Tony,
Persons can at any time set up an elaborate party to celebrate a relationship, and they do they do not call it a wedding. You see they want the term marriage, as they assume it will challenge the institution initially set up by the Church; later adopted by the State to record marriages, births and deaths.

Toni Lavis writes:
“Maybe because bigamy is still a crime?”

Yep, as “Australia's former Attorney General Robert McClelland remarked that "There is absolutely no way that the government will be recognising polygamist relationships. They are unlawful and they will remain as such. Under Australian law, marriage is defined as the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others. Polygamous marriage necessarily offends this definition.”

Same as SSM really.

Also:
“A convenor of the ACT Greens party has said when same-sex marriage is limited to, "two consenting adults [this] discriminates against others in the gay community, including polyamorists". He accused the Australian Greens of being "hypocrites" because the logic they use to argue for marriage equality should extend to people who have multiple partners.”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polygamy_in_Australia

I don’t often agree with The Greens, but there ya go.

Continued . . .

. . . continued.

Toni Lavis writes:
“But the thing is that none of the naysayers have ever been able to convince me of the downsides gay marriage.”

In many ways, I reckon that’s a distraction, presumably to manoeuvre the status quo to justify it’s existence. Don’t be surprised if the naysayers don’t fall for it and don’t also assume they have no reasons for their position. No one has to defend what is universally accepted around the planet.

I’ve banged on endlessly that if SSM supporters want the law changed, they have to come up with a convincing argument for it.
I’ve never seen one justification, let alone an up-side.

There’s going to be a survey. There won’t be any questions about the existing marriage law or whether it’s any good or anything remotely like that.
There will (presumably) be one question about whether you support including SSM into the existing marriage act . . or some such wording.

Why people faff about playing gotcha games with naysayers instead of presenting their case I don’t know, but given that laundry list of sloganeering from a couple of posts back, I suspect they haven’t got one.

The very fact that the SSM lobby are prepared to use such dishonest and deceptive tactics to achieve their ends causes people to wonder if their motives are genuine and pure; and perhaps more importantly, what will be the next stage politically. I think the facade is slipping and we’re gradually realising the Emperor has no clothes.

What’s going to be interesting is the voter turn out. Some pundits are saying that for a voluntary vote, this will be low; maybe somewhere around 50%.

The question arises that if a no vote is returned, will the SSM lobby then finally shut up or will they wait two years and try again. My bet is on the latter.
It could also be argued that a yes vote from a low turnout might provide ammunition to political naysayers.

Toni Lavis writes:
“Expensive wedding receptions :)”

Haha . . touché.
I really should have seen that coming.

In the latest move, the protagonists for the no vote on SSM are resorting to a deceitful lie that this plebiscite is in some way a vote on religious freedom, when it is clearly not the case.
Marriage is a State sanctioned institution, and it is the State, and not religious bodies, that decree who are legally married.
Many marriages in Australia have no religious component at all, being conducted by a State approved and authorized secular celebrant.

The status quo whereby both clergy and secular persons are licensed by the State to perform marriage will continue after the law is changed to include same sex couples. No doubt some religious will try and continue with a bigoted attitude of denying same sex couples their legal right to marry, and there could be legal ramifications if that is the case.

The latest servery is indicating a two to one majority yes vote.

//Same as SSM really.//

No, for that comparison to be valid we'd still have to have buggery laws. We haven't had buggery laws for about 20-40 years, depending on which State you're in. So take heart: once states start repealing their bigamy laws, you'll only have to wait a few more decades for this polygamist marriage you seem so keen on.

Not sure when they intend to start repealing bigamy laws, my TARDIS is on the fritz.

//In many ways, I reckon that’s a distraction, presumably to manoeuvre the status quo to justify it’s existence.//

No, it really isn't. Of course I'm not going to vote against gay marriage if I can only see upsides and no downsides.

Although I'd like Status Quo to justify their existence too.

//don’t also assume they have no reasons for their position//

I don't. I'm just curious as to why they're so reluctant to share them with the rest of us.

//No one has to defend what is universally accepted around the planet.//

But it's not though, is it? Argentina, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Colombia, Denmark, Finland, France, Iceland, Ireland, Luxembourg, Mexico, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, the United Kingdom, the United States and Uruguay all recognise (nationwide or in part) that marriage can be between two people of the same sex. It's interesting to look at on a globe; with Argentina, Brazil, Mexico, the States, Canada and Greenland all in favour, you've got most of the landmass in the Western hemisphere coloured in.

...

...continued

//I’ve never seen one justification, let alone an up-side.//

Books. I refer you to my previous posts.

//What’s going to be interesting is the voter turn out. Some pundits are saying that for a voluntary vote, this will be low; maybe somewhere around 50%.//

Wouldn't surprise me. And in a country where compulsory voting has always been the rule and is widely accepted as being good for democracy, the voluntary nature of this survey will lead to questions about its validity regardless of who wins.

It seems a bit fishy to me - why not just make it compulsory, in line with every other time we have to vote? Looks like a fix to me.

//The question arises that if a no vote is returned, will the SSM lobby then finally shut up or will they wait two years and try again. My bet is on the latter.//

Yeah, I'd say that's where the smart money is.

//I really should have seen that coming.//

You might have if you'd been paying attention.