Gay asylum seekers from Iran and Cameroon win appeal

Really2

carolt wrote: »

Eh? I hardly think I'm with the White Horse on starving them to death!

I don't recommend people on benefits being unable to afford essentials - certainly not. I'm not in favour of them 'earning' more than people in work, though, no.

What about creating life without the means to support it? (Thus earning more than a working person)

carolt

ILW wrote: »

We do not put life above money on items such as cancer drugs. There have to be limits, it's is just a matter of where the line is drawn.

It's true. I suppose where someone will die now without a drug, but live to a ripe old age with a drug, we'd give them the drug, wouldn't we?

That's what it's like for an asylum seeker in fear of his life - being murdered very soon for his beliefs/practices, or being allowed to live out the rest of his/her natural.

In that situation, it seems pretty unambiguous.

carolt

Really2 wrote: »

What about creating life without the means to support it? (Thus earning more than a working person)

Can you rephrase that? I don't quite get your question.

Really2

carolt wrote: »

Can you rephrase that? I don't quite get your question.

Having more and more children when unemployed and each child being funded by the state. How do you feel about that? (seeing that you do not think people should "earn more" than working people.

I really do not believe you can't understand the question Carol. You said we should put life above money so I am interested how you relate that to benefits.

ILW

carolt wrote: »

It's true. I suppose where someone will die now without a drug, but live to a ripe old age with a drug, we'd give them the drug, wouldn't we?

That's what it's like for an asylum seeker in fear of his life - being murdered very soon for his beliefs/practices, or being allowed to live out the rest of his/her natural.

In that situation, it seems pretty unambiguous.

I do not see it as completely black and white.
Many states have laws against the consumption of alcohol. I cannot see it as being right that that a Saudi alcoholic should be given asylum on the same grounds as these men.

ILW

carolt wrote: »

It's true. I suppose where someone will die now without a drug, but live to a ripe old age with a drug, we'd give them the drug, wouldn't we?

That's what it's like for an asylum seeker in fear of his life - being murdered very soon for his beliefs/practices, or being allowed to live out the rest of his/her natural.

In that situation, it seems pretty unambiguous.

In many case no, if a treatment is deemed unaffordable.

carolt

Really2 wrote: »

Having more and more children when unemployed and each child being funded by the state. How do you feel about that? (seeing that you do not think people should "earn more" than working people.

I really do not believe you can't understand the question Carol. You said we should put life above money so I am interested how you relate that to benefits.

Not clear why you thought I was 'pretending' not to understand your question. It doesn't really make sense even as rephrased.

As stated above (and on relevant benefit threads) I am very strongly against incentivising people to have more children. eg as a meal ticket. As I said in the above post here, I don't think people on benefits should be provided with a lifestyle that is better than that which a working person could afford. If that means that children of those on benefits have to share a room (as the children of working people have to do), so be it. I am not in favour of starving them, though. :eek:

What is your point, again?

Harry_Flashman

ILW wrote: »

I cannot see it as being right that that a Saudi alcoholic should be given asylum on the same grounds as these men.

Assuming one supports these characters in their quest to stay here, how is it any different?

An alcoholic would say he needs to drink alcolhol to live, a gay would say he needs to prctice homosexuality to live.

Where's the difference?

BTW. I would not support asylum for either case.

carolt

ILW wrote: »

In many case no, if a treatment is deemed unaffordable.

I don't know any case where we would condemn someone to die as a young man if there was a treatment that could let him live to an old man. Treatments that might possibly prolong life or reduce pain for a short time are more controversial, but the former? I don't think so.

And in the case of an asylum seeker, there need be no cost.

As in my own personal case, my father has cost the UK taxpayer £0, and has contributed tens if not hundreds of thousands of pounds over his working life in taxes. You seem to be assuming all asylum seekers are a cost. Prove this.

Really2

carolt wrote: »

Not clear why you thought I was 'pretending' not to understand your question. It doesn't really make sense even as rephrased.

As stated above (and on relevant benefit threads) I am very strongly against incentivising people to have more children. eg as a meal ticket. As I said in the above post here, I don't think people on benefits should be provided with a lifestyle that is better than that which a working person could afford. If that means that children of those on benefits have to share a room (as the children of working people have to do), so be it. I am not in favour of starving them, though. :eek:

What is your point, again?

So should these people be able to carry on breading regardless?

Just that you come across as someone who thinks people should not be able to breed and be supported by the state.

If you think you should put life before money you should have no problem with TBH, if you do you are stopping future lives (like you said you would not be here if your father was not saved and thus breed)