Law of averages has it, there will be a covert backlash against homosexuals. It's how it works!

everyone except the abc admit that the new marxist are violent intolerant and self righteous. Look at the air play abc gave to poor Sam being called a few names while himself being a racist himself banging on about 'white male privilege'. Compar thatd with the physical violence tagainst Abbott. The left are bigooted, nasty and spitful. Look at Hilary's tantrum throwers who defend the indefensible by desteroying property and beatung people. Yes it is the tribe that counts and the most bigotted, intolerant and irrational are the leftist marxist by a long way.

The postal vote thankfully concluded last Friday! And here today, we have a disgruntled author, apparently trying to make Tony, if you don't see it in writing, Abbott's version of events, the truth?

In any event, what is this article seeking to achieve?

Let me guess, the folk that resisted every way, every day, with their endless conflated mischievous and vexatious no, not now not ever, I'll die in a ditch first, NO vote, now want to be the authors of the legislation governing SSM civil marriage legislation!?

And nearly as obvious as a telegraphed haymaker!

Moreover, these conservative folk need to be identified and remembered when we go to the polls to elect the next government! And to hammer home as nothing else might what the public think of all the divisive tactics used to try and sway folk to the NO case side! Even if it irreparably divided families and the nation!

Control freak folk, who don't like us our rights and freedoms, remain perfectly free to take themselves and their stone age belief systems elsewhere! And good riddance! Nor we shouldn't reward anyone of them at the ballot box neither! Anyone else but them!
Alan B.

Super article.

Seems that those who put down one dollar on Same Sex Marriage (SSM) betting face such odds as:

Majority Yes vote for SSM: $1.60

Majority No against SSM: $2.25

My prediction is that, of votes that are not informal around:
- 60% will vote Yes
- 40% No

60% would mean that less than 50% of eligible voters voted for SSM.

All this means Parliament will not feel compelled to pass legislation making SSM legal.

//Look at the air play abc gave to poor Sam being called a few names//

Yeah, right on brother! About time somebody stood up to these PC lefties in favour of people's right to call brown skinned-people 'monkeys'!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PNHjBpsh0KQ

" Assault on a former Prime Minister represents a breakdown in civil debate, a disregard for democracy and free speech".

Wrong , democracy ended when Abbott was a sexist mysogynist-misgigynst-mosygnast anyway he wasn't nice to Julia , threw out the Constitution and ended free speech. hang on , that's the police at the doo

Ah, Toni,

"... people's right to call brown skinned-people 'monkeys'!..."

You're talking about Peter Fitzsimons, right? He has first claim on that franchise.

Strange how the Left have amnesia about that.

But answer a simple question: who is going to have the biggest impact on public opinion? A couple of anonymous yobs in a bar or an ageing Lefty newspaper columnist and nationally self-promoted writer of opinion-as-history, married to a nationally-known "TV personality" who is about to snaffle $2 million a year for vacuous posturing?

Both sides of that equation have about equal value, but you choose to load up the yobs with all the guilt.

Get a life.

//You're talking about Peter Fitzsimons, right? He has first claim on that franchise.

Strange how the Left have amnesia about that.//

So... some dude called brown-skinned people 'monkeys' in the past and that makes it OK for everybody to do it? Two wrongs make a right? I don't follow.

I suspect your post would be more meaningful if I hadn't just had to consult google to find out who the bloke was.

Do not make the mistake of assuming that just because I am opposed to racism that I follow the same newspaper columnists as yourself... although I do flip through the SMH from time to time, I usually only bother with the letters rather than the paid opinionists.... and this Fitzsimons bloke doesn't seem to be one of their regulars, because I've not read any of his stuff.

I get most of my news from the BBC.

And I still don't see how any of this excuses anybody of using appalling racial slurs.

' Yeah, right on brother! About time somebody stood up to these PC lefties in favour of people's right to call brown skinned-people 'monkeys'!'

glad to see evolutionist have moved on from the myth of brown skin people being less evolved. Was previously one of their dogmas. Just another revision. Mind you I would prefer someone call me a monkey than get smacked in the mouth by some leftist thug full of his own self righteousness.

//Mind you I would prefer someone call me a monkey than get smacked in the mouth by some leftist thug full of his own self righteousness.//

Really? I'd prefer neither of the above.

Masochists...

Let's not ever ever forget what as been done here, by who and for what reason!? Arguably more of the divide and rule crap, that's all that keeps the conservative element in power and gives the tail the right to wag the dog!

Think, before we had One Nation we were one nation not a divided rabble quoting 2,000 year old scripture of indeterminate origin!? As assumed authority! And claimed as a biological/dark age truth! Completely opposite to the mounting genetic evidence, notwithstanding!

Somebody needs to be held to account for this attempt to wind the clock back, even as most of the more enlightened world winds it forward!

I ask only one thing. Never ever forget!

Remember what was done here and by who the next time you look at a ballot paper, with any of their names on it and put them where they belong, in the political wilderness!

Is that plane enough for those, who need someone to, please ex-plane? As honest as the day is long, honestly! Ask any, ex one nation, polly/nominee!
Alan B.

Looks like the Same Sex Marriage result may have been leaked in advance
.
.
Judging by the hysterics of Sweden's World Cup Soccer Team http://youtu.be/VN-W_1PXZmk

So at 10am tomorrow (15 Nov) all will be announced on the results of the SSM vote.

With due reverence to soccer, here is a better depiction of the leaked celebration of the result:
.
.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-11-14/sweden-players-crash-live-tv-broadcast/9149748?section=sport

At http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=19411#345025 I predicted:

"My prediction is that, of votes that are not informal around:
- 60% will vote Yes
- 40% No"

Turns out I was off by just 1.6% with 61.6% voting Yes.

More see http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/gay-marriage/how-australia-voted-on-samesex-marriage/news-story/856052cb744b25f734d04c1714e202e7

You guys keep playing ping-pong with your arguments, going back and forth with no conclusion in sight. Your comments are old and stale by now so no need to keep trying to convince the other of anything now. What is not accepted by the Yes camp is that they believe they 'have it in the bag', so to speak. What we have just participated in is an over-rated poll. This way it meant the pollies didn't have to show their hand on the issue, if that's what they wanted. Now that the govt have a better idea of the mood and level of sick'os in this country they can move to write laws that will, unlike other countries, protect us from being negatively affected by this same sex rubbish. A very telling expose' of the 'real' dangers of changing laws to accommodate a sick and precocious minority. Just look up Massachusetts and see what has and is happening there. It will make your skin creep. If our govt don't put in protections against religious and personal rights we will all be seeing a very sick and twisted society in the not too distant future. Go on look it up. I think the law was enacted in either 2004 or 2007, around these times.

Massachusetts?

Oh, ah didn expect dem Bee Gees boys!

http://youtu.be/uSSJwKixbKU

I believe I'm Moral Metermaid No.1 in pointing out that people being allowed to speak is the main problem with Plebiscites.

Furthermore the majority Yes vote is to be regretted on account of No not winning:
- due to the lower number of No Votes.

Moral Metermaid No.2 looked up from her Bible-readin and declared:

"It’s completely unfair. This is not taking into account the amount of moral people who would have voted ‘No’ but didn’t."

plantagenet, WTF are you on. I'm not very good with sarcasm, so could you please explain yourself in a language I/we might understand, preferably English.