
How Australians think about same-sex marriage, mapped - anotherevan
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-09-13/same-sex-marriage-support-map-vote-compass/8788978
======
andrewstuart
Who you marry is no-one's business but your own.

Hard to see why this even needs thinking about, but I guess there are plenty
of people in this world who want to impose their world view onto others.

Looking at the chart in the linked post, I wonder what the heck is going on at
the top of the Cape York Peninsula that leads them to think different to the
rest of Queensland.

~~~
synicalx
> but I guess there are plenty of people in this world who want to impose
> their world view onto others.

Not supporting the "no" voters at all here, but both sides are technically
guilty of this.

I guess for example if you follow a religion that is opposed to same sex
marriage I imagine it would feel as if same sex marriage advocates were trying
to impose their world views on you and vice-versa.

~~~
Oletros
They are not forcing no voters to marry same sex persons

~~~
synicalx
Again, let me preface this by saying none of these views are my own, I'm just
trying to be sympathetic for both sides of the debate here so that we avoid
creating echo chambers every time this topic gets mentioned.

Although I think it's unlikely that any celebrants, or at least ones
affiliated with various religions, will be forced to marry same sex couples,
they're not the only people that are involved in a wedding. So even if
celebrants are protected, will that same protection extend to
photographers/caterers/musicians/venues etc?

The main pain point at the moment as far as I can tell is this plebiscite,
whilst it's asking a very necessary question, doesn't give any indication of
what people are _actually_ voting on. A "Yes" result could potentially hand a
more progressive government a blank cheque in terms of their justification to
legislate however they want.

------
alan-crowe
Linguistic change keeps pace with social change. If Jane Austin jumped two
hundred years in a time machine, she would notice the change in language. In
her day (and social class) marriage is permanent and adultery and divorce
mostly absent due to heavy social penalties. Also, no premarital sex, no unwed
mothers.

Surveying today's social scene, she would notice that we have totally
abolished marriage as she understood it. She would also notice that we were
sentimental about words. We reused the word marriage for the very different
social institution that replaced marriage, rather confusing ourselves about
the extent of the change.

Well, no. We are not in fact sentimental about words. Jumping 200 years in a
time machine creates the cognitive illusion of a year when things changed.
Jane expects to be told that we abolished marriage in 1917 and held a
competition for a new word for the new world. Why did "marriage" win?

But there was never a single year when the world changed. All the changes were
small enough that it never made sense to coin a new word. Yes, we can see now
how temporary our sexual pair bonds are. If there have been a single year when
it happened, we would have coined a new noun("tempriage" instead of
"marriage") and a new verb ("to tempry" instead of "to marry").

If we had new words, linguistic change would reveal social change instead of
concealing it. We would have a very different take on "progressive" versus
"traditionalist". The progressive position approves of homosexual tempriage.
The traditional position rejects homosexual tempriage.

At this point we spot that "traditional" need scare quotes around it. There is
no traditional position on tempriage. Tempriage is thoroughly new. Some 21st
century people want to shape the new social institution one way. Others
disagree.

We have no authentic traditionalists. Jacob Rees-Mogg thinks he is arguing
that against gay marriage, because marriage has traditionally been between a
man and a woman. In fact his is arguing against gay tempriage, on the basis of
an unspoken and tenuous analogy between tempriage and marriage.

I don't know what to make of all this. I would love to understand the world
around me, especially social change, but it is so confusing. Not only are
social changes very large, but we try to understand them through a rhetoric of
tradition versus progress, without understanding that our "traditions" are
new-minted.

------
anotherevan
Aside from the data itself being interesting, I thought the way it was
presented on this page was very well done.

