Public Policy Research Funding SchemePDF)/2015_A4_016_… · Public Policy Research (PPR) Funding...

Public Policy Research Funding Scheme

公共政策研究資助計劃

Project Number :

項目編號：

2015.A4.016.16A

Project Title :

項目名稱：

Attitudes and Levels of Support Toward Same-Sex Civil

Union and Same-Sex Marriage Legislation among the

General Public and Homosexual People in Hong Kong

- A Comparative Study

香港市民及同性戀者對同性婚姻立法及同性民事結合的

態度及支持程度的比較研究

Principal Investigator :

首席研究員：

Professor LAU Tak Fai Joseph

劉德輝教授

Institution/Think Tank :

院校／智庫：

The Chinese University of Hong Kong

香港中文大學

Project Duration (Month):

推行期 (月) ：

18

Funding (HK$) :

總金額 (HK$)：

981,966.00

This research report is uploaded onto the website of the Policy Innovation and Co-

ordination Office (PICO) for public reference. The views expressed in this report are those of

the Research Team of this project and do not represent the views of PICO and/or the

Assessment Panel. PICO and/or the Assessment Panel do not guarantee the accuracy of the

data included in this report.

Please observe the “Intellectual Property Rights & Use of Project Data” as stipulated in

the Guidance Notes of the Public Policy Research Funding Scheme.

A suitable acknowledgement of the funding from PICO should be included in any

publication/publicity arising from the work done on a research project funded in whole or in

part by PICO.

The English version shall prevail whenever there is any discrepancy between the

English and Chinese versions.

此研究報告已上載至政策創新與統籌辦事處（創新辦）網站，供公眾查閱。報告

內所表達的意見純屬本項目研究團隊的意見，並不代表創新辦及／或評審委員會的意

見。創新辦及／或評審委員會不保證報告所載的資料準確無誤。

請遵守公共政策研究資助計劃申請須知內關於「知識產權及項目數據的使用」的

規定。

接受創新辦全數或部分資助的研究項目如因研究工作須出版任何刊物／作任何宣

傳，均須在其中加入適當鳴謝，註明獲創新辦資助。

中英文版本如有任何歧異，概以英文版本為準。

1

Final report

Public Policy Research (PPR) Funding Scheme (Project No. 2015.A4.016.16A)

Attitudes and levels of support toward same-sex civil union and same-sex marriage

legislation among the general public and homosexual people in Hong Kong

--- a comparative study

香港市民及同性戀者對同性婚姻立法及同性民事結合的態度及支持程度的

比較研究

Research Team Members:

Principal investigator (Grant holder)

Prof. Joseph T.F. Lau

Associate Director, School of Public Health and Primary Care

Director, Centre for Health Behaviours Research

JC School of Public Health and Primary Care

Faculty of Medicine, The Chinese University of Hong Kong

Co-investigators

Prof. Yiu-tung Suen

Assistant Professor, Department of Sociology, The Chinese University of Hong Kong

Ms. Danielle L. Gross

Research Assistant, Centre for Health Behaviours Research



Prof. Phoenix K.H. Mo

Assistant Professor, JC School of Public Health and Primary Care


Prof. Zixin Wang

Research Assistant Professor, JC School of Public Health and Primary Care


2

Other team members

Dr. Xi Chen

Post-doctoral Fellow, Centre for Health Behaviours Research



Dr. Xue Yang

Post-doctoral Fellow, Centre for Health Behaviours Research



Ms. Bishan Huang




Mr. Mason Lau

Project Coordinator, Centre for Health Behaviours Research



Ms. Mary Ip




Dr. Yuan Fang




3

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Abstract (English) ----------------------------------------------------------------------- P4

Abstract (Chinese) ----------------------------------------------------------------------- P8

Contextual Background ----------------------------------------------------------------- P11

Objectives of the study ------------------------------------------------------------------ P19

Methods ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- P21

Results ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- P26

Discussion --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- P34

Layman summary on policy implication and recommendation (English) -------- P41

Layman summary on policy implication and recommendation (Chinese) -------- P48

Acknowledgement ------------------------------------------------------------------------ P53

Public dissemination ---------------------------------------------------------------------- P53

Appendix ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- P60

Tables --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- P61

4

ABSTRACT

Background: Hong Kong values human rights and promotes equal opportunities for

minority groups, including those with different sexual orientations. The Equal

Opportunities Commission is investigating feasibility for legislation against

discrimination based on sexual orientation and intersex status. The homosexual

population is sizable in Hong Kong. Citizens in Hong Kong are very much divided in

their views toward legalization of same-sex marriage. Some Hong Kong homosexual

people got married in other countries and received much media attention. Advocacy of

same-sex marriage rights will keep emerging. Same-sex civil union confers some rights

of marriage for homosexual people, without the title “marriage”, and has been practiced

with good acceptance in a number of countries. The general publics might show better

acceptance to same-sex civil union than same-sex marriage. To foster effective responses,

the government needs in-depth understanding of related opinion both among the general

population and the homosexuals.

Objectives: This study was to investigate and compare awareness, perceived societal

impact of legalization of same-sex marriage/civil union, and attitude toward same-sex

marriage among the general and homosexual population. Reasons behind

support/opposition toward support/opposition were also investigated. In addition, we

estimated the number of homosexual people that would like and intend to enter marriage

or civil unions, and their preference between the two practices. Such information is

highly important for policy making.

Methods:

The general population study (Survey I)

The study population consists of adults who were: 1) of age ≥ 18, 2) holders of Hong

Kong identification cards, and 3) Chinese or English speakers. Random telephone

numbers were selected from local up-to-date telephone directories. Telephone interviews

were conducted between 6:00pm and 10:00pm on weekdays and 2:00pm to 9:00pm on

Saturdays to avoid under-sampling of employed individuals. A total of 3,348 households

were contacted by the research team, and 2,009 participants (Chinese speaker: n=2004;

English speakers: n=5) completed the anonymous telephone interview. Prevalence data

obtained from the general population were standardized according to age and gender

distributions of Hong Kong 2016 census data by using the direct standardization method.

The homosexual population survey (Survey II) Inclusion criteria were: 1) males and females self-identifying as homosexual people, 2)

age of at least 18 years old, 3) residents of Hong Kong (holding a Hong Kong ID cards),

and 4) Chinese or English speaking people. Respondent Driven Sampling (RDS) method,

one developed for sampling hard to reach populations and supported by statistical

theories, was used for recruitment of participants. Ten seeds (8 gay men and 2 lesbians;

all were Chinese speaking) were recruited and interviewed over phone. They were then

requested to invite up to five potential eligible homosexual peers to join the study. With

consent and confirmed eligibility, referrals were similarly interviewed over phone, and

were further requested to refer up to five potential eligible peers to join the study;

5

subsequent referrals were similarly contacted, checked for eligibility and interviewed

over phone. A total of 444 participants were recruited after 12 waves of referrals; 400

(219 gay men and 181 lesbians; 398 Chinese speaking and 2 English speaking)

completed the telephone interviews (response rate: 90.1%). Weighted proportion in

homosexual population taking into account the network size and recruitment pattern was

estimated by using RDS analysis tool (RDSAT) 7.1.46.

Key results:

Prevalence of male and female homosexual people in Hong Kong general population:

In the sample, 1.0% and 0.4% of the male and female homosexual participants self-

reported as gay men or lesbians (0.6% for all general population participants).

Awareness of same-sex civil union in the two samples: Civil union was a brand new

concept to majority of the Hong Kong general public. The weighted prevalence of

awareness of same-sex civil union was 44.8% among all homosexual people (gay men:

47.9%; lesbians: 44.2%) versus only 4.9% (standardized) among the general public

(significant between-group comparison; p<.001).

Level of support toward legalizing same-sex marriage/civil union in the two samples: In the general population sample, standardized figures show that 32.6% and 33.1% were

supportive toward legalizing same sex marriage and civil union, respectively. Within

individuals of the general population sample, the difference in the degree of support

toward legalizing the two practices was statistically significant (p<.001, Wilcoxon signed

rank test) but very small. In contrast, majority of the homosexual participants were

supportive toward legalizing same-sex marriage (97.8%) and civil union (91.0%). The

difference in the level of support toward legalizing the two practices within the

homosexual individuals was of statistical significance (p<.05).

Support toward specific components of same-sex civil union in the two samples: The

weighted figures show that majority of the homosexual participants would like to see

inclusion of the listed items of rights into legalization of civil union (adoption of children,

in vitro fertilization, right to inherit, right to act as the next of kin during emergencies,

application for dependent visa, tax allowances, and right for public housing). The views

of the general population participants differed. Yet, still about 2/3 supported the rights

related to inheritance (68.8%), acting as next of kin (67.0%), and around 50.0% agreed

with the other rights.

Prevalence of same-sex marriage/civil union in the homosexual sample: The

weighted figures show that 17 (3.5%) self-reported were married to same-sex partners.

Lesbians (7.2%) were more likely than gay men (1.8%) to have self-reported same-sex

marriage (p=.025). Nil was engaged in same-sex civil union.

Behavioral intention to engage in same-sex marriage and/or civil union: Among

those homosexual participants who had not married to same-sex partners at the survey

date (n=383), 61.1% and 50.3% believed that it is likely/very likely that they would

eventually engage in same-sex marriage and same-sex civil union, respectively; 39.7%

6

intended to engage in either same-sex marriage or civil union; 21.4% intended only to

engage in same sex marriage but not same-sex civil union; 10.4% intended only to

engage in same-sex civil union but not same-sex marriage.

Factors associated with support toward legalization of same-sex marriage and civil

union among the general population: Adjusted for significant background factors

(younger age, lower education level and religious beliefs), positive attitude toward same-

sex marriage was significantly associated with support toward legalization of same-sex

marriage (AOR=1.24). Other statistically significant factors (p<.05) applied both to

same-sex marriage and same-sex civil union included: 1) belief that homosexuality could

be attributed to innate plus external influences (AOR=.59/ .66 for same-sex

marriage/civil union) and mainly/fully external influences (AOR=.30/ .37), 2) perceived

stronger stigma toward homosexual peoples (AOR=.92/.92), 3) awareness of legalization

of similar ordinances in other countries (AOR=2.56 /2.60), 4) Perceived positive

(AOR=1.65/1.57) and negative societal impacts (AOR= .59/.68) of legalizing the

ordinances, and 5) belief that the positive and negative societal impacts of legalization of

same-sex marriage/civil union were the same (AOR= 14.4/16.3) and that positive impacts

outweighed negative impacts were much more supportive of legalizing the two practices

(AOR=68.0 /99.2).


union among the homosexual population: Some items that reflected positive societal

impact of same-sex marriage and civil union (i.e., promotion of social harmony and

respect for human right) were positively associated with support toward legalizing same-

sex marriage/civil union, while one item that reflected negative societal impact (i.e.

impact on traditional gender roles) was negatively associated with support toward

legalizing same-sex marriage (ORu=.10) but not toward same-sex civil union. In addition,

homosexual participants who perceived equal positive and negative societal impact

(ORu=10.30, AOR=3.82) and those who perceived stronger positive impact than negative

impact (ORu=134.50; AOR=50.17) were much more likely than others to support toward

legalizing same-sex marriage and civil union.

Conclusion: This and other corroborating local studies show that there is currently

inadequate support in the general population to back up legalization of same-sex marriage.

The demand for same-sex marriage among homosexuals is clearly large but unmet, as

shown by the high prevalence of intention to do so legalization. Same-sex civil union was

a brand new concept for both general publics and homosexuals. Our findings suggest that

it is currently also not timely to launch full campaigns advocating legalization of same-

sex civil union. The concept should however be revisited in the future as the general

public did not object to the content of some civil union practices in general. Given the

recent international trend of legalization and/or discussion about legalization of same-sex

marriage, the ongoing public debate about legalization in Hong Kong may gain stronger

momentum at any time. The government should take a clearer position in the process

leading to legalization of same-sex marriage, and balance between minorities’ rights and

public opinion. It may be a long and uphill process, and might become politicalized.

Anti-stigma policy and programs need to be sustained and strengthened. Dissemination of

7

information and facilitation of rational dialogues among stakeholders are greatly

warranted for consensus building, or at least to narrow the wide gap of opinions.

8

摘要

研究背景：

香港社會重視人權，並為少數群體，例如不同性取向的群體提供平等機會。平等機

會委員會正在研究通過立法反對歧視同性戀者和跨性別人士的可行性。香港的同性

戀者人數不少，但香港市民對同性婚姻合法化的態度存在很大分歧。一些已經在其

他國家結婚的同性戀者受到了媒體的廣泛關注。倡導同性婚姻權利的觀點將不斷湧

現。同性民事結合賦予同性戀者一定的婚姻權利，但卻不提及“婚姻”的字眼，它

已在幾個國家合法化。與同性婚姻相比，香港市民可能更容易接受同性民事結合。

政府需要深入瞭解香港市民和同性戀者的相關意見，以作出及時的回應。

研究目標：本研究旨在調查香港市民和同性戀者對同性婚姻和同性民事結合的認

知、社會影響及態度，同時瞭解他們支持或反對同性婚姻和同性民事結合合法化的

原因。此外，我們還估計了同性戀者中打算與同性伴侶結婚或民事結合的人數，以

及他們對這兩種選擇的偏好。這些資訊對於政府決策非常重要。

研究方法：

香港市民調查（調查一）

調查對象由以下人士組成：1）年齡≥18歲; 2）持有香港身份證; 3）說中文或英

文。電話號碼從最新的電話簿隨機抽取。電話訪問在工作日（週一至週五）下午 6

時至 10 時和星期六下午 2時至 9時進行，以避免對受僱人員採樣不足。研究小組

共聯絡了 3,348 戶，其中 2009人（其中 2004人講中文， 5人講英文）完成了不

記名的電話訪問。根據 2016年香港人口普查數據的年齡及性別分佈，我們採用直

接標準化的方法，對香港市民的調查數據進行了標準化。

同性戀人群調查（調查二）

納入標準包括：1）認為自己是同性戀者的男性或女性；2）年滿 18周歲；3）持有

香港身份證；以及 4）講中文或英文。調查採用受訪者驅動抽樣方法（RDS），這

種用於難以接觸人群的抽樣方法已得到統計學理論的支持。首先，我們招募並電話

訪問了十位種子受訪者（8男 2女，全講中文）。隨後，我們請他們每人介紹最多

五位符合要求的同性戀者參加本研究。在確認被介紹者的資格並獲得他們的知情同

意后，我們對他們進行電話訪問，並請他們介紹不多於五位符合條件的同性戀者參

與此研究，依此類推。我們共招募了 444 名同性戀者，其中 400 位（219 男 181 女，

398人說中文，2人說英文）完成了電話訪問（應答率為 90.1%）。根據受訪者的

社會網絡規模和招募模式，我們使用了 RDS分析軟件（RDSAT）7.1.46，計算了同

性戀受訪者調查數據的加權比例。

主要研究結果

香港市民中同性戀者的比例：約有 1.0%的男性和 0.4%的女性表示自己是同性戀者

（占受訪市民的 0.6%）。

9

兩個樣本中對同性民事結合的認知程度：對於大多數香港市民來說，民事結合是

一個嶄新的概念。44.8％（加權比例）的同性戀者（47.9％的男同性戀者和 44.2

％的女同性戀者）和 4.9％（標準化率）的市民瞭解民事結合這一概念（兩組間存

在統計學上顯著的差異；p < .001）。

兩個樣本中對同性婚姻合法化的支持程度：標準化後的數據表明，分別有 32.6％

和 33.1%的香港市民支持同性婚姻和同性民事結合合法化。香港市民對這兩種合法

化的支持程度存在較小但統計學上顯著的差異（p <.001，Wilcoxon signed rank

test）。相反，大部分同性戀受訪者支持同性婚姻（97.8％）和民事結合合法化

（91.0％）。同性戀者對這兩種合法化的支持程度存在顯著差異（p <.05）。

兩個樣本中對同性民事結合所包含的權利的支持程度：加權後的數據表明，大部

分同性戀者支持民事結合當中的一些權利，包括收養子女、人工受孕、遺產繼承、

在緊急情況下以“近親”身份代行權利、得到家屬工作簽證、夫妻免稅福利和夫妻

公屋福利。香港市民所持的觀點有所不同，但仍有 2/3的受訪者支持遺產繼承權

（68.8％），67.0％的受訪者支持以“近親”身份代行權利，約有一半的受訪者同

意其他幾項權利。

同性戀樣本中同性婚姻/民事結合的比例：加權後的數據表明，17位同性戀受訪者

（3.5％）已與同性伴侶結婚。女同性戀者中已與同性伴侶結婚的比例高於男同性

戀者（7.2%比 1.8％，p = .025），而他們當中沒有同性民事結合的例子。

嘗試同性婚姻和/民事結合的意向：在未結婚的同性戀者中（n = 383），61.1％的

受訪者認爲他們可能/很可能最終會與同性伴侶結婚、50.3％的受訪者認爲他們可

能/很可能最終會嘗試同性民事結合。39.7％的受訪者願意與同性伴侶結婚或民事

結合; 21.4％的受訪者只願意與同性伴侶結婚而非民事結合; 10.4％的受訪者只願

意與同性伴侶民事結合而非結婚。

香港市民中支持同性婚姻/民事結合合法化的相關因素：在校正了顯著的背景因素

（低年齡、低學歷和有宗教信仰）後，對同性婚姻的正面態度與支持同性婚姻合法

化顯著相關（AOR = 1.24）。其他與支持同性婚姻或同性民事結合合法化顯著相關

（P <.05）的因素包括：1）認為同性戀是由先天和後天因素共同決定的（支持同

性婚姻/民事結合 AOR = .59/ .66 ）和主要/完全由後天因素決定（AOR = 0.30 /

0.37）；2）對同性戀者的污名化程度（AOR = .92 / .92）；3）知曉其他國家有此

類法例（AOR = 2.56 / 2.60）；4）認爲同性婚姻/民事結合合法化有正面社會影響

（AOR = 1.65 / 1.57）或負面社會影響（AOR = 0.59 / 0.68）； 5）認爲合法化

的正面和負面社會影響相同（AOR = 14.4 / 16.3），及正面影響超過負面影響

（AOR = 68.0 / 99.2）。

同性戀調查樣本中支持同性婚姻/民事結合合法化的相關因素：一些反映同性婚姻

或同性民事結合正面社會影響的看法（即促進社會和諧、尊重人權）與支持同性婚

10

姻或同性民事結合合法化正相關。一項有關負面社會影響的看法（即影響傳統性別

角色）與支持同性婚姻合法化負相關（ORu = .10），但與是否支持民事結合合法化

不相關。此外，認爲合法化的正面和負面社會影響相同（ORu = 10.30，AOR =

3.82），以及認爲正面影響超過負面影響（ORu = 134.50; AOR = 50.17）的受訪者

更支持同性婚姻或民事結合合法化。

結論：本研究和其他本地研究表明，香港市民對同性婚姻合法化的支持率較低。

但有很大比例的同性戀者支持同性婚姻合法化，顯示了他們對同性婚姻有很大的訴

求，但這些訴求尚未得到滿足。對香港市民和同性戀者來説，同性民事結合是個嶄

新的概念。我們的調查發現，目前倡導同性民事結合合法化並不合適。但由於公眾

並不反對民事結合的一些權利，我們可以在將來重新審視這個概念。鑒於最近國際

上同性婚姻合法化的趨勢及對其合法化的熱烈討論，加上香港持份者日益增加的關

注，政府一方面應保障人權及性少數人群的權利，另一方面要處理香港市民對同性

婚姻合法化態度上的分歧。在兩者之間，政府要作出妥善的平衡及表達對同性婚姻

合法化更清晰的立場。政府同時應支持和促進同性婚姻合法化有關的持份者之間的

對話，亦應考慮宣傳關於其他國家同性婚姻合法化的訊息，減少社會對同性戀者的

污名化，並增加同性戀者與異性戀者之間的接觸。這些做法能減少意見分析，對於

達成共識至關重要。

11

CONTEXTUAL BACKGROUND

Definition of homosexuality

According to the Oxford English dictionary a homosexual person is described as “a

person who has a sexual propensity for his or her own sex.” (Oxford English Dictionary,

2017). Prevalence of those who self-identify as homosexual is not well studied and is

sometimes mixed up with that of same-sex sexual behavior (e.g. male homosexuals

versus men who have sex with men [MSM]). Homosexuals may or may not have same-

sex sexual behavior and vice versa. The two groups overlap and both are sexual

minorities. In this report, we referred male and female homosexual people as gay men

and lesbians.

Prevalence of homosexuality

Regarding the prevalence of individuals self-identifying as homosexual persons in Hong

Kong, three local studies published in 2005, 2012, and 2017 and with sample sizes

ranging from 780 to 1,008 reported prevalence of 2.6% (Hon et al., 2005), 0.3% (Chung,

Pang, Lee, & Chan, 2012), and 1.2% (Yeo & Chu, 2017), respectively. These figures had

not been stratified by sex. Similar figures were reported in the U.K. (1.1%) and the U.S.

(1.6%) (Office for National Statistics, 2015; CDC/National Center for Health Statistics,

2016). Among local adolescent secondary 1-7 school students (n=3,776), 1.6% (1.5% of

the boys and 1.8% of the girls) self-identified as homosexual persons (Zhang, Wong, Ip,

Fan, & Yip, 2017).

Public perceptions toward homosexuality and associated factors

Only a minority of the Hong Kong citizens reported not knowing what homosexuality

(1.4%) (MVA Hong Kong Limited., 2006), gay (3%) and lesbian (3.6%) was (Chung et

al., 2012). The local general public was split about causes of homosexuality; attributions

included upbringing or environment (35.5%), born with it (33.4-56.8%) or did not know

(18%) (Chung et al., 2012; Suen et al., 2016; Yeo & Chu, 2017).

In 2006 and 2017, two studies showed that 41.9% and 34.2% of the Hong Kong public

thought that homosexual people were abnormal, respectively (MVA Hong Kong Limited.,

2006; Yeo &Chu, 2017). Majority (60.3% to 79.0%) believed that Hong Kong people

would discriminate against people because of their sexual orientations (Chung et al., 2012;

Chung et al., 2013; MVA Hong Kong Limited., 2006). Nevertheless, 67.5% of the

general public indicated that they personally did not discriminate (Chung et al., 2013).

Also, 49.1% and 38.9% of the general Hong Kong public believed that homosexuality

conflicts with family value and morality of the community, respectively (MVA Hong

Kong Limited., 2006).

Three local studies that involved university students, medical students, and general

working populations reported factors associated with attitudes toward homosexuality

(Hon et al., 2005; Kan et al., 2009; Vernon & Yik, 2012). Overall, people tended to be

more homophobic if they were male, religious, and medical students (Kan et al., 2009),

and less homophobic if they were women, younger, better educated, not parents,

protestants, working at international companies (Vernon & Yik, 2012), working closely

12

with homosexual people, having homosexual friends, and having experienced

homosexual love (Hon et al., 2005).

The general public’s social interaction with homosexual people and acceptance

The prevalence of local people having contacts with homosexual/bisexual people was

22% in 2005, 42% in 2012 and 39% in 2016 (Chung et al., 2012; MVA Hong Kong

Limited., 2006; Yeo &Chu, 2017). According to some local reports, around 76% of the

general population reported that they would accept friends that were homosexual (MVA

Hong Kong Limited., 2006; Yeo & Chu, 2017). Over half of the Hong Kong general

public accepted homosexual or bisexual individuals in general (57.6%), and the

acceptance of homosexual colleagues (79.9-83.5%) and friends (76.1-76.9%) increased

slightly from 2005 to 2016 (MVA Hong Kong Limited., 2006; Yeo & Chu, 2017).

Homosexuality among family members however appeared to remain the least accepted

according to data collected from 2005 to 2016 (40%) (MVA Hong Kong Limited., 2006;

Yeo & Chu, 2017)

People who were females (Hon et al., 2005; Vernon &Yik, 2012), younger, better

educated, childless (Vernon & Yik, 2012), students, single (MVA Hong Kong Limited.,

2006), working at an international companies (Vernon & Yik, 2012) and religious (Hon

et al., 2005) were more likely than others to have homosexual friends or personally know

someone who are homosexual.

Anti-discrimination laws regarding homosexuality

“Currently laws in Hong Kong explicitly prohibit discrimination only on the grounds of

sex, disability, family status, and race but NOT sexual orientation, gender identity, or

intersex status.” In 2012-2013, 47.0% and 52.2% of the local general public were aware

that there was currently no anti-discrimination law protecting the rights of individuals of

different sex orientations (Chung et al., 2013) and in 2015 that percentage increased to

66.3% (Suen et al., 2016). There was an increase in the number of local people that

favored legislation for discrimination protection on the basis of sexual orientation, gender

identity, and intersex status, from 28.7% in 2005 to 51% in 2016 (MVA Hong Kong

Limited., 2006; Yeo & Chu, 2017). About half (47.8%) believed that legislation

supporting anti-discrimination for homosexuals would make Hong Kong a more

harmonious city (MVA Hong Kong Limited., 2006).

The Equal Opportunities Commission commissioned the Gender Research Centre of the

Chinese University of Hong Kong to examine the feasibility of legislation against

discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation, gender identity and intersex status

(SOGI). The results were published in January 2016 and revealed that over half of the

general population (55.7%) favored/strongly favored legislation for discrimination

protection on the basis of sexual orientation, gender identity, and intersex status.

