big say in who they wed. And of course, you would have to be a baptised member in order to wed within a religious institution. Some faiths have cross communion whereby parishioners of other faiths can take communion and wed in the other - for example, The Anglican Church and Orthodox Church are in communion with each other hence an Anglican can Wed in an Orthodox Church and vice versa. An Anglican can also Wed an Orthodox. 

A Catholic hover isn't allowed. Not under any circumstances. 

However, what is occurring overseas, is that denominations are being targeted with expensive law suites for discrimination and violations of the marriage act for not conducting certain wedding ceremonies. Therefore, there will need to be exemptions enshrined within the law which absolve religious institutions from the law. Not long ago we had the florist and bakery arguments but religions will do the same and not wed same sex couples. It simply can't be done as far as they are concerned. 

But all of the above is also besides the point. I believe the people should have their say on SSM. $120 million dollars is a small price to pay in order to give people the opportunity to have their say. This issue is so polarized now, it will be the only fair way to gauge public sentiment and to see whether people really are in favour of SSM. If they are, then parliament will pass it but the legalities of exemptions need to be precisely clarified so there is no ambiguity whatsoever. 

I always assumed that same-sex couples would be better prepared to care for children/adopt. There is not much chance of a same-sex couple having kids by accident.

To be fair though, it's hard finding a politician that actually went through with all their promises or didn't backflip on those that were made during election cycles so I'd say that's not entirely correct.

-PB

That's fair. We all get a say. Whether or not the pollies follow through with it is another thing.

As I understand it, this postal ballot is not compulsory... so it is not really a referendum, more of an opinion poll. If, say, only 60% of people do it, and yes for SSM wins with more than half the votes- it is still going to look bad for the SSM cause, because 40% are possibly not interested enough in the issue to commit themselves...

From experiences in local government ... if it doesn't affect an individual specifically they don't tend to provide any feedback. It is only those that strongly oppose or support an issue that tend to provide feedback (and this is usually a very small number).

I'd imagine this subject you may have family and friends getting behind it, church groups encouraging their followers to cast a vote and so forth, but it will be whether either argument can motivate the apathetic nature of Aussies to politics.

It's all about giving bigots outs to oppose it despite public will to just get it done.

We get our chance to see exactly what the public's will is with this postal vote. 

Everyone wins as the people will get their say. 

Going by all the media coverage, you would think this is the number one issue on everyone's mind. Therefore, a 90% plus voter turnout. lol

Turnbull could have gone to the last election with this. A vote for Liberals is a vote for/against SSM.
He could have done it without $100mil+ plebiscite.
This is just a stalling tactic, a very expensive one.
The end result will mean they can claim people dont want it if the vote is no, and they can claim the result isnt overwhelming enough to decide on if the vote is yes.

I found some time to read your article. Not exactly a scientific, peer-reviewed study but at least it had some reference to study which was conducted. If this is all you can find to support your argument against same-sex marriage I would say you don't have a leg to stand on (as already pointed out, same-sex couples can already adopt). 

In any case, the study referenced was funded by a Conservative group and is only available if you pay for it. Chances are it's not going to be impartial.

From the perspective of the Australian economy, it's not expensive. 0.01% of our GDP.

I think they already said that if more people vote in the affirmative, then they are going to introduce a bill into the Legislative Council to change the definition of marriage and allow SSM by Christmas. Even if it was 51% to 49% That is what they promised from day one.

To got back on that would be political suicide. 

And the poll isn't expensive. I really do not understand people saying that it is. The vote allows everyone the opportunity to have their say over a very important social issue.

They didn't say anything about the result needing to be overwhelming one way or another.

The article I gave you only made reference to an actual University Study. But you actually have to pay for it to get it the actual study and data as well as the findings. 

I know my partner had to get it for her work and told me about it, but that was some time ago. 

The study itself was a University of Texas project and probably someone's thesis or scholarly publication which explains the reason why you need to pay. My wife's university papers and works are also requiring payment. 

Not only that, but the report was partly funded by The Obama Administration. 

In addition, the organisation that commissioned the report is more like a Science and Medical Think Tank for Doctor's, Scientists and Psychologists. Most of the articles, papers and journals are in the field of medical science, so hardly a conservative organisation.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journals

Lol people whinging about gay couples having kids always ignore the fact that normal hetero couples are often no better.

When it comes to certain religious types, they'drather put a kid in a harmful hetero situation than a nurturing gay one.

They need to tell the people what they are voting for. What comes with SSM? I support SSM providing:

- Churches are not forced to marry same sex couples.
- Businesses are not forced to provide services to same sex couples if they choose not to.

Shock horror but I have done a complete U-turn on the perspective of whether or not businesses have rights to deny services. I do not agree with religious beliefs but people have a right to express their religion.