Hacker News new | comments | show | ask | jobs | submit login
How Australians think about same-sex marriage, mapped (abc.net.au)
12 points by anotherevan 13 days ago | hide | past | web | 10 comments | favorite





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.


> Who you marry is no-one's business but your own.

Well no, not really. As long as it has a status in law, then of course society should have a say in who and how. For instance polygamy raises all sorts of questions in regards to tax, support, which partner has "priority" in dealing with estate issues etc. to which most Western countries have just banned rather than deal with.

Personally I'm inclined to think that the State should have nothing to do with the institution. I'm not sure how that would be handled though.


Exactly. The government should get over itself and stop prying into people's personal lives. It's none of its business who wants to have what private relationship. People's relationships shouldn't be a factor for taxation.

> 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.


This is such a common and contorted view of things, I feel it needs comment.

1. Imposing your 'view' on someone can mean to ask them to see your point of view or to force them to act in a certain way. These things are not equivalent..

2. The only world view being imposed on the fringe-right is the one that says it is not ok to impose their views on others. You are not a bigot if you are intolerant of bigots.


They are not forcing no voters to marry same sex persons

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.


It's a real shame, but Australia is still very conservative, racist and homophobic. In those ways, they are seriously lagging behind the Developed world.

Top of Cape York will just be because there are hardly any people there, so you are just seeing the opinion of a handful of people.


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.


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



Applications are open for YC Winter 2018

Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | DMCA | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: