By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General - Gay refugees, does YOUR country welcome them?

Pink shirt, tight jeans and white shoe wearing, white wine and latte drinkers  are everywhere. Do not ask and do not tell about your sexuality. Most people do not care less what another person does in their personal life. 

In my opinion being homosexual/bisexual is a personal choice and it does not impact on others. Most of us live in a free society. Whatever people want to do is ok, so long as it does not adversely impact upon other people's lives. 

If you live in an ultra conservative secular society like a "democratic" Islamic nation (Iran?) it would be considered against the law/religion to be a  homosexual. Death for being a homosexual is extremely harsh and draconian but is still carried out today in some Islamic conservative nations.

In my opinion homosexual marriages and unions should be recognised in all countries. Homosexuality should be considered an acceptable lifestyle choice by all members of society. Homophobia usually relates to ignorance preached by religions which are against homosexuality. 



Around the Network

My country (the Netherlands) send back gay refugees to Iran a couple of years ago. They were probably hanged there or something.

Not that my country doesn't accept gay refugees, but the same rules apply to all refugees and the Minister responsible for sending those refugees back was assured by Iran that it was safe to send them back.



numonex said:

Pink shirt, tight jeans and white shoe wearing, white wine and latte drinkers  are everywhere. Do not ask and do not tell about your sexuality. Most people do not care less what another person does in their personal life. 

In my opinion being homosexual/bisexual is a personal choice and it does not impact on others. Most of us live in a free society. Whatever people want to do is ok, so long as it does not adversely impact upon other people's lives. 

If you live in an ultra conservative secular society like a "democratic" Islamic nation (Iran?) it would be considered against the law/religion to be a  homosexual. Death for being a homosexual is extremely harsh and draconian but is still carried out today in some Islamic conservative nations.

In my opinion homosexual marriages and unions should be recognised in all countries. Homosexuality should be considered an acceptable lifestyle choice by all members of society. Homophobia usually relates to ignorance preached by religions which are against homosexuality. 

Question: How is Iran a secular state?



"I don't understand how someone could like Tolstoy and Dostoyevsky, but not like Twilight!!!"

"Last book I read was Brokeback Mountain, I just don't have the patience for them unless it's softcore porn."

                                                                               (The Voice of a Generation and Seece)

"If you cant stand the sound of your own voice than dont become a singer !!!!!"

                                                                               (pizzahut451)

Killiana1a said:

Bringing up "honor killngs" where fathers can murder their children for not being good muslims opens up a whole can of worms.

As a Westerner, I have serious reservations with countries such as Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan (when ruled by the Taliban) where the state advocates an extremist Wahhabi form of Islam.

Don't even get me started on how Muslims treat Women or Gays. I agree it is inhumane and degrading, but we are all individually bound by the rules and social mores of the cultures of the society we reside in.

Human rights transcend whatever cultural/religious rules exist within a society.



"I don't understand how someone could like Tolstoy and Dostoyevsky, but not like Twilight!!!"

"Last book I read was Brokeback Mountain, I just don't have the patience for them unless it's softcore porn."

                                                                               (The Voice of a Generation and Seece)

"If you cant stand the sound of your own voice than dont become a singer !!!!!"

                                                                               (pizzahut451)

sapphi_snake said:
Killiana1a said:

Bringing up "honor killngs" where fathers can murder their children for not being good muslims opens up a whole can of worms.

As a Westerner, I have serious reservations with countries such as Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan (when ruled by the Taliban) where the state advocates an extremist Wahhabi form of Islam.

Don't even get me started on how Muslims treat Women or Gays. I agree it is inhumane and degrading, but we are all individually bound by the rules and social mores of the cultures of the society we reside in.

Human rights transcend whatever cultural/religious rules exist within a society.

Indeed they do, but it is an interestng philosophical debate because we live in and since our days as tribal cavemen, we have always lived in groups where individuals have had to put aside their individual wants for the greater good of the group. Nowadays, with views on homosexuality the 90-95% of the heterosexual population is supporting are group measures at the expense of the individual. Case in point, Gay Marriage.

I am not a fan of mob rule, nor am I young and naive enough to not believe the majority in each society rules. By rule, I mean in unseen aspects for members of the majority who accept the social norms and mores without question because their membership into the majority makes them blind to what an individual in the minority has to contend with everyday just to "fit in" as they say.

As for culture and religion, it is part of history. No one would advocate the demolishing of all religious building because many of those buildings are awe-inspiring and worth preserving as the California Redwood trees. That being said, religions have their purpose in promoting social stability, giving hope to the completely hopeless who see no bright light in a caste system, and they are mighty charitable when it comes to helping the homeless.

Myself, I have never been much of a church-goer in my adult years, but my experience feeding the homeless every Thursday while I was an undergraduate student at Southern Oregon University with the First United Methodist Church gave me another view of religion devoid of the pulpit and congregation.

There is more good to religion than some would give credit for including myself.



