Nigel Farage labels same sex marriage law 'wrong'
Posted by SirLadthe1st@reddit | anime_titties | View on Reddit | 75 comments
Posted by SirLadthe1st@reddit | anime_titties | View on Reddit | 75 comments
davemee@reddit
Finally aligning himself with the beliefs of extreme muslim theocracies. I knew we'd get there. As long as they don't come over 'ere, he's absolutely fine with retrograde dictatorialism; it's aspirational!
BurstYourBubbles@reddit
I mean, wasn't that the standard right-wing position just a couple of decades ago?
SongFeisty8759@reddit
The standard right wing position a couple of decades ago was doggy style with a rent boy in the restrooms of kings cross station.
_NotMitetechno_@reddit
It's always kind of funny how much racist brexit geezers have in common with the people they hate so much lol
AccordingToMyPay@reddit
I mean that's one reason they hate them. Nigel and his ghouls love these policies, if it were up to them Britain wouldn't be much different than Afghanistan. The only difference it's their religion you have to follow, it's their god in every classroom and its them having the power to control everyone else not these pesky 'savages'.
Apart from that they’re both religious nutjobs hellbent on setting humanity back a couple hundred years, no difference but in name...
_NotMitetechno_@reddit
Thing is most of the brexit geezers aren't even remotely religious. It's not the same problem as is in the US (where people are much more religious).
AccordingToMyPay@reddit
Well nah but they still have the 'Christian culture' and shit in them ingrained. They might not relate it to the religion but thats what dictated a very large of british culture.
When they talk about 'culture' and 'values' that's what they very much mean. A traditional and conservative worldview shaped by western imperialism and Christianity. So in essence they might not realize it, but they very much stand for the same exact things they hate the refugees for.
Its just that when they look at the refugees culture, its not white man in charge and that's what scary to them. They know how they treat people lower in the social hierarchy and are deathly afraid to end up there themselves. That's why they were so afraid of the suffragettes and so on. Its always about control with conservatives and if you allow other cultures in, you relinquish some of your rights.
"When you’re accustomed to privilege, equality feels like oppression." -Franklin Leonard
-SneakySnake-@reddit
And a perverted Christianity at that. Don't think Jesus Christ would like very much of the sludge that's tumbled out of Farage's mouth.
AccordingToMyPay@reddit
I always found that thought of train siper interesting. One would think if the essential person is so all about love and friendship, their followers would end up the same, but no. So it stands to reason that it isn't really about love and friendship and that that whole kill your family for god and there is only one true one kinda outweighs it.
Like if all of the Christians faiths are so brutal, xenophobic and in general just assholes, maybe thats not the perverted form but the actual true one. You know its a feature, not a bug
kitti-kin@reddit
Religion is a tool that's often used contrary to its design or intended purpose - various leaders have managed to subvert even Buddhism into a justification for violence against their political enemies.
AccordingToMyPay@reddit
Again if it always turns out that way, like in the case of the Abrahamic ones, maybe it's not rea
-SneakySnake-@reddit
No, that's the edgy atheist take on it. That's not how it works. If you ignore what the thing is supposed to be about, that's not on the thing, that's on you.
AccordingToMyPay@reddit
Well its you just ignoring all the kill your family, their is only one true god and killing non-believers is a-okay shit. The jesus loves everyone is literally just half of it and yeah if we ignore just all the heinous shit, then maybe you would be right. But that's not how that works...
If you ignore half of it and what it says and then go on not understanding the thing you believe, thats on you and not and edgy atheist take.
No its really not. Its basic morality all human civilization to that point had figured out and teached them through stories. All other forms of religion have these vasic principles, not only the Abrahamic ones. Nothing special, just the most basic treat others how you wanna be treated stuff.
You see? You keep ignoring everything that doesn't suit your worldview. Everything bad in Bible? Just ignore that. All religious institutions are just a political tool and radicalize more than they help? Just ignore that too.
Again if its always turns out that way and if you maybe would stop just ignoring all the incest, genocide and other incredible heinous shit, you can also come to the very obvious conclusion that it's a feature, not a bug...
