I reckon that homosexuals were most ill-advised to allow the faux Marxist feminists and 'Progressives', along with the bullying Gay Pride activism imported from the social strife-ridden US of A to take over and lead them by the nose.

Those political elites and stirrers draw the serial nuisances like raw chicken draws the blowies.

Most homosexuals just wanted to fly under the radar while being accepted as different. Outlaws who could flex arrangements to suit themselves because they were not institutionalised by the feckless politicians, bureaucrats and Big Brother, now Big Sister(hood), State. The freedom was well worth some minor inconvenience for the few very well offs (namely pollies, academic and other bureaucrats) who wanted to claim some 'married' entitlements.

The gent who headbutted Abbott is allegedly part of the inner urban fringe demographic, that Greens and Shorten's Labor (NOT traditional Labor members!), fight over. Just as those parties elbow each other to 'win' the similarly easily influenced inner urban Hipster, with the 'significant to moi, but the same as everyone else' tatts, triangles and such.

I don't take that fool as representing homosexuals as such, leastways not the cowed and silent majority of homosexuals. But then I don't imagine that many of the steamrolling 'Yes' crew represent traditional homosexuals' opinion either.

//the cowed and silent majority of homosexuals.//

Oh here we go, the 'no' voters actually represent the silent majority of homosexuals. Good one XD

You 'no' people really are getting desperate now, aren't you?

Either way, there's strife ahead.

I did have to mention raw chicken :(

Homosexual does not imply homogeneity of world view, lifestyle, expectations and opinion. The tide of homosexuals opinion was always massively against marriage. It was the butt of jokes. Do you imagine that those homosexuals are so fickle as to change their tried and tested lifestyles, outlooks and views overnight? They are being ignored.

Very few homosexuals, only the educated middle class elite (mainly women bureaucrats) gain from marriage and for that matter, from the Gillard feminist idealogical extremism that extended the definition and coverage of de facto 'relationships' (Common Law marriage). Most others lose by having the State's interference in their lives. The example already given is the cost of divorce and the 2-4 years Federal Court delays.

The feminists and self-titled 'Progressives' have criticised marriage unrelentingly for decades and want it demolished. For them if marriage was the dead parrot of the Monty Python sketch they would be ecstatic. But they are all for pushing it onto homosexuals, why?

//Either way, there's strife ahead.//

... said Hanrahan.

//Homosexual does not imply homogeneity of world view, lifestyle, expectations and opinion.//

Of course not. And yet somehow, inexplicably, you know what the 'silent majority' of homosexuals think. Divine revelation? Been taking lessons in mentalism from the Amazing Phanto? Random conjecture?

Anyway, they'll all get a vote in the survey, same as everybody else. And I'll take this opportunity to remind you that the survey asks if the law should be changed to allow SSM, not if the law should be changed to make SSM compulsory.