Respondents (n=1,005) with greater support were seen among those who were younger,

with higher education level, were never married, had no children, had no religious beliefs,

had a liberal political attitude, had personal contact with LGBT, and believed the cause of

homosexuality to be inborn (Suen et al., 2016). However, legalization of same-sex

marriage and/or civil union had not been considered under that feasibility study (Equal

Opportunities Commission, 2014). Given the current global situation of wider recognition

13

of same-sex marriage, it is arguably justifiable to capture the current attitudes and

opinions of the Hong Kong people.

Homosexual social movement in Hong Kong

Since December 2008, Hong Kong has held an annual Pride Parade (excluding 2010)

marching from Causeway Bay through Admiralty to Central. The number of LGBT

groups in Hong Kong has increased. In general, support of gay rights comes from lesbian,

gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) groups (e.g. Big Love Alliance, Rainbow Action,

Gay Straight Alliance), the Equal Opportunities Commission, and a number of companies

who are part of the “Code of Practice against Discrimination in Employment on the

Ground of Sexual Orientation” [“The Code”] (Constitutional and Mainland Affairs

Bureau, 2014)]. Nearly 200 organizations have signed “The Code” which is a self-

regulated pledge to eliminate discrimination in the work place, based on sexual

orientation. Same-sex marriage is among the list of the rights that such social groups are

advocating for. The ongoing debate is expected to recur. Stakeholders opposing gay

rights legislation in general include religious organizations (Lau, 2013; Lai, 2010),

fundamentalist legislators and the education sector (Lai, 2010).

Same-sex marriage

Laws regarding same-sex marriage: the international scenes

Same-sex marriage recognizes same-sex couples as equals to heterosexual married

couples. Currently, same-sex marriage is legal in 26 countries; a few countries (e.g. Italy

and Australia) passed the act recently in 2017 [see Appendix 1]. The Netherlands was the

first country to legally recognize same-sex marriage in 2000; New Zealand was the first

Asian-Pacific country to legalize same-sex marriage in 2013 (Masci, Sciupac & Lipka,

2017). In recent news, The Australian Bureau of Statistics has been commissioned to

carry out a country-wide postal survey asking all eligible Australians one question:

“Should the law be changed to allow same-sex couples to marry?”. The campaign,

including publicity, was conducted from 11 August 2017 to 7 November 2017 and

citizens had eight weeks to answer and return their poll; 79.5% of the forms were

returned. The final poll results showed that 61.6% of participants agreed that “the law

should be changed to allow same-sex couples to marry” (Australian Bureau of Statistics,

2017). In December 2017, a bill was passed to legalize same-sex marriage in Australia

(Chang, 2017). Legalization of gay marriage has become politically sensitive in regions

like Taiwan (Chou, 2017). In November 2016, a survey in Taiwan found that 51.7% of

the respondents were in favor of amendments to allow same-sex marriage, while 43.3%

were against it (n=1,070) (Swinburne, 2017).

Most of the aforementioned countries that have legalized same-sex marriage protect the

right for same-sex couples to jointly adopt children (e.g. France, New Zealand, Argentina,

Belgium, and the Netherlands). In a recent landmark court case, the U.S. Supreme Court

ruled in favor of legalizing same-sex marriage, stating that “limiting marriage only to

heterosexual couples violates the amendment‟s [14th

] guarantee of equal protection under

the law” (Masci et al., 2017), and allowing no state to ban same-sex marriage. In a

number of countries where same-sex marriage is legal, it is legal for religious institutions

14

or civil officers to refuse to perform a same-sex marriage ceremony (e.g. Scotland,

Denmark, Sweden, Norway, and South Africa); England “prohibits same-sex weddings

within the Church of England” (Masci et al., 2017).

Laws regarding same-sex marriage: the local scene

Same-sex marriage has not been legalized in Hong Kong, although the Domestic

Violence Ordinance in 2009 was revised to include protection of cohabiting same-sex

couples after a very heated debate among the general public (Legislative Council

Commission, 2009). The Electronic Health Record Sharing System Ordinance, which

was enacted in July 2015, grants cohabitating partners the right to make medical

decisions about their opposite or same-sex partner (Suen et al., 2016).

Under Section 40 of the Marriage Ordinance (Cap. 181), Hong Kong describes marriage

as an arrangement for heterosexual people only: “Every marriage under this Ordinance

shall be a Christian marriage or the civil equivalent of a Christian marriage”; “The

expression „Christian marriage or the civil equivalent of a Christian marriage‟ implies a

formal ceremony recognized by the law as involving the voluntary union for life of one

man and one woman to the exclusion of all others” (Legislative Council Commission,

2014).

Local legal disputes regarding same-sex marriage

The media has reported about challenges many of the same-sex married couples faced

when they moved back to Hong Kong, such as issues about immigration dependent visas,

equal rights as heterosexual married couples, and recognition of their marriage (Liu, 2015;

Ngo, 2014).

In the past year, the Hong Kong courts have made some “landmark” decisions when it

comes to same-sex couples‟ rights. In early 2017, the courts ruled in favor of granting a

gay civil servant‟s husband the same spousal benefits as heterosexual married couples in

the company (Lau, 2017). However, the Court of Appeal handled the government‟s

appeal on Dec 11, 2017 (Radio Television Hong Kong, 2017). In September 2017, a

Hong Kong court ruled in favor of a same-sex partner of a British expat for the right to

live and obtain a dependent visa in Hong Kong; the couple entered into a civil partnership

in the UK in 2011. This could open the door for more cases to be filed (Connor, 2017).

Prevalence of same-sex household and marriage

In 2010, the U.S. Census Bureau reported 646,464 same-sex-couple households; an

80.4% increase from 2000 (Lofquist, Lugaila, O‟Connell, & Feliz, 2012); 605,472 same-

sex-couple households were reported in 2011 (Vespa et al., 2013). In Canada, same-sex

couples represented 0.9% of all couples in 2016, a 60.7% increase from 2006 (Minister of

Industry, 2017). In New Zealand, same-sex married couples represented 3.3% and 3.5%

of all married couples in March 2014 and 2015, respectively (Department of Internal

Affairs, 2015). Locally, the media has periodically reported homosexual Hong Kong

Chinese residents getting married legally in other countries (Liu, 2015; Ngo, 2014). The

total number is unclear although such information would facilitate policy making.

Split local public opinions about same-sex marriage

15

The prevalence supporting legislation of same-sex marriage appears to have fluctuated

throughout the past years but has never achieved majority. In 2012, a survey of 505 Hong

Kong residents aged 18 or above who speak Cantonese documented that 32.7% of the

participants supported legalization of same-sex marriage and 39% opposed (Chung et al.,

2013); another population-based local opinion poll of 410 people aged 18 and above in

Hong Kong conducted in 2013 reported that 39% completely agreed or somewhat agreed

that same-sex marriage should be permitted by law, while 42% completely or somewhat

disagreed (Loper, Lau, & Lau, 2014). A more recent report conducted among 1,008 Hong

Kong Chinese adults reported a lower level of support (32.8%) and stronger opposition

(39.4%); 27.8% remained neutral (Yeo & Chu, 2017). Medical and non-medical students

of the University of Hong Kong gave mean scores of 3.47 and 4.05, respectively on a

scale (range: 1 to 6) that assessed degree of support for homosexuals‟ marital rights.

Nearly two-thirds of the 627 medical students of the Chinese University of Hong Kong

favored homosexual couples to have the same marital rights as heterosexual couples (Hon

et al., 2005). There is no consensus. Support rates for same-sex marriage in those

countries that recognize same-sex marriage may be higher than that of Hong Kong, but

did not reach absolute majority [47% to 60% in the U.K. from 2007 to 2014, and 35% to

57% in the U.S. from 2001 to 2015 (NatCen, 2015; Pew Research Center, 2015)].

Key reasons for opposition against same-sex marriage included disruption of traditional

family values (Lo, 2014, Cheung, 2014; Chung et al., 2012), encouragement of

homosexuality (Lo, 2014; Chung et al., 2012), influence on adolescents by encouraging

cohabitation and sex before marriage (Lo, 2014; Cheung, 2014), and reverse

discrimination (religious freedom and freedom of speech restrictions) (Cheung, 2014).

Factors associated with support/opposition to same-sex marriage and/or related law

It is warranted to understand factors and reasons associated with support or opposition to

same-sex marriage laws in Hong Kong among the general public to facilitate policy

making. To our knowledge, only one local study of 1,008 Hong Kong Chinese adults has

investigated factors associated with support/opposition to legalization of same-sex

marriage. Negative correlations were reported between support for same-sex marriage

and age, Christian belief, pro-establishment affiliation, homonegativity, gender role

beliefs, conformity to norms, and Chinese cultural orientation. Positive correlations were

found between support for same-sex marriage and education level, household income,

pan-democratic affiliation, having a western culture orientation, and number of

interpersonal homosexual/bisexual contacts. Independent factors of same-sex marriage

included age, Christian faith, pro-establishment affiliation, pan-democratic affiliation,

homonegativity, conformity to norms, and Chinese culture orientation (Yeo & Chu,

2017). Two other local studies (one included medical and non-medical students and one

included only medical students) found that those without religious beliefs were more

likely than others to support legalization of homosexual marital rights (Hon et al., 2005;

Kan et al., 2009); the studies however, did not ask about specific support toward

legalization.

A few studies conducted in the U.S. showed that those supportive of same-sex marriage

in general or legalization specifically were younger, female, better educated,

16

divorced/separated/never been married, recently cohabitated, identified with a religion

other than Evangelical Protestant, having social contact with homosexuals and positive

attitude toward same-sex parent families. Factors associated with opposition include

ethnicity, older generations, currently married or being parents, political conservatism

ideology, high religiosity, attitudinal measures, and certain constructs of the attribution

theory (e.g. homosexuality is a choice not something you are born with) (Becker, 2012;

Brumbaugh, Sanchez, Nock, & Wright, 2008; Olson, Cadge, & Harrison, 2006;

Whitehead, 2014). Two more studies were conducted in Scandinavia and Portugal,

finding similar factors of support or opposition toward same-sex marriage (Jakobsson,

Kotsadam & Jakobsson, 2013; de Oliveira, Lopes, Cameira & Nogueira, 2014). It is

warranted to understand associated factors in the Hong Kong context.

Civil union for same-sex couples

Definition and laws in various countries

Civil union has been described by Loper et al. (2014) as a legal solution that offers

similar rights of heterosexual married couples to same-sex couples, without involving the

title “marriage”. It is sometimes described differently as “registered domestic

partnerships” or “civil partnerships” (Loper et al., 2014). Specific rights involved in

same-sex civil union vary across countries. The list may include hospital visitation,

property, social security, pension, parental rights, life insurance, next-of-kin and

immigration (Loper et al., 2014, National Archives, 2004). The U.K., and New Zealand

have laws supporting same-sex civil union/registered partnership (National Archives,

2004; Department of Internal Affairs, n.d.); a few countries have laws for civil unions but

not same-sex marriage (i.e. Germany) (Federal Law Gazette, 2001).

Civil union has strong policy implications. We contended that those of the Hong Kong

general public who find same-sex marriage unacceptable might find civil union more

acceptable, and leading to a smaller split in public opinions. Comparisons of levels of

support toward legalization of the two practices are warranted but not found in published

reports in literature. Such unexplored information has important policy implications. As

seen in the discussion that follows, it is important to understand homosexual communities‟

views on civil union, as compared to same-sex marriage.

Local public opinions about same-sex civil union

It is uncertain whether the homosexual communities and the general public in Hong

Kong are aware of, or are familiar with, same-sex civil union and its definition. In 2013,

Chairman of EOC, Dr. York Chow emphasized civil union in Hong Kong as the first step

in ensuring equal rights for same-sex couples. He emphasized love and “the right to love

and be loved” (Lau, 2013). The topic however, has not gained public attention since then.

The only relevant local study on civil union was conducted among Hong Kong residents

18 years and older. It only asked a simple question which however, did not distinguish

between same-sex civil union and same-sex marriage: “To what extent do you support or

oppose to the legislation of same sex marriage OR registered partnerships?” One third

(33.3% and 32.8%) of the adults of the general public gave an affirmative answer to the

question in 2013 and 2012, respectively (Chung et al., 2013). Another local study was

conducted among Hong Kong residents 18 years and older. It did not mention civil union

17

but asked a simple question about the rights of same-sex couples. The question was: “Do

you think same-sex couples should have: i) all the rights that male-female couples have,

ii) some rights that male-female couples have or iii) none of the rights that male-female

couples have. The majority (74.0%) favored same-sex couples having all or some rights

(Loper et al., 2014) Medical and non-medical students rated on average 3.38 and 3.67,

respectively, on a scale of 1 to 6 assessing level of support toward homosexuals‟ adoption

right (Kan et al., 2009). In another study, 39% to 50% of the university students thought

that homosexual people should have adoption rights (Hon et al., 2005).

Thus, there is a dearth of data about public opinions on same-sex civil union in Hong

Kong. The general public in Hong Kong may have different levels of acceptance toward

same-sex civil union versus same-sex marriage. It is warranted to investigate whether the

general public would be less split about same-sex civil union compared to that about

same-sex marriage. Such information has important policy implications. It was not

available and was investigated in this project.

Factors associated with support/opposition for legalization of same-sex civil union

Globally, there is a dearth of such studies. A local survey of 1,008 adult Chinese Hong

Kong residents showed that younger (i.e., those born during 1980s and 1990s), pan-

democratic, middle-income, non-religious, and college-educated participants were more

likely to support same-sex marriage, while pro-establishment respondents reported the

strongest negative attitudes toward same-sex marriage (Yeo & Chu, 2017). Another study

showed that those with religious beliefs are less likely to support same-sex marriage (Hon

et al., 2005).

In the U.S., female gender, higher education, attribution of homosexuality as something

one is born with, and being Catholics were associated with support of same-sex civil

union legalization. Factors associated with opposition were older age, high biblical

literalism, perceiving homosexuality as a choice, emphasis on moral values and

conservative ideologies (Olson et al., 2006; Whitehead, 2014). In Brazil, those who were

more likely to oppose to legalization of same-sex civil unions were older, devoted

Catholics (opposite to U.S. finding), devoted historical Protestants and devoted Nominal

Pentecostals; support was associated with female sex, cohabitation, higher household

income, higher education, and Afro-Brazilian/Spiritist Faith (Ogland & Verona, 2014).

Homosexual communities’ voices about same sex marriage/civil union unheard

Policy makers should consider the needs and wants of the homosexual communities,

which may possess attitudes that are different from those of the general public. Policy

based solely on the general public‟s opinions without considering sexual minorities‟

opinions would not be able to protect the rights of sexual minorities and is unlikely to

receive support from homosexual people. There is no local data on such. In the U.S., 93%

of LGBT and 51% of the general public strongly favored/favored same-sex marriage

legislation, respectively (Pew Research Center, 2013). In both populations, the most

important reason for wanting to get married was “love” (84%: LGBT; 88%: GP). Other

reasons provided included, “legal rights and benefits” (46%: LGBT vs. 23%: GP) and

“having children” (28%: LGBT vs. 49%: GP) (Pew Research Center, 2013)

18

Of the local LGBT respondents who were not currently married, 52% said they would

like to get married someday compared to 15% who said no (Pew Research Center, 2013);

this was somewhat comparable to heterosexual couples in the U.S. (2010), 46% and 25%,

respectively (Pew Research Center, 2010) It is likely that a high percentage of the

homosexuals in Hong Kong would like to get married but could not do so; the figure is

unknown.

Qualitative studies conducted among LGBT individuals in the U.S. and U.K reported that

reasons given for wanting to get married included increase in individual and family well-

being, improvement on social interactions, increase in sense of security, emphasis on

commitment, sense of justice, ability in making joint decisions, acknowledgement as a

real couple (Shulman, Gotta, & Green, 2012), commitment of two people witnessed by

others and God, recognition of equality to heterosexuals, and religious considerations

(Yip, 2004) However, about 49% of LGBT individuals in the U.K., felt completely

fulfilled with a “long-term same-sex unmarried partnership” and disliked the term

“marriage”, feeling that it was a legal concept defined by the church and society, being

representative of heterosexual couples, and portraying an idea that a wife is unequal to

the husband. Although the U.K. findings may not be generalized to all LGBT populations

and that sample was selectively inclusive of LGBT Christians (Yip, 2004). Homosexuals

pursuing same-sex marriage may be seen as homonormative, i.e., supportive of the

assumption that all relationships should mimic the heterosexual standards of sexuality

and family structure (Duggan, 2002). Thus, we should not assume all LGBT people

would desire same-sex marriage legalization. It is an empirical question.

It is equally important to compare among homosexuals, their differences in attitudes

toward same-sex civil union versus same-sex marriage. A qualitative study showed that

those who did not favor same-sex marriage were in favor of “civil partnerships” (Yip,

2004). We cannot find studies comparing the two practices in literature, despite

significance for policy making. In Hong Kong, some studies have been conducted among

homosexuals and bisexuals (Chung et al., 2012), but none of them asked about both

same-sex marriage and same-sex civil union. Such studies are greatly warranted.

Timeliness of the study

de Oliveira (2014) pointed out the importance of public opinion (in the U.S.) and its

impact on the legalization of same-sex marriage. With the passing of a national law in the

U.S., Italy and other countries, the former amendment of the Hong Kong law to allow

transsexuals to legally marry, and the ongoing review of anti-discrimination laws based

on SOGI by the EOC, it is very timely to collect information about same-sex marriage

and civil union both from the general public and homosexual people.

A special sampling method to recruit hard-to-reach homosexual populations:

respondent driven sampling (RDS)

Recruitment of a sample of homosexual people is difficult as there is no sampling frame,

and heavy social stigma exists. Also, given the low prevalence of homosexuality and

potential under-reporting, it is not feasible to obtain a sample of reasonable size via

19

random sampling. In this cross-sectional study, we used the RDS, which has been

developed over the last decade (Magnani, Sabin, Saidel, & Heckathorn, 2005) for

sampling from hard-to-reach populations. It improves representativeness of such samples

(Magnani et al., 2005), and has been used in 248 studies targeted homosexual populations

(Dirkes, Hughes, Ramirez-Valles, Johnson, & Bostwick, 2016; Lachowsky et al., 2016).

In RDS, three to five initial eligible participants (seeds) will be selected. After

completion of the interviews, they are requested to invite a fixed number of eligible peers

(usually 3 to 5) to join the study. With consent and confirmed eligibility, referrals will be

similarly interviewed, and be further requested to refer eligible peers to join the study;

subsequent referrals will similarly be contacted, checked for eligibility, and interviewed.

On average, it takes 4-6 such waves to reach statistical equilibrium (Hladik et al., 2016).

In literature, the number of seeds varies from 3 to 10 (Duong et al., 2017; Wirtz et al.,

2017) and there is no golden rule for selecting the number of seeds, except consideration

of the final sample size. Previous research has clearly established that the seeds do not

need to be randomly selected. With equilibrium attained, the RDS samples would be

theoretically representative regardless of the characteristics of the seeds (Heckathorn,

2002; Salganik, 2004).

The method has several strengths. First, an equilibrium state in responses will be

achieved after several waves of referrals (Guest, 2006). RDS samples show statistical

properties approaching those of random samples (Magnani et al., 2005); its samples thus

theoretically approximate that obtained from probability sampling. Second, the seeds do

not need to be randomly selected and can even come from a very biased group; statistical

theories have proven that equilibrium can still be obtained for totally non-representative

seeds.

Logistically, RDS differs from snowballing methods: 1) participants are asked to give a

set number of referrals (e.g. only 3 to 5); 2) the relative position of a participant in the

network of all participants matters and all participants are coded in relation to his referee;

3) a dual incentive system is offered to all participants (rewards are given for completion

of the study and successful referrals of participants); and 4) the network sizes of the

participants are estimated and play a role in statistical estimation. RDS method also

differs from snowballing methods in that it is strongly backed up by statistical theories.

These differences help to reduce potential bias (Heckathorn, 1997) and allow for

statistical estimation. Given the above-mentioned properties, Markov-chain Theory and

Theory of Biased Networks can be applied to data obtained from RDS to derive statistical

estimations, including confidence intervals and other statistics (Heckathorn, 1997).

Special statistical software has been developed for statistical analysis of RDS data.

Statistical inference is possible for RDS but not for snowballing method.

Objectives of the study

It is equally important for policy makers and stakeholders to understand and to compare

attitudes toward same-sex marriage/civil union among the general public and among

20

homosexuals. Two surveys (Part I and II) will hence be conducted for such purposes, in

the general and homosexual populations.

Objectives for Part I (A survey on general public’s attitudes toward same-sex

marriage/civil union):

1) To estimate prevalence (proportion) of male and female homosexuals (self-

identified gay or lesbian) in Hong Kong general public adults.

2) To investigate prevalence of awareness about the concept of same-sex civil

union and knowledge on any existence of related legislation in Hong Kong and

overseas.

3) To compare prevalence supporting legislation for same-sex marriage and civil

union (i.e. support to either one, to both or to neither of the two), and reasons

behind such attitudes and preference, separately, in the general public.

4) To investigate the general public’s degree of support toward specific

components of civil union (e.g. adoption, hospital visitation, dependent working

visa, next of kin, housing, property inheritance)

5) To investigate and compare factors of support for same-sex marriage and civil

union legislation (e.g. socio-demographics, stigma toward male/female

homosexuals, type of religion, having young children, having homosexual

acquaintances, knowledge about marriage laws in other countries, attribution to

cause of homosexuals) in the general public.

6) To understand public opinions on potential positive and negative impacts of

same-sex marriage/civil union legislation to Hong Kong society.

Objectives for Part II study (A survey on attitudes and practice of same-sex

marriage/civil union among homosexuals)

1) To investigate information about same-sex marriage practice among self-

identified homosexuals: i) percentage and estimated number of participants who

have gotten married overseas, and ii) percentage and estimated number of

participants currently having a same-sex partner wishing to get married in Hong

Kong, but cannot do so without legislation.

2) To investigate information about same-sex civil union among homosexuals: i)

awareness (e.g. heard of civil union) and knowledge (e.g. existence of laws)

related to same-sex civil union in general, and ii) degree of support for potential

specific components of civil union (e.g. adoption, hospital visitation, dependent

working visa, next of kin, housing, property inheritance), and compare it to that of

the general public.

3) To investigate prevalence of homosexuals demanding (supporting) legislation: i)

for same-sex marriage, ii) for same-sex civil union in general (after being briefed

about its definition), and iii) relative preference on legislation for same-sex

marriage versus same-sex civil union. Prevalence of such perceptions (e.g.

awareness of civil union and support for legislation) will be compared with that of

the general population whenever possible.

21

4) To investigate associated factors of demand (support) for same-sex marriage

legislation and factors of same-sex civil union legislation in general (e.g. socio-

demographics, marriage to a person of the opposite sex, previously and currently

having a potential same-sex partner for marriage, perceived public stigma toward

homosexuals) among homosexuals.

5) To assess participants’ behavioral intention to engage in a same-sex marriage or

civil union in Hong Kong eventually and in the next 12 months if legislation

allows, and to compare the preference between the two practices among

homosexuals.

METHODS

The general population study (Survey 1)

Study design for the general population study

To understand the general public‟s perceptions and attitudes toward homosexuality and

same-sex marriage/civil union, we conducted a random population-based cross-sectional

telephone survey among the general population from November 2016 to March 2017.

The study population consists of adults who were: 1) of age ≥ 18, 2) holders of Hong

Kong identification cards, and 3) Chinese or English speakers.

Random telephone numbers were selected from local up-to-date telephone directories.

Telephone interviews were conducted between 6:00pm and 10:00pm on weekdays and

2:00pm to 9:00pm on Saturdays to avoid under-sampling of employed individuals. If no

one in the household answered the initial call, four more follow-up calls would be made

at different hours and days before it was considered to be a non-valid household (i.e., one

without an eligible participant). A screening question was used to identify eligible

prospective participants. The eligible person whose birthday was closest to the survey

date was invited to join the study. Appointments are made if necessary. At least four

additional calls were made at different hours and days before a case was considered as a

non-response. The interviews took 20 minutes to complete. No incentive was given to the

participants. Experienced and well-trained telephone interviewers administered the

surveys.

Prospective participants were briefed about the study. Guarantees were made on

anonymity and their right to quit at any time. Verbal instead of written informed consent

were obtained as there were no face-to-face contacts. The interviewers signed a form

which pledged that the participants had been fully informed about the study. Ethics

approval was obtained from the Survey and Behavioural Research Ethics Committee of

The Chinese University of Hong Kong.

A total of 3,348 households were contacted by the research team; 2,009 participants

(Chinese speaker: n=2004; English speakers: n=5) completed the interviews (1,123

refusals, 207 non-contacts with the eligible participants, and nine incomplete interviews).

The response rate (60.0%) was similar to those of other telephone studies that were

22

conducted in Hong Kong (Lau, Au, Tsui, & Choi, 2012; Lau, Tsui, Mo, Mak, & Griffiths,

2015; Wu, Lau, Ma, & Lau, 2015).

