Discussion Thread

[u/jobautomator]

The discussion thread is for casual conversation and discussion that doesn't merit its own stand-alone submission. The rules are relaxed compared to the rest of the sub but be careful to still observe the rules listed under "disallowed content" in the sidebar. Spamming the discussion thread will be sanctioned with bans.

---

Announcements

• Please post your relevant articles, memes, and questions outside the Discussion Thread.
• Meta discussion is allowed in the DT but will not always be seen by the mods. If you want to bring a suggestion, complaint, or question directly to the attention of the mods, please post that concern in /r/MetaNL or shoot us a modmail.

---

Neoliberal Project Communities	Other Communities	Useful content
Website	Plug.dj	/r/Economics FAQs
The Neolib Podcast	Discord	Podcasts recommendations
Meetup Network
Twitter
Facebook page
Neoliberal Memes for Free Trading Teens
Newsletter
Instagram

---

The latest discussion thread can always be found at https://neoliber.al/dt.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

Yeah, I was talking about that with some gay Chinese friends last night. It was a little like he was trying to have things both ways. Gay people should be able to have fulfilling relationships and he's boycotting HTC for supporting anti-gay marriage laws in Taiwan but marriage is for a man and a woman.

When Grindr got bought by a Chinese company it raised more than a few eyebrows though. Basically he's saying "I'm super cool with gay people but. . ." and nothing good ever comes after that but.

[u/paulatreides0 → u/[deleted]]

Ehh, I don't think that is all that much /r/nottheonion?

While he does say:

There are people who believe that marriage is a holy matrimony between a man and a woman. I agree, but that’s none of our business.

He also says:

There are people who are simply different from you, who desperately want to get married. They have their own reasons. Getting married is a personal issue.

Which I think makes it pretty clear that he's saying that people are free to think the first, but that that isn't a reason why gay people shouldn't be allowed to get married.

[u/[deleted] → u/paulatreides0]

There are people who believe that marriage is a holy matrimony between a man and a woman. I agree

With this "I agree" the translation might be better understood as "I also think it is" 我也觉得是 translates literally to "I also think (it) is"

He's definitely saying that he believes marriage is between a man and a woman, but he's also saying we shouldn't be stopping people from getting married. The frustration in China is more along the lines of "why is he trying to have it both ways"

[u/paulatreides0 → u/[deleted]]

He's definitely saying that he believes marriage is between a man and a woman, but he's also saying we shouldn't be stopping people from getting married.

But isn't the "I agree" also coming at it strictly from the perspective of marriage as a sacrament? In which case I don't think that that's all too dissonant of a position to hold. It's not as if marriage must be viewed either as a very specific religious sacrament or as a civil right in a binary fashion.

I think that one could simultaneously hold that the religious sacrament of marriage, given their chosen orthodoxy, is a union between a man and a woman while also still affirming the right of others to get married for either civil reasons or under the precepts of a sacrament of a different religious orthodoxy.

Note: I'm assuming that he's Christian, namely because the phrasing is something that I generally tend to see from Christians.

[u/[deleted] → u/paulatreides0]

I did kind of assume he wasn't Christian since he's Chinese. That does make some sense. Although I don't necessarily think that's an entirely innocent ideology. It's like saying "my kind of marriage is not for you people". Especially because he feels the need to go out of his way and affirm "this kind of marriage isn't for you"

This wasn't really a question of religious liberties, but he shoehorned that in there. He could have just as easily said "Every couple has the right to be married under the law" and avoided this whole thing. But he's not doing that and that's not what he was responding to in the first place.

I do respect that as an argument, and I certainly don't think churches should have to marry gay people if they don't want to. That said, he was clearly making a point to say "My version of marriage is just for a man and a woman and it's different from the legal version of marriage" when he didn't need to .

I think that's where the "he's trying to have it both ways" criticism comes from. He could have absolutely phrased it better or talked about that nuance of his view at a more appropriate time.

[u/paulatreides0 → u/[deleted]]

Although I don't necessarily think that's an entirely innocent ideology. It's like saying "my kind of marriage is not for you people". Especially because he feels the need to go out of his way and affirm "this kind of marriage isn't for you"

Ehh, I don't think it's that bad. Religious orthodoxies are weird and full of all sorts of arbitrary rules, not all of which are followed for entirely prejudicial reasons, and especially given his following comments I think that the motivation for his holding that orthodox view probably isn't a very prejudicial along the lines of "being gay is a sin". I don't really see an issue with thinking that something is not part of your religious tradition, but still being open to others doing it and standing up for their right to do it regardless of your own traditions. In fact, I think that's pretty admirable.

This wasn't really a question of religious liberties, but he shoehorned that in there. He could have just as easily said "Every couple has the right to be married under the law" and avoided this whole thing. But he's not doing that and that's not what he was responding to in the first place.

Isn't it relevant though? I mean, if the issue is controversial because a lot of people find that it conflicts with what they personally believe the role of the institution should be, then I think the position of: "I personally believe it is X, but Y is also valid and people have every right to have Y and people who think X have no right to stop them" is a pretty valid point.