UK Supreme Court: Homosexuality not a choice, can't be changed

  • metta

    Posts: 39099

    Jul 07, 2010 6:31 PM GMT
    Gay asylum seekers from Iran and Cameroon win appeal

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/10180564.stm
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 07, 2010 10:02 PM GMT
    If Arizona, Texas, and Florida get their ways, looks like Americans gays are eventually gonna be seeking asylum there, too.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 07, 2010 10:03 PM GMT
    Lord Hope, who read out the judgement, said: "To compel a homosexual person to pretend that his sexuality does not exist or suppress the behaviour by which to manifest itself is to deny his fundamental right to be who he is.

    "Homosexuals are as much entitled to freedom of association with others who are of the same sexual orientation as people who are straight."

    I wonder how many years it will take for the US to understand that?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 07, 2010 10:07 PM GMT
    Was an interesting judgment.... and not to take away from the serious matters that were being ruled upon....this quote sticks out in my mind.....

    "In short, what is protected is the applicant’s right to live freely and openly as a gay man. That involves a wide spectrum of conduct, going well beyond conduct designed to attract sexual partners and maintain relationships with them. To illustrate the point with trivial stereotypical examples from British society: just as male heterosexuals are free to enjoy themselves playing rugby, drinking beer and talking about girls with their mates, so male homosexuals are to be free to enjoy themselves going to Kylie concerts, drinking exotically coloured cocktails and talking about boys with their straight female mates. Mutatis mutandis – and in many cases the adaptations would obviously be great – the same must apply to other societies. In other words, gay men are to be as free as their straight equivalents in the society concerned to live their lives in the way that is natural to them as gay men, without the fear of persecution."
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 07, 2010 10:57 PM GMT
    Kyivite saidWas an interesting judgment.... and not to take away from the serious matters that were being ruled upon....this quote sticks out in my mind.....

    "In short, what is protected is the applicant’s right to live freely and openly as a gay man. That involves a wide spectrum of conduct, going well beyond conduct designed to attract sexual partners and maintain relationships with them. To illustrate the point with trivial stereotypical examples from British society: just as male heterosexuals are free to enjoy themselves playing rugby, drinking beer and talking about girls with their mates, so male homosexuals are to be free to enjoy themselves going to Kylie concerts, drinking exotically coloured cocktails and talking about boys with their straight female mates. Mutatis mutandis – and in many cases the adaptations would obviously be great – the same must apply to other societies. In other words, gay men are to be as free as their straight equivalents in the society concerned to live their lives in the way that is natural to them as gay men, without the fear of persecution."


    Where is this quote from? It is truly offensive.
  • roadbikeRob

    Posts: 14336

    Jul 07, 2010 11:02 PM GMT
    Well this is excellent news and overdue news at that. The UK Supreme Court has upheld scientific facts over religious fairy tales by stating that homosexuality is not a choice and cannot be changed. Now if only the state supreme courts in Florida, Texas, Arizona, and Montana would only step up to the plate and issue similar orders when the right wing wackos in those states GOP parties try to advance their ignorant, unconstitutional anti-gay political agenda into law. That would be very outstanding.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 07, 2010 11:06 PM GMT
    @veveutvas It shows a stereotype, which is incorrect.., but yeah, Im not offended to be honest,...


    Id be more offended if they took my rights away in, and then Id move to Florida to kick some -ss in US politics,... I consider Florida, the southern half, to be as Caribbean as the Bahamas and Bermuda, and the first haven for gay people in the Caribbean, (the second is Curacao, and Surinam is not far behind, where homosexual sex is now legal between consenting adults) though we are far behind being as progressive as Florida, Miami specifically
  • NickoftheNort...

    Posts: 1416

    Jul 07, 2010 11:29 PM GMT
    Thanks for sharing metta8. It's good to hear some sense with regards to the dangers gay, lesbian, and bisexual experience in many countries and cultures. It's also good to hear that the current Conservative-Lib.Dem. government's stance is in support of such persons (as opposed to the prior Labor government's dismissal of the dangers abroad).
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 11, 2010 10:00 AM GMT
    @ veveutvas & n8698u - The quote is from paragraph 78 of the judgment. In my view, the judge was for the purposes of illustration referencing a stereotype of gay men....

    http://www.supremecourt.gov.uk/docs/UKSC_2009_0054_Judgment.pdf

    NickoftheNortthIt's also good to hear that the current Conservative-Lib.Dem. government's stance is in support of such persons (as opposed to the prior Labor government's dismissal of the dangers abroad).


    Nick I would be wary of applauding the Conservative-Lib.Dem stance on this. Just remember the current Home Secretary has not been historically known for her progressive view towards homosexuality.

    http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2010/05/12/analysis-how-pro-gay-is-the-new-home-secretary-and-minister-for-equality-theresa-may/
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 11, 2010 10:20 AM GMT
    Oh god, more immigrants.

