//Only around 70% of Australians were sent survey forms//

Because the other ~30% weren't eligible to vote. The vast majority of those ineligible voters being disqualified on the basis of being under 18. By how much do you propose lowering the voting age? Because if you want 100% of Australians voting, somebody is going to have to figure out a way of explaining all the issues to infants who haven't got to the talking stage yet.

//The result does show support is much higher than most expected//

No it doesn't. In the lead up to the plebiscite, there was poll after poll indicating that support for SMM was sitting around 60%. This was not a shock result by any means.

//the issue probably does deserve a proper referendum//

No, it definitely doesn't deserve a referendum, because it's not constitutional.

It doesn't deserve a plebiscite either. We've already wasted enough time and money on the survey; wasting more on a plebiscite asking the same question and getting much the same result will not endear the Government to anybody. And even then the no voters will whine that it's not a legitimate majority because only eligible voters were polled, and what about all the 2 year olds with strong views on gay marriage?

//I'm all for voluntary voting//

Really? Because you just spent the first half of your post whining that the voluntary nature of the survey means the results are inconclusive and illegitimate. Something that would presumably apply to every single result if we were to adopt voluntary voting. Would you care to make up your mind?

jamo: The number of respondents was nowhere near "80% of Australians". Only around 70% of Australians were sent survey forms. Around 80% of eligible voters responded. The claimed outcome of around 61% affirmative responses is significant but 61% of 80% of 70% is not a majority result.

Over thinking has confused you somewhat.

Jamo: We've already wasted enough time and money on the survey;

I say again. The procrastination of Governments over questions in the "Too Hard Basket" has cost Australia many Billions of Dollars because they have gone unanswered. If the Government refuses, can't or won't answer these questions then let the people answer them. $100000 to answer multiple questions, just yes or No is small change for a positive result.

Ideally there would be no such bodies like the state which violently control our lives. Given that such bodies do exist, allowing real people to have more say over what those bodies do, is overall a good step forward.

However, my fear is that it could be used to further excuse the tyranny of majorities. Take for example Jayb's suggestion of compulsory vaccination - violently interfering with other people's bodies, something we otherwise label as RAPE.

Another concern is that the author proposes to rely for this on the internet, which is controlled by America and constantly hacked by China, Russia and Ukraine, with big stakes in controlling Australia's democratic processes: sooner or later the internet will crash beyond repair, so we must stop relying on it for essential functions.

Yutsie: Take for example Jayb's suggestion of compulsory vaccination

You are nit picking one issue, keep going. Still I don't care if people don't want to Vaccinate. If their children get sick they should be quarantined & left to rot. It's not our problem, it's the parents problem then they must be charged with murder. No problem. There's an All Day Sucker for you to suck on, Yutsie.

Actually, I have this little Book & it has to do with Dilimmas. Like, "if the ship was sinking & you could only save yourself, your Wife, girl child, boy child or your dog. Who would you choose?" There's about 100 Questions. Great book.