Gay asylum seekers from Iran and Cameroon win appeal

ILW

Harry_Flashman wrote: »

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.

Sorry, I phrased it badly. Actually I am in agreement with you.
At what point do you draw the line at what is considered grounds for asylum, it seems to being stretched a little.

ILW

Really2 wrote: »

S

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)

But Carolt's father was never supported by the state.

Blacklight

According to some bloke on the radio just now, even if you lied about it to claim asylum here you can't be deported because you'll be persecuted/imprisoned for claiming you were gay.

So it doesn't just apply to people who are actually gay but also anyone prepared to lie about as well. That just about covers everyone then.

ninky_2

the new ruling is an interesting one as it focuses not on sexual preference but on the right to choose to a lifestyle. as such even if you are straight you could claim asylum if you felt your ability to choose to experiment with the gay lifestyle was restricted.

i'm bisexual but am in a straight marriage. i would say that my freedom to be open about my sexuality would be restricted in certain countries and therefore if i was living in those countries i'd have a right to claim asylum.

FTBFun

Blacklight wrote: »

According to some bloke on the radio just now, even if you lied about it to claim asylum here you can't be deported because you'll be persecuted/imprisoned for claiming you were gay.

So it doesn't just apply to people who are actually gay but also anyone prepared to lie about as well. That just about covers everyone then.

"Some bloke on the radio".

I'm hoping it was an actual expert in the field rather than a random 5live caller!

Really2

ILW wrote: »

But Carolt's father was never supported by the state.

I did not say he was, I was commenting on life before money, if you believe that you should have no problem with people breeding and the state supporting them IMHO.

ILW

ninky wrote: »

the new ruling is an interesting one as it focuses not on sexual preference but on the right to choose to a lifestyle. as such even if you are straight you could claim asylum if you felt your ability to choose to experiment with the gay lifestyle was restricted.

i'm bisexual but am in a straight marriage. i would say that my freedom to be open about my sexuality would be restricted in certain countries and therefore if i was living in those countries i'd have a right to claim asylum.

Do you consider that ANY behaviour or lifestyle which is considered unacceptable or illegal in a particular country should give the person a right to asylum in another country?

carolt

Really2 wrote: »

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)

I still don't get your point. I have never EVER advocated starving children of people on benefits. I can't physically stop people having children if they're on benefits. I don't advocate sterilising them or something.

I am still totally unclear how you think I am putting money before life here.

I'm not saying they should starve to death, just that they shouldn't necessarily be put up at taxpayers expense in a 7-bed house in Kensington. I hardly think that's condemning them to death.

I can't see that you're doing anything here than trying to start an argument that doesn't exist.

Blacklight

FTBFun wrote: »

"Some bloke on the radio".

I'm hoping it was an actual expert in the field rather than a random 5live caller!

Aye, some expert talking to Vine on 2. Head of some organisation with pink in the name so it must be true.

Really2

carolt wrote: »

I still don't get your point. I have never EVER advocated starving children of people on benefits. I can't physically stop people having children if they're on benefits. I don't advocate sterilising them or something.

I am still totally unclear how you think I am putting money before life here.

I'm not saying they should starve to death, just that they shouldn't necessarily be put up at taxpayers expense in a 7-bed house in Kensington. I hardly think that's condemning them to death.

I can't see that you're doing anything here than trying to start an argument that doesn't exist.

Honestly I was seeing where you stood, I now know you don't like it but accept it.:cool: