this post was submitted on 10 Sep 2025
78 points (98.8% liked)

World News

49660 readers
2253 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world

Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
NewsAutoMod@lemmy.world
jordanlund@lemmy.world
Tenthrow@lemmy.world
little_cow@lemmy.world
lemmyAtom@lemmy.world
78
Hong Kong lawmakers say no to more rights for same-sex couples (www.bbc.com)
submitted 5 hours ago by TheDwZ@lemmy.world to c/world@lemmy.world
10 comments fedilink hide all child comments
top 10 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] NewNewAugustEast@lemmy.zip 32 points 4 hours ago* (last edited 4 hours ago) (2 children)

The government, all governments needs to get out of the business of giving a shit about same sex, other sex, any sex, whatever. The only thing that matters is if you have citizens. Nothing more.

You either can allow two citizens to recognize visiting rights, health care, etc, or not. I dont really care if you are married or not.

The government is enforcing contracts. Write up what kind of contacts can exist - divorce with child support, health care etc. And then if two consenting adults want to enter into that contract, they can. End of discussion.

Marriage and companionship is not defined by the state. Only contract enforcement is. And it is completely wrong to say one citizen has access to a contract, and another, arbitrarily does not.

[–] Whostosay@sh.itjust.works 2 points 20 minutes ago

This might be the most succinct I've ever seen this. Good on ya

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 1 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

The government, all governments needs to get out of the business of giving a shit about same sex, other sex, any sex, whatever.

Marriage is heavily bound up in the ownership of property and the political networks of elite families. If you get under the fold...

The law, which would have recognised some rights for couples who were married overseas

seems to be a broadly unpopular compromise solution, satisfying very few people in practice

the bill had been criticised by both LGBTQ activists - who viewed it as insufficient in creating an alternative framework - and by members of the LegCo - who said the proposal went against traditional family values and paved the way for the legalisation of same-sex marriage

[–] NewNewAugustEast@lemmy.zip 10 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

who said the proposal went against traditional family values

And there is the problem of course. Which is absurd. Because who ever is in power gets to determine what a traditional family value is. And that is why citizens need to argue that government is a set of codified rules, bound to all, not some morality maker.

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world -2 points 2 hours ago (1 children)

Because who ever is in power gets to determine what a traditional family value is.

That is the nut of any political system. You can't just throw up your hands and announce "We need to get government out of X", because that's loser talk. It implies you've sworn off ever having a majoritarian view and just want to hide in obscurity. Ultimately, you need a popular representative majority. And the good news is...

Polls suggest that there is rising support for same-sex marriages among the Hong Kong public. A survey in 2023 found 60% were in favour of same-sex marriage, compared to 38% a decade ago.

Mass Line politics would suggest change is in the wind, whether the old guard of social conservatives want it or not. But in a system like Hong Kong's (one pioneered by the British and staunchly championed by American Libertarians until about five years ago) that change has to occur via shifting social attitudes in the municipal mega-corps.

One of the bigger frictions in Hong Kong politics is this stark divide between the (heavily conservative Catholic) ruling class and the (far more Buddhist/secular) working class. Even the handover back to China hasn't done much to change the dynamic, as Beijing has prioritized loyalty to the CCP over real progressive politics. Turns out Eastern Capitalists are as happy to sell out for a quick buck as their Western Peers.

citizens need to argue that government is a set of codified rules, bound to all, not some morality maker

The problem isn't that the government lacks a set of codified laws. It's that the laws are shit and need changing.

Maybe the inertia in the legislature will give the courts more latitude to simply nullify anti-LGBTQ provisions, as happened in the US state of Iowa in 2009 under Varnum v. Brien. Or maybe the public can stir up a big enough stink that Hong Kong corporate heads relent. I guess we'll see.

[–] NewNewAugustEast@lemmy.zip 2 points 2 hours ago* (last edited 1 hour ago) (1 children)

I think you missed the basic point: if it doesn't apply to all citizens it cannot apply at all. That is not loser talk. That is simple to the point and is exactly what you want in a government.

I appreciate everything else you said however. Relating it to the real world situation is reality.

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 1 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

if it doesn’t apply to all citizens it cannot apply at all

The conservative response to this has always been "The law does apply to all people. One Adult Man, One Adult Woman is a universal rule for all marriages." The libertarian attitude of "Get government out of marriage" doesn't work in this regard, because marriage is a legal compact with a host of downstream consequences.

Marriage is a political institution. It cannot be depoliticized, only reformed in one way or another.

[–] NewNewAugustEast@lemmy.zip 1 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

One Adult Man, One Adult Woman is a universal rule for all marriages

A conservative would ask you why the woman needs to be an adult?

Again, the only real answer is you have an adult citizen who wants to form a contract (because marriages are a social and/or religious concept) with another citizen. Done.

Exactly what you said: it is a legal contract with downstream consequences (well not really if you dont want to bother with it at all, but I digress). A legal contract. You cannot pick and choose who gets to make contracts, because if you do, they really have no legal basis.

Red heads cant sign contracts with left handed people. That is where you will end up.

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 1 points 9 minutes ago

A conservative would ask you why the woman needs to be an adult?

Sure. There's plenty of variation in their deplorable beliefs.

A legal contract. You cannot pick and choose who gets to make contracts

State legislatures have enormous latitude in deciding the validity of contracts. It's one of their fundamental roles.

[–] AllNewTypeFace@leminal.space 9 points 3 hours ago

Same sex relationships are bourgeois decadence and against the tenets of Xi Jinping Thought