Measures for the general public survey

Background variables:

Socio-demographics (e.g. sex, age, marital status, education, number of children, age of

the youngest child, if any, religious beliefs, and ethnicity), support to any local political

party, and information about acquaintance with homosexual people (number, relationship,

frequency of contact, and intimacy) were recorded.

Participants‟ sexual orientation

Questions were modified from those published in literature (Chung et al., 2012).

Participants were asked: “How would you describe your sexual orientation?” Response

categories include homosexual or gay/lesbian, heterosexual, others (e.g. bisexual).

Those admitting homosexual sexual orientation were asked whether they would like to

enter same-sex marriage or same-sex civil union, and whether they had done so overseas.

Stigma toward homosexual people

The 21-item Stigma and Acceptance Scale were used to assess stigma toward

homosexual people. It has been used in some Chinese adult populations to measure

mental health stigma, and was adapted to measure stigma toward people living with HIV

and men who have sex with men (Mak et al., 2006). It was adapted in this study to assess

stigma toward homosexual people. Item responses form 6-point Likert scales (Mak,

Chong, & Wong, 2014). The scores ranged from 21 to 126, with higher scores

representing stronger stigma. In this study, Cronbach‟s alpha was .93.

Attribution to homosexuality

Participants were asked about the perceived causes of homosexuality. Six options

included “It is completely determined by innate factors (e.g. genes)”, “It is completely

determined by external factors (e.g. cultural or societal influence, peer pressure,

curiosity)”, “It is mainly determined by innate factors”, “It is mainly determined by

external factors”, “Innate and external factors have equal contributions”, and “Do not

know” (Whitehead, 2014).

Awareness/knowledge on same-sex marriage and civil union

Awareness of civil union was assessed by a single item: “Have you heard of same-sex

civil union?” (Yes/No). Knowledge about legalization of same-sex marriage/civil union

in Hong Kong and overseas were assessed by the following items: “To your knowledge,

are there ordinances in Hong Kong that allow for same-sex marriage” and “To your

knowledge, are there ordinances in other countries that allow for same-sex civil union.”

(Yes/No/Do not know). In addition, participants were asked to name up to three of such

countries. Summative scales were formed.

23

Support/opposition toward same-sex marriage and civil union

Participants were asked to rate their degree of support/opposition toward these two types

of potential legalization in Hong Kong on 5-point Likert scales (1=strongly support to

5=strongly oppose). The difference in the two ratings was calculated. Reasons behind

support and opposition were asked.

Perceptions on same-sex marriage

The 17-item Attitudes toward Same-Sex Marriage Scale (ATSM) were used to assess

perceptions on same-sex marriage (1=strongly disagree to 5=strongly agree); scores

range from 17 (the most negative attitude) to 85 (the most positive attitude). Higher

scores reflect more positive attitude toward same-sex marriage. Examples of the items

include those related to morality, family value, threats to society, and marriage rights.

This scale was validated among heterosexuals; it displayed good construct validity and

internal consistency (Cronbach‟s alpha= .96) (Pearl & Galupo, 2007). In this study, the

Cronbach‟s alpha was .94.

Perceptions on same-sex civil union

Participants were asked whether they supported legalization of civil union, i.e., giving

specific rights to same sex couples without legal marriage (e.g. adoption of children, in

vitro fertilization, inheritance right, acting as the next of kin during emergencies,

application for dependent visa, tax allowances, and right for public housing).

Perceived societal impact of legalization of same-sex marriage/civil union

Participants rated overall and specific perceived positive impact (e.g. harmony, human

right) and negative impact (e.g. traditional gender roles, our next generation) regarding

such arrangements. Items were constructed by the research team. In this study, the

Cronbach‟s alpha values of the four related scales ranged from .69 to .82.

Languages

The questionnaire had a Chinese and an English version. Some of these scales were

translated from English/Chinese into English/Chinese, and back-translated into the

original language by the research team.

The homosexual population survey (Survey II)

Inclusion criteria were: 1) males and females self-identifying as homosexuals, 2) age of at

least 18 years old, 3) residents of Hong Kong (holding a Hong Kong ID cards), and 4)

Chinese or English speaking people.

RDS method was used for recruitment of participants. The seeds were firstly recruited via

outreach at venues frequently visited by homosexual people (e.g., bars and clubs).

Fieldworkers confirmed their eligibility to participate in this study and briefed them about

the study. They were assured about anonymity, right to quit at any time and that refusals

would not affect their rights to use any services. Verbal instead of written informed

consent was obtained to maintain anonymity, and the fieldworkers signed forms pledging

adoption of proper procedures. Ten seeds (8 gay men and 2 lesbians; all were Chinese

24

speaking) were recruited and by appointment, interviewed over phone by some

experienced interviewers. They were then requested to invite up to five potential eligible

homosexual peers to join the study. With consent and confirmed eligibility, referrals were

similarly interviewed over phone, and were further requested to refer up to five potential

eligible peers to join the study; subsequent referrals were similarly contacted, checked for

eligibility and interviewed over phone.

A total of 444 participants were recruited after 12 waves of referrals; 400 (219 gay men

and 181 lesbians; 398 Chinese speaking and 2 English speaking) completed the telephone

interviews (response rate: 90.1%). The average network size was 21. Like other studies,

nominal monetary compensations for their time used were provided to those who

completed the interviews (HKD50) and successful referrals of participants (HKD50 per

referral) (Lau, Mo, Mak, & Choi, 2013). Supermarket coupons were sent to the addresses

provided by the participants in envelopes that contained no name/information about the

study. Address information was cross-checked to avoid repetition. Ethics approval was

obtained from the Survey and Behavioral Research Ethics Committee of the Chinese

University of Hong Kong.

Measures for the homosexual sample

Background variables:

Socio-demographics (e.g. sex, age, marital status with homosexual or heterosexual

persons, education level, number of children, and religious beliefs), support for local

political parties, age when the participant recognized his/her homosexual orientation (i.e.,

age at onset of homosexual orientation), and whether having stable same-sex partner,

were assessed.

Perceived public stigma toward homosexual people:

The previously mentioned 21-item Stigma and Acceptance Scale was modified to assess

perceived public stigma and acceptance toward homosexual people. For related items, the

word “I” was replaced by “Most people”. In this study, the Cronbach‟s alpha was .92.

Existence of same-sex partners intended for same-sex marriage/civil union and intention

to engage in same-sex marriage/civil union

Referring to questions that had been asked in other studies (e.g. Pew Research Centre,

2013), all participants were asked if they would like to engage in same-sex marriage

and/or civil union. Participants were asked whether they currently had had same-sex

partners that they would like to engage in marriage/civil union with, and self-efficacy for

such practices if they would like to do so. Those with same-sex partners intended to get

married with were also asked how likely they would like to do so currently, whether they

perceive that same-sex partner would like to engage in marriage/civil union with him/her,

how likely that they would engage in marriage/civil union with him/her in the next year,

whether they had discussed about marriage/civil union with that partner, and self-efficacy

in engaging in marriage/civil union with those same-sex partners.

Awareness/knowledge about same-sex marriage and civil union

25

The questions asked were the same as those used and previously introduced in the general

public survey.

Support/opposition toward same-sex marriage and same-sex civil union


public survey. In addition, participants were asked whether they were more supportive of

legalizing same-sex marriage or same-sex civil union (support same-sex marriage more

/support same-sex civil union more/support both equally/support neither).

Perceptions on same-sex marriage (17-item)

The questions of the Attitudes toward Same-sex Marriage Scale asked were the same as

those used and previously introduced in the general public survey. In this study, the

Cronbach‟s alpha was .89.

Perceptions on civil union


public survey.

Perceived societal impact of legalization of same-sex marriage/civil union


population survey. The Cronbach‟s alpha values were however low (.36 to .53). Thus,

single items instead of a summative scale were used when analyzing this part of the data.

Statistical analyses (for both samples)

As the sample of the general population survey may not have the same demographic

compositions compared to census data, prevalence data obtained from the general

population was standardized according to age and gender distributions of Hong Kong

2016 census data by using the direct standardization method (Naing, 2000). Data

obtained from the homosexual population using RDS method were analyzed by using the

respondent-driven sampling analysis program (RDSAT). Weighted estimates based on

RDS II estimators (Wejnert, 2009), took into account the network size and recruitment

pattern.

Some information about same-sex marriage/civil union (e.g., awareness, knowledge,

degree of support and related perceptions) was compared between the male general

population sample and the homosexual (or gay/lesbian) subsample (s), using Chi-square

test (for nominal variables) and Mann Whitney and Kruskal-Wallis H test (for ordinal

and continuous variables). Comparisons of the degree of support toward same-sex

marriage versus same-sex civil union, and behavioral intention to engage in same-sex

marriage versus same-sex civil union within the same individuals (ordinal data) were

conducted by using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test.

Using support for legalization of same-sex marriage and same-sex civil union as the

dependent variables, univariate odds ratios (ORu) were estimated for the associations

between background independent variables and the dependent variables. Those

26

background variables with p<.10 in the univariate analysis were adjusted for in

subsequent multiple logistic regression analyses involving other independent variables

(e.g., attitudes towards homosexuality, perceived impact of legislation of same-sex

marriage/civil union in Hong Kong); adjusted odds ratios (AOR) and respective 95%

confidence interval (CI) were derived from such analyses. To obtain summary models, all

variables with p<.10 obtained from the univariate analysis were considered as candidates

for fitting forward logistic regression models, which used an entry criterion of p<.10 and

an exclusion criterion of p>.20. Multivariate odds ratios (ORm) were derived. In addition,

subgroup analysis was conducted to identify factors associated with support for same-sex

marriage/civil union among those supporting same-sex civil union but not same-sex

marriage.

Similar analyses strategies and methods were used for the two samples. SPSS version

16.0 was used for data analysis, with p values <.05 taken as statistically significant.

RESULTS

Participants’ background information of the general population sample (see Table 1 and

2)

Of them, 60.6% were female; 59.5% aged above 50; 70.5% were currently married;

29.1% attained tertiary education; 18.7% had had children aged < 18. About 30% had had

religious beliefs (Catholic/Protestant: 17.6%; Buddhist/Taoist: 10.7%). About 7% (6.7%)

supported some local political parties. All participants held Hong Kong identification

cards, and 99% of them were Hong Kong permanent residents. Five of them were English

speaking.

About 30% (27.7%) of them were acquainted with homosexual people (18.7% with

acquaintances who were gay men; 22.3% with acquaintances who were lesbians); 13.0%

and 15.8% knew more than two gay men and two lesbians, respectively. However, only a

minority of the participants had had frequent and extremely frequent interactions (7.0%)

and close/very close relationships (5.4%) with homosexual acquaintances, respectively.

Of those with homosexual acquaintances, 67.4% and 80.4% had had acquaintances who

were gay men and lesbians; 47% and 57% knew more than one gay man and more than

one lesbian, respectively. Among those with homosexual acquaintances, 25.4% and 19.4%

had had frequent/extremely frequent interactions and close/very close relationships with

such homosexual acquaintances, respectively. Relationships with homosexual

acquaintances included friends (61.5%), classmates (19.2%), close friends (18.5%),

colleagues (15.5%), family members (1.6%), and other relatives (7.0%).

Prevalence of homosexuality and same-sex marriage/civil union in the general

population sample

Of all participants, the standardized figures show that .9% self-reported as homosexuals

(gay men: 1.0%; lesbians: .4%); .2% as bisexuals (males: .1%; females: .2%); .3% did not

disclose their sexual orientation (males: .1%; females: .3%). No data were excluded from

27

data analysis to better represent the general population. Of the 13 self-identified

homosexual participants (8 gay men and 5 lesbians), only one gay man had entered same-

sex marriage overseas; nil had entered same-sex civil union. Among those who had not

engaged in same-sex marriage (n=12), 10 and 9 would like to enter same-sex marriage

and same-sex civil union, respectively.

Participants’ background information of the homosexual sample (Table 3)

Of all homosexual participants, the weighted figures show that about half of them aged

26-35; 78.1% had attained tertiary education; 17.9% were Catholics/Protestants and 6.2%

were Buddhists/Taoists; 9.9% of them had had some children. The weighted figures show

that that 34.9% and 48.0% recognized their homosexual orientation (i.e., age at onset of

homosexual orientation) before age 13, and from 13 to 17, respectively. Gay men were

more likely than lesbians to support local political parties [gays (19.2%) versus lesbians

(11.6%); p=.038]. Over half of the gay (55.3%) and lesbian (79.6%) participants reported

that they had had same-sex regular partners.

Prevalence of same-sex marriage/civil union in the homosexual sample

Of the 400 homosexual participants, the weighted figures show that 17 (3.5%) self-

reported having married to same-sex partners. Lesbians (7.2%) were more likely than gay

men (1.8%) to have self-reported same-sex marriage (p=.025). The countries where the

self-reported same-sex marriages took place included the U.K. (n=6), New Zealand (n=5),

Canada (n=4), the Netherlands (n=1), and the U.S. (n=1). Nil has entered into same-sex

civil union.

The social context

The general public’s attribution to homosexuality (Table 4)

Of the general population participants, 20.2% believed that homosexuality is fully/mainly

determined by innate factors; 23.2% believed that it is fully/mainly determined by

external factors; 40.1% believed that it is equally determined by the two types of factors

(16.5% had no idea).

Stigma toward homosexual people in the general population sample and perceived public

stigma in the homosexual sample

In Table 5, a number of items that reflected stigma toward homosexual people (e.g.,

“Homosexuals are repulsive”; “I am afraid of being alone with a homosexual”) were

endorsed by about 5-50% of the general population participants. Table 6 shows that those

who were older, had some religious beliefs, and did not have tertiary education were

more likely than others to exhibit stigma toward homosexuals (p<.001). The mean (SD)

scale score was 58.3 (SD=17.5).

28

Items of the modified perceived public stigma scale were listed for the homosexual

sample (Table 7). Several items that reflected perceived public stigma were endorsed by

high percentages of the homosexual participants (e.g. „It is only normal that homosexuals

are being discriminated against by other people‟: 49.2%). Furthermore, lesbians

perceived less public stigma toward homosexual people than gay men [mean scores=

61.0 (SD=20.3) for gay men and 52.5 (SD=19.6) for lesbians; p<.001; Table 8].

The two scales of the general population sample and the homosexual sample were not

identical as one assessed participants‟ stigma toward homosexual people while the other

assessed perceived public stigma toward homosexual people. As a reference, the mean

(SD) values of the general population sample and the homosexual sample were similar,

58.3 (17.5) and 57.2 (20.4), respectively. (Table 5 & Table 7)

Awareness and knowledge related to same sex marriage and same sex civil union

Awareness of civil union (Table 9)

The weighted prevalence of such awareness (having heard of same-sex civil union) was

44.8% among all homosexuals (gay people: 47.9%; lesbians: 44.2%) versus only 4.9%

(standardized) among the general public (significant between-group comparison; p<.001).

Awareness of same-sex marriage was not assessed in this study most people should have

heard about such practice.

Knowledge about existence/non-existence of ordinances legalizing same-sex marriage

and civil union in the two samples (Table 9)

All homosexual participants and majority of the general population participants knew that

Hong Kong has no ordinance that legalizes same sex marriage; only 41.9% (weighted

figures) versus 4.1% (standardized figures) of the two samples knew that Hong Kong has

no ordinance that legalizes same-sex civil union (Do not know: homosexuals=56.4%;

general public=96.92%). Both samples were more likely to know about the legal status of

same-sex marriage than civil union (p<.05). A similar pattern was observed for awareness

of the existence of ordinances legalizing civil union in other countries (see Table 9).

Perceptions related to same-sex marriage and same-sex civil union in the two

samples (Table 10 and 11)

Attitudes toward same-sex marriage

The items of the scale are presented in Tables 10 and 11 for the general population and

homosexual samples, respectively. As expected, most of the item responses given by the

gay and lesbian participants reflected favorable attitudes toward same sex marriage.

There was in general no statistical significance between the gay men and lesbians (Table

8). Two items are presented hereby to illustrate the contrasts between the two samples:

“Men and women naturally complement one another. Therefore, a union between two

men or two women should not be recognized in marriage” (homosexual participants:

29

4.2%; general population participants: 75.9%), and “Same-sex marriage undermines the

meaning of traditional family” (homosexual participants: 10.0%; general population

participants: 54.8%). As expected, the scale score was higher among homosexual

participants (mean=77.4, SD=6.6) than the general population participants (mean=48.7,

SD=16.1) and the difference was of statistical significance (p<.001).

Perceived societal impact of same-sex marriage and civil union

In Table 12, about one third of the general population participants endorsed some items

that reflected potential positive impact of same-sex marriage/civil union (increase in

societal harmony and reduced sexual risk behaviors), and 57.3% believed that it reflected

respect of human rights. However, about 2/3 or more believed that it would bring about

negative societal impact including detrimental effects on moral norms and the next

generation, potential legal disputes, and controversy about traditional gender roles (Table

12). High age, having religious belief, and lower education level were negatively

associated with perceived positive societal impact, and were positively associated with

perceived negative societal impact (p<.05; Table 13).

Overall, 49.5% and 42.2% of all participants believed that negative societal impact

prevailed over positive impact of same-sex marriage and same-sex civil union

respectively, while the reverse percentages were 16.3% and 18.2%, respectively (Table

12). The within-group difference between the perceptions toward same-sex marriage and

civil union among the general population was small but statistically significant, possibly

due to the relatively large sample size (Table 12). As expected, the two homosexual

subsamples were much more likely to perceive positive impacts and less likely to

perceive negative impacts of same-sex marriage and civil union, compared to the general

population sample (Table 14).

It is interesting that about 43% of the homosexual sample showed concerns about legal

issues and traditional gender roles regarding same-sex marriage/civil union (Table 15).

Close to 70% of the homosexual sample believed that the positive societal impacts of

same-sex marriage and civil union would be larger than the negative impacts, while only

0.9% to 3.2% of the participants believed in the reverse (Table 15). Gay men and lesbians

showed similar attitudes, except that lesbians were more likely than gay men to believe

that same-sex marriage could promote social harmony (73.5% versus 63.9%; p=.041).

Association between stigma toward homosexual people and cognitions regarding same

sex marriage/civil union in the general population

Perceived stigma was negatively correlated with attitudes toward same-sex marriage (r=-

0.654, p<0.001), perceived positive societal impact of same-sex marriage (r=-0.462,

p<0.001) and same-sex civil union (r=-0.454, p<0.001). It is also positively correlated

with perceived negative societal impact of same-sex marriage (r=0.477, p<0.001) and

same-sex civil union (r=0.455, p<0.001)

Support/opposition toward legalizing same-sex marriage and same-sex civil union

30

Level of support in the two samples

In the general population sample, standardized figures show that 32.6% and 33.1% were

supportive (somewhat to strongly support) toward legalizing same sex marriage and civil

union, respectively [21.9% and 26.6 % were neutral; 45.5% and 40.3% opposed to the

two types of legalization] (Table 16). Within individuals of the general population sample,

the difference in the degree of support toward legalizing the two practices was

statistically significant (p<.001, Wilcoxon signed rank test) but the magnitude of the

difference was small.

Again, the level of support toward same-sex marriage/civil union decreased with older

age. While over half of those aged 18-30 supported the two prospective ordinances

(63.1% and 60.7%); only less than 20% among those aged >60 expressed support (17.4%

and 18.3%). Those with religious belief and secondary school education level were less

likely than others to express such support (Table 17).

In contrast and as expected, majority of the homosexual participants were supportive

(somewhat to strong support, weighted figures) toward legalizing same-sex marriage

(97.8%) and civil union (91.0%). The difference in the level of support toward legalizing

the two practices within the homosexual individuals was of statistical significance (Table

16). The between-group difference between gay and lesbian participants was however,

not of statistically significance (p=.53 for same-sex marriage, and p=.33 for same-sex

civil union; data are not presented in tables).

Relative support toward same-sex marriage versus civil union in the two samples

In Table 25, standardized figures show that majority of the general population sample

neither supported legalization of same-sex marriage nor civil union while 23.6%

supported both; there were 7.9% that supported same-sex marriage more than civil union

and 12.7% supported same-sex civil union more than same-sex marriage. Thus, we did

not observe stronger support toward the former than the latter.

The picture is different for homosexual participants, while the weighted figures show that

about half (49.4%) supported legalizing both practices equally, 39.1% supported

legalizing same sex marriage more strongly than same-sex civil union but only 11%

supported same-sex civil union more than same sex marriage (Table 25). If given a

choice, many of the homosexual people would prefer same-sex marriage over civil union.

According to an open-ended question asked to the general population participants (Table

26), the coded reason for supporting same-sex marriage over civil union was that the

former was „clearer‟ to the participants (54.8%); the key reason for supporting civil union

over same sex marriage was that it was “easier to accept” (60.6%). The key reasons for

supporting both were people‟s right to choose (42.7%) and human rights consideration

(27.7%);the key reasons for supporting neither of the two included conflict with tradition,

abnormity, deviation from nature, and deviation from morality (10.4% to 22.5%).

31

Level of support toward specific potential contents of same-sex civil union in the two

populations (expressed after being briefed about concept of same-sex civil union)

As seen in Table 27, the weighted figures show that majority of the homosexual

participants would like to see inclusion of the listed items of rights into legalization of

civil union (adoption of children, in vitro fertilization, right to inherit, right to act as the

next of kin during emergencies, application for dependent visa, tax allowances, and right

for public housing). The views of the general population participants differed. About 2/3

supported the rights related to inheritance (68.8%), acting as next of kin (67.0%), and

around 50.0% agreed with the other rights listed in the table. Consistently, older age,

having religious belief, and lower education level were associated with lower level of

support for including these rights into a same-sex civil union ordinance.

Behavioral intention to engage in same-sex marriage and/or civil union among

homosexual participants who had not engaged in such practices

Intention for same-sex marriage and civil union among homosexual participants

Among those homosexual participants who had not married to same-sex partners at the

time of survey (n=383), 71.3% would like to get married with same-sex partners (A

similar question about same-sex civil union was not asked). Of these 383 participants,

61.1% and 50.3% believed that it is likely/very likely that they would eventually engage

in same-sex marriage and same-sex civil union, respectively (Table 28); 59.5% and

64.1% were confident in engaging in same-sex marriage and same-sex civil union if they

wished to (Table 28). The level of self-efficacy was higher among lesbians than gay men

(self-efficacy for same-sex marriage: 66.5% versus 54.2%; p=.045; civil union: 70.1%

versus 59.5% p=.039). Also, 42.3% (n=162) and 30.8% (n=118) of these 383 participants

had had same-sex partners that they would like to engage in same-sex marriage or same-

sex civil union with. (Table 28)

Table 29 shows that of the homosexual participants, 39.7% intended to engage in either

same-sex marriage or civil union; 21.4% intended only to engage in same sex marriage;

10.4% intended only to engage in civil union and not same-sex marriage.

Potential same-sex partners and expectations for same-sex marriage and/or civil union

Of those homosexual participants having desired partners for same-sex marriage (n=162),

majority (86.4%) expressed that they would like to or strongly would like to get married

with them presently, and believed that the desired partners would like to do the same

(80.1%); 73.5% and 11.1% believed that it is likely/very likely that they will get married

in the long run and in the next year, respectively. However, only 16.0% of participants

with desired partners for same-sex marriage had discussed about such matters with those

partners.

Similarly, majority (81.4%) of those having potential and desired partners for civil union

(n=118) would like to or strongly would like to enter civil union with them presently, and

expect that their partners would also like to do the same (77.1%); 69.2% and 21.6%

32

believed that it is likely/very likely that they would engage in same-sex civil union in the

long run and in the next year, respectively. Differences in responses given by gay and

lesbian participants showed no statistical significance (p>.05) (Table 30). However, only

29.7% of those with desired partners for same-sex civil union had discussed about the

matter with such partners. (Table 30)


union among the general population

Models adjusted for background variables

Besides the significant associations that involved age, religious belief, and education

level, Table 18 shows that those who were currently not single (married, cohabitation,

divorced etc.) were less supportive toward the legalization of both practices; those who

were supporters of local political parties were more supportive toward legalizing same-

sex marriage (ORu=1.56); those who had had homosexual acquaintances were more

supportive toward legalizing both practices (ORu=4.70 and 4.29).

Adjusted for respective significant background factors, Table 20 shows that positive

attitude toward same-sex marriage was significantly associated with support toward

legalization of same-sex marriage (AOR=1.24). The other factors applied to both same-

sex marriage and same-sex civil union and are highly comparable in magnitudes. 1)

Those who believed that homosexuality could be attributed to innate plus external

influences (AOR=.59 and .66) and mainly/fully external influences (AOR=.30 and .37)

were less likely than those who believed that homosexuality is fully/mainly determined

by innate factors to support toward legalization of the two practices. 2) Those who

showed stronger stigma toward homosexuals were less likely than others to support

toward the legalization of the two practices (AOR=.92 and .92). 3) Those who knew of

legalization of similar ordinances in other countries were more supportive of legalizing

the practices locally (AOR=2.56 and 2.60). 4) Perceived positive societal impacts of

legalizing the ordinances was positively associated with support toward the two types of

legalization (AOR=1.65 and 1.57), and in reverse, perceived negative societal impacts of

legalization was negatively associated with the support toward legalization of the two

practices (AOR= .59 and .68). 5) Those who believed that the positive and negative

societal impacts of legalization of same-sex marriage/civil union were the same (AOR=

14.4 and 16.3) and that positive impacts outweighed negative impacts were much more

supportive of legalizing the two practices, respectively, than those perceiving stronger

negative than positive societal impact (AOR=68.0 and 99.2).

