So business leaders back gay marriage, despite the gay mafia threatening private companies who don't publicly share their view.
So it turns out the politicians were right, allowing both sides to put forward their arguments did result in attacks and hatred... only from the side that is supposedly all about love and equality.
Anyone who is not familiar with history knows that the Left has a very dark history of forcing people to do things they don't want to do, to ruin people who don't agree with them and to even kill people who aren't 'with' them.
Fortunately we're not at the third stage yet, but remember it's a slippery slop. One minute you're being calmly told that marriage is all about equality, nothing else. The next minute you're being accused of homophobia, yelled at and threatened. Finally, you're being tracked down to your place of work and being outed as being racist, homophobic and misogynist for not saying what they want you to say.
It's funny because the people who have always lived in Australia just assume the best of people, whereas people who grew up in the former Soviet Union see the tactics for what they are: fascism.
It doesn't help that children today think that Hitler was Right-Wing, that Communists haven't been behind the overwhelming majority of state-sponsored murder in the history of the world and that the death toll of native populations of countries colonised by colonial British is upwards of 25 million.
As with anything, the numbers of deaths under communism gets rounded down every couple of years and the number of deaths due to white colonialism gets rounded up. Before you know it, Stalin will only have been responsible for less than 1 million deaths, but most of those will be declared to have been criminals anyway, and the total number of Native Americans who died because of British settlements will be over 100 million.
Another aspect to all this that everyone is missing is that the slippery slope only gets worse. First it's gay marriage, then it's polygamy and finally it's child marriages.
The arguments for all three will play out like this:
Gay marriage - why isn't it ok for two loving adults to get married, regardless of their gender since they're not hurting anyone and it's ok for heterosexual people to get married and divorced?
Polygamy - why isn't it ok for three loving adults to get married, since they're not hurting anyone and it's ok for gays and heterosexuals to get married?
Child marriages - why isn't it ok for a 30 year old man to marry a 12 year old girl, since they're not hurting anyone and it's ok for a homosexuals to get married and for people to have more than one husband/wife?
Before you know it, you'll have a 60 year old man with three wives who are all under 18 years of age or a 60 year old man with three husbands who are all under 18 years of age.
That's not to say there aren't some gay people who aren't going to be together forever, but the statistics show that gay men have a much higher partner count than heterosexual men, polygamy results in a gross gender imbalance whereby women are 'collected' by wealthy men, leaving more single men unable to find a wife and child marriages are often the result of arranged marriages, why can be abusive.
Of course everyone can point to instances where that's "not true", but not allowing children to marry until they reach a certain age is a general rule put in place to protect children and vulnerable people.
The strongest argument one can make against child marriage is this: if the love is so strong and marriage is meant to be forever (60 year marriage), then what does it matter if the loving couple get married when the younger person is 15 years old or waiting 3 years? If a relationship is so sensitive that waiting a few years to be formally recognized, then it's probably not that strong to begin with.
Personally speaking, I don't care either way what individuals do. Hell, when I was young and single I loved the idea of gay men in as much as the gay men were usually well dressed, well spoken and would otherwise have outclassed me (I'm generalizing here) in the pursuit of the women I pursued.
What I most strongly disagree with is this strong-arm tactic where you threaten the livelihoods of people who don't openly share your point of view and the politicians arguing that the laws of the land should just be changed since no one is game to openly come out against it. If the plebiscite is held, I think you'll find far more people against the idea than the numbers the polls claim. A bit like the polls that predicted that Trump didn't have chance in hell of winning.
As a great man once said: "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it".