Rebecca Ananian-Welsh and Chris Peppel: *…Australians have been polled on their views on same-sex marriage repeatedly over the course of years, and the results are clear…*

No it not. If you conduct the Polls in Gay Bars & GLTB&A Groups on Campus then, of course the majority will be in favour. Were any polls done in Culamulla, Home Hill, Geralton, Strawn. Stirling. I don't think so.

Thanks to small but noisy pressure groups the social issue of whether or not to amend the marriage act to accommodate gay couples now overshadows all the other real problems facing our country. The Government must deal with this matter quickly and decisively so that it can focus on the vastly more important economic and political problems facing us.

With both sides of the debate loudly claiming to represent the majority view the only way the Government can be sure of what the mostly silent majority of Australians want is to ask them via a plebiscite or a second-best postal survey.

Mr Shorten, the Greens and a grab-bag of left-wing intellectuals obviously do not want this because, in their arrogance, they believe only they have the wisdom to make the correct decision.

The churches and ultra-right conservatives will oppose it as that is their default setting.

I believe we Australians are collectively mature and intelligent enough to have an open and constructive debate on this issue so let’s bring it on. Let both sides present their arguments for and against and give all of the Australian people the opportunity to tell the Government what they want

Another vapid article by self-confessed SJW. How on earth does a Plebiscite held in 1940 for conscription compare to a plebiscite on SSM in 2017?

The point of a Plebiscite is to determine exactly how people feel over the country and in each electorate and to guide the voting of the MPs when it does actually come to a vote, and to convince the losing side of the weight of public opinion in a way that unreliable polls cannot.

The plebiscite is unnecessary because the question itself is unnecessary. Governments should not be sanctioning people’s emotional relationships one way or the other. It is not necessary for them to do so. Couples do not need government sanctioning of their relationships and it is not the business of government to do what it is unnecessary to do.

Individuals should have a right to appoint another individual to have power of attorney over them should it become necessary. Individuals should also have the right to legally appoint the beneficiary of their material possessions if they die. Both of these things are probably already possible to achieve so marriage is not required in order to have these rights. There should be no rights which depend on being married.

There is no need for legislation regarding marriage since no one needs government sanction of their relationship. Amending legislation to include same-sex couples only makes a bad situation even worse and for this reason it should be resisted.

Whilst the postal vote should be unnecessary it will go ahead and the only logical vote is a NO vote because it exacerbates a bad situation.

Everyone should be concerned about government involvement in relationships which is totally unnecessary and irrational.

Madmick: The churches and ultra-right conservatives will oppose it as that is their default setting.

That's right & most, but not all, will Vote, No. The vast majority of Australians are variations of Atheists. Their vote will be mixed. but more than likely mostly, No. Then, as were are told there's the 500000 moslims who will vote, No. But the GLTBP&A's support them.

I guess it will be GLTBP&A & Parents & close friends that will Vote, Yes.

It should be an interesting Poll. I can see why the GLTBP&A's don't want it conducted.

The question is not about “marriage equality”
Marriage is a union between a man and a woman and there is no question about the equality of these parties. Relationships of perverts are not marriage, and the question being put is whether the definition of marriage should be changed , by law, to effectively include the relationships of perverts in the definition of marriage.
This is in response to the campaign of nonsense and lies by a minority of 1.3% of our population.
It is outrageous that this minority has sustained an attack on the important institute of marriage, a relationship between a man and a woman.
Same sex relationships are not marriage, and until recently involved the criminal offence of unnatural sexual intercourse.There is not even a name for the unnatural relationship of perverts. It is certainly not marriage.
The unscrupulous, lying, dishonest political wing of the perverts persistently and baselessly refers to a relationship of perverts as “same sex marriage”
The authors obviously back the perverts movement, and, contrary to their assertions, believe that the plebiscite result will support the status quo, so they are against it.
Hopefully they are right, and the attempt to pervert the institution of marriage will be defeated.