Summary models

In the summary multiple stepwise logistic regression model (Table 21), 1) positive

attitude toward same-sex marriage (ORm=1.18), 2) perceived positive societal impact

(ORm=1.11) and perceived negative societal impact (ORm=0.84) of legalizing same-sex

marriage, 3) belief that the positive and negative societal impact of legalization of same-

sex marriage were the same (ORm=1.94), and 4) belief that positive impact outweighed

33

negative impact (ORm=5.77) were significantly associated with the support toward

legalization of same-sex marriage.

Another similar model show that 1) the perception that homosexuality is mainly/fully

attributed to environmental influences or had no idea (ORm=.60 and .48), 2) perceived

stigma toward homosexual people (ORm=0.96), 3) perceived positive societal impact

(ORm=1.26) and perceived negative societal impact (ORm=0.81) of legalizing same-sex

civil union, 4) belief that the positive and negative societal impact of legalization of

same-sex marriage were the same (ORm=5.80), and 5) belief that positive impact of sex-

sex civil union outweighed negative impact (ORm=22.84) or had no idea (ORm=2.40)

were significantly associated with support toward legalization of same-sex civil union.


union among the homosexual population

Models adjusted for background variables

The background factors included in Table 19 showed that age, but not other background

factors, was significantly associated with support toward legalizing same-sex civil union,

and it was adjusted for in subsequent analyses.

It is seen from Table 22 that some of the items that reflected positive societal impact of

same-sex marriage and civil union (i.e., promotion of social harmony and respect for

human right) were positively associated with support toward legalizing same-sex

marriage and civil union, while one item that reflected negative societal impact (i.e.

impact on traditional gender roles) was negatively associated with support toward

legalizing same-sex marriage (ORu=.10) but not toward civil union. In addition, Table 22

also shows that those homosexual participants who perceived equal positive and negative

societal impact (ORu=10.30, AOR=3.82) and those who perceived stronger positive

impact than negative impact (ORu=134.50; AOR=50.17) were much more likely than

others to support toward legalizing same-sex marriage and civil union.

Summary model

In the summary multivariate stepwise logistic regression model, positive attitude toward

same-sex marriage (ORm=1.13) was significantly associated with support toward

legalization of same-sex marriage. Another summary stepwise logistic regression model

showed that 1) the perception that same-sex civil union could promote social harmony

(ORm=3.84), 2) the belief that same-sex civil union reflected respect for human rights

(ORm=17.23), and 3) the belief that the positive and negative impact of legalization of

same-sex marriage were the same (ORm=10.79) were significantly associated with

support toward legalization of same-sex civil union.

Sub-group analysis among the general population sample

Only a minority (4.5%; 80 out of 2009) of all general population participants supported

same-sex civil union but not same sex marriage. An analysis was conducted to investigate

factors associated with support toward same-sex civil union among those who did support

34

same-sex marriage (n=1440). Table 31-33 present the results of this subgroup analysis,

which found factors that were similar to those of the previous analyses for the entire

sample.

DISCUSSION

Background information of participants and direct standardization

Overall, the general population sample may have been over-represented by older and

female people; direct standardization by age and sex was thus conducted for prevalence

estimation of the key variables. In addition, although we included non-Chinese

participants in the sample, only five of such people participated in the study. In Hong

Kong, 92.3% of the population is Chinese in 2016 (Census and Statistics Department,

2017). We did not expect the sample to include a large subgroup of non-Chinese

speaking participants that can allow for subgroup analysis. Concerning other background

characteristics, we found that 28.3% of the general population sample had religious

beliefs, compared to the estimated 20% in the census data (World Population Review,

2017). Also, the education level of the homosexual sample was higher than that of the

general population (tertiary education: 78.1% versus 29.1%). There is no census data for

validation but the finding is similar to that of other reports (Choi, Wong, & Fong, 2017;

Lau et al., 2012).

Although about 30% of the participants were acquainted with some homosexual people (a

standardized figure), relatively few of them had frequent interactions (7%) or intimate

relationships (5.4%) with homosexual people. In literature, the general public‟s contact

with homosexual people was negatively associated with stigma toward this group. The

figure was lower than those reported previously, which was about 39% in the year of

2016, possibly due to methodological differences. To foster better acceptance toward

homosexual people, the government may create opportunities to enhance direct social

interactions between homosexual and heterosexual people, especially for members and

opinion leaders of the social groups that commonly express negative opinions about

homosexual people (e.g. religious groups). Furthermore, our data show that acquaintance

with homosexual people was associated with support toward same-sex marriage/civil

union in the general population. More interactions between heterosexual and homosexual

people might hence narrow the split in the public views on same-sex marriage.

Prevalence of homosexuality and bisexuality

The prevalence of homosexual/bisexual people was about 1.1% for males and .6% for

females. Three local studies presented prevalence of homosexual people ranged from .3%

to 2.6% (Chung, et al., 2012; Yeo & Chu, 2017; Hon et al., 2005). Our figure was similar

to one of the recent studies (1.2%) (Yeo & Chu, 2017), which is likely to be

underestimations due to social desirability that prompts one to avoid admitting one‟s

homosexual status. The size of underestimation is unknown. Yet, the relatively consistent

reported prevalence obtained from different sources suggests that at least 1% of the adult

general population was homosexual. The number is not negligible. The prevalence of gay

35

men was higher than that of lesbians (1.0% versus .4%). It is the first time that local

population-based prevalence for gay and lesbian people was estimated separately.

It is essential to note that majority (about 83%) of the homosexual participants were

aware of their sexual orientation before the age of 18, and about 1/3 before13.

Homosexual adolescents may have high levels of anxiety and unmet needs. The

government should acknowledge such needs and provide them with friendly and stigma-

free support. It is also important to reduce stigma in the school setting toward

homosexual people in general and among classmates in particular, and cultivate the

understanding that neither such adolescents nor their schools should be blamed for the

minority sexual orientation. Teachers, parents, and students should be reminded that

homosexuality is not defined by medical professionals as a disease, that homosexuality

does not always involve sexual activity, and that homosexual adolescents can also lead

normal and happy lives.

Prevalence of same-sex marriage and the social context

A noticeable 3.5% of the homosexual samples had engaged in same-sex marriage

overseas; the prevalence was much higher among lesbians than gay men (7.2% versus

1.8%). It is warranted to investigate reasons and factors explaining the difference

between the two homosexual groups.

The social context matters in terms of the support toward same-sex marriage and civil

union. About 20% of the general population participants believed that homosexuality is

purely innate; they tended to be more supportive toward same-sex marriage and civil

union than those who believed that homosexuality can be solely or partially attributed to

external factors. Furthermore, substantial stigma toward homosexual people still exists in

Hong Kong, especially among those who were older, religious, and less educated. These

data may serve as benchmarks for future comparisons. As expected, stigma was

negatively associated with support toward same-sex marriage/civil union among the

general population. Higher percentages of gay people than lesbians perceived public

stigma toward homosexual people. This finding corroborates the literature that gay men

encountered stronger stigma compared to lesbians (Salvati, Pistella, & Baiocco, 2017).

We should also be mindful that perceived stigma among sexual minorities was associated

with their wellbeing and risk behaviors (Meyer, 2003). To better prepare for public

discussion about same-sex marriage and civil union in Hong Kong, we need to sustain

and increase our anti-stigma efforts to create a more homosexual-friendly environment.

Awareness about same-sex civil union

Both the general public and the homosexual population were well aware about the lack of

the same-sex marriage legalization in Hong Kong and overseas. Civil union was however,

known to only a very small proportion of the general public (about 5%), and relatively

new to the homosexual population, as only about 46% had heard of such. From that

perspective, it is premature for the Hong Kong general and homosexual populations to

debate about the policy of legalizing same-sex civil union as both populations need to be

36

better informed before meaningful discussions take place. The newness of the same-sex

civil union concept is another important social context which needs to be considered

when interpreting our findings. It is possible that with better knowledge about same-sex

civil union, related perceptions and preferences might change substantially over time.


The majority of the general public endorsed items reflecting negative attitude toward

same-sex marriage and perceived negative societal impact of same-sex marriage, while

items reflected perceived positive impact were endorsed by a minority of the general

public. Within individuals, the general public‟s perceived positive societal impact

outweighed perceived negative societal impact; the difference showed statistical

significance. Well known concerns about same-sex marriage in the general public

included deviation from moral norm, potential harm for the next generation, confused

gender roles, and potential legal disputes. However, about half of the general population

sample still perceived that same-sex marriage reflected fulfillment of human rights. Thus,

there are still convergences that serve as potential basis for future dialogues between the

heterosexual and homosexual populations.

Consistent with other issues regarding homosexuality, older, less educated, and religious

participants were more likely to possess negative attitudes and more negative than

positive societal impact for same-sex marriage. Their negative attitudes contributed to

their low support rate toward same-sex marriage and are not easy to change. It is essential

for advocators of same-sex marriage to establish channels of dialogues with and among

these social groups. Publicity of positive images of public figures engaged in same-sex

marriage is warranted.

There is no surprise that the homosexual population believed in the reverse, that same-sex

marriage would result in larger positive than negative societal impact. As expected, the

general population sample showed much more negative attitudes toward same-sex

marriage compared to the homosexual sample. It is interesting to see that about 40% of

the homosexual participants also showed concerns that same-sex marriage may cause

legal issues and confusion in traditional gender roles. Advocacy for same-sex marriage

needs to discuss about these potential issues with both the homosexual and heterosexual

populations.

Support/opposition toward same-sex marriage in the general population sample

According to the standardized figures, about 1/3 of the general population participants

somewhat to strongly supported legalization of same-sex marriage, while about half

(45.5%) of them expressed opposition. In addition, the prevalence of strong/very strong

support and opposition was 16.4% and 29.8%, respectively. Another recent study

reported a similar support rate and a slightly lower opposition rate in the general

population (Loper, Lau, & Lau, 2014). In Australia where a bill for legalization for same

sex marriage was recently passed, about 60% of the general public was supportive of the

legalization prior to the voting (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2017). In Taiwan where

37

there is strong advocacy for same-sex marriage, the support rate was 51.7% (Swinburne,

2017). It is interesting to investigate reasons behind the lower support rate in Hong Kong,

which often claims herself as an open society. The consistent findings of the low support

rate obtained from the local studies suggest that at present, Hong Kong is unlikely to

obtain majority public support toward legalization of same-sex marriage that is required

to back up legalization of same-sex marriage. Dialogue in the general public is the first

step to crystalize a majority or more even view.

Yet, over 60% of those aged <= 30 supported legalizing same-sex marriage, compared to

only 20% or lower among those aged 60 or over. Like other controversial political issues,

the general public‟s views on supporting/opposing same-sex marriage were split across

age groups. Higher support rate might occur in the future, given those who were <= 30

years old would remain supportive of same-sex marriage when they become older (i.e.

strong cohort effect and weak age effect). However, it may take another generation to

observe such „natural change‟. That would be too late for many homosexual people who

would like to get married with same-sex partners.

The answer to the research question that whether the homosexual population supports

same-sex marriage is clearly affirmative. The support rate was indeed, almost universal

(97.8%); gay men and lesbians did not differ in their support rates. It is one of the few

studies confirming that legalization of same-sex marriage is fully supported by the

homosexual population. More discussion will be made to elaborate on the demand and

intention for same-sex marriage among the homosexual population. The government

needs to address their clear and reasonable demand.

Support/opposition toward same-sex civil union in the general population sample

One of the most important research questions of this study was to test whether the general

public would be more positive and supportive toward same-sex civil union than same-sex

marriage. If affirmative answers were obtained and the homosexual population finds

same-sex civil union acceptable, the government may have an option of considering

legalizing same-sex civil union instead of same-sex marriage. One new finding of this

study is that after being briefed about the meaning of same-sex civil union, the attitudes

toward same-sex civil union and perceived positive/negative societal impact were very

similar to those toward same-sex marriage among the general population sample. (The

same was true for the homosexual sample.) Thus, the support rate for same-sex civil

union was low in the general population sample (and high in the homosexual sample).

Although the results showed that the general public‟s opposition rate toward same-sex

marriage was lower than that toward civil union, the difference was small in magnitude

(about 50% versus about 45%). Consistently, only about 11% of the general population

sample supported same-sex civil union more than same-sex marriage, 7% vice versa and

majority supported neither. For those who supported same-sex civil union more than

same-sex marriage, they believed that the former was „easier to accept‟ than same-sex

marriage. In addition, only 4.5% of the general population sample did not support same-

sex marriage but supported same-sex civil union. Thus, there is no evidence from our

data that same-sex civil union was better supported than same-sex marriage by the

38

general public. It is anticipated that advocacy for same-sex civil union would meet

equally strong resistance compared to same-sex marriage.

Although only about 1/3 of the general population sample supported legalizing same-sex

civil union, the general population sample showed high support rates toward some

particular items that are commonly included as rights and contents of same-sex civil

unions. For instance, close to 70% of the general population participants supported the

rights related to inheritance and serving as the next-of-kin during emergencies; about half

of them also supported other listed items or rights (e.g. adoption of children, in vitro

fertilization, application for dependent visas, tax allowances, and right for public

housing). It is hence an apparent paradox that while the general public strongly opposed

to legalization of same-sex civil union as a whole, they were quite sympathetic about

specific rights of homosexual couples that was usually included in heterosexual

marriages and same-sex civil union. It may also reflect that the general public were

unfamiliar with the concept of civil union, and might not have consolidated their views

on such legalization. It is possible that support toward legalization of same-sex civil

union might increase when the general public understands more about its content. Further

research is needed.

Support/opposition toward same-sex marriage and civil union in the homosexual sample

In the homosexual sample, the support rate for same-sex civil union was very high

(90.8%), but was lower than the almost universal support toward same-sex marriage

(97.8%); the difference was statistically significant. Unlike the general population, about

40% of the homosexual sample supported same-sex marriage more than same-sex civil

union, while only about 10% stated the reverse; about half of them supported both

equally. Thus, it is apparent that although civil union is acceptable to the homosexual

population, it is not their first choice; many of them preferred same-sex marriage over

civil union.

Intention for same-sex marriage and civil union among the homosexual population

sample

The voices of the homosexual people would be better heard through understanding their

intention and demand for same-sex marriage/civil union. First, over 70% of the currently

unmarried homosexual participants (about 68% and 75% of the unmarried gay and

lesbians) would like to get married with same-sex partners; about 60% (56.5% and 67.1%

of the two groups) of them believed that they would eventually do so. Thus, majority of

them would like to lead marriage lives. Furthermore, many of the homosexual people are

ready to engage in same-sex marriage, as about 40% of them were having same-sex

partners that they intend to get married, and most of these homosexual persons would like

to get married with such same-sex partners presently. However, in the absence of local

legalization of same-sex marriage, a much lower percentage of the homosexual

participants believed that it would be likely/very likely for them to get married with

same-sex partners in the next 12 months. The homosexual people with an intention to get

married with same-sex partners far outnumbered those who had actually done so. The

government and the general population should be made aware that like the heterosexual

39

population, there is a strong demand for same-sex marriage among the homosexual

population. There is an obvious gap between intention and practice as it has not been

legalized. As seen, reasons for opposition toward same-sex marriage were often grounded

on perceived social goods. The discussion may however, be shifted since there is a gap

between the reality and the homosexual individuals‟ needs and wants for marriages.

The prevalence of intention to engage in same-sex civil union was also high, although it

was statistically lower than that of same-sex marriage. About 31% had had same-sex

partners that they would like to enter into civil union; majority of those with such

partners would like to do so presently but 21.6% of those with such partners believed that

they could do so in the next 12 months. Civil union would be able to serve the needs of a

good proportion but not the absolute majority of the homosexual participants, as about

40% of the homosexual participants would intend to engage in either same-sex marriage

or same-sex civil union. Yet, about 1/4 of them intended to engage in same-sex marriage

but not same-sex civil union. Thus, a sizable group of homosexual people only intended

to engage in same-sex marriage but not civil union. It seems that same-sex civil union is

less preferred than same-sex marriage if there was a choice between the two.

Factors associated with support toward same-sex marriage and same-sex civil union and

implications

Understanding of such factors may give insights on how to advocate for legalization of

same-sex marriage and same-sex civil union. As mentioned, advocators need to pay

attention to special demographic and social groups (older individuals, those who have not

attended tertiary education, and those with religious beliefs) which commonly oppose to

the two types of legalizations. These groups were more likely than others to exhibit

stigma toward homosexuals, possess negative attitudes toward same-sex marriage and

civil union, and oppose to legalizing same-sex marriage and civil union. Their reasons for

opposition views have been well documented by this and other studies (Chung et al.,

2012; Yeo & Chu, 2017), and may be hard to modify. Attribution of homosexuality to

external factors was negatively associated with support toward same-sex marriage and

same-sex civil union, compared to the belief that it is totally attributed to innate factors.

Attribution to totally innate factors implied that it was not the choice of homosexuals to

be homosexuals, and thus might alleviate the concerns about moral issues or influences

toward the next generation. Such agrees with the Attribution Theory, which states that

when certain behaviors are labeled “controllable” the person exhibiting the behavior can

be held responsible, while behaviors labeled “uncontrollable” means the person

exhibiting the behavior is less likely to be held accountable (Weiner, 1979). Thus, if

certain behavior is associated with stigma and considered controllable, those exhibiting

the behavior are much more likely to be viewed negatively.

Besides, two types of individual cognitive factors were associated with support for same-

sex marriage/civil union. The first type of factors included those related to the

legalization, such as knowledge about related legalization in other countries, perceived

positive/negative societal impact of the respective legalization, and attitudes toward

same-sex marriage (applied only to the analysis with same-sex marriage as the dependent

variable). Dissemination of the information about legalization of same-sex marriage in

40

other countries, such as the recent one in Australia, may improve the support rate toward

same-sex marriage/civil union, as knowledge about such was significantly associated

with support toward same-sex marriage/civil union in the general population. It is

essential but hard to change the general public‟s perceived impact of same-sex

marriage/civil union. The second type of factors included stigma toward homosexual

people. We found that stigma would be associated with the negative attitudes and

perceived societal impact of same-sex marriage/civil union which contributed to low

support toward legalization.

In the summary models, the perceived societal impact variables were strongly associated

with the support toward the two types of legalizations in the general population sample.

The stigma variable, which was originally significant in the univariate and adjusted

analyses for same-sex marriage, could not enter the stepwise model for support toward

legalization of same-sex marriage that had already included the variables on perceived

societal impact. To avoid complexity, we did not perform the mediation analysis formally.

However, it is possible that perceived societal impact mediated the association between

stigma and support toward same-sex marriage. In daily language, those exhibiting stigma

toward homosexual people might be more likely than others to perceive negative societal

impact of same-sex marriage, and opposed to its legalization. Reduction of stigma toward

homosexuality is a prerequisite for the discussion about legalization of same-sex

marriage. Such campaigns are not controversial among the Hong Kong general

population, and have been strongly supported by the government. In case we would like

to advocate for same-sex civil union, the factors under considerations would be in general

very similar to those of same-sex marriage. Stigma remained significant in the stepwise

summary model for support toward same-sex civil union.

Limitations of this study

The study has several limitations. First, although the general population sample was

selected by random population sampling, it was over-represented by female and older

people. We hence conducted direct standardization in data analysis. To avoid complexity,

such was performed for the key variables when prevalence estimations were involved,

but not for the scale items (e.g. those of the scales related to stigma and attitude toward

same-sex marriage). Second, we expect Chinese and non-Chinese speaking people would

have different views regarding same-sex marriage/civil union but only five non-Chinese

speaking participants were recruited. Thus, the general population sample might be

largely limited to the Chinese speaking population. Third, random sampling was not

feasible for the homosexual population. We used RDS to improve the representativeness

of the sample and special software (RDSAT) to estimate prevalence of the homosexual

sample. Third, the response rate of the telephone survey was about 60%; 30.5% of those

approached refused to join the study. Refusals might be associated with

support/opposition toward legalization of same-sex marriage but we have no data to

verify the contention.

Fourth, some scales did not exist and had hence not previously been validated. For

example, the items related to perceived societal impact of legalization were constructed

41

for this study. We derived Cronbach‟s alpha values to assess the internal reliability of the

scales formed by these items; the results showed that internal reliability was good for the

general population sample but not the homosexual population sample. The scales on

positive/negative societal impact were hence used for the general population sample,

while items instead of scales were used for data analysis of the homosexual sample.

Importantly and like all other similar studies, sex orientation was self-reported in a simple

question, and it was impossible to validate participants‟ sexual orientation.

Last but not least, same-sex civil union was a brand new concept to the general

population and even to a relatively high proportion of the homosexual population sample.

Participants were briefed about the definition of the practice and were then asked about

related perceptions and support for legalization. The exact wordings of the briefing may

have an effect on the responses but the direction and size were unknown. As a caution,

the interpretations should be grounded on newness of the context of civil union among

the general population; immediate responses after briefing instead of well-considered

thoughts were collected. The pattern of response may depend on the participants‟

understanding on same-sex civil union, and may change over time. We have seen some

apparent inconsistencies between overall opposition of the legalization and a higher level

of support toward some potential contents of same-sex civil union. Potential confusion

between the two concepts might also account for the high degree of similarities between

the prevalence of support toward same-sex marriage and same-sex civil union, and the

factors associated with the support; the participants might have used same-sex marriage

as a reference for their responses related to same-sex civil union.

LAYMAN SUMMARY ON POLICY IMPLICATIONS AND

RECOMMENDATION

Background of the study

Legalization of same-sex marriage requires policy attention. It involves concerns of

multi-sectorial interests and values, individual wellbeing, stigma, and human right.

Globally, stigma toward homosexuality has been very well documented. Globally,

advocacies of anti-discrimination in both legal and non-legal arenas have intensified;

same-sex marriage has been on the agenda of many of such social movements. As of

December 2017, 26 countries have passed ordinances that legalize same-sex marriage (a

list is given in Appendix 1 of this report). Since homosexuality deviates from traditional

and religious values, the general public has understandably split views toward support of

legalizing same-sex marriage. Major reasons for objection toward same-sex marriage

include disruption of traditional family values, encouragement of homosexuality,

negative influence on adolescents, and reverse discrimination (religious freedom and

freedom of speech restrictions). In a number of regions such as Taiwan and the U.S., the

two polarized camps led to demonstrations and heated serious debates. In some countries

like Australia, polls were held to back up legalization that occurred. A number of same-

sex couples got married in other countries and publicized their experiences through mass

media which have attracted much attention. Legal cases concerning same-sex marriage

have also appeared in Hong Kong and overseas. Hong Kong cannot deny the demand for

42

legalization of same-sex marriage and its opposing views, which might intensify at any

time. A survey, funded by the Public Policy Research (PPR) Funding Scheme, Central

Policy Unit, was hence conducted among the general population to inform policy making.

Policy needs to be well informed. It is hence important to understand the general public‟s

level of support/opposition and associated factors related to same-sex marriage. Besides,

policy making needs to understand the views of key stakeholders, and the homosexual

community is one of the most important groups. It is important to understand whether

and how much they would like to support the legalization. It is equally important to find

out how much the male and female homosexual populations would like to get married

with same-sex partners, and whether they have existing same-sex partners that they

would like to get married with, and intend to get married in longer and shorter terms.

Thus, a survey was also conducted among male and female homosexual people in Hong

Kong to seek their views.

Whilst it is important to understand comprehensive views about same-sex marriage in

Hong Kong, previous information of different sources indicated that the gap between the

supporters and opponents would be considerable wide. A policy-related question then

arose whether there is a policy alternate, or specifically, whether legalization of same-sex

civil union could be considered as a policy alternative. Civil union is one possibility. It is

described as a legal solution that offers similar rights of heterosexual married couples to

same-sex couples, without involving the title “marriage”. It has been legalized in three

countries including the U.K., New Zealand and Germany. It is possible that the general

public would find this arrangement more acceptable than same-sex marriage as the

concerns such as those related family values might be alleviated. It is also important to

understand if such legalization would be acceptable and welcome by the homosexual

community. Discussion and advocacy about same-sex civil union has not been much

observed in Hong Kong. There is also a dearth of research about levels of support and

relative preference between same-sex marriage and same-sex civil union in the eyes of

the general public and the homosexual groups. Thus, we include such research questions

in our two surveys targeted the general and homosexual populations in Hong Kong.

The two surveys

A population based telephone survey was conducted during November 2016 to March

2017. Random telephone numbers were drawn from the up-to-date telephone directory. A

total of 2009 participants completed the survey, with a response rate of 60.0%.

The survey of male and female homosexual groups used a special sampling method

(Respondent Driven Sampling) that involved referrals made by study participants. The

method was developed to sample hard-to-reach populations and has been used in

hundreds of surveys targeted homosexuals globally. It is supported by statistical theories

that it can achieve equilibrium, and with that achieved, its property can approximate that

of random probabilistic sampling. A total of 400 participants (219 males and 181 females)

completed the interview, with response rates of 90.1%. Verbal consent was obtained and

the study was approved by the ethics committee of the Chinese University of Hong Kong.

