35% of asylum seekers are gay.. or not

[Ivor Windybottom]

Is that in itself not a playground insult? Just asking.

If so then, by your own bizarre logic, you are making a playground insult too.

Ner ner ni ner ner etc.

 

[Stivino]

If so then, by your own bizarre logic, you are making a playground insult too.

No, I merely asked a question.

 

[King Billy]

Being gay would have remained illegal.

It never was actually.
Being gay was never illegal.
What was illegal was the act of sex of one mean with another man.
Ir didn't apply to women, female to female sex was never illegal.

Patriarchal society init.

 

[King Billy]

Sometimes caution is a good thing. Let others make the mistakes, we can learn from them at no cost to us.

Show me the man who has never made a mistake and I'll show the man who has never achieved anything.

Theodore Roosevelt: Often quoted as saying, "The only man who never makes a mistake is the man who never does anything".

 

[motorbiking]

It never was actually.
Being gay was never illegal.
What was illegal was the act of sex of one mean with another man.
Ir didn't apply to women, female to female sex was never illegal.

Patriarchal society init.

same as rape.

A woman cannot commit rape.

 

[Odds]

same as rape.

A woman cannot commit rape.

Is that true?

 

[King Billy]

Is that true?

Archived Petition: Change the Sexual Offences Act so women can be charged with rape against males

Change the current legal definition of rape to also include male victims of women. Amend the current legislation that does not allow a woman to be charged with rape against male sexual abuse victims.

petition.parliament.uk

Maybe there was one area of the country where males are frequently raped.

Petition Map (by Unboxed)

Visualise UK Government Petitions

petitionmap.unboxedconsulting.com

Maybe HWM will claim he was the victim of multiple rapes.

 

[motorbiking]

Is that true?

which vital piece of kit are they missing?

Sexual Offences Act 2003

An Act to make new provision about sexual offences, their prevention and the protection of children from harm from other sexual acts, and for connected purposes.

www.legislation.gov.uk

 

[Odds]

which vital piece of kit are they missing?

Sexual Offences Act 2003

An Act to make new provision about sexual offences, their prevention and the protection of children from harm from other sexual acts, and for connected purposes.

www.legislation.gov.uk

A spanner?

 

[Ivor Windybottom]

It never was actually.
Being gay was never illegal.
What was illegal was the act of sex of one mean with another man.
Ir didn't apply to women, female to female sex was never illegal.

Patriarchal society init.

No. It's because Queen Victoria believed that lesbians didn't exist, so it didn't need banning.

Because women were entirely passive about sex, without a man it wouldn't ever happen.

Obviously being gay was illegal. You're nit-picking with nonsense arguments as usual.

 

[King Billy]

No. It's because Queen Victoria believed that lesbians didn't exist, so it didn't need banning.

Because women were entirely passive about sex, without a man it wouldn't ever happen.

Obviously being gay was illegal. You're nit-picking with nonsense arguments as usual.

The first law banning homosexuality between men - 1533. A good while before Queen Victoria was thought about.
Queen Vic' 1819 - 1901.

It was based on the medieval idea that only men had sex for pleasure, and as only a man had a penis, only men would have sex for pleasure.
A s you say it was thought illogical that women would have sex for pleasure.

In 1921 it was considered banning lesbian activity would give women the idea to try it.

Queen Vic' had no part in the law. That idea is a myth.

Patriarchal society innit.

 

[Ivor Windybottom]

Detail, detail.

Homosexuality was illegal. In the UK, within living memory, as I stated.

My point is that other countries still banning it isn't that unusual, it's just where we were a few decades ago. So letting people moving here just because they're gay isn't justified even if it ever could be proved. Which it can't be, as anyone could say they are, adding to the stupidity of this ever being allowed as an excuse for asylum.

 

[King Billy]

So letting people moving here just because they're gay isn't justified even if it ever could be proved.

You are saying that providing asylum to those suffering persecution, torture or death is not justified?
Why does the reason matter. The persecution, torture or death is not picky, and isn't any different depending on the reason for it.

 

[King Billy]

as anyone could say they are,

Like anyone could say they are not racist, or homophobic.

 

[ericmark]

At least if they are gay, we will not be looking after their children.

Obviously being gay was illegal.

No, you can't make something one has no control of illegal, it would be like making being white skin colour illegal. Homosexual acts can be made illegal, but how could you make depression illegal?

There is a fine line between true asylum seekers, and people trying to gain the label so they can better their way of life. We tend to treat the disabled well in this country, but seeking asylum because your disabled is not really on. Even religious beliefs, there is one odd one out, where the race is also their religion, and even if I wanted I could not join that religious group, they as a race have chosen to do this, and I can see how an individual from that group could seek asylum, but not so sure with any other religion, to my mind anyone who wears clothing to identify themselves, must be proud of what they are, and have to accept what goes with it.

I saw as a child, the problems with school uniform, and as kids we would target a religious group (the Catholics) not me, as I had Catholic friends, but had they not worn school uniforms we would have had no idea of what they were, the Church of Wales school did not have a uniform, and even choir boys, changed into everyday clothes before leaving the church.

So being gay should not mean one can seek asylum, if you have done illegal acts in the country of origin, they one should accept your punishment if caught. Not run across the border. But in the main, to get to this country by any means other than a plane, means you have come from Europe, so asylum is first safe country, and Europe laws nearly the same as ours.

I can see how we as a country could agree to take asylum seekers from Europe, so the first country is not overwhelmed, and I know at one point we trained asylum seekers from Newcastle to Liverpool on their way to the USA. They were not even allowed off the train. But I would think USA would not today accept them?