Similar Posts

- Advertisement -

13 Comments

  1. “Hostility towards homosexuality is one of the most reliable markers of the authoritarian personality.”

    Is hostility towards homosexuality a reliable marker of other human characteristics? In those districts highlighted are there commonalities amongst the populace? Religious affiliation for example? Ethnic background for example?

  2. I wish Chris Trotter like TDB would be as open to criticism, expressed by some, to his earlier post, but nevertheless, respect for this post.

    1. This isn’t the standard, Kiwi blog.Blog posts aren’t for authors to get into arguments. They’re for followers to argue over.

  3. Having recently lived in Sydney for some years, I am aware that the Western suburbs have large numbers of muslim residents. Their opposition to same sex marriage is well known and, I suggest, their vote is the reason for the “no” in those electorates.

  4. all this talk about Muslims, I thought I’d look up the politicians most opposed to same sex marriage, like Ian Goodenough (Liberal) who thinks procreation is too complicated when gay parents use surrogates or what-not, and that children need ‘protecting’ from that sort of carry-on…
    or Andrew Hastie, “a churchgoing, squeaky-clean ex-soldier who spoke about protecting Australian values and Western liberal democratic traditions.”…
    so, again, a man with issues….
    and I guess these same issues are just a reflection of certain individuals in society. So while I have no doubt that traditionally conservative immigrant groups are a factor, the ‘No’ vote probably reflects good old fashioned Australian intolerance.

    The same sense of goodwill and love of their fellow man that allows Australians to think Manus Island is a good thing.

    https://thewest.com.au/opinion/complexities-of-gay-marriage-are-too-risky-ng-ya-117261?r=1

    http://www.theaustralian.com.au/life/weekend-australian-magazine/sas-commander-liberal-party-rising-star-how-far-can-andrew-hastie-go/news-story/327a82373c4e90755402c1388506a502

  5. I know people who are all for legalising same sex relationships, but are strongly against calling the unions “marriage”.

    I wonder how many voted NO on those grounds.

    1. Good point. Many people considered conservatives are actually fine with what people get up to in the privacy of their own homes, but take a religious view of marriage as a sacrament. As said in another comment here, the lines are not easy to draw. People can be ‘progressive’ in one area, but not in others.

  6. This legislation doesn’t just change the nature of homosexuality, it changes the nature of marriage. Perhaps it changes marriage rather than changing homosexuality.
    That isn’t a value judgement , as much as an observation that I don’t see can be disputed. It doesn’t matter to me personally , but I can imagine some deeply religious people of any faith being unsettled by the change.
    Perhaps it is for the better of society , I don’t know.
    D J S

  7. This topic cannot be solved by the old device of drawing a line and calling one side victims and the other side oppressors. Some economic conservatives are socially liberal (ACT) and some economic liberals are socially conservative (NZF). Some social liberals don’t like gay marriage, whereas some social conservatives do. Whether some people feel uneasy or not, fundamentalist Christians are not pushing LGBIT people off buildings. Some Anglicans did not vote yes, but that’s democracy. This article wasn’t one of CT’s best.

Comments are closed.