43

Results

The social context of the surveys

About 1.0% and 0.4% of the male and female population self-reported as gay men or

lesbians (0.6% for all general population participants). Majority of the homosexual

people recognized their sexual orientation before the age of 18. The level of stigma

toward homosexual people in the general population was noticeable.

The general population

The opposition rate for legalization same-sex marriage was higher than that of same-

sex civil union in the general population

The study confirms that the general public‟s support rate for same-sex marriage was

relatively low (32.6%), and was lower than the opposition rate (45.5%). It was also lower

than those of countries/regions such as the U.K., Australia and Taiwan. High support rate

was observed among those <= 30 (over 60%) but was very low among those > 60 (about

20%). Besides, those with lower education level, religious beliefs, not acquainted with

homosexual people, and not currently single were less supportive toward same-sex

marriage.

Knowledge and perceptions toward legalization of same-sex marriage in the general

population

About 10% of the participants (11.7%) did not know that same-sex marriage was

legalized in some countries. These people tended to be less supportive toward same-sex

marriage. The general public showed overall negative attitudes toward same-sex marriage,

and perceived more negative than positive societal impact of same-sex marriage.

Factors associated with support toward legalization of same-sex marriage in the

general population

Older, less educated and those with religious beliefs were less likely to support

legalization of same-sex marriage. Stigma toward homosexuals, negative attitudes toward

same-sex marriage, perceived negative (versus positive) impact of same-sex marriage

were negatively associated with support toward same-sex marriage.

The general population did not know much about same-sex civil union

Civil union was a brand new concept to the majority of the Hong Kong general public.

Very few people in the general public knew that civil union was not legalized in Hong

Kong (4.1%); majority did not know about it. The knowledge about the existence of

ordinances legalizing civil union in other countries was associated with support toward

legalization of civil union.

The general public’s support toward legalization of same-sex civil union was low

The Hong Kong general public‟s support for same-sex civil union after being briefed

about the definition was low (33.1%), although it was slightly, but not dramatically,

44

higher than that of same-sex marriage. Majority of the general population sample

supported neither same-sex marriage nor same-sex civil union (55.8%). Reasons for

opposition include concerns about traditional value, abnormity, and moral issues. Very

few people (4.5%) in the general population that did not support same-sex marriage

supported same-sex civil union.

The general population perceived legalization of same-sex civil union negatively

The general public‟s perceptions toward civil union were not too different from those

regarding same-sex marriage. Perceptions on societal positive/negative impact were

strongly associated with the support toward same-sex civil union among the general

population sample. The factors that were significantly associated with support toward

same-sex civil union were also very similar to those associated with same-sex civil union

(e.g. age, education level, religious beliefs, acquaintance with homosexual people, stigma

toward homosexual people, knowledge about legalization in other countries, and

perceived positive/negative societal impact).

Although the support rate for same-sex civil union was quite low, half or more of the

general population participants agreed that it is a fulfillment of human right, and

supported specific potential rights that could possibly be listed under the civil union

arrangement, such as inheritance and act as next-of-kin during emergencies. The apparent

inconsistencies need to be resolved by further research.

The homosexual population

The homosexual population perceived legalization of same-sex marriage and civil

union more positively than the general population

The concept of civil union was also relatively new to the homosexual population, as more

than half of them had not heard about such. Only 43.5% knew that same-sex civil union

was not legalized in Hong Kong. The homosexual population expressed very different

views regarding same-sex marriage and civil union compared to the general population.

They showed more positive attitude toward same-sex marriage and more positive and less

negative societal impact of same-sex marriage/civil union than the general population.

Majority of the homosexual population supported legalization of same-sex marriage

and civil union

Majority of the homosexual participants supported same-sex marriage and civil union;

the support rate toward the former (98.1%) was higher than that of the latter (90.6%).

Similarly, a sizeable proportion of the homosexual population would support same-sex

marriage more than same-sex civil union (39.0%); 21.4% of the homosexual participants

only intended to engage in same-sex marriage.

There is a strong demand for same-sex marriage and civil union among homosexual

people

About 1.8% and 7.2% of the sampled gay men and lesbians self-reported engagement in

same-sex marriage. Nil had engaged in same-sex civil union. The common and strong

demand is demonstrated by the data that 55.3% and 79.6% of the gay and lesbian

45

populations had had regular same-sex partners. About 71.3% of the unmarried

homosexual would like to get married with same-sex partners; 61.1% believed that they

would eventually do so; 42.3% had had specific same-sex partners that they would

presently want to get married with. Furthermore, among those who had had specific

same-sex partners they presently intended to get marry with, 73.5% believed that they

would eventually get married with such same-sex partners; 11.1% intended to do so in

the next 12 months.

Policy implications and recommendations

Seven policy recommendations are given below:

1. We recommend continuous and enhanced efforts should be made to protect rights and

well-being sexual minority groups. This and other studies reported that about 1-2% of

the general adult population in Hong Kong were homosexual people. The figure was

likely to be under-estimated. Although homosexual people are sexual minorities, their

absolute number is still sizable.

2. The government needs to recognize and consider the clear needs and wants of the

homosexual population. The hypothesis that very few homosexual people would like

to get married was clearly refuted by our data. They were strongly supportive of

legalization for same-sex marriage, and held positive attitude toward same-sex

marriage. About 2% and 7% of the gay men and lesbians had already got married

with same-sex partners overseas. These married couples are however, only a very

small number compared to those who would like to get married with same-sex

partners eventually and currently. The demand for same-sex marriage among

homosexuals is clearly large but unmet, due to the lack of legalization.

3. Given inadequate support, it is however, not timely to have public consultation about

same-sex marriage as the opposition is well anticipated. The current study and other

corroborating local studies showed that there is inadequate support in the general

population to back up legalization of same-sex marriage. The support rate was on the

low side and outweighed by the higher opposition rate, and was lower than those of a

number of countries. Contrary to countries like Australia, the currently low level of

support is unlikely to allow for passing an ordinance legalizing same-sex marriage.

4. The government should clarify her position in balancing between human right,

acceptance for homosexuals, and the split and non-majority public opinion toward

same-sex marriage. Literature has shown that same-sex marriage was associated with

the well-being of homosexual individuals (Shulman, Gotta, & Green, 2012).

5. The government should support and facilitate discussion about legalization of same-

sex marriage should begin with dialogues with stakeholders, including the resistant

social groups (e.g. older, less educated and religious citizens). Those participants who

opposed to legalization of same-sex marriage showed strong concerns about its

potential negative societal impact (e.g. traditional value and gender role). Such

46

perceptions are very difficult to change, supporting inertia to the low support rate for

same-sex marriage. Some opinion leaders and intermediates may play an important

role in the process. The government should consider disseminating information about

the trend of legalization for same-sex marriage occurring in other countries.

Importantly, the government also needs to enhance and support actions for stigma

reduction, which should fit her current anti-discrimination policies. Increase in

contacts between homosexuals and heterosexuals may reduce stigma and increase

support for same-sex marriage in the long run. These are factors associated with

support toward same-sex marriage found in this study. Related messages should

mention more about human right. This appeal may be one of the few common

grounds between the general population and homosexual samples‟ views regarding

positive societal impact of same-sex marriage that we should capitalize on.

6. At this stage, it is not timely to advocate for legalization of same-sex civil union as an

alternative of legalization of same-sex marriage. The study provided some data about

civil union for the first time. The support rate for same-sex civil union in the general

population sample was only slightly higher than that of same-sex marriage. In

addition, the general public‟s attitudes and perceived societal impact regarding same-

sex civil union was almost as predominantly negative as those regarding same-sex

marriage. Most of the general public would support neither types of legalization

(same-sex marriage and civil union). Indeed, very few of those who did not support

same-sex marriage would support same-sex union. Therefore, it is currently

premature to advocate same-sex civil union in Hong Kong. Furthermore, although a

high percentage of the homosexual participants were supportive of civil uion and

about 39.7% of the homosexual sample would like to engage in either same-sex

marriage or same-sex civil union, 21.4% would choose only same-sex marriage but

not same-sex civil union. Homosexual people also showed more positive attitude

toward same-sex marriage than same-sex civil union. Thus, civil union is unlikely to

be the first choice compared to same-sex marriage among the homosexual population.

Since same-sex civil union is also not better accepted by the general population than

same-sex marriage, it would not be easier to advocate for legalization of same-sex

civil union than same-sex marriage. To the general public, same-sex civil union was a

brand new concept and it is also relatively new even among homosexual people. All

these findings support the claim that it is not currently timely to launch full

campaigns advocating legalization of same-sex civil union.

7. The government should facilitate disseminating knowledge about same-sex civil

union and reassess public opinions toward its legalization after a few years. To the

general public, same-sex civil union was a brand new concept and it is also relatively

new even among homosexual people. Readers should keep in mind that the responses

obtained from this study regarding same-sex civil union were initial public responses.

According to the Diffusion Theory, such perceptions may change over time. There is

an interesting inconsistency among the findings. Despite high opposition rate against

same-sex civil union, over half of the participants supported many of items reflecting

potential contents of same-sex civil union. Hence, although we suggest that it is

currently not the right time to fully advocate same-sex civil union, it is not our

47

intention to suggest that the concept of same-sex civil union should be abandoned.

Instead, active dissemination of information, collection of public responses, and

initiation of dialogues between homosexual and heterosexual populations are

suggested and warranted. The Hong Kong government should widely disseminate the

idea, potential contents, and countries with successful experiences regarding same-

sex civil union to the general public, and monitor any changes over time in public

opinions about support toward same-sex civil union.

To conclude, given the recent international trend of legalization and/or discussion about

legalization of same-sex marriage, the ongoing public debate about legalization in Hong

Kong may gain stronger momentum at any time. The government should take a clearer

position in the process leading to legalization of same-sex marriage, and balance between

minorities‟ rights and public opinion.

48

與同性婚姻及民事結合合法化有關的政策影響和政策建議

研究背景

同性婚姻合法化需要政策制定者的關注。它涉及多方的利益、價值、個人福祉、污

名化及人權等問題。在全球各個國家，對同性戀者存在廣泛的歧視。無論是在法律

還是其他領域，全球倡導反歧視的力度正不斷加強，而同性婚姻合法化亦成為了這

些社會運動的議程之一。截至 2017 年 12 月，已經有 26 個國家或地區通過了同性

婚姻合法化的法案（見本報告附錄 1）。由於同性性傾向偏離了一些傳統以及宗教

的價值觀，香港市民對於同性婚姻合法化的意見呈現兩極化的情況。反對同性婚姻

的主要原因包括破壞傳統的家庭觀念、鼓勵同性戀、對青少年產生不良的影響，以

至反向歧視（例如對信仰和言論自由的限制）。在一些地區如臺灣和美國，支持與

反對同性婚姻合法化的兩個陣營之間發生了激烈的爭議甚至示威。在一些國家如澳

洲，政府對同性婚姻合法化進行了民意調查以支持法案的通過。香港有一些同性伴

侶在其他國家結婚，並通過大眾傳媒公開了他們的經歷，引起了廣泛關注；香港和

海外也出現關於同性婚姻的法律訴訟。市民對有關同性婚姻合法化的觀點存在分歧，

且可能隨時會激化。有鑒於此，香港中央政策研究組的公共政策研究資助計劃，資

助了香港中文大學公共衛生學院健康行為研究中心在香港市民中進行一項研究，以

為香港政府的決策提供有用的資訊。

制定有關的政策需要全面的資訊。因此，政府瞭解香港市民支持或反對同性婚姻的

程度及相關的因素是非常重要的。此外，制定政策需要瞭解所有持份者的看法，同

性戀群體是重要持份者之一。因此，有必要瞭解他們對同性婚姻合法化的態度，及

他們當中有多少人願意在現在或將來與其同性伴侶結婚。因此，我們也對香港的男

性和女性同性戀者進行了調查，以瞭解他們上述的情況。

基於香港市民對同性婚姻合法化態度存在分歧，我們希望探討是否存在其他政策能

替代同性婚姻。更具體地來說，我們能否將同性民事結合 (same-sex civil union)

作爲一個替代政策。同性「民事結合」是一種法律方案，它賦予同性伴侶與異性夫

妻類似的權利，但卻不涉及“婚姻”的字眼。同性民事結合已經在英國、紐西蘭和

德國三個國家合法化。相比同性婚姻，這種法案對家庭價值觀的衝擊會更輕微，香

港市民可能認爲這種法案比同性婚姻合法化更易於接受。此外，同性戀群體是否接

受民事結合也是很重要的資訊。現時香港關於同性民事結合的討論及研究並不多，

我們並不瞭解市民和同性戀群體對同性婚姻和民事結合合法化支持程度的差異。因

此，我們進行了兩項研究以瞭解香港市民及同性戀群體對上述問題的看法。

兩項調查的研究方法

第一項研究的對像是所有香港市民。這個研究以電話隨機調查的方式在 2016 年 11

月至 2017 年 3 月期間展開。研究團隊從最新的電話簿中隨機抽取號碼，成功訪問

了 2,009 位受訪者，應答率為 60.0%。

49

第二項研究的對像是男性及女性同性戀者。這個研究採用「受訪者驅動抽樣法」，

即由受訪者介紹他們的朋輩參加調查。這種抽樣方法被廣泛應用於難以接觸人群的

抽樣。全球數百個對同性戀群體的調查都採用了這種抽樣方法。統計學理論顯示這

種方法可以達到相當於隨機抽樣的效果。共有 400 位受訪者（219 位男性和 181 位

女性）完成問卷調查，應答率為 90.1%。本研究在進行問卷調查之前，得到了所有

受訪者的口頭知情同意。本研究也得到了香港中文大學調查與行為研究倫理委員會

的批准。

研究結果

社會背景

研究結果顯示，在香港市民當中約有 1.0%的男性和 0.4%的女性表示自己為同性戀

者（佔全部受訪者的 0.6%）。大多數的同性戀者在 18 歲之前已確認了自己的性取

向。數據亦顯示香港市民對同性戀者存在相當程度的污名化。

香港市民調查的主要研究結果

香港市民對同性婚姻合法化的反對率高於同性民事結合。研究顯示，約三成香港市民支持同性婚姻合法化（32.6%），而反對率則為 45.5%。

香港市民對同性婚姻合法化的支持率低於英國、澳洲和臺灣等國家或地區（51.6

至 61.6%）。不同人群中的支持率也有所差異。30歲以下的人群對同性婚姻合法化

的支持率較高（60%），而 60歲以上市民的支持率則非常低（大約 20%）。

香港市民對於同性婚姻合法化的認識和看法 11.7%的參與者不知道同性婚姻在某些國家已經合法化，而他們比較傾向不支持同

性婚姻合法化。整體而言，香港市民對同性婚姻持負面態度，認爲同性婚姻對社會

的負面影響大於正面影響。

香港市民中支持同性婚姻合法化的相關因素教育程度較高、無宗教信仰背景、認識同性戀者和單身的市民對同性婚姻合法化的

支持程度相對較高。對同性戀者的污名化程度高、對同性婚姻持更負面的態度及擔

憂同性婚姻會產生社會負面影響的市民傾向於不支持同性婚姻合法化。

香港市民對同性民事結合所知甚少對於一般香港市民來說，民事結合是個嶄新的概念，只有極少數人聽過這個名詞

（4.1%），而絕大部分的市民都不知道民事結合在香港是否合法化。知道民事結合

在有些國家是合法化的市民比較支持同性民事結合合法化。

香港市民對同性民事結合合法化支持率偏低在簡單介紹了同性民事結合的概念後，受訪市民對同性民事結合合法化的支持率較

低（33.1%）。這一數據與同性婚姻合法化的支持率相差不大；大多數受訪市民

（55.8%）既不支持同性婚姻合法化，也不支持同性民事結合合法化。反對民事結

50

合合法化的原因包括對傳統價值觀、不正常關係以及道德問題的憂慮。極少數受訪

者（4.5%）不支持同性婚姻但卻支持同性民事結合合法化。

香港市民對同性民事結合持負面態度受訪的市民對民事結合及同性婚姻的認知無太大差異。對民事結合的正面或負面社

會影響的看法會影響市民是否支持同性民事結合合法化。此外，支持同性民事結合

合法化與支持同性婚姻合法化的相關因素非常相似，例如年齡、教育程度、宗教信

仰，與同性戀群體的交往、對同性戀者的污名化、瞭解其他國家的合法化情況以及

對其正面或負面社會影響的認知。

儘管香港市民對同性民事結合的支持率非常低，有一半以上的受訪者仍然同意同性

民事結合合法化是人權的體現，而且支持民事結合當中的一些權利，如繼承權和以

“近親”身份代行權利。這兩組數字看來有些不一致，至於背後的原因，則需要

透過進一步的研究解答。

同性戀人群調查的主要結果

同性戀者對同性婚姻/民事結合合法化的態度較香港市民正面對於同性戀受訪者來說，民事結合的概念也是比較新的，其中一半以上的人沒有聽

說過這個概念，而只有 43.5%的人知道同性民事結合在香港沒有合法化。香港同性

戀者對同性婚姻和民事結合的看法與市民截然不同；他們對同性婚姻抱有更正面的

態度，而且認為同性婚姻或同性民事結合合法化帶來的正面社會影響比負面社會影

響更大。

大多數同性戀者支持同性婚姻和民事結合合法化絕大多數同性戀受訪者支持同性婚姻和同性民事結合合法化；支持率分別為 98.1%

和 90.6%。當中有接近四成（39.0%）的同性戀受訪者支持同性婚姻合法化而不支

持同性民事結合合法化；21.4%的同性戀受訪者只希望同性婚姻而非民事結合。

同性戀者對同性婚姻和民事結合有強烈要求研究結果顯示，大約 1.8%男同性戀受訪者和 7.2%的女同性戀受訪者已與同性伴侶

結婚，而同性戀受訪者當中沒有同性民事結合的例子。此外，55.3％的男性和

79.6％的女性同性戀受訪者有同性伴侶。大約 71.3%的未婚的同性戀受訪者願意與

同性伴侶結婚；61.1%相信他們最終會與同性伴侶結婚；42.3%表示當時存在一個他

們希望與之結婚的同性伴侶。而在有同性婚姻對象的受訪者中，73.5%相信他們最

終會與這名伴侶結婚，11.1%更願意在未來 12個月內與這名伴侶結婚。這些數據表

明了他們對同性婚姻的強烈訴求。

51

本研究提出的七項政策建議如下:

1. 我們建議政府為保護性少數群體的權利和福祉作出更大而有持續性的支持。本

研究及其他本地研究指出，本港成年人口當中約有 1%-2％是同性戀者。這個數

字有可能被低估。雖然同性戀人群是性少數群體，但他們的人數也不少。

2. 政府需要認識和考慮同性戀者清晰表達了他們對同性婚姻的需要，政府應該正

視他們的訴求。我們的調查明確否定了有很少同性戀者願意結婚的假設。他們

強烈支持同性婚姻合法化，對同性婚姻亦持有正面的態度。大約 2%的男同性戀

者和 7%的女同性戀者已經在海外與同性伴侶結婚。但這些同性婚姻的數目相對

於希望最終能與同性伴侶結婚的同性戀者的數量，只是一個非常低的比例。因

此，在缺乏同性婚姻合法化的情況下，同性戀者對同性婚姻的訴求未得到滿足。

3.鑒於公衆目前對同性婚姻合法化的支持率很低，現在並不是對同性婚姻進行全面

的公眾諮詢的合適時機。我們預期這種做法會引起社會上強烈的反對聲音。本

研究以及其他本地研究證實了香港市民中支持同性婚姻合法化的比例很低，低

於其他一些國家的支持率。與澳洲等已經通過同性婚姻合法化的國家情況不同，

在香港市民目前對同性婚姻的低支持率的情況下，通過同性婚姻合法化的機會

甚微。

4. 同性婚姻與同性戀者的福祉有關。政府一方面應保障人權及性少數人群的權利，

另一方面要處理香港市民對同性婚姻合法化態度上的分歧。在兩者之間，政府

要作出妥善的平衡及表達對同性婚姻合法化更清晰的立場。

5. 政府應該支持和促進同性婚姻合法化有關的持份者之間的對話，包括持傾向反

對意見的某些社會群體（例如年齡較大、教育程度較低和有宗教信仰的市民），

從而讓他們可以充分表達對同性婚姻的憂慮及進行討論。市民對同性婚姻的看

法並不容易改變，一些意見領袖和斡旋者在這個過程中需要扮演更重要的角色。

政府亦應該考慮宣傳關於其他國家同性婚姻合法化的訊息，減少社會對同性戀

者的污名化，及增加同性戀者和異性戀者之間的接觸。長遠來說，這些做法可

以提高市民對同性婚姻的支持，亦符合現時政府的反歧視政策。政府發放的有

關資訊應該更多提到人權這方面，因為香港市民和同性戀者均認同促進人權是

同性婚姻合法化對社會的正面影響。

6. 數據顯示，同性民事結合合法化並不能取代同性婚姻合法化而得到更大的社會

支持，所以現時並不是提出同性民事結合合法化合適的時機。本研究首次提供

了香港市民及同性戀者對民事結合的一些看法。受訪的香港市民對同性民事結

合的支持率只比同性婚姻合法化稍高。而且，受訪市民對同性民事結合與同性

婚姻合法化對社會影響的看法均持相似的負面態度。大部分市民既不支持同性

婚姻合法化，也不支持同性民事結合合法化。事實上，只有極少數香港市民不

支持同性婚姻卻支持同性民事結合。因此，在香港宣傳同性民事結合為時尚早。

52

此外，雖然有較高比例的同性戀受訪者支持同性民事結合及有大約四成的同性

戀者（39.7%）願意選擇同性婚姻或民事結合，但卻有 21.4％的人只願意選擇同

性婚姻而非民事結合。同性戀者對同性婚姻的態度也比對同性民事結合更正面。

因此，與同性婚姻相比，民事結合可能並非同性戀人群的首選。由於同性民事

結合在香港市民當中的接受度並不高於同性婚姻，通過同性民事結合合法化並

不會比同性婚姻合法化容易。因此目前倡導同性民事結合合法化並不合適。

7. 政府應該宣傳同性民事結合的知識，並在幾年後重新評估香港市民的看法。讀

者應注意本研究中香港市民對同性民事結合的認知可能是他們初次接觸這個概

念的第一反應。根據擴散理論，這些認知會隨時間而改變。研究亦發現一個似

乎不一致的結果，儘管受訪市民對同性民事結合的反對率較高，但有半數以上

的受訪者支持同性民事結合當中的一些權利。但我們並不是建議放棄探討民事

結合合法化的可能性。香港政府仍需積極傳播有關訊息、收集公眾反應，以及

促進同性戀者與異性戀者之間的對話。香港政府應該向市民廣泛宣傳有關看法

及其他國家的經驗，並監測可能發生的態度改變。

總括來說，鑒於最近國際上同性婚姻合法化的趨勢及對合法化的熱烈討論，加上香

港持份者日漸增加的關注，政府應該引導相關的討論、平衡少數群體的權利和公衆

意見並展示出更明確的立場。

53

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

This research project (Project Number: 2015.A4.016.16A) is funded by the Public Policy

Research Funding Scheme from the Central Policy Unit of the Hong Kong Special

Administration Region Government

PUBLIC DISSEMINATION

Nil

54

REFERENCES

Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2017). Australian marriage law postal survey (15

November 2017). Retrieved from

https://marriagesurvey.abs.gov.au/results/downloads.html on 12 December 2017.

Becker, A.B. (2012). Determinants of public support for same-sex marriage: generational

cohorts, social contact, and shifting attitudes. Int J Public Opin Res, 24(4), 524-533.

Brumbaugh, S.M., Sanchez, L.A., Nock, S.L., & Wright, J.D. (2008). Attitudes toward

gay marriage in states undergoing marriage law transformation. J Marriage Fam,

70(2), 345-359.

CDC/National Center for Health Statistics. (2016). Sexual orientation and health among

adults: national health interview survey, 2015. Retrieved from

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nhis/sexual_orientation/statistics.htm on 4 October 2017

Census and Statistics Department. (2017). 2016 Population By-Census. The Government

of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region.

Chang, C. (2017). Same-sex marriage is now legal in Australia. Retrieved from

http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/gay-marriage/samesex-marriage-is-now-legal-in-

australia/news-story/070e3df2531bdab8663fd74c9cd5486c on 27 December 2017.

Cheung, F.M. (2014). Development of approaches to anti-discrimination against sexual

minorities in Hong Kong. [PowerPoint slides] Retrieved from

http://www.eoc.org.hk/eoc/otherproject/lgbti/conferenceMaterial.html

Choi, E. P., Wong, J. Y., & Fong, D. Y. (2017). The use of social networking

applications of smartphone and associated sexual risks in lesbian, gay, bisexual, and

transgender populations: a systematic review. AIDS Care, 29(2), 145-155. doi:

10.1080/09540121.2016.1211606.

Chou, A. (2017).Taiwan same-sex marriage debate heats up as possibility nears.

Retrieved from http://www.asahi.com/ajw/articles/AJ201701060024.html on 25

December 2017.

Chung, R.T., Pang, K.K., Lee, W.W., & Chan, J.W. (2012). Hong Kong LGBT climate

study 2011-12. The University of Hong Kong Public Opinion Programme. Retrieved

from

http://hkupop.hku.hk/english/report/LGBT2011_12/content/resources/report.pdf

Chung, R.T., Pang, K.K., Lee, W.W., & Li, J.K. (2013). Survey on Hong Kong public‟s

attitudes towards rights of people of different sexual orientations 2013. Retrieved

from http://hkupop.hku.hk/english/report/LGBT_CydHo2013/index.html on 11

November 2017.