-SneakySnake-@reddit
So you haven't read any of these texts, then? Because neither the New Testament of the Bible or the Qu'ran endorses those things.
I'm gonna stop here, because you just showed how seriously you should be taken on this topic.
AccordingToMyPay@reddit
See the problem? That what literally all my last comment was about. You cant just pick and choose the best part then declare the whole thing as great and without problems.
Dude idc. Im just pointing out the logical flaws in your reasoning. Again if you gonna judge the whole thing, you gotta take the whole thing into account. Not parts of it. Not the best messages and passages. The whole thing.
Otherwise i could say mein kampf wasn't that bad if you take out the whole jew killing, subhuman and lebensraum shit out of it. It had really good ideas about animal welfare and infrastructure.
Obvious an insane statement to make, bc again you gotta take everything into account and not just what you personally like.
Could it be that maybe just maybe religious institutions are political institutions? Could it be that religion itself is a political tool? Like damn its like talking to a toddler so close to making a connection only to completely fail the conclusion in the last second.
They're not hijacked. They just are political institutions. And if every single one turns out o be one, like it historically happened, we can come to the conclusion that that might kinda actually be the whole point.
I mean you do. You admit all my points, but then just turn around and claim the foundational document and basis for the whole thing doesn't have anything to do with how it turned out every single time. Like of course it does and i don't think you can really dispute that, right?
-SneakySnake-@reddit
I'm not, though. Nor do most people who take it seriously. They see the Old Testament as God trying to meet people where they were at, and the New as God trying to help them understand and be what he actually wanted. Compassionate, forgiving, kind. Jesus didn't come down and say "punish the sinners, kill the non-believers" did he? Tell me what he did say. And tell me how he felt about power coopting religion.
But you're not. You're just asserting that you did.
You keep talking about books and texts you haven't read, and said "it's like talking to a toddler," so should I, to follow your logic, consider you someone not to bother having a discussion with? Taking the whole thing into account, of course.
Which you haven't read, either. Let me save you the trouble; it's hundreds of pages of rambling political type-speeches. You're also ignoring that the comparison doesn't make any sense because it was written by a single author, reflecting his own specific beliefs and experiences, not a collection of them. Whereas religious texts generally are. There will be contradictions, and parts to ignore.
Religion has been coopted by power even in the texts themselves. You're again showing the fact you don't know these texts. It's been a problem since before these religions technically even existed.
Do I? Or are you too set on your conclusion that you don't see dissent? Considering you're the kind of person who calls someone a "toddler" in a civil discussion, I'm not inclined to bestow upon you any great supposition of insight.
Again, you wouldn't know. Clearly.
e-lsewhere@reddit
Great breakdown, but you missed the punchline. The real joke isn't that conservatives have something in common with the religious people they hate. It's that they have everything in common with the progressives they fight.
Both are secular cults. One worships the ghost of a dead culture. The other worships a future where they've deconstructed the very foundations of family and nation.
-SneakySnake-@reddit
Google who first talked about "post-modernism" in the political sense in the way you are. You might be quite surprised.
e-lsewhere@reddit
Does it matter who said it first if it's true? The results speak for themselves: collapsing birth rates, a crisis in family formation, and social fragmentation. You can try to poison the well by associating the observation with a name, but that doesn't change the reality on the ground.
-SneakySnake-@reddit
But it's not true.
Why do you think birth rates are collapsing? And don't say "progressivism" or I'll know you're not a serious person.
e-lsewhere@reddit
Okay, I won't use the 'P-word'.
Birth rates are collapsing because some people spent 60 years building a culture that devalues marriage, celebrates careerism over motherhood, and frames children as a burden on personal freedom and finances.
This culture didn't appear out of thin air. It was built by a specific ideology. You know which one.
-SneakySnake-@reddit
Ah, so not serious at all, got it.
Nothing at all to do with inflation, wages not keeping pace with it, lack of affordable property, expense of childcare? The actual, tangible, proven things that make people have children later in life, or not at all? You know, economics? The actual driving force of the world?
e-lsewhere@reddit
You're correct that economic factors like inflation and the cost of housing play a huge role. No one denies that.
