In the new parliamentary term, the Left has been reduced to two arguments against the government’s proposed same-sex marriage (SSM) plebiscite: hate speech and cost.

The anti-democratic Bill Shorten, responsible for making all Labor MPs/senators vote for SSM, has the impudence to label all SSM opponents as haters.

if the Left really thinks that a plebiscite would result in a hate speech wave, what does it think forcing a law through on a parliamentary vote will do? Leave everyone pacified?

Re the plebiscite staging cost of $160 million, if a Gillard/Swan-type ‘same-sex marriage levy’ were introduced, it would cost Australians only 1.8 cents per day for the next year to pay for the plebiscite. This is chicken feed compared with the billions of dollars wasted by Labor when in government.

Why do any of us advocate for this or that? And no, I do not automatically assume that AJ is a closet homosexual just because he advocates for them.

Do we assume that a lawyer representing a murderer must also be a murderer? No, generally speaking we don't do we and for good reason.

In the alternative, it wouldn't matter to me even if he were. The reasons for that are many but here essentially we gather to debate issues, not the people personally, even if we do intensely dislike what it is that they are saying, and or the way that they are saying it, or both. You get no points for ad hominem attacks unless you really can prove that the person or people in question are really beyond the pale.

AJ's challenge is to flaw the logic in his reasoning that concludes that it is unreasonable to persecute, discriminate, vilify and treat unequally and unfairly people who are other than hetero.

By my judgment (and I do not believe that I am alone in that) none of the contributors on this thread and similar ones has yet been able to do that.

What we are left with is the mental disorders and cognitive dissonance of some heteros and some celibates.

Dreamon: What we are left with is the mental disorders and cognitive dissonance of some heteros and some celibates.

& the same for the GLTB's.

And that's the thing O SUNG WU, there is no reason to treat these people with any less respect and any less dignity than anyone else.

There is no reason for the senseless assaults, is there?

And you would know wouldn't you, how much of the violence and the mayhem is truly senseless and unreasonable?

Do these people disgust you so much that you do not believe that they are entitled to the protection of the state just the same as everyone else? And that regardless of whether they are in a school yard, home or public dunny.

Raycom. A clear and well stated post, I think you have reduced the argument to the essentials. The Irish vote would appea to allay the 'fear mongering' cannard forwarded by the opponents camp. What I do not like is the obvious disrespect opponents hold for the Australian national character and all previous examples of how we have dealt with contentious issues.
Di Natales' comments threatening deaths and suicides is probably as low a level of debate I have heard. Truly disgraceful.

The article makes no logical sense.

"Opposition to a plebiscite basically assumes that the public will vote against gay marriage, so a plebiscite shouldn't be held because the public have no rights in this matter."

That's false, untrue, incorrect.

"How important is marriage that they are prepared to spend 160 million dollars to have it?"

Who is "they"? The one's prepared to spend $160 Million was Abbott and his gang of conservative religious loonies. No one asked them to do that, they decided all by themselves.

"When the lobbying began for a change to the Marriage Act ....." Whoa steady on. It was the Howard Government that introduced Legislation to CHANGE the Marriage Act in the 90s.

Who were 'lobbying' then? The same "they" who decided to launch a Plebiscite now - the socially conservative neanderthals, Luddites, and religious freak show and also Gillard/Rudd et al.

It is that 'THEY' who inserted SEX into the Law not the LGBTI folks.

And do please get this right - it is not 'same-sex marriage' - it is 'marriage equality for all people'

SEX has got nothing to do with it - treat all people equally under the Law. It's a positive issue for equal rights, and that's it. SEX is irrelevant.

Neither sexuality or physiology is purely Binary. Genital surgery 'reassignment' has been getting performed on babies and young children for a century. Genetically females would end up boys, and vice versa and they also got that very wrong - so what is a female vs a male when the doctors can't work it out?

Marriage Equality goes way beyond 'having sex' - get your noses out of other people's beds.

It's none of your business what consenting adults do, and if two want to get married that is their Right to have the exact same privileges and rights as others.

This Rights issue could be fixed overnight by a Vote in parliament, the very same kind of Vote that Howard pulled on in order to FORCE his personal beliefs upon the entire nation.

Wake up, it's 2016 already, not 1066.