Around the Network
Kantor said:
Homer_Simpson said:

and if they are children? you gonna start child labour camps for refugees purely because they werent born here?

not to mention that you cant just say "oy refugee, fuck off and get a job", really isnt that simple, there arent that many jobs atm for a start...

and if you need them in the UK you can get housing benefit, the NHS is free to access for everyone...


You're deliberately misunderstanding me.

Firstly, how many children are going to run away from war-torn countries and come to Britain?

Secondly, children have to be in school by law. This is applied to everyone in the country. I have no issue with this whatsoever. Indeed, I think schooling should be compulsory until 18.

Thirdly, a British or non-British legally residential adult in Britain is expected to work. Therefore, a refugee or legal or illegal immigrant should also be expected to work. And yes, I have just as much of an issue with British citizens who are able to work, but don't.

Fourthly, there are plenty of jobs. Refugees probably aren't looking for jobs as managing directors of London banks. Beggars can't be choosers, as the saying goes.

Housing benefit absolutely should exist. It should be available to all people who put in a hard day's work and don't get back enough to provide for themselves and their families.

Oh, and the NHS isn't free in any way, shape or form. Just because you don't pay for your surgery, medicine and doctoral visits doesn't mean you're not paying for the NHS. Everyone who works pays for the NHS in tax.

So, to sum up my views:

  • We have no great responsibility to accept refugees. When it boils down, they are illegal immigrants.
  • The above is not to say that we shouldn't accept refugees, only that acepting refugees is an altruism in itself.
  • Refugees should not be paid for by the British workforce. Sorry, we're not paying for you to live in this country. You chose to move here.
  • A refugee, or indeed any resident, who is working but cannot afford to take care of themselves/their family should be given aid.
  • A refugee, or indeed any resident, who can work but refuses work should not be given aid.
  • This last bit may sound horrible and BNP-ish. But, a refugee who is unable to work really has no place moving to this country.

I am not against legal immigration. I am not against benefits for those who need them. I am not against even illegal immigration in a time of desperation when the immigrant can contribute something to the country. At the end of the day, this is a country with an enormous deficit, not a huge number of jobs, a lot of mess and a government which refuses to ever change anything. It's no safe haven. We have our own problems.

And on that pleasant note, OP, feel free to move here. But please get a job when you do.


I think there are some miss-understandings in your post which are pretty standard amongst the UK population and furthered by miss-representation in the tabloid press such as the Sun, News of the World and Daily Mail.

Illegal immigrants are not entitled to assistance. they are not entitled to work either. they cannot claim benefits or request assistance from Councils or health services. If services are provided to them, the public sector service would be fined.

Asylum seekers (refugees) are also not entitled to any of the above and must remain within approved locations and areas until their case has been heard by the immigration services.

The asylum seeker has to prove their life was in danger if they had remained in their country of origin and that if they returned home they would be likely to be killed or faced torture. They also have to prove they are not wanted for an international crime, or human rights violation (e.g. if they were responsible for mass murder in their country of origin, they would not be allowed to remain in the UK).

If they are granted asylum, then they are permitted some benefits, such as going on the housing register, health, legal support and work permits, but would then also be expected to pay taxes. If they wish to remain indefinitely and have all the rights of a UK citizen, then they have to take the Citizenship test.

If they commit crimed while in the UK, then they have a good chance of being deported.



Atari 2600, Sega Mega Drive, Game Boy, Game Boy Advanced, N64, Playstation, Xbox, PSP Phat, PSP 3000, and PS3 60gb (upgraded to 320gb), NDS

Linux Ubuntu user

Favourite game: Killzone 3

@Killiana1a:

Most of your rant was pointless. I stand by my affirmatio.

I am not a fan of mob rule, nor am I young and naive enough to not believe the majority in each society rules.

Well thankfully things like civil rights protect minorities from majorities.

That being said, religions have their purpose in promoting social stability, giving hope to the completely hopeless who see no bright light in a caste system,

Well religion is opium for the masses. Still, actual drugs could do that mighty well, but people who want to live in free societies should achieve balance on thei own, else they'll be slaves to the opium (not to mention that the opium will serve as a distraction for what's really important).

and they are mighty charitable when it comes to helping the homeless.

Well one does not to be religious to help the homeless (though honestly I'd prefer a government program who could offer a long lasting solution, rather than handouts). Plus religious charities are conversion machines that prey on the week, vulnerable and ignorant, so any good they may do is annulled.

There is more good to religion than some would give credit for including myself.

I don't see it as anything more than an instrument of opression and control.



"I don't understand how someone could like Tolstoy and Dostoyevsky, but not like Twilight!!!"

"Last book I read was Brokeback Mountain, I just don't have the patience for them unless it's softcore porn."

                                                                               (The Voice of a Generation and Seece)

"If you cant stand the sound of your own voice than dont become a singer !!!!!"

                                                                               (pizzahut451)

Metro-sexuals with unknown sexual identity from the Middle East. Middle Eastern metrosexuals turned refugees escaping one country in search for a safe haven on boats or plane.