But we have to ask why those factors became so critical. Why is a single income often no longer enough to support a family? A huge part of the answer lies in the cultural decision to move from a single-earner household model to a dual-income standard. When the workforce doubles, the relative value of labor naturally faces downward pressure.
The same logic applies to the high cost of childcare. A massive, professional childcare industry only becomes necessary when the traditional structure of mothers and extended family raising children is no longer the norm because society prioritizes careers for everyone.
The economic pressures you mention didn't appear in a vacuum. They grew directly out of the cultural shifts that de-emphasized the traditional family model. The values a society promotes directly shape the economic reality its people have to live in.
kitti-kin@reddit
This idea that women weren't in the workforce before like 1970 is deeply odd. My maternal grandmother worked her whole life, from the day she left school at fourteen. Her mother worked. My grandfather's mother worked (and HARD, she was a single mother trying to get by in the 1920s). My paternal grandmother worked her whole life on a dairy farm. Her mother worked the farm. Who were these women who didn't work? Are we just talking about the wealthy?
-SneakySnake-@reddit
...no, it's all economics.
Wages haven't kept pace with inflation since roughly the '50s. Property has been increasingly unaffordable over the past two to three decades.
This is a very elaborate framework that makes no sense. You're focused on "values" so much that you're convinced it's The Thing, rather than A Thing.
e-lsewhere@reddit
The financial burdens on families in the West are undeniable. Stagnant wages and unaffordable housing are very real pressures that influence the decision to have children.
One has to look deeper and examine how their economy arrived at this point. The economic necessity for two household incomes, for instance, grew in lock- step with the cultural movement that saw millions of women enter the workforce full time. This fundamental change in the labor supply naturally affected the entire wage structure within those societies.
The same connection can be seen with childcare costs. The professional childcare industry became a major economic sector only when the family model shifted away from caregiving within the home towards a dual career standard. The high price of this service is a direct market reflection of that cultural change.
It becomes clear that the economic challenges you face are not separate from your cultural values. The priorities a society chooses, whether dual career households or traditional family structures, directly shape the economic reality that its people experience.
-SneakySnake-@reddit
Because of neo-liberalism. Not moral erosion.
If I can answer your whole post in two sentences, you need to have a think about why you think what you think.
e-lsewhere@reddit
So you agree. The cultural values of radical individualism created an economic system that makes family formation nearly impossible.
Glad we're on the same page. You just call it neo-liberalism.
-SneakySnake-@reddit
Progressivism isn't radical individualism tho. So no, we don't agree. You just don't know what it is.
Seeing corporate greed enabled with government consent and thinking "this is like feminism actually" is... an odd one.
e-lsewhere@reddit
You're trying to separate the software from the hardware.
Progressivism provides the cultural programming that encourages people to become atomized individuals, free from traditional bonds. Neo-liberalism is the economic system that monetizes that exact arrangement.
So the connection isn't odd. It's the entire business model of the modern world.
-SneakySnake-@reddit
Business is the business of the modern world. Progressivism is an enemy of neo-liberalism. They aren't the same thing. To conflate them shows a serious misunderstanding of what they both are, on par with "Nazis were leftists."
e-lsewhere@reddit
In theory they are enemies, but in practice, they've formed an unspoken alliance. Corporations get to look virtuous by championing progressive social causes. In return, their economic power is left largely untouched. One side gets the culture, the other gets the capital. It's a symbiotic relationship, not a conflict.
-SneakySnake-@reddit
Oh no, they haven't at all. You're completely wrong there. Progressivism is one of the leading voices against neo-liberalism. Feel free to show me if you have anything that shows otherwise, though, and not just vaguely gesturing to shallow, aesthetic-level token gestures as "proof."
kitti-kin@reddit
Those foundations of family and nation sucked for a lot of people.
AccordingToMyPay@reddit
What in the r/enlightedcentrism bullshit is that...
Honestly you was already destroyed by the other replies, but just to reiterate. No fighting for human rights is not the same as fighting against. So is fighting for the environment not the same as destroying it.
I don't believe i have to explain the most basic shit, but you're clearly so dumb its necessary. So 'doing something for' and 'doing something against' is not the same just bc you're 'doing' something. That's like so basic idk how to even really explain it.