Connor, N. (2017). British lesbian wins landmark spousal visa case in Hong Kong. The

Telegraph. Retrieved from http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/09/26/british-

lesbian-wins-landmark-spousal-visa-case-hong-kong/ on 10 October 2017.

Constitutional and Mainland Affairs Bureau. (2014). The rights of the individual — Code

of practice against discrimination in employment on the ground of sexual orientation.

Retrieved from http://www.cmab.gov.hk/en/issues/code_of_practice.htm on 10

October 2017.

de Oliveira J.M., Lopes, D., Cameira, M., & Nogueira, C. (2014). Attitudes towards

same-sex marriage in Portugal: predictors and scale validation. Span J Psychol,

17(e93), 1-9.

https://marriagesurvey.abs.gov.au/results/downloads.html

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nhis/sexual_orientation/statistics.htm%20on%204%20October%202017

http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/gay-marriage/samesex-marriage-is-now-legal-in-australia/news-story/070e3df2531bdab8663fd74c9cd5486c

http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/gay-marriage/samesex-marriage-is-now-legal-in-australia/news-story/070e3df2531bdab8663fd74c9cd5486c

http://www.eoc.org.hk/eoc/otherproject/lgbti/conferenceMaterial.html

http://www.asahi.com/ajw/articles/AJ201701060024.html

http://hkupop.hku.hk/english/report/LGBT_CydHo2013/index.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/09/26/british-lesbian-wins-landmark-spousal-visa-case-hong-kong/

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/09/26/british-lesbian-wins-landmark-spousal-visa-case-hong-kong/

55

Department of Internal Affairs. (2015). Civil unions and marriages: March 2015 quarter

(provisional)-tables. [Data file]. Retrieved from

http://www.stats.govt.nz/browse_for_stats/people_and_communities/marriages-civil-

unions-and-divorces/CivilUnionsAndMarriages_HOTPMar15qtr.aspx

Department of Internal Affairs. (n.d.) Civil Unions. Retrieved from

http://www.dia.govt.nz/Services-Births-Deaths-and-Marriages-Civil-Union

Dirkes, J., Hughes, T., Ramirez-Valles, J., Johnson, T., & Bostwick, W. (2016). Sexual

identity development: relationship with lifetime suicidal ideation in sexual minority

women. J Clin Nurs, 25(23-24), 3545-3556. doi: 10.1111/jocn.13313.

Duong, H. T., Jarlais, D. D., Khuat, O. H. T., Arasteh, K., Feelemyer, J., Khue, P. M., . . .

Drive Study, G. (2017). Risk behaviors for HIV and HCV onfection among people

who inject drugs in Hai Phong, Viet Nam, 2014. AIDS Behav, doi: 10.1007/s10461-

017-1814-6.

Duggan L. (2002). The new homonormativity: the sexual politics of neoliberalism. In:

Castronovo, R., & Nelson D.D., eds. Materializing Democracy. Durham: Duke

University Press, 175-194.

Equal Opportunities Commission. (2014). The EOC launches the feasibility study of

legislating against discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation, gender

identity and intersex status. [Press Release] Retrieved from

http://www.eoc.org.hk/eoc/graphicsfolder/ShowContent.aspx?ItemID=12292

Federal Law Gazette. (2001). Act on registered life partnerships. Retrieved from

http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/englisch_lpartg/englisch_lpartg.html on 2

December 2017.

Guest, G. Sampling and selecting participants in field research. In H. R. Bernard & C. C.

Gravlee (Eds.), Handbook of methods in cultural anthropology (pp. 231). London,

UK: Rowman&Littlefield.

Heckathorn, D.D. (1997). Respondent-driven sampling: A new approach to the study of

hidden populations. Social Problems, 44(2), 174-99.

Heckathorn, D. (2002). Respondent-driven sampling II: Deriving valid population

estimates from chain referral samples of hidden populations. Social Problems, 49,

11-34.

Hladik, W., Sande, E., Berry, M., Ganafa, S., Kiyingi, H., Kusiima, J., & Hakim, A.

(2016). Men who have sex with men in Kampala, Uganda: Results from a bio-

behavioral respondent driven sampling survey. AIDS Behav. doi: 10.1007/s10461-

016-1535-2

Hon, K.E., Leung, T., Yau, A.P., Wu, S., Wan, M., Chan, H.Y., Yip, W.K., & Fok, T.F.

(2005). A survey of attitudes toward homosexuality in Hong Kong Chinese medical

students. Teach and Learn Med, 17(4), 344-48.

Jakobsson, N., Kotsadam, A., & Jakobsson, S.S. (2013). Attitudes toward same-sex

marriage: The case of Scandinavia. J Homosex, 60(9),1349-60.

Kan, R.W.M., Au, K.P., Chan, W.K., Cheung, L.W.M., Lam, C.Y.Y., Liu, H.H.W, Ng,

L.Y., Wong, M.Y., & Wong, W.C. (2009). Homophobia in medical students of the

University of Hong Kong. Sex Education: Sexuality, Society and Learning, 9 (1), 65-

80.

Lachowsky, N. J., Sorge, J. T., Raymond, H. F., Cui, Z., Sereda, P., Rich, A., . . . Moore,

D. M. (2016). Does size really matter? A sensitivity analysis of number of seeds in a

http://www.stats.govt.nz/browse_for_stats/people_and_communities/marriages-civil-unions-and-divorces/CivilUnionsAndMarriages_HOTPMar15qtr.aspx

http://www.stats.govt.nz/browse_for_stats/people_and_communities/marriages-civil-unions-and-divorces/CivilUnionsAndMarriages_HOTPMar15qtr.aspx

http://www.dia.govt.nz/Services-Births-Deaths-and-Marriages-Civil-Union

http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/englisch_lpartg/englisch_lpartg.html

56

respondent-driven sampling study of gay, bisexual and other men who have sex with

men in Vancouver, Canada. BMC Med Res Methodol, 16(1), 157. doi:

10.1186/s12874-016-0258-4.

Lai, J. (2010, Aug 18). Is it OK to be gay in Hong Kong? CNN. Retrieved from

http://travel.cnn.com/hong-kong/life/lgbt-community-hong-kong-are-they-accepted-

143728

Lau, C. (2017). Landmark win for gay Hong Kong civil servant over husband‟s benefits.

China South Morning Post. Retrieved from http://www.scmp.com/news/hong-

kong/law-crime/article/2091507/landmark-win-gay-hong-kong-civil-servant-over-

husbands on October 10, 2017.

Lau, J. T., Au, D. W., Tsui, H. Y., & Choi, K. C. (2012). Prevalence and determinants of

influenza vaccination in the Hong Kong Chinese adult population. Am J Infect

Control, 40(7), e225-227. doi: 10.1016/j.ajic.2012.01.036.

Lau, J. T., Mo, P. K., Mak, W. W., & Choi, K. C. (2013). Double stigma, social

connectivity and isolation as determinants of mental health problems and service

utilization among men who have sex with men in Hong Kong. Hong Kong: Health

and Medical Research Fund.

Lau, J. T., Tsui, H. Y., Mo, P. K., Mak, W. W., & Griffiths, S. (2015). World Cup's

impact on mental health and lifestyle behaviors in the general population: comparing

results of 2 serial population-based surveys. Asia Pac J Public Health, 27(2),

NP1973-1984. doi: 10.1177/1010539513485784

Lau, S. (2013, Oct 23). York Chow backs civil unions as answer to call for gay marriage

law. South China Morning Post. Retrieved from http://www.scmp.com/news/hong-

kong/article/1337440/york-chow-backs-civil-unions-answer-call-gay-marriage-law

Legislative Council Commission. (2009). Legislative council brief-domestic violence

(amendment) bill 2009. File Ref: LW/CR 1/3281/01. Retrieved from

http://library.legco.gov.hk:1080/search/X?SEARCH=m%3A%28lw+cr+1%2F3281

%2F01%29&searchscope=10&l=&m=&Da=&Db=&SORT=D&submit=Submit

Legislative Council Commission. (2014). Legislative council brief-Marriage (amendment)

bill 2014. File Ref.: SB CR 1/3231/13. Retrieved from

http://library.legco.gov.hk:1080/search/X?m%3A(sb%20cr%201%2F3231%2F13)&l

=&m=&Da=&Db=&SORT=D&searchscope=10&b=lcdms

Liu, J. (2015, May 14). Gay woman challenges Hong Kong in landmark trial. BBC News.

Retrieved from http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-china-blog-32716816

Lo, A. (2014). Don‟t rush into recognition for same-sex marriage in Hong Kong. South

China Morning Post. Retrieved from http://www.scmp.com/comment/insight-

opinion/article/1630839/dont-rush-recognition-same-sex-marriage-hong-

kong?page=all

Lofquist, D., Lugaila, T., O‟Connell, M., & Feliz, S. (2012). Households and families:

2010. 2010 Census Briefs. Retrieved from

http://www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/briefs/c2010br-14.pdf

Loper, K., Lau, H., & Lau, C. (2014). Research shows a majority of people in Hong

Kong support gay and lesbian couples‟ rights, not necessarily marriage. Centre for

Comparative and Public Law. Retrieved from

https://www.law.hku.hk/ccpl/Policy%20Paper%20(FINAL%20UPDATE%20-

%20ENGLISH).pdf

http://travel.cnn.com/hong-kong/life/lgbt-community-hong-kong-are-they-accepted-143728

http://travel.cnn.com/hong-kong/life/lgbt-community-hong-kong-are-they-accepted-143728

http://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/law-crime/article/2091507/landmark-win-gay-hong-kong-civil-servant-over-husbands



http://library.legco.gov.hk:1080/search/X?SEARCH=m%3A%28lw+cr+1%2F3281%2F01%29&searchscope=10&l=&m=&Da=&Db=&SORT=D&submit=Submit

http://library.legco.gov.hk:1080/search/X?SEARCH=m%3A%28lw+cr+1%2F3281%2F01%29&searchscope=10&l=&m=&Da=&Db=&SORT=D&submit=Submit

http://library.legco.gov.hk:1080/search/X?m%3A(sb%20cr%201%2F3231%2F13)&l=&m=&Da=&Db=&SORT=D&searchscope=10&b=lcdms

http://library.legco.gov.hk:1080/search/X?m%3A(sb%20cr%201%2F3231%2F13)&l=&m=&Da=&Db=&SORT=D&searchscope=10&b=lcdms

http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-china-blog-32716816

http://www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/briefs/c2010br-14.pdf

https://www.law.hku.hk/ccpl/Policy%20Paper%20(FINAL%20UPDATE%20-%20ENGLISH).pdf

https://www.law.hku.hk/ccpl/Policy%20Paper%20(FINAL%20UPDATE%20-%20ENGLISH).pdf

57

Magnani, R., Sabin, K., Saidel, T., & Heckathorn, D. (2005). Review of sampling hard-

to-reach and hidden populations for HIV surveillance. Aids, 19 Suppl 2, S67-72. doi:

00002030-200505002-00009 [pii]

Mak, W.W.S., Chong, E.S.K., & Wong, C.C.Y. (2014). Beyond attributions:

understanding public stigma of mental illness with the common sense model. Am J

Orthopsychiatry, 84(2), 173-181.

Mak, W.W.S., Mo, P.K.H., Cheung, R.Y.M., Woo, J., Cheung, F.M., & Lee, D. (2006).

Comparative stigma of HIV/AIDS, SARS, and tuberculosis in Hong Kong. Soc Sci

Med, 63, 1912-1922.

Masci, D., Sciupac, E., & Lipka, M. (2017). Gay marriage around the world. Pew

Research Center. Retrieved from http://www.pewforum.org/2017/08/08/gay-

marriage-around-the-world-2013/# on October 10, 2017.

Meyer, I. H. (2003). Prejudice, social stress, and mental health in lesbian, gay, and

bisexual populations: conceptual issues and research evidence. Psychol Bull, 129(5),

674-697. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.129.5.674.

Minister of Industry. (2017). Same-sex couples in Canada in 2016. Statistics Canada.

Catalogue no. 98-200-X2016007. ISBN 978-0-660-09109-9

MVA Hong Kong Limited. (2006). Survey on public attitudes toward homosexuals.

Retrieved from http://www.legco.gov.hk/yr05-

06/english/panels/ha/papers/ha0310cb2-public-homosexuals-e.pdf

Naing, N. N. (2000). Easy way to learn standardization : direct and indirect methods.

Malays J Med Sci, 7(1), 10-15.

NatCen. (2015). British social attitudes: Support for same-sex marriage continues to rise.

Retrieved from http://www.natcen.ac.uk/news-media/press-

releases/2015/may/british-social-attitudes-support-for-same-sex-marriage-continues-

to-rise/

National Archives. (2004). Civil Partnership Act 2004. Retrieved from

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2004/33/contents

Ngo, J. (2014 Sep 21). Hong Kong‟s denial of dependent visas for gay partners „could

deter talent. South China Morning Post. Retrieved from

http://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/article/1597041/hong-kongs-denial-

dependent-visas-gay-partners-could-deter-talent

Office for National Statistics. Social Survey Division. (2015). Integrated Household

Survey, January - December, 2014. [data collection]. UK Data Service. SN: 7839,

http://doi.org/10.5255/UKDA-SN-7839-1

Ogland, C.P., & Verona, A.P. (2014). Religion and the rainbow struggle: does religion

factor into attitudes toward homosexuality and same-sex civil unions in Brazil? J

Homosex. 61(9):1334-1349

Olson, L.R., Cadge, W., & Harrison, J.T. (2006). Religion and public opinion about

same-sex marriage. Soc Sci Q, 87(2), 340-360.

Oxford English Dictionary. (2017). Homosexual, adj. and n. Retrieved from

http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/88110?redirectedFrom=homosexual#eidon

Pearl, M.L., & Galupo, M.P. (2007). Development and validation of the attitudes toward

same-sex marriage scale. J Homosex, 53(3), 2007.

http://www.pewforum.org/2017/08/08/gay-marriage-around-the-world-2013/

http://www.pewforum.org/2017/08/08/gay-marriage-around-the-world-2013/

http://www.legco.gov.hk/yr05-06/english/panels/ha/papers/ha0310cb2-public-homosexuals-e.pdf

http://www.legco.gov.hk/yr05-06/english/panels/ha/papers/ha0310cb2-public-homosexuals-e.pdf

http://www.natcen.ac.uk/news-media/press-releases/2015/may/british-social-attitudes-support-for-same-sex-marriage-continues-to-rise/



http://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/article/1597041/hong-kongs-denial-dependent-visas-gay-partners-could-deter-talent

http://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/article/1597041/hong-kongs-denial-dependent-visas-gay-partners-could-deter-talent

http://doi.org/10.5255/UKDA-SN-7839-1

58

Pew Research Center (2010) .The decline of marriage and rise of new families. Retrieved

from http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2010/11/18/the-decline-of-marriage-and-rise-

of-new-families/1/

Pew Research Center. (2013). A survey of LGBT Americans: Attitudes, experiences and

values in changing times. Retrieved from

http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2013/06/13/a-survey-of-lgbt-americans/

Pew Research Center. (2015). Changing attitudes on gay marriage. Retrieved from

http://www.pewforum.org/2015/06/08/graphics-slideshow-changing-attitudes-on-

gay-marriage/

Radio Television Hong Kong (Producer) (2017, December 11). Govt appeal begins over

gay Civil Service benefits. Retrieved from

http://news.rthk.hk/rthk/en/component/k2/1369426-20171211.htm on December 15,

2017.

Salganik, M., Heckathorn, D. (2004). Sampling and Estimation in Hidden Populations

Using Respondent Driven Sampling. Sociol Methodol, 34.

Salvati, M., Pistella, J., & Baiocco, R. (2017). Gender roles and internalized sexual

stigma in gay and lesbian persons: a quadratic relation. International Journal of

Sexual Health.

Shulman, J.L., Gotta, G., & Green, R.J. (2012). Will marriage matter? Effects of marriage

anticipated by same-sex couples. J Fam Issues, 33(2),158-181.

Suen, Y.T., Wong, A.W.C, Barrow, A., Wong, M.Y., Mak, W.S., Choi, P.K., Lam, C.M.,

& Lau, T.F. (2016). Study on Legislation against Discrimination on the Grounds of

Sexual Orientation, Gender Identity and Intersex Status. Gender Research Centre

(GRC) of the Hong Kong Institute of Asia Pacific Studies, the Chinese University of

Hong Kong.

Swinburne, T.F. (2017). Same-sex marriage in Taiwan. Retrieved from

https://thediplomat.com/2017/01/same-sex-marriage-in-taiwan/ on 27 December

2017.

Vernon, K., & Yik, A. (2012). Hong Kong LGBT Climate Study 2011-12: Attitudes to

and experiences of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender employees. Barclays.

Retrieved from

http://www.communitybusiness.org/images/cb/publications/2012/hk_lgbt_climate_st

udy_2011_12_en.pdf

Vespa, J., Lewis, J.M., & Kreider R.M. (2013). America‟s families and living

arrangements: 2012. U.S. Census Bureau.

Weiner, B. (1979). A theory of motivation for some classroom experiences. Journal of

educational psychology, 71(1), 3.

Wejnert, C. (2009). An empirical test of respondent-driven sampling: Point estimates,

variance, degree measures, and out-of-equilibrium data. Sociol Methodol, 39(1), 73-

116. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9531.2009.01216.x

Whitehead, A.L. (2014). Politics, religion, attribution theory, and attitudes toward same-

sex unions. Soc Sci Q, 95(3), 701-718.

Wirtz, A. L., Naing, S., Clouse, E., Thu, K. H., Mon, S. H. H., Tun, Z. M., . . . Beyrer, C.

(2017). The Parasol Protocol: An implementation science study of HIV Continuum

of care interventions for gay men and transgender women in Burma/Myanmar. JMIR

Res Protoc, 6(5), e90. doi: 10.2196/resprot.7642.

http://www.pewforum.org/2015/06/08/graphics-slideshow-changing-attitudes-on-gay-marriage/

http://www.pewforum.org/2015/06/08/graphics-slideshow-changing-attitudes-on-gay-marriage/

http://www.communitybusiness.org/images/cb/publications/2012/hk_lgbt_climate_study_2011_12_en.pdf

http://www.communitybusiness.org/images/cb/publications/2012/hk_lgbt_climate_study_2011_12_en.pdf

59

Wu, A. M., Lau, J. T., Ma, Y. L., & Lau, M. M. (2015). Prevalence and associated factors

of seasonal influenza vaccination among 24- to 59-month-old children in Hong Kong.

Vaccine, 33(30), 3556-3561. doi: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2015.05.039.

World Population Review. (2017). Hong Kong Population. (2017-11-10). Retrieved

2017-12-27, from http://worldpopulationreview.com/countries/hong kong-

population/.

Yeo, T.E.D., & Chu, T.H. (2017). Beyond homonegativity: Understanding Hong Kong

people‟s attitudes about social acceptance of gay/lesbian people, sexual orientation

discrimination protection, and same-sex marriage. J Homosex, DOI:

10.1080/00918369.2017.1375363.

Yip, A.K.T. (2004). Same-sex marriage: contrasting perspectives among lesbian, gay

and bisexual Christians. Feminism & Psychology, 14(1), 173-180.

Zhang, H., Wong, W.C.W., Ip, P., Fan, S., & Yip, P.S.F. (2017). Health status and risk

behaviors of sexual minorities among chinese adolescents: A school-based survey. J

Homosex, 64(3), 382-396.

60

Appendix I: Countries that have legalized same-sex marriage

Argentina (2010) Greenland (2015) South Africa (2006)

Australia (2017) Iceland (2010) Spain (2005)

Belgium (2003) Ireland (2015) United States (2015)

Brazil (2013) Luxembourg (2014) Sweden (2009)

Canada (2005) Malta (2017)

Colombia (2016) Uruguay (2013)

Denmark (2012) The Netherlands (2000)

England / Wales (2013) New Zealand (2013)

Finland (2015) Norway (2008)

France (2013) Portugal (2010)

Germany (2017) Scotland (2014)

61

Table 1 Participants‟ background characteristics of the general population sample (n =

2009)

n Raw %

Gender

Male 792 39.4

Female 1217 60.6

Age (years)

18-30 290 14.4

31-40 209 10.4

41-50 297 14.8

51-60 442 22.0

60+ 753 37.5

Unspecified 18 0.9

Current marital status

Single 446 22.2

Married 1416 70.5

Others (e.g., cohabitation, divorced, widowed) 147 7.3

Education level

Secondary or below 1425 70.9

Tertiary or above 584 29.1

Currently having children under 18 years old

No 1634 81.3

Yes 375 18.7

Religious belief

No 1441 71.7

Muslim 1 0.01

Catholic/Protestant 353 17.6

Buddhist/Taoist 214 10.7

Hong Kong permanent resident

Yes 1989 99.0

No 20 1.0

Support a local political party

No 1875 93.3

Yes 134 6.7

Acquaintance with homosexual people

No 1453 72.3

Yes 556 27.7

Number of acquaintances who are gay men

0 1634 81.3

1 114 5.7

2-5 213 10.6

>5 48 2.4

Number of acquaintances who are lesbians

0 1562 77.8

1 130 6.5

2-5 263 13.1

62

>5 54 2.7

How frequent is your interaction with homosexual

acquaintances

Never/seldom/sometimes 1868 93.0

Frequent/extremely frequent 141 7.0

Overall speaking, how close are you with your

homosexual acquaintances

Very distant/distant/somewhat distant 1901 94.6

Close/very close 108 5.4

Among participants having acquaintance with

homosexual people (n = 556)

Number of acquaintances who were gay people

0 181 32.6

1 114 20.5

2-5 213 38.3

>5 48 8.7

Number of acquaintances who were lesbians

0 109 19.6

1 130 23.4

2-5 263 47.3

>5 54 9.7

How frequent is your interaction with

homosexuals

Never/seldom/sometimes 415 74.6

Frequent/extremely frequent 141 25.4

Overall speaking, how close are you you‟re your

homosexual acquaintance

Very distant/distant/somewhat distant 448 80.6

Close/very close 108 19.4

63

Table 2 Self-identified sexual orientation in the general population sample (n = 2009)

All

(n = 2009)

Male

(n = 792)

Female

(n = 1217)

n Raw % Standardized % n Raw % n Raw %

Heterosexual 1988 99.0 98.6 782 98.7 1206 99.1

Homosexual 13 0.6 0.9 8 1.0 5 0.4

Bisexual 3 0.1 0.2 1 0.1 2 0.2

Unspecified 5 0.2 0.3 1 0.1 4 0.3

Standardized %: Direct standardization with reference to age and gender distributions of the

Hong Kong 2016 census data (Source: Census and Statistics Department (2017). 2016

Population By-Census. The Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region).

64

Table 3 Participants‟ background characteristics of the homosexual population sample (n = 400)

Gay

(n = 219)

Lesbian

(n = 181)

All

(n = 400)

p value

n Raw % n Raw % n Weighted %

Age (years)

18-25 70 32.0 59 32.6 129 37.9

26-35 109 49.8 87 48.1 196 46.6

36-45 32 14.6 26 14.4 58 11.7

>46 8 3.7 9 5.0 17 3.8 0.923


Currently single 204 93.2 157 86.7 361 90.5

Married to a same-sex

partner

4 1.8 13 7.2 17 3.5

Married to an opposite-sex

partner

0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

Cohabitation 11 5.0 11 6.1 22 6.0 0.025

Education level

Secondary or below 37 16.9 44 24.3 81 21.1

Tertiary or above 181 82.6 136 75.1 317 78.1

Refuse to answer 1 0.5 1 0.6 2 0.8 0.181

Religious belief

No 161 73.5 138 76.2 299 75.7

Catholic/Protestant 41 18.7 34 18.8 75 17.9

Buddhist/Taoist 17 7.8 8 4.4 25 6.2

Muslim 0 0.0 1 0.6 1 0.2 0.379

Number of children

0 203 92.7 161 89.0 364 90.1

1 11 5.0 16 8.8 27 7.6

2 5 2.3 4 2.2 9 2.3 0.318

Hong Kong permanent

resident

Yes 218 99.5 179 98.9 397 99.5

No 1 0.5 2 1.1 3 0.5 0.454


No 177 80.8 160 88.4 337 84.7

Yes 42 19.2 21 11.6 63 15.3 0.038

Age recognizing one‟s

homosexual orientation

≤12 80 36.5 61 33.7 141 34.9

13-17 107 48.9 86 47.5 193 48.0

≥18 32 14.6 34 18.8 66 17.1 0.520

Whether having a regular

same-sex partner

65

No 98 44.7 37 20.4 135 34.1

Yes 121 55.3 144 79.6 265 65.9 <0.001

p values were obtained by using Chi-square test.

Weighted % in homosexual population taking into account the network size and recruitment

pattern was estimated by using RDSAT 7.1.46.

66

Table 4 Perceived attribution to homosexuality in the general population sample (n = 2009)

Raw %

What is the cause of homosexuality?

