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

Forums - General - UK threatens to cut aid over gay rights

Player1x3 said:

I'd say let them do whatever they want with their money. It is insane how arrogant western countries are, thinking they can manipulate people into changing their laws, just because they think theirs are so superior. Also, let the african children starve to death and their family dies out with diseases, dick taking men will have their ''equal rights'' no matter what cost. If i ran one of those countries, I wouldn't neither expect nor accept their money, and sure as hell wouldn't be changing my laws without the voice of people

In other words you'd be a terrible leader (the rest of the comment indicates the same thing).



"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)

Around the Network

Why are they one of the world's leading aid givers anyways when they are like $8 trillion in debt second only to the USA?

So basically if other countries want to start harming UK where it hurts they should actually make gays equal so they can take Britain's money and put them more in debt.



sapphi_snake said:
Kasz216 said:

I think this is just a plan by David Cameron to slash the foreign aid budget.

On the one hand, it sounds like a good idea to try and force gay rights.

Though on the other hand, i worry about the Anti-UK blowback in countries where people will suddenly begin starving combined with cultures that wouldn't even recognize gay rights if they weren't ruled by autocrats.

One could even argue that by having it forced by another government, actual acceptence of such a law would take even longer.

Complicated issue.

Well, it wasn't all that terrible in Romania.

Really?  From what I read, homophobia is still VERY strong in Romania... and Romania isn't exactly as skeptical of the west as the Middle East/Africa.



Foreign aid money should be conditional in regards that the nation in receipt of the Foreign Aid embraces: gay rights, human rights , democracy and any other reasonable requests. It is the UK people's money and the UK government should ensure that the Foreign Aid money is being given to nations that deserve it.



Kasz216 said:
sapphi_snake said:
Kasz216 said:

I think this is just a plan by David Cameron to slash the foreign aid budget.

On the one hand, it sounds like a good idea to try and force gay rights.

Though on the other hand, i worry about the Anti-UK blowback in countries where people will suddenly begin starving combined with cultures that wouldn't even recognize gay rights if they weren't ruled by autocrats.

One could even argue that by having it forced by another government, actual acceptence of such a law would take even longer.

Complicated issue.

Well, it wasn't all that terrible in Romania.

Really?  From what I read, homophobia is still VERY strong in Romania... and Romania isn't exactly as skeptical of the west as the Middle East/Africa.

Well, true, but it's not as bad as it could have been. There are no public hangings of gays or anything. It's true though that people aren't as skeptical of the West over here. These things are very popular after all:



"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)

Around the Network
sad.man.loves.vgc said:
Kasz216 said:

I think this is just a plan by David Cameron to slash the foreign aid budget.

On the one hand, it sounds like a good idea to try and force gay rights.

Though on the other hand, i worry about the Anti-UK blowback in countries where people will suddenly begin starving combined with cultures that wouldn't even recognize gay rights if they weren't ruled by autocrats.

One could even argue that by having it forced by another government, actual acceptence of such a law would take even longer.

Complicated issue.


Does he need excuses to cut foreign aid? Isn't it natural for anyone to want the money for their people? who would blame them really? sincere questions because the way you phrased it implies that he HAS TO give foreign aid.

Bolded: I agree. It's an interesting idea for sure but I don't think it will work. I mean even if it does social acceptance for such rights will require decades and decades. I also agree with the fact that forcing changes may have an opposite result. People are extremely intolerant to the westren values and they will reject them more if they get imposed upon them.

Despite all that, I say cut us off. Corruption rate in Jordan is ridiculous and we are not getting most of that money anyway.

Kind of an off-topic question (also for you Kaz)... How come forign aids are never mentioned in our books, news, newspapers or in any form? Shouldn't they let the people know that the west is actually helping us in somehow?  maybe that will help in closing gaps and raising tolerance and acceptance for the west.

1) You'd be surprised.  It could be different in the UK, but in the US only Ron Paul type libretarians want to cut foreign aid.

