Jayb,

It's the egg:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2072932
http://www.stat.ucla.edu/~cochran/pdf/MentalHealthDiscrimLGBinUS.pdf
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4197971
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1446470/pdf/11392936.pdf
http://www.researchgate.net/profile/Ilan_Meyer/publication/15461517_Minority_stress_and_mental_health_in_gay_men/links/0deec53ad819484a10000000.pdf

The reason the pro-homosexual-marriage advocates want to avoid a plebiscite is that they are terrified it won't pass. This was confirmed by the Labs who saw it as one of the reasons to oppose.

Why would it fail when the polls say otherwise?

Because the nature of the vote will be that both sides of the debate will get to have a say. Currently, we get a very one sided view of the issue. Popular culture presents gays as almost uniformly admirable. Very little is heard of the reasons many have a problem with homosexual marriage and when opposition is mentioned it is almost uniformly presented as coming from reactionary clergy.

What a plebiscite will do is provide the noes with a platform to make their case over the head of a censorious media. It was said in the last few days that one example of the distressing things that would be said by the noes (this occurred in Ireland) is that they'd point out that children raised in non-traditional families do, on average, worse than those raised by a father-mother. In other words, people would start to hear the truth and see that the opposition isn't just on religious grounds. Hence the desire to avoid what appears to be a plebiscite with a certain result.

At some point, when/if the plebiscite becomes a reality, we'll start to hear that the public funding of the yes/no cases should be curtailed. The rationale will be cost-saving but the reality will be to try to suppress the no case getting its message out.

The political elite (particularly on the left) have suffered a series of defeats over the recent past when they make what they consider to be the mistake of given the people a say. Brexit is just the latest of these. But our own Republic Referendum was another along with the rise of anti-immigration parties in Europe and the US.

Much better therefore to keep it 'in-house' so that the 'right' decision can be made.

Who do you class as a hate preacher?

Is it a person who publicly define marriage is an exclusive relationship between a man and a woman? If so, then a large part of the population and the Parliament are hate preachers in your mind. A yes vote for calling same sex relationship marriage will not ever change their view of the exclusive reality that exists between a man and a woman. It the Parliament changes the Act we will have the same conflict that exists in the USA where State Governments are ruling against the Marxist agenda. It has raised the public hatred stakes.

In Australia a large part of the population prefer to live happily in de'facto relationships and do not see marriage as an inequality issue as do homosexuals. Homosexuals want the legal term marriage so they can pursue litigation against persons they feel discriminate against their union. It is not going to change attitudes or beliefs to have a law, it is just equally going to raise hatred of homosexuals who litigate their claim as it has done in the USA.

Give the people a say on informed family relationships, social and health issues rather than emotive media reports.

I want my chance to vote no, and as a tax payer I am entitled to my vote and that is all there is to the matter.

If its about the wasted money, then leave well enough alone.

All the research done to prove Gays feel stress is LGBT focused rather than as a whole of public health issue. I work with men in retirement and to see the stress and emotional problems they carry is extremely damaging. Especially men who have served this country, the whole of society is groaning in stress and feelings of rejection. It doesn't just happen to the LGBT persons. Persons who have been bullied at work are equally stressed.

Calling their relationship marriage is not going to change human behaviour and their self acceptance of their difference.

It is simple really;
If left to the pollies there will still be argument about it.
We were denied our say etc etc. Campaign to repeal the change etc.

If left to the plebiscite, that will be it, a vote of the people
was taken and even the pollies will not be able to ignore it, and
whichever way it goes it is final.