Gay asylum seekers from Iran and Cameroon win appeal

carolt

Really2 wrote: »

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.

In a nutshell. I have no problem with that.

There is a huge difference that for some unaccountable reason you seem unable to see between supporting them in their hour of need, ie housing them in basic conditions and giving them food, and giving them the dream lifestyle of their choice.

To put it briefly, of course I am in favour of the former (or I'd be some kind of nutter like the White Horse - and even he, I suspect, only says it for effect...), but strongly against the latter.

ninky_2

ILW wrote: »

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?

well not things like murder or theft obviously. but when it comes to a right to practice religion or sexuality or have sexual equality then yes. however, i personally think we should stop granting asylum fullstop as it is just not a practical situation we can sustain.

thistledome

I can't understand why so many asylum seekers (gay or not) want to come here. What's so inviting about the UK to them?

If I was a gay Cameroonian or Iranian I don't think rainy old Britain would be my first choice of destination. I'd be booking the first flight to San Francisco (probably).

carolt

I would imagine it's probably related to where they already know people.

Really2

thistledome wrote: »

I can't understand why so many asylum seekers (gay or not) want to come here. What's so inviting about the UK to them?

If I was a gay Cameroonian or Iranian I don't think rainy old Britain would be my first choice of destination. I'd be booking the first flight to San Francisco (probably).

1) you can get in

2) you will receive state support.

I dare say shelter and access to funds would be high up on mosts requirement than most things TBH.

Really2

ninky wrote: »

t
i'm bisexual but am in a straight marriage.

On a nsoey note, why did you get married? Did you not know you were by-sexual before getting married?
Or was it not a religion based marriage?

Sorry for being nosy but things like that interest me. I presume you do not now see other people?

ninky_2

Really2 wrote: »

On a nsoey note, why did you get married? Did you not know you were by-sexual before getting married?
Or was it not a religion based marriage?

Sorry for being nosy but things like that interest me. I presume you do not now see other people?

being bisexual doesn't mean you have to been in a relationsihp with both sexes at the same time! like most people i like being in a monogamous committed relationship. my two previous longterm relationships were with women. i intend my current marriage to be for good but if that turns out to not be the case then i would be open to a relationship with either a man or a woman.

The_White_Horse

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.

i must clarify that i am not actively encouraging starving people ie purposely withholding food from them. i am saying that people have to get by, and if they don't make any effort then they may go hungry. we can't be here to pay for people having 7 or 8 kids because they want to, if they can't afford it. they need to face the consequences of their actions.

carolt

Trouble with that approach, is that if kids have !!!!less parents then they may starve. The kids didn't ask to be born - do you expect the childen to go up chimneys to support themselves? And what about babies?

The_White_Horse

carolt wrote: »

Trouble with that approach, is that if kids have !!!!less parents then they may starve. The kids didn't ask to be born - do you expect the childen to go up chimneys to support themselves? And what about babies?

there needs to be a way that the children are looked after but not the parents, and that the parents do not benefit financially in any way from having additional children.

for example, the govt could supply vouchers that could be swapped for meals for the kids at school, but the parents cannot get access to the food. i don't know.

sometimes you just have to say, maybe you need to be cruel to be kind in the long run?