Republic and Democratic politicians see it as their duty as a more advanced country...

While the average voter either sees it  as needed charity work (Even a lot of below the poverty line people often give to charity)

or

Proof of America's "superiority" for the pessimistic side.

People seem more willing to give money to a starving African, then to a starving american because in general the american is perceived as at least has/had a chance.  Oddly pretty much anyone would cut Welfare programs before they cut foreign aid.

2)  Yeah, i probably agree... on both fronts as far as whether it should be cut off and whether it should help.  Applying basic civil rights for people is way more complicated then it should be, then again what isn't.

3)  There could be three reasons.  The first is... shame really.   I mean, who wants to admit they're accepting handouts from another country? 

The Second is the corruption.  Why advertise something when your stealing 90% of it. (A common foreign aid problem.)

The third is dislike of america can be a powerful tool.  In general American hate has made a great scapegoat for all kinds of rulers and their problems.

It's why I'm actually against most economic sanctions... pretty much all of them except military based ones.

All sanctions do is hurt the poor people since the rich corrupt people are rich, and can then just use the sanctions as an excuse for why things are bad for the poor.



NotStan said:
Cameron is a dickwad tbh.

Not that I am against Gay rights or anything, but really, it's country's own business how they go about with the rights et all, really need to stop meddling in external affairs and do something right about UK.

Actually it is his buisness because the U.K is giving out aid to these countries. At the very least he should decide which countries are worth giving aid to, and it seems a sensible decision to stop aid to countries which don't uphold the values promoted in the U.K



"They will know heghan belongs to the helghast"

"England expects that everyman will do his duty"

"we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender"

 

SamuelRSmith said:
ProdigyBam said:
He should care about persecuted christians first since most of the british people are christian and the culture is based on christian-judeo teachings, while at most 5-10% are homosexual, just saying..


His choice of protecting gay rights is clearly a movement to help him win public opinion. Protecting persecuted Christains would not do this, and would probably cause a massive media shit-storm.


Create a shit-storm where? Reading the daily mail it's pretty obvious that if anything, people were annoyed that funding would be based on gay rights rather than persecution of Christians. All I've read or heard for the last few months is people getting fed up because, in their view, minorities such as gays/muslims are given priority over the majority population.



"They will know heghan belongs to the helghast"

"England expects that everyman will do his duty"

"we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender"

 

NKAJ said:
SamuelRSmith said:
ProdigyBam said:
He should care about persecuted christians first since most of the british people are christian and the culture is based on christian-judeo teachings, while at most 5-10% are homosexual, just saying..


His choice of protecting gay rights is clearly a movement to help him win public opinion. Protecting persecuted Christains would not do this, and would probably cause a massive media shit-storm.


Create a shit-storm where? Reading the daily mail it's pretty obvious that if anything, people were annoyed that funding would be based on gay rights rather than persecution of Christians. All I've read or heard for the last few months is people getting fed up because, in their view, minorities such as gays/muslims are given priority over the majority population.

It's kinda silly to think that, considering that the majority of the population has a privileged status by default.



"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)

NKAJ said:
SamuelRSmith said:
ProdigyBam said:
He should care about persecuted christians first since most of the british people are christian and the culture is based on christian-judeo teachings, while at most 5-10% are homosexual, just saying..


His choice of protecting gay rights is clearly a movement to help him win public opinion. Protecting persecuted Christains would not do this, and would probably cause a massive media shit-storm.


Create a shit-storm where? Reading the daily mail it's pretty obvious that if anything, people were annoyed that funding would be based on gay rights rather than persecution of Christians. All I've read or heard for the last few months is people getting fed up because, in their view, minorities such as gays/muslims are given priority over the majority population.

Or you could just make aid contingent upon religious freedom for all, satisfying both ends of the equation in one go



Monster Hunter: pissing me off since 2010.