Completely determined by innate factors (genes) 10.7

Mainly determined by innate factors (genes) 9.5

Innate and external factors have equal contributions 40.1

Mainly determined by external factors (e.g. cultural or social influence, peer

pressure, and curiosity)

10.0

Completely determined by external factors (e.g. cultural or societal influence,

peer pressure, and curiosity)

13.2

Have no idea

16.5

67

Table 5 Items and mean score of the Stigma and Acceptance Scale in the general population

sample (n = 2009)

The Stigma and Acceptance Scale (% somewhat agree / agree / strongly agree) Raw %

I keep my distance with homosexuals as much as possible. 17.5

I take the initiative to reach out to homosexuals. (R) 44.4

Homosexuals are a burden to society. 17.2

Homosexuals often cause troubles to others. 16.7

If I were an employer, I would provide job opportunities to homosexuals.(R) 78.8

I worry that homosexuals might harm others. 10.6

When I know someone is homosexual, I estrange him/her. 15.9

Homosexuals are repulsive. 24.6

I am willing to participate in volunteer services for homosexuals.(R) 27.5

Homosexuals deserve our care. (R) 80.2

Homosexuals are dislikable. 18.0

Homosexuals should be segregated. 5.1

When I meet a homosexual, it is best to avoid him/her. 12.4

I think homosexuals should be treated fairly.(R) 85.9

The behaviors of homosexuals make people angry. 21.6

I would not mind making friends with homosexuals.(R) 74.2

I accept homosexuals.(R) 78.4

Homosexuals can integrate into society if the public gives them a chance. (R) 90.1

It is only normal that homosexuals are discriminated against by other people. 49.5

I wholeheartedly fight for the rights of homosexuals.(R) 20.4

I am afraid of being alone with a homosexual. 21.4

The Stigma and Acceptance Scale (Mean / SD) 58.3/17.5

Cronbach’s α =.93, range: 21-126.

(R): Reversed when calculating the summative score.

68

Table 6 Mean scores of the Stigma and Acceptance Scale and the Attitudes Toward Same-sex

Marriage Scale in the general population sample by age, religious beliefs and education level (n

= 2009)

Stigma and

Acceptance Scale

Attitudes Toward

Same-sex Marriage

Scale

Mean (SD) Mean (SD)

Age group

18-30 (n = 290) 44.8 (15.1) 62.4 (13.9)

31-40 (n = 209) 51.9 (13.9) 55.2 (15.8)

41-50 (n = 297) 56.5 (13.1) 49.1 (14.9)

51-60 (n = 442) 59.9 (16.8) 45.6 (14.9)

60+ (n = 753) 65.3 (17.4) 43.3 (14.2)

Unspecified (n = 18) 56.9 (22.2) 46.7 (20.1)

p value <0.001 <0.001

Religious belief

No (n = 1441) 57.9 (17.5) 50.1 (15.8)

Catholic/Protestant (n = 353) 57.9 (17.6) 43.9 (16.6)

Buddhist/Taoist (n = 214) 62.5 (17.6) 46.6 (15.2)

Muslim (n = 1) 53.0 61.0

p value 0.004 <0.001

Education level

Secondary or below (n = 1425) 61.8 (16.9) 46.2 (15.1)

Tertiary or above (n = 584) 50.1 (16.1) 54.7 (16.9)

p value <0.001 <0.001

p values were obtained by using Mann-Whitney test.

Cronbach ‘s α values of the Stigma and Acceptance Scale and the Attitudes Toward Same-sex

Marriage Scale were .92 and .94.

69

Table 7 Item responses and mean score of the Stigma and Acceptance Scale in the homosexual

population sample (n = 400)

Stigma and Acceptance Scale (% somewhat agree / agree / strongly agree) Weighted %

Most people will keep distance with homosexuals as much as possible. 37.5

Most people will take the initiative to reach out to homosexuals. (R) 44.8

Homosexuals are a burden to society. 23.3

Homosexuals often cause troubles to others. 24.0

Employer would provide job opportunities to homosexuals.(R) 72.6

Most people worry that homosexuals might harm others. 19.0

If most people find out that you are a homosexual, they will become

estranged from you

31.2

Most people think homosexuals are repulsive. 42.5

Most people are willing to participate in volunteer services for

homosexuals.(R)

41.5

Most people think that homosexuals deserve our care. (R) 59.4

Most people think that homosexuals are dislikable. 38.1

Most people think that homosexuals should be segregated. 7.9

When most people meet a homosexual, it is best to avoid him/her. 32.9

Most people think homosexuals should be treated fairly.(R) 74.4

The behaviors of homosexuals make people angry. 37.2

Most people would not mind making friends with homosexuals.(R) 85.5

Most people accept homosexuals.(R) 81.8

Homosexuals can integrate into society if the public gives them a chance. (R) 83.2

It is only normal that homosexuals are discriminated against by other people. 49.2

Most people wholeheartedly fight for the rights of homosexuals.(R) 39.4

Most people are afraid of being alone with a homosexual. 25.9

Stigma and Acceptance Scale (Mean / SD) 57.2 (20.4)

Cronbach’s α =.92, range: 21-120.




70

Table 8 Comparing mean scores of the Stigma and Acceptance Scale and the Attitudes Toward Same-sex Marriage Scale between the

general population and the homosexual population samples

Gay

(n = 219)

Male

general

population

(n = 792)

p

value

Lesbian

(n = 181)

Female

general

population

(n = 1217)

p

value

Gay

(n = 219)

Lesbian

(n = 181)

p

value

Mean

(SD)

Mean

(SD)

Mean

(SD)

Mean

(SD)

Mean

(SD)

Mean

(SD)

Stigma and Acceptance

Scale (the general

population sample)

--- 60.4 (18.7) --- 57.1 (16.6) --- --- ---

Stigma and Acceptance

Scale (the homosexual

population sample)

61.0 (20.3) --- 52.5 (19.6) --- 61.0 (20.3) 52.5 (19.6) <0.001

Attitudes Toward

Same-sex Marriage

Scale

77.1 (6.5) 48.7 (16.1) <0.001 77.2 (6.2) 48.7 (16.1) <0.001 77.1 (6.5) 77.2 (6.2) 0.337

p values were obtained by using Kruskal-Wallis H test.

71

Table 9 Awareness and knowledge related to same-sex marriage/civil union in the general population and homosexual population

samples

Same-sex marriage Same-sex civil union Within individual

difference comparing

perceptions related to

same-sex marriage and

same-sex civil union

All

homosexu

als

(n = 400)

General

population

(n = 2009)

p

value

All

homosexual

s

(n = 400)

General

population

(n = 2009)

p value

All

homosexuals

(n = 400)

General

population

(n = 2009)

Weighted

%

%1 %

2 Weighted

%

%1 %

2 p value p value

Awareness of same-sex

civil union

Have you heard of same-

sex civil union?

No N.A. N.A. N.A. 53.8 95.8 95.1

Yes N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. 46.3 4.2 4.9 <0.001 N.A. N.A.

Knowledge related to

same-sex marriage/civil

union in general

To your knowledge, is

there any existing

ordinance in Hong Kong

that legalizes same-sex

marriage/civil union?

Yes 0.0 0.9 0.9 1.7 0.1 < 0.1

No 100.0 91.2 92.6 41.9 3.1 4.

1

72

Don‟t know 0.0 7.9

6.6 <0.001 56.4 96.8 96.2 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001

To your knowledge, is

there any existing

ordinance in other

countries legalizing same-

sex marriage/civil union?

Yes 96.9 85.6 88.2 43.1 2.6 3.1

No 3.1 0.7 0.6 1.8 0.1 0.1

Don‟t know 0.0 13.6 11.1 <0.001 55.1 97.3 96.9 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001

p value: comparing general population and homosexual participants by using Chi-square test. N.A.: The question was not asked.

1: Raw percentages

2: Standardized %: Direct standardization according to age and gender distributions of the Hong Kong 2016 census data (Source:

Census and Statistics Department (2017). 2016 Population By-Census. The Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative

Region).

Weighted % in homosexual population taking into account the network size and recruitment pattern was estimated by using RDSAT

7.1.46.

73

Table 10 Attitudes toward same-sex marriage in the general population sample (n = 2009)

The Attitudes Toward Same-sex Marriage Scale (% agree / strongly agree) Raw %

Two loving same-sex parents can provide the same quality of parenting and

guidance as a man and a woman

64.8

The primary purpose of marriage is to provide stability in a loving relationship.

Same-sex partners should have this legal right available to them.

34.1

Marital protections, such as social security and health care benefits, should be

available to same-sex partners

49.1

Same-sex marriage will strengthen the morals of society by supporting equality 56.0

I support individuals who are homosexual seeking marriage rights. 53.3

Because more people will have the benefits of marriage, family will be

strengthened by the recognition of same-sex marriages.

20.6

The legalization of same-sex marriage is an important step toward the

acceptance of individuals who are homosexual

34.5

Same-sex marriage ensures equal rights for all relationships regardless of

sexual orientation.

52.9

Individuals should be free to marry another same-sex consenting adult 58.3

Men and women naturally complement one another. Therefore a union between

two men or two women should not be recognized in marriage (R)

75.9

The recognition of same-sex marriage poses a threat to society because public

schools will be forced to teach that homosexuality is normal (R)

59.5

Same-sex marriage undermines the meaning of the traditional family (R) 54.8

The primary purpose of marriage is to raise children, therefore only a man and

a woman should be married (R)

48.1

The legalization of same-sex marriage will lead to unnecessary financial

burdens, such as social security and health care benefits (R)

59.5

The legalization of same-sex marriage will jeopardize religious freedom (R) 50.5

Same-sex marriage will lead to the moral decay of society (R) 43.3

I oppose the legalization of same-sex marriage (R) 50.0

74

Cronbach’s α = .94, range: 17-85.


The Attitudes Toward Same-sex Marriage Scale (Mean / SD) 48.7 / 16.1

75

Table 11 Attitudes toward same-sex marriage in the homosexual population sample (n = 400)

The Attitudes Toward Same-sex Marriage

Scale (% agree / strongly agree)

Gay

(n = 219)

Lesbian

(n = 181)

All

(n = 400)

Raw % Raw % Weighted % p value

Two loving same-sex parents can provide the

same quality of parenting and guidance as a

man and a woman

71.2 76.8 73.5 0.208

The primary purpose of marriage is to

provide stability in a loving relationship,

same-sex partners should have this legal right

available to them.

96.3 98.9 97.4 0.104

Marital protections, such as social security

and health care benefits, should be available

to same-sex partners

99.1 98.9 98.9 0.848

Same-sex marriage will strengthen the morals

of society by supporting equality 58.9 61.3 59.9 0.623

I support individuals who are homosexual

seeking marriage rights. 95.9 97.2 96.3 0.466

Because more people will have the benefits of

marriage, family will be strengthened by the

recognition of same-sex marriages.

65.8 63.0 63.5 0.564

The legalization of same-sex marriage is an

important step toward the acceptance of

individuals who are homosexual

90.4 93.9 92.0 0.198

Same-sex marriage ensures equal rights for

all relationships regardless of sexual

orientation.

93.6 96.7 95.2 0.160

Individuals should be free to marry another

same-sex consenting adult. 98.6 98.9 98.7 0.812

Men and women naturally complement one

another. Therefore a union between two men

or two women should not be recognized in

marriage (R)

2.7 5.5 4.2 0.157

The recognition of same-sex marriage poses a

threat to society because public schools will 16.0 24.9 20.4 0.027

76


Cronbach’s α = .89.




be forced to teach that homosexuality is

normal. (R)

Same-sex marriage undermines the meaning

of the traditional family (R) 8.2 11.0 10.0 0.337

The primary purpose of marriage is to raise

children, therefore only a man and a woman

should be married (R)

2.7 2.8 2.9 0.989

The legalization of same-sex marriage will

lead to unnecessary financial burdens, such as

social security and health care benefits (R)

4.1 3.9 4.1 0.902

The legalization of same-sex marriage will

jeopardize religious freedom (R) 20.5 19.3 19.7 0.763

Same-sex marriage will lead to the moral

decay (R) 0.9 1.7 1.3 0.505

I oppose the legalization of same-sex

marriage (R) 1.4 1.1 1.3 0.812

The Attitudes Toward Same-sex Marriage

Scale (Mean / SD) 77.1 / 6.5 77.2 / 6.2 77.4 /6.6 0.337

77

Table 12 Perceived societal impact of legalization of same-sex marriage/civil union in Hong

Kong in the general population sample (n = 2009)

Same-sex

marriage

Same-sex civil

union

p value

Raw %

(Standardized) %

Raw %

(Standardized) %

Positive societal impact

Legalization of same-sex marriage/civil union

would promote social harmony

Strongly disagree / disagree 51.1 (47.5) 46.6 (43.9)

Neutral 13.7 (14.5) 16.4 (16.5)

Agree / strongly agree 35.2 (38.0) 37.0 (39.6) <0.001


would reflect respect for human rights


Neutral 11.5 (11.1) 15.3 (14.5)

Agree / strongly agree 57.3 (61.3) 54.8 (58.7) 0.410


would reduce high risk sexual behaviors


Neutral 20.7 (20.9) 23.2 (22.7)


Positive Societal Impact Scale (Mean / SD) 8.9 /3.1 1 9.0 /3.1

2 0.017

Negative societal impact


would harm moral norms and growth of our

next generation


Neutral 8.8 (9.0) 12.0 (12.1)


Legal proceedings may arise as a result of the

uncertainty of the rights of the same-sex

couples


Neutral 17.6 (17.6) 20.9 (20.8)


There may be controversy on the traditional

gender roles


Neutral 7.9 (9.7) 13.7 (13.5)


78

Negative Societal Impact Scale (Mean / SD) 11.5 /3.1 3 11.2 /3.2

4 <0.001

Overall relative perceived impact of

legalization of same-sex marriage / civil

union to Hong Kong society

Positive and negative impact are similar 25.8 (27.1) 23.7 (25.6)

Positive impact prevails over negative

impact

16.3 (18.7) 18.2 (21.4)

Negative impact prevails over positive

impact

49.5 (45.4) 42.2 (38.7)

Positive and negative impact are similar 8.4 (7.5) 15.8 (14.3) <0.001

p values were obtained by using Wilcoxon signed rank test. 1 Cronbach „s α = .80

2 Cronbach „s α = .69



Standardized %: Direct standardization with reference to age and gender distributions of the

Hong Kong 2016 census data (Source: Census and Statistics Department (2017). 2016

Population By-Census. The Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region).

79

Table 13 The Positive and Negative Societal Impact Scale scores by age, religious beliefs and

education level in the general population (n = 2009)

Same-sex marriage Same-sex civil union

Positive

Societal

Impact Scale

Negative

Societal

Impact Scale

Positive

Societal

Impact Scale

Negative

Societal

Impact Scale

Mean (SD) Mean (SD) Mean (SD) Mean (SD)

Age group

18-30 (n = 290) 10.4 (2.6) 9.6 (3.2) 10.6 (2.6) 9.4 (3.3)

31-40 (n = 209) 9.6 (3.0) 10.4 (3.4) 9.6 (3.1) 10.2 (3.3)

41-50 (n = 297) 9.0 (3.1) 11.5 (3.1) 9.0 (3.1) 11.0 (3.2)

51-60 (n = 442) 8.5 (3.0) 12.0 (2.9) 8.6 (3.0) 11.8 (3.0)

60+ (n = 753) 8.5 (3.1) 12.2 (2.8) 8.6 (3.1) 12.0 (2.9)

Unspecified (n = 18) 8.4 (4.0) 11.8 (3.4) 8.5 (4.0) 11.5 (3.5)

p value <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001

Religious belief

No (n = 1441) 9.2 (2.9) 11.3 (3.1) 9.3 (3.0) 11.0 (3.2)

Catholic/Protestant (n =

353)

8.0 (3.4) 12.2 (3.1) 8.1 (3.4) 12.1 (3.1)

Buddhist/Taoist (n = 214) 9.0 (3.1) 11.7 (3.0) 8.9 (3.1) 11.6 (3.0)

Muslim (n = 1) 12.0 10.0 12.0 8.0

p value <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001

Education level

Secondary or below (n =

1425)

8.8 (3.1) 11.9 (2.9) 8.8 (3.1) 11.7 (3.0)

Tertiary or above (n = 584) 9.4 (3.1) 10.5 (3.4) 9.6 (3.1) 10.2 (3.4)

p value <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001

p values were obtained by using Mann-Whitney test.

80

Table 14 Subgroup comparisons of item responses regarding perceived social impact of same-sex marriage/civil union

Gay

(n = 219)

Male

general

population

(n=792)

p value

Lesbian

(n = 181)

Female

general

population

(n=1217)

p value

Gay

(n =

219)

Lesbian

(n = 181)

p

value

Raw % Raw % Raw % Raw % Raw % Raw %

Same-sex marriage

Positive societal impact (%

agree/strongly agree)

Legalization of same-sex

marriage would promote social

harmony

63.9 34.1 <0.001 73.5 36.0 <0.001 63.9 73.5 0.041


marriage would reflect respect

for human rights

94.1 55.9 <0.001 95.6 58.2 <0.001 94.1 95.6 0.499


marriage would reduce high risk

sexual behaviors

30.1 31.3 0.217 36.5 36.2 0.557 30.1 36.5 0.180

Negative societal impact (%



marriage/civil union would harm

moral norms and growth of our

next generation

5.0 63.0 <0.001 5.0 63.7 <0.001 5.0 5.0 1.000

Legal proceedings may arise as a

result of the uncertainty of the

rights of the same-sex couples

40.6 67.9 <0.001 44.8 67.1 <0.001 40.6 44.8 0.408

There may be controversy on the

traditional gender roles

40.2 74.7 <0.001 44.8 77.7 <0.001 40.2 44.8 0.357

81

Same-sex civil union



Legalization of same-sex civil

union would promote social

harmony

66.2 36.2 <0.001 70.2 37.6 <0.001 66.2 70.2 0.399


union would reflect respect for

human rights

89.5 53.5 <0.001 86.2 55.6 <0.001 89.5 86.2 0.311


union would reduce high risk

sexual behaviors

27.9 30.3 0.537 36.5 34.4 0.816 27.9 36.5 0.066





moral norms and growth of our

next generation

6.4 58.7 <0.001 7.2 61.0 <0.001 6.4 7.2 0.754




42.5 62.4 <0.001 44.8 63.9 <0.001 42.5 44.8 0.646



34.7 68.3 <0.001 37.6 73.0 <0.001 34.7 37.6 0.552


Items instead of scale scores were compared hereby, as the two summative scales of these items showed low Cronbach‟s alpha (low

internal reliability). Hence such scales were not formed and items were used instead for comparisons.

82

Table 15 Perceived positive and negative societal impact of legalization of same-sex marriage/civil union in Hong Kong in the

homosexual population sample


Gay

(n =

219)

Lesbian

(n = 181)

All

(n = 400)

Gay

(n =

219)

Lesbian

(n =

181)

All

(n = 400)

Raw % Raw % Weighted % p value Raw % Raw % Weighted % p value




marriage/civil union would

promote social harmony

63.9 73.5 68.3 0.041 66.2 70.2 68.5 0.399


marriage/civil union would reflect

respect for human rights

94.1 95.6 94.7 0.499 89.5 86.2 87.8 0.311


marriage/civil union would reduce

high risk sexual behaviors

30.1 36.5 31.9 0.180 27.9 36.5 30.9 0.066





moral norms and growth of our next

generation

5.0 5.0 4.9 1.000 6.4 7.2 6.8 0.754




40.6 44.8 43.1 0.408 42.5 44.8 43.2 0.646



40.2 44.8 43.5 0.357 34.7 37.6 37.1 0.552

83

p value: comparing the gay and lesbian samples by using Chi-square test.


7.1.46.


legalization of same-sex marriage in

Hong Kong

Positive and negative impact are

similar

25.1 29.3 28.3 24.7 27.6 26.3

Positive impact prevails over

negative impact

69.9 64.6 66.3 70.8 66.3 68.9

Negative impact prevails over

positive impact

1.8 1.1 0.9 3.2 3.9 3.2

Don't know 3.2 5.0 4.5 0.539 1.4 2.2 1.8 0.765

84

Table 16 Prevalence of participants who supported toward legalization of same-sex marriage/civil union among the homosexual

population and the general population samples

Same-sex marriage Same-sex civil union Within individual

difference comparing

support rates of same-sex

marriage an same-sex

civil union

All

homosexuals

(n = 400)

General

population

(n = 2009)

p

value1

All

homosexuals

(n = 400)

General

population

(n = 2009)

p

value1

All

homosexuals

(n = 400)

General

population

(n = 2009)

Weighted% %1 %

2 Weighted % %

1 %

2 p value

2 p value

2

Strongly oppose 0.6 20.0 17.1 2.4 18.5 16.0

Oppose 0.3 13.8 12.7 0.0 9.6 8.9

Somewhat oppose 0.0 17.0 15.7 1.5 16.9 15.4

Neutral 1.3 20.9 21.9 5.1 26.1 26.6

Somewhat support 2.2 14.6 16.2 9.6 16.2 17.9

Support 6.5 7.6 9.4 7.9 7.5 8.9

Strongly support 89.1 6.1 7.0 <0.001 73.5 5.3 6.3 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001

Somewhat support/ support

/ strongly support

97.8 28.3 32.6 <0.001 91.0 29.0 33.1 <0.001 <0.001 0.314

p value1: Comparing the general population sample and the all homosexual sample by using Chi-square test.

p value2: Within individual difference between support of same-sex marriage and. same-sex civil union were compared by using

Wilcoxon signed rank test.

%1: Raw percentage

%2: Standardized %: Direct standardization with reference to age and gender distributions of the Hong Kong 2016 census data (Source:


Region).


7.1.46.

85

Table 17 Degree of support for same-sex marriage and same-sex civil union among the general population sample by age, religious beliefs and

education level


Raw % (Somewhat support/ support

/ strongly support)

Raw % (Somewhat support/

support / strongly support)

Age group

18-30 (n=290) 63.1 60.7

31-40 (n=209) 37.8 40.2

41-50 (n=297) 28.3 28.6

51-60 (n=442) 19.9 21.7

60+ (n=753) 17.4 18.3

Unspecified (n=18) 22.2 16.7

p value <0.001 <0.001

Religious belief

No (n=1441) 31.6 32.3

Catholic/Protestant (n=353) 19.0 20.4

Buddhist/Taoist (n=214) 21.0 20.6

Muslim (n=1) 100.0 100.0

p value <0.001 <0.001

Education level

Secondary or below (n=1425) 21.7 22.0

Tertiary or above (n=584) 44.5 45.9

p value <0.001 <0.001

p values were obtained by using Chi-square test

86

Table 18 Associations between background variables and support toward legalization of same-sex marriage and civil union in the

general population sample (n = 2009)

Support toward legalization of

same-sex marriage (somewhat

support/ support/strongly support)

Support toward legalization of same-

sex civil union (somewhat support/

support/strongly support)

Row % ORu (95% CI) Row % ORu (95% CI)

Gender

Male 28.9 1.0 29.2 1.0

Female 27.9 0.95 (0.78, 1.16) 28.8 0.98 (0.81, 1.20)

Age (years)

18-30 63.1 1.0 60.7 1.0

31-40 37.8 0.36 (0.25, 0.51)***

40.2 0.44 (0.30, 0.63)***

41-50 28.3 0.23 (0.16, 0.33)***

28.6 0.26 (0.18, 0.37)***

51-60 19.9 0.15 (0.10, 0.20)***

21.7 0.18 (0.13, 0.25)***

60+ 17.4 0.12 (0.09, 0.17)***

18.3 0.15 (0.11, 0.20)***

Unspecified 22.2 0.17 (0.05, 0.52)**

16.7 0.13 (0.04, 0.46)**


Single 55.4 1.0 55.4 1.0

Married 21.0 0.21 (0.17, 0.27)***

21.7 0.22 (0.18, 0.28)***

Others (e.g., cohabitation, divorced,

widowed)

17.0 0.17 (0.10, 0.26)***

19.0 0.19 (0.12, 0.30)***

Education level

Secondary or below 21.7 1.0 22.0 1.0

Tertiary or above 44.5 2.90 (2.36, 3.56)***

45.9 3.00 (2.44, 3.69)***

Currently having children under 18 years

old

No 28.0 1.0 28.5 1.0

Yes 29.6 1.08 (0.84, 1.38) 31.2 1.14 (0.89, 1.45)

Religious belief

No 31.6 1.0 32.3 1.0

Muslim 19.0 0.51 (0.38, 0.68)*** 20.4 0.54 (0.41, 0.71)***

Catholic/Protestant 21.0 0.58 (0.41, 0.81)*** 20.6 0.54 (0.38, 0.77)**

Buddhist/Taoist 100.0 N.A. 100.0 N.A.

87


No 27.7 1.0 28.5 1.0

Yes 37.3 1.56 (1.08, 2.24)* 35.1 1.35 (0.94, 1.96)


No 19.1 1.0 20.2 1.0

Yes 52.5 4.70 (3.80, 5.80)***

52.0 4.29 (3.47, 5.29)***

* p < .05; ** p < .01; *** p < .001.

ORu, univariate odds ratios; CI, confidence interval.

Those with p < .05 were in bold.

