//Yes, and it’s a better world where the state doesn’t seek to legislate with respect to what gay folk do in their bedroom.//

Yeah, I know. But you try telling that to the religious right...

//Generally, I don’t think the majority of the public care about that.//

No, probably not. But from my observations a majority of no voters do. For example:

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=19225#341636

And that's just the tip of the proverbial. What a charming bunch these no voters are. Not someone I'd want to be associating myself with if I was nice polite chap like yourself.

//Same thing for polygamists.//

No, the bigamy laws don't address what people do in their bedroom. Bigamy laws prohibit marrying more than one person at a time (max. penalty 5 years imprisonment); they are entirely mute on the subject of shagging more than one person. Adultery laws are a thing of the past, and I don't believe there's ever been laws against sleeping around outside of wedlock.

Holding a postal survey on polygamy whilst bigamy is still punishable with jail time is such a remarkably stupid idea that I'm sure one of our more unhinged crossbench Senators will adopt it as policy in due course.

....

....

//So, 22 out of, what, 196 countries?//

Yeah, mathematically speaking 22 > 0, which is the number implied by your suggestion that an exclusively heterosexual definition is 'universally accepted around the planet'. One country would have been sufficient to disprove your claim, the other 21 were a bonus.

//Any chance of a link or just a page number would do?//

Sorry.

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=7880#244147

//But I understand this has to do with the ABS running it and they can’t invoke the compulsory voting provision as would be the norm with the AEC.//

The Government had to draft specific legislation for the survey because it falls outside of any normal electoral processes. There was nothing stopping them from drafting it so that voting was compulsory (just like it's compulsory to complete the ABS-run census).

//You know when I think about it I think this whole postal vote thing is pretty dumb, and certainly open to manipulation.
Hosestly I think it's going to turn a lot more ugly yet, because neither side is likely accept the validity of the verdict.//

It sure is. And for the bargain price of $120,000,000 tax dollars. Thanks, Liberal Party. How are those polls looking, guys?

//Postal vote seems stoneage, like Cobb and Co type stuff in an era of modern computing.
They spent $120m on this, why couldn't we all just login and vote online?//

An online vote? Conducted by the ABS, the people who brought you - or failed to bring you, to be more exact - the online census? Have you really thought this through, Armchair? I think when it comes to the ABS, it's best just to stick to snail mail. They don't seem to understand anything else, bless them.

Toni Lavis writes:
“Sorry”

OK, but here’s what you wrote and what I was responding to:

“Books. I refer you to my previous posts.”

I presumed you were referring to a book of some sort?

Toni Lavis writes:
“No, probably not. But from my observations a majority of no voters do. For example: [...]”

Fair enough.
I reckon it’s always difficult to deduce what might represent the whole from a sub set on a forum. Invariably the hot heads will make their presence felt and skew the numbers. Hey, you and I may be skewing the numbers even though not so hot headed about it.

It’s a bit like reading about the quality of a certain branded toaster on-line.
People set out their complaint, but those happy with the toaster don’t post.

And, no, I don’t want to be associated with those charmers, but it still happens all too often.

Toni Lavis writes:
“Bigamy laws prohibit marrying more than one person at a time […]”

Yep, I understand the legal position re bigamy but I’m pointing out that, objectively, polygamy would likely have little effect on existing marriage laws because it still shares the common philosophical and social tenets of family etc.

Intellectually, it’s a valid comparison if we’re considering equality.
It’s that logic which informs people’s views and it's validity is quite independent of the likelihood of it coming to pass.
Of course, corralling the objectivity is likely to be much more . . erm . . challenging.

Dear Dustin,

Mr Howard did change the Marriage Act to include
a definition of Marriage. The laws previously did
not define Marriage. Mr Howard did that to prevent
the courts from interpreting marriage more broadly
and also to make sure that same-sex marriage
conducted overseas would not be recognised as
marriage in Australia.

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/05/27/1085461875956.html

Hey Dustin,
"No plausible logic to how manipulation might happen".

Alright...
I probably shouldn't share this as it will give people ideas, but also I think we should expose potential ways to manipulate the outcome.
So lets say I wanted to manipulate the results of this vote, how would I do it?

What I would do to begin with is go to the TOR browser and look to purchase data online from the dark web.
(not that I've ever been there or know anything about it)
Specifically what I would want is names and addresses of Australian citizens.

Google this:
'Medicare details on the dark web is just the tip of the data breach' -SMH
So now with data in hand I just need to make copies of the ballots with the correct details of existing Australians on it.
-Maybe these forms need to have individual codes to prevent this and validate them, I don't know if they will or not.
So now I could just print up forms and post them in, sure we might get some double up's, and they will see that fraud has taken place but will the government admit to taxpayers it held the ballot and it was left open to fraud?
And that they wasted 120 million dollars?
Would they admit their imcompetence?

And so how many hundreds of thousands of votes do you want for or against?
Look at our normal systems for voting, even now I could go in and vote multiple times by just saying I was someone else that I knew wasn't going to vote.
Not that I ever have or would.

Hi Foxy,

I don’t propose to argue with you or anyone about John Howard’s actions or the definition of “change”.
If you’d like some acknowledgement of those points from me, then consider it done.

The semantics don’t materially impact the facts or anything I said, though.
And remember too, that while Howard has become the whipping boy over the changes, the opposition happily agreed otherwise it wouldn’t have happened.

At the time, Julia Gillard said it was nothing to worry about, or words to that effect.
Now that she’s changed her mind, the ABC reckon we should listen to her. Surprise!
It’s almost as if . . you know . . “there will be no same sex marriage under a government I lead” and that she gives a ratz about marriage anyway. ;-)

I got a 404 on your link but, no matter. I agree that Howard’s move was a defensive one prompted by events in Canada, if I recall.

Remember too, that the Canada situation was a complicated schism, both regional and constitutional in nature.
Some regions of Canada had successfully challenged the law as being unconstitutional. That set the legal precedent and effectively forced their federal government to comply.

So, if we want to be pedantic over words like “changed” then it’s also appropriate to point out the lie that is perpetrated when people say that Canada has adopted SSM because . . well, I dunno . . because they are progressive and have obviously seen the light of day . . and we should do the same. Such is not the case.

There was never a Canadian plebiscite. What the public support looked like we’ll probably never know.
The Canadian government was caught legally with their metaphorical pants down. Howard saw that and our parliament agreed to remedy the loophole.