What I think is that web based opinion polls are pointless.

This is why voting on each others' civil rights is such a bad idea.

Yes, they are pointless, and I don't think much of the Herald Sun as a newspaper or the people that buy it, but I am still shocked to see the direction the results are heading in.

Well they are right. *I* for one, would not want to me married and have the same sex all the time!

I'm a little bit pleasantly surprised that anybody would care about my opinion of same-sex marriage in Australia. Also, the same-sex marriage debate allows for a lot of opportunities for W.C.-Fields-esque jokes that would probably be easy to misinterpret.

(I don't know much about that paper or Australian politics--why are you shocked, goshling, and what would you have expected?)

Is this rag one of Murdoch's pap?

I'm in favor of same sex marriage everywhere. Regardless of whether it's a civil or religious state; as someone famous once said, "As God is my judge, God is gay." As someone else famous once said, "You don't know me; I do what I want!" And as a third, not-so-famous person once said, "Look, I'm not trying to tread on others' beliefs or feelings or inclinations, I'm just saying it's hard enough to live my own life without trying to tell you how to live yours."

A referendum on other people's love? Some people need a hobby.

The paper itself is trashy. I guess I naively thought our society was a bit more open minded (religious fundamentals have less of a presence here than in the US for one thing) and in general we're a pretty easy going nation, so without looking I would have guessed maybe a 75% pro result? I can't remember the last time I personally met someone who was openly anti-gay, so I guess I have a but of confirmation bias going on, in that people I associate with are open minded so I assume the majority of people are.

Thinking about it more, there's a lot of hate around, lots of racism and xenophobia in particular all over the news recently. There's also a lot of apathy and "not in my backyardism", so I really shouldn't be surprised when the haters come out. Now I'm going to go back into the bubble in which I've obviously been residing, where people accept & respect each other's personal lifestyle choices.

**whuffles to all**

What Hugh said.

I think what is now called marriage should be called civil unions. Civil unions are legal for consenting adults whether they are straight, gay or polygamists. Civil unions will take care of the legal stuff (insurance, inheritance, etc.). Then, if you want, you can get married in your religion. However, if your religion is anti same sex or polygamist (or straight!) unions, they cannot be forced into performing marriages.

/jumps off of soapbox

However, if your religion is anti same sex or polygamist (or straight!) unions, they cannot be forced into performing marriages.

...but they lose their tax-exempt status because why should I pay more so they can discriminate.

Come on, who really wants Australians breeding?

I just voted because surely, if one portion of the Australian or any other populace can tell the rest how they should conduct their consensual love lives, they won't mind me doing the same. It's now 52% on the yes side. I don't understand what the 48% or their counterpart in the United States or anywhere else are afraid of.

Okay, I've voted, (now up to yes:53 no:47).

Now, I shall go and wash the screen and keyboard, and my mouse, and hands, to get the Hun stench off...

I don't understand what the 48% or their counterpart in the United States or anywhere else are afraid of.

"Poofters".

...but they lose their tax-exempt status because why should I pay more so they can discriminate.

That should happen regardless.

Yes, it should. Sadly, democracy fools them into confusing the people's will with their god's.

The paper itself is trashy. I guess I naively thought our society was a bit more open minded (religious fundamentals have less of a presence here than in the US for one thing) and in general we're a pretty easy going nation, so without looking I would have guessed maybe a 75% pro result?

I'd suspect that even the most wrong-headed US fundamentalist has probably thought more about this issue than the Hun-reading kneejerk homophobes who are doing the voting. I'm not sure if I should consider that a positive thing, or not.

That said, if the vote comes out 50/50, given the bias of the sample, I think that's pretty good.

(as an aside: if the Age could do as good AFL coverage as the Hun, I think Victoria would become a pinko bastion... people don't buy the Hun because they agree with its political slant, they buy it for the footy, and then end up (uncritically) reading the political stuff when they're bored.)