    Another loop hole.. someone kick my gov's rearside
  • hartfan

    Posts: 1037

    Jul 11, 2010 10:42 AM GMT
    lswh saidOh god, more immigrants.

    Another loop hole.. someone kick my gov's rearside


    Yeah, they're just immigrants, no one cares if they go back to their hometowns and get lynched, quartered and mutilated. And no one's responsible for trying to solve the world's problems. And it was through hard work, intelligence and self-determination but not luck that you are able to live peacefully, freely and meaningfully in a society that allows you to be who you are.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 11, 2010 10:46 AM GMT
    Then solve the problem and don't run away. That seems the gist of the world today.

    "Try saving the person after they have jumped instead of stopping them jumping"

    IE: Stop the nation being a dumping ground for anyone and get real reform in the middle east!

    There also have to be an element of personal responablity; if u damn well know that "you out yourself" and no the consquences, then why do it? Its to easy to have the cop out and run to another country.

    Blunty, they shouldnt have outed them and the world is better of pushing reform and dialogue then giving easy options out.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 11, 2010 10:47 AM GMT
    Exactly, we've seen it mate and running from the real issue sorts nothing. Trust SBG and me
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 11, 2010 11:07 AM GMT
    Giving asylum to those who may be at risk in their own country, beacause of their sexuality, is a lofty ideal. The problem is, people have been playing our immigration system for years (passport down the aircraft toilet etc). I hate to say it, but I think the UK Border & Immigration Agency were giving sound and practical advice to gay asylum claimants (ie "Go home and do not broadcast your sexuality in your community.")

    Of course, in a case where the asylum seeker is at risk of immediate harm (eg He has been sentenced to 10 years hard labour for having gay sex), I would advocate the granting of asylum. Where it is claimed there is a risk of a gay man being badly treated, were his sexuality to be found out, I am afraid I would not advocate asylum, because it could be a ruse and would be extremely difficult to disprove. There are many injustices in less liberal societies than our own. Sadly, all we can do is apply political pressure and hope that things change for the better.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 11, 2010 12:00 PM GMT
    SBG14 said
    There also have to be an element of personal responablity; if u damn well know that "you out yourself" and no the consquences, then why do it?


    Are you guys for real? (You too lswh and mil8, or should it be mil-hate?)

    Fuck, if this was the U.S. I would not be surprised. But I'm not used to this kind of reactionary views from the U.K. But I guess bigotry knows no borders. Thank god your high court does not share your regressive and xenophobic views.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 11, 2010 1:04 PM GMT
    viveutvivas said
    Kyivite saidWas an interesting judgment.... and not to take away from the serious matters that were being ruled upon....this quote sticks out in my mind.....

    "In short, what is protected is the applicant’s right to live freely and openly as a gay man. That involves a wide spectrum of conduct, going well beyond conduct designed to attract sexual partners and maintain relationships with them. To illustrate the point with trivial stereotypical examples from British society: just as male heterosexuals are free to enjoy themselves playing rugby, drinking beer and talking about girls with their mates, so male homosexuals are to be free to enjoy themselves going to Kylie concerts, drinking exotically coloured cocktails and talking about boys with their straight female mates. Mutatis mutandis – and in many cases the adaptations would obviously be great – the same must apply to other societies. In other words, gay men are to be as free as their straight equivalents in the society concerned to live their lives in the way that is natural to them as gay men, without the fear of persecution."


    Where is this quote from? It is truly offensive.


    it´s really not offensive if you read it carefully. They are "trivial sterotypical examples" which are to illustrate that people should be free to be themselves, even if the behaviour is "non essential" to their survival and not in accordance with the societal norms. I think that is a very good point.

    And gays should be allowed to move here if they are under threat. Especially if they look like this

    1345273439_l.jpg


    male+model.jpg
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 11, 2010 1:10 PM GMT
    mate people gotta take responablity for their actions, if your gonna be beaten up in area then u dont out yourself!

    same if u were a natrual resident and went to a certain neigbour hood that is renown for anti whatever, ud respect it.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 11, 2010 1:21 PM GMT
    viveutvivas said
    SBG14 said
    There also have to be an element of personal responablity; if u damn well know that "you out yourself" and no the consquences, then why do it?


    Are you guys for real? (You too lswh and mil8, or should it be mil-hate?)

    Fuck, if this was the U.S. I would not be surprised. But I'm not used to this kind of reactionary views from the U.K. But I guess bigotry knows no borders. Thank god your high court does not share your regressive and xenophobic views.



