Now, if you were a well-known celebrity or comedian, maybe John Stewart or Colbert, or even Penn and Teller, you probably could get away with it as a social commentary (which it would be either way, but celebrities have more rights than normal people, as you know). Know any numbers for famous people?

But yes, it is quite blatantly stupid to campaign against giving people rights (at no cost to you). I mean, if you're campaigning against a tax hike to make homeless shelters, intellectually I can understand people wanting to keep their own money. But a no-cost-to-you, except maybe lost schadenfreude, well, it's just wrong.

This is the third attempt at such laws, with the previous two being vetoed by the then ultra-conservative Prime Minister and the now semi-conservative Prime Minister.

You guys have a Prime Ministerial veto? How does that work? Does that only apply to his own party's policies, or can he veto private members' bills as well?

The first time a law was passed, it was an actual marriage law. The paradoxically-named Liberal Party of the time, who have strong ties to and receive funding from many churches, used their House of Reps and Senate majorities to amend the federal Marriage Act to include the definition of "one male and one female only", thus making the ACT law illegal.

The second attempt was a civil union act which was just like a marriage, conferring all the rights of a marriage, for all marriages, straight or gay. However it was struck down by the new Labor Party Prime Minister as being too-much like marriage and therefore undermining the federal government's monopoly on restricting people's relationships (my words, not theirs). While true that many straight people would opt for a cicil union instead of a marriage, I don't understand why the word marriage must essentially be applied to all qualifying relationships. Surely it is the rights that come with the union that matter, not the word describing it.

This final attempt has been seriously watered down. The new bill applies only to gay relationships (marriages which don't qualify under the Marriage act) in an attempt to appease the divided Senate. At least one Liberal senator has vowed to cross the floor to vote for the bill if it came to that, but it is yet unknown whether the PM will attempt to veto the move. If he does, I've lost all faith in the system, where the federal government can meddle in state and territory business, and where our Members of Parliament violate the constitution and agreed-upon UNHRC standards to represent their own interests (religious beliefs and/or being reelected). My faith in the system is already on a fine-line. Voting is compulsory here, but I reserve the right to scrawl the word "you all suck!" across the ballot if it comes to that.

Honestly, the most galling aspect is that in the lead-up to the last federal election there were Labor party members at the local Pride festival trying to drum up votes for the now-PM. It was a pity that when pressed on exactly what the Labor party would do for gay rights in this country, the silence was deafening. Some vague promise to "do something" doesn't cut it, I'm afraid. How arrogant of them to court the LGBT vote while doing exactly what the conservative wingnuts we wanted to oust (for other reasons, such as the draconian workplace laws) would have done.

Well, just thought I'd put it out there that the US isn't the only place where the religious-right have their tentacles in politics and human rights issues. In fact, if this bill gets overturned same-sex marriage will still be illegal across the country. Our backwards laws don't recognise same-sex marriages performed overseas, can void passports if they suspect you're going overseas to get married, and even go so far as to deny visas for children adopted overseas by same-sex couples.

And all this coming from a country supposedly more progressive and less religious than the US.

Bisexual here. Did NOT give up being bisexual when I got married. I am still attracted to other people, I just happened to end up in a monogamous relationship with a man.

Bisexual and polyamorous are not the same thing. Bisexual means being attracted to both sexes, not continually having sex with both sexes.

Frankly, I know you're not too stupid to have understood all the comments that have pointed this out to you.

And I find your insistence that if I don't constantly sleep with two sexes I'm not bisexual anymore to be highly offensive.

While I still think there is a subtle difference between being attracted to different people of the same gender vs different people of different genders, the difference is probably not big enough to pursue here as a rationalized argument, and probably the only thing worth hearing now are the thoughts of bisexual people themselves?

You've already been hearing them.

In the same way, a bisexual person may be attracted to people of a different or the same gender, but once they are in a committed relationship, they are not going to pursue other relationships. The difference is monogamous versus polygamous (as others have stated), and who you're attracted to does not change how you act when in a relationship with a chosen person.