Its like explaining something to an idiot like you and debating quantum physics. It's not the same just bc im talking...
e-lsewhere@reddit
It's very telling that in response to a complex thesis, the only thing you could offer was personal insults and a cartoonish oversimplification.
That says a lot.
AccordingToMyPay@reddit
Dude 2 sentences is not a complex theory 💀
I mean you're clearly a dumb mf, so i see it more as a statement of fact.
And secondly my cartoonish oversimplification was more thought out than your complex theory, maybe i misjudged how dumb you really are and how simple i need to word my argument
So i make it easy for you and say it real simple even a fucking dumbass like you can understand it. So you actually have to answer it and cant use these cheap excuses you know.
How is fighting f.e. for women rights the exact same as the stripping away of women rights?
I look forward to your complex theory...
e-lsewhere@reddit
This is fascinating to watch. The more you're unable to refute the actual argument, the angrier and more simplistic your replies become.
You keep demanding that I defend a statement I never made. It's a classic bad-faith tactic.
My point was about the subtle but destructive outcomes of two different secular worldviews. Your response is... this. A stream of insults.
It’s clear a rational discussion is impossible. Have a good day.
icelandtroll@reddit
Conservative: i think other peopleshould have no rights
Progressives: everyone deserves equal rights
Le epic reddit centrist: oh their the same
e-lsewhere@reddit
It's telling that your response to a nuanced critique is to create a simplistic "me chad u virgin" caricature. That's the very lack of critical thinking my comment was about. It's easy to say "everyone deserves equal rights". It's harder to grapple with the fact that the policies enacted under that banner are leading to demographic collapse and a mental health crisis.
icelandtroll@reddit
Let me ask, what political spectrum spot do you take
e-lsewhere@reddit
You already tried to figure that out in your last comment, didn't you? You labeled me a 'le epic reddit centrist.'
The fact that you need to put me in a box on your Western political spectrum instead of just engaging with the actual argument proves my entire point. My perspective isn't on your left-right axis. It's outside of it entirely.
So, let's stop trying to pin labels and get back to the substance. Can you refute my point about both ideologies leading to societal decay, or not?
_NotMitetechno_@reddit
Bro is centristing out lmao
icelandtroll@reddit
Please just tell me
e-lsewhere@reddit
le epic reddit centrist
ReanimatedBlink@reddit
Ehhh it's different. A lot of right-wingers in the UK are Anglican, which means they follow the King. Any time you see them spouting loyalty to the Crown it's not just nationalism, it's also technically a function of religion.
It's just as vacuous and non-Christian as American Evangelicalism, it just looks different.
DerCatrix@reddit
Same flavor different package
dosedatwer@reddit
I hate Nigel Farage, but his view on this was it was wrong for Conservatives to implement something that wasn't in their manifesto. This is explained in the linked article. I think that's far more reasonable than what the headline is suggesting.
kitti-kin@reddit
It was a bill that passed in the commons on a free vote, and the Tories were the vast majority of ministers who voted against it (133 of the 161 who voted against, and 40 abstained). The bill's consultative period began before Cameron was even in office. Was he supposed to spike legislation that had wide support?
It's also a misleading argument, because support for equal marriage was in the Tory equalities manifesto as early as 2010: https://web.archive.org/web/20160405190954/http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/7673224/Gay-couples-could-be-allowed-to-marry-under-Tory-election-plans.html
dosedatwer@reddit
Yeah for sure, but the title is still not what he was saying, even if we all know it's what he meant.
davemee@reddit
But it’s something of an act of sophistry too; he doesn’t have to say he doesn’t like the gays, he can code it as a technicality; equally, the good voters of Clacton didn’t vote for absent MP, but that’s what they got by voting for him.
dosedatwer@reddit
Sure, but it's reaching to anyone that doesn't think he's anti-gay. Anyone that doesn't already think he's anti-gay just sees this headline as sensationalism.
Critiques like this undermine solid, indisputable critiques because right wingers can just dismiss all critiques as "trumped up" when you criticise people like Farage by interpreting like you have differently to exactly what they're saying.