88

Table 19 Associations between background variables and support toward same-sex marriage and civil union in the homosexual


Supporting same-sex marriage

(somewhat support/ support/strongly

support)

Supporting same-sex

civil union (somewhat support/

support/strongly support)

Row % ORu (95%CI) Row % ORu (95%CI)

Age (years)

18-25 96.1 1.0 82.9 1.0

26-35 100.0 N.A. 94.4 3.46 (1.61, 7.41)**

36-45 94.8 0.74 (0.17, 3.20) 93.1 2.78 (0.91, 8.46)†

>46 100.0 N.A. 94.1 3.29 (0.41, 26.12)

Gender

Male 98.2 1.0 91.3 1.0

Female 97.8 0.82 (0.20, 3.34) 89.5 0.81 (0.42, 1.58)


Currently single 97.8 1.0 90.6 1.0

Married to a same-sex partner 100.0 N.A. 88.2 0.78 (0.17, 3.56)

Cohabitation 100.0 N.A. 90.9 1.04 (0.23, 4.64)

Education level

Secondary or below 97.5 1.0 93.8 1.0

Tertiary or above 98.1 1.31 (0.26, 6.63) 89.6 0.57 (0.21, 1.50)

Refused to answer 100.0 N.A. 100.0 N.A.

Religious belief

No 98.0 1.0 89.6 1.0

Catholic/Protestant 97.3 0.75 (0.15, 3.78) 92.0 1.33 (0.53, 3.32)

Buddhist/Taoist 100.0 N.A. 96.0 2.78 (0.36, 21.24)

Muslim 100.0 N.A. 100.0 N.A.


No 98.1 1.0 90.7 1.0

Yes 97.2 0.69 (0.08, 5.74) 88.9 0.82 (0.28, 2.47)

Hong Kong permanent resident

89

No 100.0 1.0 100.0 1.0

Yes 98.0 N.A. 90.4 N.A.


No 98.2 1.0 91.1 1.0

Yes 96.8 0.55 (0.11, 2.80) 87.3 0.67 (0.29, 1.54)

Age recognizing one‟s homosexual orientation

≤12 97.2 1.0 89.4 1.0

13-17 97.9 1.38 (0.34, 5.61) 89.1 0.98 (0.48. 1.97)

≥18 100.0 N.A. 97.0 3.81 (0.85, 17.17)†

Having a regular same-sex partner

No 97.0 1.0 87.4 1.0

Yes 98.5 1.99 (0.49, 8.09) 92.1 1.67 (0.85, 3.29)

ORu: univariate odds ratios.

† p < .10; * p < .05; ** p < .01; *** p < .001.


90

Table 20 Factors associated with support toward legalization of same-sex marriage/civil union in the general population sample

Support for legalization of same-sex

marriage

Support for legalization of same-sex civil

union

OR (95% CI) AOR (95% CI) OR (95% CI) AOR (95% CI)


Completely/mainly determined by innate

factors (genes)

1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

Innate and external factors have equal

contributions 0.70

(0.55, 0.89)**

0.59

(0.45, 0.78)***

0.76

(0.60, 0.98)*

0.66

(0.50, 0.86)**

Completely/mainly determined by external

factors (e.g. cultural or social influence, peer

pressure, curiosity)

0.31

(0.23, 0.43)***

0.30

(0.21, 0.42)***

0.37

(0.28, 0.51)***

0.37

(0.26, 0.51)***

Have no idea 0.21

(0.15, 0.39)***

0.28

(0.19, 0.42)***

0.21

(0.14, 0.31)***

0.26

(0.18, 0.40)***

Attitudes toward homosexuals

Stigma and Acceptance Scale 0.90 (0.89, 0.91)***

0.92 (0.91, 0.93)***

0.90 (0.89, 0.91)***

0.92 (0.91, 0.93)***


Attitudes Toward Same-sex Marriage Scale 1.25 (1.22, 1.27)***

1.24 (1.22, 1.27)***

N.A. N.A.

Knowledge on legalization of same-sex

marriage/civil union


in other countries

No/unknown 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

Yes 3.79

(2.57, 5.57)***

2.56

(1.69, 3.88)***

4.60

(2.60, 8.13)***

2.60

(1.38, 4.93)**

Perceived societal impact of legalization of

same-sex marriage/civil union in Hong Kong

Positive Societal Impact Scale 1.69 (1.60, 1.78)***

1.65 (1.56, 1.75)***

1.61 (1.53, 1.69)***

1.57 (1.49, 1.65)***

Negative Societal Impact Scale 0.57 (0.54, 0.60)***

0.59 (0.56, 0.62)***

0.65 (0.63, 0.68)***

0.68 (0.65, 0.71)***

91


legalization of same-sex marriage/civil union

to Hong Kong society

Negative impact prevails over positive

impact

1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

Positive and negative impact are similar 18.41

(12.92, 26.23)***

14.42

(0.96, 20.86)***

19.69

(13.10, 29.58)***

16.30

(10.78, 24.66)*** Positive impact prevails over negative

impact 95.08

(62.88, 143.78)***

68.04

(44.28, 104, 55)***

133.69

(84.79, 210.80)***

99.20

(62.38, 157.76)***

Have no idea 5.10

(3.10, 8.38)***

4.73

(2.82, 7.92)***

4.85

(3.01, 7.81)***

4.56

(2.82, 7.38)***

Note: ** p < .01, *** p < .001.

ORu, univariate odds ratios; AOR, adjusted odds ratios, odds ratios adjusted by significant background variables.

Odds ratios and 95%CI of variables with p < .05 were bold.

N.S.: p >.10; N.A.: not applicable.

Knowledge of absence of ordinance in Hong Kong legalizing same-sex marriage/civil union for same-sex couples was not

significantly associated with the support for same-sex marriage or same-sex civil union; such data were not included in the table.


92

Table 21 Summary models of factors associated with support toward legalization of same-sex marriage/civil union in general

population sample (forward stepwise logistic regression model)


same-sex marriage



ORm (95% CI) ORm (95% CI)

Age (years)

18-30 1.0

31-40 0.42 (0.23, 0.76)**

41-50 0.75 (0.43, 1.31)

51-60 0.57 (0.33, 0.97)*

60+ 0.74 (0.47, 1.27)

Unspecified 0.56 (0.07, 4.50) N.S.

Currently marital status

Single 1.0

Married 0.66 (0.48, 0.91)*

Others (e.g., cohabitation, divorced, widowed) N.S. 0.84 (0.43, 1.65)

Attribution to cause of homosexuality

Completely/mainly determined by innate factors

(genes)

1.0

Innate and external factors contribute equally 0.76 (0.52, 1.10)

Completely/mainly determined by external

factors (e.g. cultural or social influence, peer

pressure, curiosity)

0.60 (0.38, 0.95)*

Have no idea N.S. 0.48 (0.28, 0.82)**

Stigma and Acceptance Scale N.S. 0.96 (0.95, 0.97)***

Attitudes Toward Same-sex Marriage Scale 1.18 (1.15, 1.21)** ---

Positive Societal Impact Scale 1.11 (1.03, 1.21)* 1.26 (1.18, 1.34)***

Negative Societal Impact Scale 0.84 (0.78, 0.90)*** 0.81 (0.77, 0.85)***

93

Overall relative perceived impact of legalization of

same-sex marriage/civil union to Hong Kong

society

Negative impact prevails over positive impact 1.0 1.0

Positive and negative impact are similar 1.94 (1.19, 3.17)** 5.80 (3.63, 9.26)***

Positive impact prevails over negative impact 5.77 (3.22, 10.36)*** 22.84 (13.61, 38.34)***

Have no idea 0.88 (0.46, 1.71) 2.40 (1.39, 4.15)**

ORm: Multivariate odds ratios, variables in Table 18 & 20 with p<.10 in univariate analysis as candidates were selected by forward

stepwise logistic regression (entry: p<.10, exclude: p>.20).

Regarding support for legalization of same-sex marriage, current marital status, education level, religious belief, support a local

political party, acquaintance with homosexual people, attribution to homosexuality, the Stigma and Acceptance Scale, and knowledge

on legalization of same-sex marriage in other countries were considered but not selected by the summary forward stepwise logistic

regression model.

Regarding support for legalization of same-sex civil union, age, education level, religious belief, acquaintance with homosexual

people, and knowledge on legalization of same-sex marriage in other countries were considered but not selected by the summary

forward stepwise logistic regression model.

† p < .10, * p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001.

N.S.: not selected by the summary forward stepwise logistic regression model.

---: Not considered in the model.


94

Table 22 Factors associated with support for same-sex marriage in the homosexual population sample (n = 400)

Supporting same-sex marriage Supporting same-sex civil union

ORu (95%CI) AOR (95%CI) ORu (95%CI) AOR (95%CI)


Stigma and Acceptance Scale 0.99 (0.96, 1.03) N.A. 1.00 (0.98, 1.02) ---


Attitudes Toward Same-sex Marriage

Scale (ATSM)

1.17 (1.08, 1.27)*** N.A. 1.05 (1.01, 1.09)* 1.05 (1.01, 1.09)*

Perceived impact of legalization of

same-sex marriage/civil union in

Hong Kong



marriage/civil union would promote

social harmony

Strongly disagree/disagree/neutral 1.0 1.0 1.0

Agree/strongly agree 15.87 (1.93, 130.39)* N.A. 2.32 (1.18, 4.56)* 2.09 (1.05, 4.17)*


marriage/civil union would reflect

respect for human rights

Strongly disagree/disagree/neutral 1.0 1.0 1.0

Agree/strongly agree 12.47 (2.76, 56.29)** N.A. 13.25 (6.30, 27.90)*** 13.82 (6.25, 30.56)***


marriage/civil union would reduce

high risk sexual behaviors

Strongly disagree/disagree/neutral 1.0 1.0

Agree/strongly agree 3.53 (0.43, 28.86) N.A. 1.84 (0.82, 4.13) ---

Negative societal impact

95


marriage/civil union would harm moral

norms and growth of our next

generation



Legal proceedings may increase as a

result of the uncertainty of the rights of

the same-sex couples






Agree/strongly agree 0.10 (0.01, 0.83)* N.A. 0.59 (0.30, 1.16) ---


legalization of same-sex civil union in

Hong Kong


positive impact

1.0 1.0 1.0


similar

10.3 (1.51, 70.26)* 4.97

(1.56, 15.83)**

3.82

(1.08, 13.53)*


negative impact

134.5

(10.03, 1802.82)***

44.5

(12.49, 158.59)***

50.17

(12.21, 206.03)***

Have no idea N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A.

ORu: univariate odds ratios, AOR: adjusted odds ratios, odds ratios adjusted for background variables with p < .10 in univariate

analysis.

† p < .10; * p < .05; ** p < .01; *** p < .001.


96

Table 23 Summary models of factors associated with support for legalization of same-sex marriage/civil union among the homosexual


Support for legalization of same-

sex marriage

Support for legalization of same-

sex civil union

ORm (95% CI) ORm (95% CI)

Age (years)

18-25 1.0

26-35 3.80 (1.50, 9.63)**

36-45 2.81 (0.74, 10.65)

>46 --- 0.65 (0.07, 6.25)

Attitudes Toward Same-sex Marriage Scale

(ATSM)

1.13 (1.02, 1.26)* N.S.



would promote social harmony

Strongly disagree/disagree/neutral 1.0

Agree/strongly agree N.S. 3.84 (1.26, 12.05)*


would reflect respect for human rights

Strongly disagree/disagree/neutral 1.0

Agree/strongly agree N.S. 17.23 (5.81, 51.14)***

Overall relative perceived impact of legalization of

same-sex civil union in Hong Kong

Negative impact prevails over positive impact 1.0 1.0

Positive and negative impact are similar 7.55 (0.76, 74.99)† 10.79 (3.83, 30.40)*

Positive impact prevails over negative impact 2.00 (0.06, 66.29) 0.31 (0.07, 1.27)

Have no idea N.A. N.A.

ORm: multivariate odds ratios, variables in Table 19 & 22 with p<.10 in univariate analysis as candidates were selected by forward

stepwise logistic regression (entry: p < .10, exclude: p > .20).

97

Regarding support for legalization of same-sex marriage, perceived legalization of same-sex marriage would promote social harmony,

perceived legalization of same-sex marriage would reflect respect for human rights were considered but not selected by the summary

forward stepwise logistic regression model.

Regarding support for legalization of same-sex civil union, age recognizing one‟s homosexual orientation and Attitudes Toward

Same-sex Marriage Scale were considered but not selected by the summary forward stepwise logistic regression model.

† p < .10, * p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001

N.S.: not selected by the model.

---: not considered by the model,

N.A.: not applicable,


98

Table 24 Comparing the level of support for same-sex marriage and same-sex civil union among the homosexual population and the

general population sample

All

homosexuals

(n = 400)

General population

(n = 2009)

p value1

Mean difference in the level of

support for same-sex marriage and

civil union within individual

(Mean/SD)

0.45 / 1.27

-0.12 / 1.04

<0.001

p values2 <0.001 <0.001

p value1: comparing mean difference in the level of support for same-sex marriage and civil union within individual between the

homosexual population and the general population sample by using Kruskal-Wallis H test.

p values2: Statistical significance of the mean difference in the level of support for same-sex marriage and civil union within

individual was tested by Wilcoxon signed-rank test.

Item response ranged from 1 = strongly oppose to 7 = strongly support.

99

Table 25 Relative level of support toward same-sex marriage versus same-sex civil union among the homosexual population and the

general population samples (n = 2009)

p value: Chi-square test.

Standardized %: Direct standardization with reference to age and gender distributions of the Hong Kong 2016 census data (Source:


Region).


7.1.46.

All

homosexuals

(n = 400)

General population

(n = 2009)

n Weighted % n Raw %

(Standardized)

p value

Relative level of support for legalization of same-sex marriage

and civil union

Support same-sex marriage more 156 39.1 135 6.7 (7.9)

Support same-sex civil union more 44 11.0 218 10.9 (12.7)

Support both equally 198 49.4 429 21.4 (23.6)

Support neither 2 0.5 1227 61.1 (55.8) <0.001

100

Table 26 Major reasons behind participants‟ preference about legalization toward same-sex marriage versus same-sex civil union in

Hong Kong in general population sample (n = 2009)

n Raw %

Major reason for supporting legalization for same sex marriage more than same-sex civil union

in Hong Kong ( among those supporting legalization for same-sex marriage more than same-sex

civil union, n = 135)

Same-sex marriage is „clearer‟ 74 54.8

Major reason for supporting legalization for same-sex civil union more than same sex marriage

in Hong Kong (among those supporting legalization for same-sex civil union more than same-

sex marriage, n = 218)

Same-sex civil union is easier to accept 132 60.6

Major reasons for supporting both types of legalization (among those supporting both types of

legalization, n = 429)

People should have the right to choose 183 42.7

Human rights 119 27.7

Major reasons for supporting neither type of legalization (among those supporting neither type

of legalization, n = 1227)

It is against the tradition 276 22.5

It his abnormal 142 11.5

It is against the nature 136 11.1

It is against the moral standard 127 10.4

It has negative influences on the next generation 57 4.6

It is against religious beliefs 49 4.0

101

Table 27 Degree of support for specific potential components of civil union among homosexual population and general population

samples after being briefed about the concept of civil union

All homosexuals

(n = 400)

General population

(n = 2009)

p value

n Weighted % n Raw %

(Standardized) %

The right to adopt a child

Strongly oppose/ oppose 24 5.6 784 39.0 (36.7)

Neutral 51 12.9 248 12.4 (12.7)

Support / strongly support 325 81.5 976 48.6 (50.6) <0.001

The right for in vitro fertilization


Neutral 73 17.8 319 15.9 (16.3)


The right to inherit property


Neutral 7 1.6 335 16.7 (15.3)


The right to act as next of kin (e.g., hospital visit)


Neutral 2 0.3 383 19.1 (18.4)


The right to apply for dependent working visa/immigration


Neutral 4 1.0 541 26.9 (24.4)


The right to claim married couples‟ tax allowance


Neutral 8 2.0 399 16.9 (16.1)


The right to apply for public housing as a couple

102


Neutral 8 2.0 339 16.9 (16.2)


p value: comparing general population with all homosexuals by using Chi-square test.

Standardized %: Direct standardization with reference to age and gender distributions of the Hong Kong 2016 census data (Source:


Region).


7.1.46.

103

Table 28 Behavioral intention to engage in same-sex marriage/civil union among all homosexual participants who were not married to

same-sex partners

Same-sex marriage Same-sex civil union Within group

difference

comparing same-

sex marriage vs.

civil union

Gay

(n=216)

Lesbian

(n=167)

All

(n=383)

p value 1

Gay

(n=216)

Lesbian

(n=167)

All

(n=383)

p value 1

Gay

(n=216)

Lesbian

(n=167)

Raw % Raw % Raw % Raw % Raw % Raw % p value 2

p value 2

How much do you want to

marry a same-sex partner in

your lifetime

Definitely not/ somehow

not

6.0 6.0 6.0

Neutral 25.9 18.6 22.7

Somehow / definitely 68.1 75.4 71.3 0.226 N.A. N.A. N.A.

How likely will you be

eventually engaged in


union

Very unlikely / unlikely 12.5 9.0 11.0 20.5 29.3 24.3

Neutral 31.0 24.0 27.9 31.6 17.4 25.4

Likely / very likely 56.5 67.1 61.1 0.107 47.9 53.3 50.3 0.004 0.004 <0.001

If you were to engage in


union, how confident are

104

1 p values were obtained by using Chi-square test.

2 p values were obtained by using Wilcoxon signed rank test.

N.A.: The question was not asked.

you that you could do so

Very unconfident /

somewhat unconfident

17.6 11.4 14.9 12.6 10.2 11.5

Neutral 28.2 22.2 25.6 27.9 19.8 24.3

Confident / very confident 54.2 66.5 59.5 0.045 59.5 70.1 64.1 0.098 0.039 0.270

Do you currently have a

same-sex partner that you

would like to engage in


union?

No 68.1 44.3 57.7 74.5 62.3 69.2

Yes 31.9 55.7 42.3 <0.001 25.5 37.7 30.8 0.010 0.026 <0.001

105

Table 29 Preference of intention for same-sex marriage versus same-sex civil union among the homosexual population sample

p value was obtained by using Chi-square test.

Gay

(n = 216)

Lesbian

(n = 167)

All

(n = 383)

p value

Raw % Raw % Raw %

Only intend to engage in same-sex marriage 19.0 24.6 21.4

Only intend to engage in same-sex civil union 10.2 10.8 10.4

Intend to engage in either one 37.5 42.5 39.7

Intend to engage in neither of them 33.3 33.9 28.5 0.106

106

Table 30 Behavioral intention to engage in same-sex marriage/civil union (among homosexuals who currently have a same-sex partner

whom they would like to engage in same-sex marriage/civil union)


Gay

(n=69)

Lesbian

(n=93)

All

(n=162)

p value Gay

(n=55)

Lesbian

(n=63)

All

(n=118)

p value

Raw % Raw % Raw % Raw % Raw % Raw %

Currently, would you like to engage in

same-sex marriage / civil union with

him/her

Definitely not/ somehow not 2.9 5.4 4.3 1.8 7.9 5.1

Neutral 11.6 7.5 9.3 20.0 7.9 13.6

Somehow / definitely 85.5 87.1 86.4 0.527 78.2 84.1 81.4 0.066

How much do you think this partner

wants to engage in same-sex

marriage/civil union with you

Definitely not/ somehow not 7.4 4.3 5.6 7.3 7.9 7.6

Neutral 20.6 9.7 14.3 20.0 11.1 15.3

Somehow / definitely 72.1 86.0 80.1 0.087 72.7 81.0 77.1 0.407

Have you ever discussed with him/her

about engagement in same-sex

marriage/civil union

No 81.2 86.0 84.0 72.7 68.3 70.3

Yes 18.8 14.0 16.0 0.404 27.3 31.7 29.7 0.596

In the long run, how likely is that you

will engage in same-sex

marriage/civil union with him/her

Absolutely not/unlikely 10.1 6.5 8.0 12.7 9.7 11.1

Neutral 21.7 16.1 18.5 21.8 17.7 19.7

Likely/very likely 68.1 77.4 73.5 0.404 65.5 72.6 69.2 0.703

How likely is it that you will engage

in same-sex marriage/civil union with

107


him/her in the next 12 months

Very unlikely/unlikely 82.6 80.6 81.5 75.9 67.7 71.6

Neutral 8.7 6.5 7.4 7.4 6.5 6.9

Likely/very likely 8.7 12.9 11.1 0.632 16.7 25.8 21.6 0.490

If you wanted to engage in same-sex

marriage/civil union with him/her,

how confident are you that you could

Very unconfident / somewhat

unconfident

10.1 5.4 7.4 12.7 6.5 9.4

Neutral 17.4 8.6 12.3 18.2 9.7 13.7

Confident/very confident 72.5 86.0 80.2 0.100 69.1 83.9 76.9 0.166

108

Table 31 Associations between background variables and support of legalization for

same-sex civil union among those not supporting same-sex marriage (n = 1440)

% ORu (95%CI)

Gender

Male 5.5 1.0

Female 6.7 1.24 (0.79. 1.94)

Age (years)

18-30 13.1 1.0

31-40 11.5 0.87 (0.40, 1.89)

41-50 7.5 0.54 (0.25, 1.15)

51-60 7.1 0.51 (0.25, 1.01)†

60+ 3.2 0.22 (0.11, 0.45)***

Unspecified 0.0 N.A.


Single 13.1 1.0

Married 5.4 0.38 (0.23, 0.61)***

Others (e.g., cohabitation, divorced, widowed) 3.3 0.23 (0.08, 0.66)**

Education level

Secondary or below 4.7 1.0

Tertiary or above 11.7 2.72 (1.75, 4.21)***


No 5.8 1.0

Yes 8.3 1.48 (0.90, 2.44)

Religious belief

No 6.5 1.0

Catholic/Protestant 5.2 0.44 (0.45, 1.42)

Buddhist/Taoist 6.5 1.00 (0.52, 1.94)


No 6.3 1.0

Yes 4.8 0.74 (0.26, 2.06)


No 4.6 1.0

Yes 13.6 3.28 (2.10, 5.12)***

ORu: univariate odds ratios.

† p < .10; * p < .05; ** p < .01; *** p < .001.

N.A.: not applicable.

109

Table 32 Factors associated with support of legalization for same-sex civil union among

those not supporting same-sex marriage (n = 1440)

ORu (95%CI) AOR (95%CI)


Completely/mainly determined by

innate factors (genes)

1.0 1.0

Innate and external factors have

equal contributions

0.90 (0.51, 1.56) 0.73 (0.41, 1.29)

Completely/mainly determined by

external factors (e.g. cultural or

social influence, peer pressure,

curiosity)

0.63 (0.33, 1.19) 0.61 (0.32, 1.17)

Have no idea 0.31 (0.13, 0.72)** 0.42 (0.18, 0.98)*


Stigma and Acceptance Scale 0.93 (0.91, 0.94)*** 0.94 (0.92, 0.95)***

Knowledge on legalization of



union in other countries

No/unknown 1.0 1.0

Yes 6.61 (2.67, 16.39)*** 4.90 (1.85, 12.98)**

Perceived impact of legalization

of same-sex civil union in Hong

Kong

Positive Societal Impact Scale 1.36 (1.26, 1.48)*** 1.37 (1.26, 1.49)***

Negative Societal Impact Scale 0.79 (0.73, 0.85)*** 0.82 (0.76, 0.88)***

Overall relative perceived impact

of legalization of same-sex civil

union in Hong Kong


positive impact

1.0 1.0


similar 12.67

(5.76, 27.86)***

11.42

(5.12, 25.47)***


negative impact 73.80

(32.98, 165.12)***

67.89

(29.56, 155.89)***

Have no idea 3.52

(1.35, 9.22)*

4.05

(1.53, 10.68)**

Note: * p< .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001.

ORu, univariate odds ratios; AOR, adjusted odds ratios, odds ratios adjusted by

significant background variables.

OR and 95%CI of variables with p < .05 were bold.

110

Table 33 Summary model of factors associated with support of legalization of same-sex

civil union among those not supporting same-sex marriage (n = 1440)

ORm (95%CI)


No 1.0

Yes 1.64 (0.96, 2.79)†

Stigma and Acceptance Scale (the public) 0.97 (0.95, 0.99)**

Legalization of same-sex civil union in other countries

No/unknown 1.0

Yes 2.87 (0.91, 9.13) †

Positive Societal Impact Scale 1.16 (1.06, 1.28)**

Overall relative perceived impact of legalization of same-

sex civil union in Hong Kong

Negative impact prevails over positive impact 1.0

Positive and negative impact are similar 6.18 (2.69, 14.17)***

Positive impact prevails over negative impact 26.78 (11.26, 63.69)***

Have no idea 2.67 (1.00, 7.11)*

ORm: multivariate odds ratios, variables in Table 31 & 32 with p <.10 in univariate

analysis as candidates were selected by forward stepwise logistic regression (entry: p

<.10, exclude: p >.20).

Age, current marital status, education level, attribution to homosexuality and the

Negative Societal Impact Scale were considered but not selected by the forward stepwise

logistic regression.

† p < .10, * p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001.

Public Policy Research Funding SchemePDF)/2015_A4_016_… · Public Policy Research (PPR) Funding...

Documents

Transcript of Public Policy Research Funding SchemePDF)/2015_A4_016_… · Public Policy Research (PPR) Funding...