Maybe they are not homosexual or bisexual and just call themselves metro-sexuals. "Straight"- right?

Extreme nations like Iran practises Sharia Law puts homosexuals to death. It is best to stay in the closet in Iran. Coming out of the closet would be a death sentence in Iran.



numonex said:

Metro-sexuals with unknown sexual identity are becoming refugees. Middle Eastern metrosexuals turned refugees escaping one country in search for a safe haven on boats or plane.

Maybe they are not homosexual or bisexual and just call themselves metro-sexuals. "Straight"- right?

Huh??? Guys in the middle east are metrosexuals??? I though that was specific to the West? Where do the guys in 3rd world Middle Eatsern countries get enough money for all those skin care products and manicures? Is that where the aid money is going??? O_o



"I don't understand how someone could like Tolstoy and Dostoyevsky, but not like Twilight!!!"

"Last book I read was Brokeback Mountain, I just don't have the patience for them unless it's softcore porn."

                                                                               (The Voice of a Generation and Seece)

"If you cant stand the sound of your own voice than dont become a singer !!!!!"

                                                                               (pizzahut451)

Scruff7 said:
Kantor said:
Homer_Simpson said:

and if they are children? you gonna start child labour camps for refugees purely because they werent born here?

not to mention that you cant just say "oy refugee, fuck off and get a job", really isnt that simple, there arent that many jobs atm for a start...

and if you need them in the UK you can get housing benefit, the NHS is free to access for everyone...


You're deliberately misunderstanding me.

Firstly, how many children are going to run away from war-torn countries and come to Britain?

Secondly, children have to be in school by law. This is applied to everyone in the country. I have no issue with this whatsoever. Indeed, I think schooling should be compulsory until 18.

Thirdly, a British or non-British legally residential adult in Britain is expected to work. Therefore, a refugee or legal or illegal immigrant should also be expected to work. And yes, I have just as much of an issue with British citizens who are able to work, but don't.

Fourthly, there are plenty of jobs. Refugees probably aren't looking for jobs as managing directors of London banks. Beggars can't be choosers, as the saying goes.

Housing benefit absolutely should exist. It should be available to all people who put in a hard day's work and don't get back enough to provide for themselves and their families.

Oh, and the NHS isn't free in any way, shape or form. Just because you don't pay for your surgery, medicine and doctoral visits doesn't mean you're not paying for the NHS. Everyone who works pays for the NHS in tax.

So, to sum up my views:

  • We have no great responsibility to accept refugees. When it boils down, they are illegal immigrants.
  • The above is not to say that we shouldn't accept refugees, only that acepting refugees is an altruism in itself.
  • Refugees should not be paid for by the British workforce. Sorry, we're not paying for you to live in this country. You chose to move here.
  • A refugee, or indeed any resident, who is working but cannot afford to take care of themselves/their family should be given aid.
  • A refugee, or indeed any resident, who can work but refuses work should not be given aid.
  • This last bit may sound horrible and BNP-ish. But, a refugee who is unable to work really has no place moving to this country.

I am not against legal immigration. I am not against benefits for those who need them. I am not against even illegal immigration in a time of desperation when the immigrant can contribute something to the country. At the end of the day, this is a country with an enormous deficit, not a huge number of jobs, a lot of mess and a government which refuses to ever change anything. It's no safe haven. We have our own problems.

And on that pleasant note, OP, feel free to move here. But please get a job when you do.


I think there are some miss-understandings in your post which are pretty standard amongst the UK population and furthered by miss-representation in the tabloid press such as the Sun, News of the World and Daily Mail.

Illegal immigrants are not entitled to assistance. they are not entitled to work either. they cannot claim benefits or request assistance from Councils or health services. If services are provided to them, the public sector service would be fined.

Asylum seekers (refugees) are also not entitled to any of the above and must remain within approved locations and areas until their case has been heard by the immigration services.

The asylum seeker has to prove their life was in danger if they had remained in their country of origin and that if they returned home they would be likely to be killed or faced torture. They also have to prove they are not wanted for an international crime, or human rights violation (e.g. if they were responsible for mass murder in their country of origin, they would not be allowed to remain in the UK).

If they are granted asylum, then they are permitted some benefits, such as going on the housing register, health, legal support and work permits, but would then also be expected to pay taxes. If they wish to remain indefinitely and have all the rights of a UK citizen, then they have to take the Citizenship test.

If they commit crimed while in the UK, then they have a good chance of being deported.

That's the letter of the law, yes, but Labour was completely useless at enforcing that, and our very own Deputy Prime Minister wanted to give all illegal immigrants complete amnesty. They're not entitled to anything, but they get everything.

Of course, legal immigration, which includes legal immigration due to refugee status, is fine.

And for the record, I wouldn't touch News of the World, the Daily Mail or the Sun with a ten-kilometre pole.



(Former) Lead Moderator and (Eternal) VGC Detective