ReadingPossible9965@reddit
Britain's reactionary id speaks;
Redditor: lol look, he's acting like an Arab
Maximum-Hall-5614@reddit
Far right conservative aligns with far right conservatives.
Shocker.
QaraKha@reddit
Now that trans people are effectively non-people, the ghouls move into the next target. The same network if the worst people you know, some of whom claim to be LGB, will now try to kill the rights for the rest.
Usernamegonedone@reddit
I'm no fan of farage but the fact everyone here is pearl clutching about this specific thing without reading the article is laughable, he isn't even trying to change the law u clowns
Michael_Gibb@reddit
From his lies during the Brexit referendum, especially regarding NHS, to his denial that tobacco causes cancer, this man has no credibility whatsoever. He has absolutely no standing to claim anything else is wrong.
hippysol3@reddit
He's not against gay unions.
"I thought the civil partnership arrangement that we had was actually working equitably and fairly. So I thought the work that was done was wrong, but look, we have moved on.”
That's not a radical view. And he accepts that we've moved on, so it's settled. Not exactly a big deal. He's not saying he wants to go back and change the law.
Alex09464367@reddit
He still saying that he is against gay marriage this.
"So I thought the work that was done was wrong"
He is saying that we shouldn't have gay marriage.
Smooth_News_7027@reddit
He’s literally said that we’ve moved on, the people who voted against gay marriage didn’t just disappear you know.
Latter-Hope-542@reddit
How can he get elected? I mean, Britain is a pretty socially progressive country, so, it would be a shock to see him getting elected in the future after this statement...
Jay_Jay_Jason_74@reddit
I guess it is outside trans ppl
Gridde@reddit
This odious toad is a good reminder that no matter how inept, self-serving, repeatedly disproven and brazenly hypocritical you are, you can have a successful career in politics if you focus entirely on blaming 'the other'
asgoodasanyother@reddit
Like we needed a reminder post Trump
Jay_Jay_Jason_74@reddit
Farage is the reminder that it not just a us problem
janon93@reddit
Every trans person and their dog is saying this would happen. It’s not just about us, it’s about trying to build support for homophobia as an ideology.
Alex09464367@reddit
To whomever is interested in knowing who is funding Reform, this is who is funding Reform. https://donation.watch/en/unitedkingdom/party/REFORM/donors
The link above is information about the donors to Reform, a far right political party, with lots of Nazi tendencies.
lewismacp2000@reddit
No surprise he feels that way, given everything else he stands for is disgraceful. It is a surprise that he'd say it on air. I don't know if I'd even give him the benefit of the doubt and say it's strategic. Maybe he's just a fucking moron.
traumac4e@reddit
Unsurprising to anyone who has been listening to Trans people at all.
Nobody should have believed that they would stop stripping rights away from people once we started
Aenaen@reddit
unfortunately very few are listening :(
Striking_Branch_2744@reddit
Sadly so, and the worst part is the UK seems to be barrelling towards this hateful cunt as PM.
jonstoppable@reddit
he admires scott bessent, who married his husband in 2011..
anyhow, that's the point of having a robust, relatively apolitical public service... which is also on the chopping block in the US...
the thing about running a country as a business is that you are always trying to give less to your customers and keep more for yourselves, maximising value for the shareholders. capitalism!
and unless you invested millions or billions into a campaign, you're not one of those shareholders
KletterRatte@reddit
“We put cabinet ministers in charge of departments, over which they have absolutely zero knowledge”, says the man whose 18 year old councillor has control over an entire county
SirLadthe1st@reddit (OP)
Turns out that when you normalize far right rhetoric and mainstream parties take over their views, they just move even further to the right, and radicalize even further, who would have thought. Its not like we have a mountain of research proving just that. Nowadays you can't really tell apart Labour's positions on multiple areas from these of Reform UK's and Starmer does his best to appease far right voters instead of his own and these are the results. The far right easily managed to normalize racism transphobia again, so and they will have no problems normalizing homophobia either. Especially when modern labour's response will probably to chase after the big bad gay people along with Farage.
empleadoEstatalBot@reddit
Maintainer | Source Code | Stats