    Are you suggesting we simply grant asylum to anyone from Iran or Cameroon who pitches up at a UK port of entry and says they are gay and worried about being oppressed? Cameroon has a population of around 19million and Iran a population of 71million. Assuming a gay population of 5% in both countries, we would be saying we are happy to take in 16million people, who claim to be gay. That is not to mention all the other countries where gay people are badly treated.

    I am saying, limit asylum to those who can demostrate, with evidence, that they are at immediate risk of serious physical harm, if they return to their country of origin. If you give everyone the benefit of the doubt, you will simply be taken for a ride. It is neither xenophobic nor bigoted, just practical.
  • Hokenshi

    Posts: 387

    Jul 11, 2010 1:44 PM GMT
    It's a little more than getting an ass kicking. Don't you recall the story about two boys who were publicly executed for being gay: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4725959.stm

    We're lucky to be British. We have it a lot better than most countries do when it comes to our rights; those freedoms shouldn't be ours alone to keep.

    I'm proud that the UK is more open to immigration than other countries like the states. I'm pleased to know that I can fall in love with a foreign national and bring them to the UK, especially if we can't do the same in their country.

    Saying that, I agree that there needs to be some sort of regulation when it comes to foreign gays coming to the UK, just like there should be better regulations for straight people. There are too many loopholes that straight people abuse to stay in the country due to pure preference to their homes at least these guys have reason to want to stay in the UK.

    I advocate getting our own country, a string of sunny islands perhaps? We already have the flag and 1000's of gay anthems.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 11, 2010 1:47 PM GMT
    What were saying is

    People should not have the attitude:

    I can get away with something not accepted/bad in my community cus i can blimin run away to another country.

    "I can change this" is a better attitude, then running away.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 11, 2010 1:54 PM GMT
    SBG14 saidWhat were saying is

    People should not have the attitude:

    I can get away with something not accepted/bad in my community cus i can blimin run away to another country.

    "I can change this" is a better attitude, then running away.


    Surely you are not saying homosexuality is a choice? icon_rolleyes.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 11, 2010 1:56 PM GMT
    Have to agree with the sentiments of my fellow Brits about this. Remember a lot of asylum seekers don't arrive directly from their country by plane they have travelled through other potential "places of safety" before they even get here. We are I'm afraid seen as a soft touch and the motivation is economic rather than just persecution - there is a queue waiting to jump lorries and anything else heading to the UK just across the Channel (France is so thratening they have to get to the UK - er no our benefits system is better).

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 11, 2010 1:56 PM GMT
    n8698u saidLord Hope, who read out the judgement, said: "To compel a homosexual person to pretend that his sexuality does not exist or suppress the behaviour by which to manifest itself is to deny his fundamental right to be who he is.

    "Homosexuals are as much entitled to freedom of association with others who are of the same sexual orientation as people who are straight."

    I wonder how many years it will take for the US to understand that?

    Not in my lifetime, that's for sure. icon_sad.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 11, 2010 1:59 PM GMT
    Hokenshi saidIt's a little more than getting an ass kicking. Don't you recall the story about two boys who were publicly executed for being gay: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4725959.stm

    We're lucky to be British. We have it a lot better than most countries do when it comes to our rights; those freedoms shouldn't be ours alone to keep.

    I'm proud that the UK is more open to immigration than other countries like the states. I'm pleased to know that I can fall in love with a foreign national and bring them to the UK, especially if we can't do the same in their country.

    Saying that, I agree that there needs to be some sort of regulation when it comes to foreign gays coming to the UK, just like there should be better regulations for straight people. There are too many loopholes that straight people abuse to stay in the country due to pure preference to their homes at least these guys have reason to want to stay in the UK.

    I advocate getting our own country, a string of sunny islands perhaps? We already have the flag and 1000's of gay anthems.


    I did say, at 'immediate risk of serious physical harm'. I think being hanged falls into that category. As it happens, the two boys in that case were accused of raping a younger boy. Whatever the facts of this case really are, hanging juveniles is clearly appalling and wrong. I do not think there is any doubt that the Iranian government is degenerate, with a mindset somewhere in the middle ages.

    I too am proud of our diverse population and generally tolerant outlook in Britain. We spent 200 years playing the 'Motherland' to the British Empire and many people from the Commonwealth fought and died for Britain in two world wars. Immigration and asylum are, however, completely separate issues.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 11, 2010 2:00 PM GMT
    Mil8 said
    Are you suggesting we simply grant asylum to anyone from Iran or Cameroon who pitches up at a UK port of entry and says they are gay and worried about being oppressed? Cameroon has a population of around 19million and Iran a population of 71million. Assuming a gay population of 5% in both countries, we would be saying we are happy to take in 16million people, who claim to be gay. That is not to mention all the other countries where gay people are badly treated.

    I am saying, limit asylum to those who can demostrate, with evidence, that they are at immediate risk of serious physical harm, if they return to their country of origin. If you give everyone the benefit of the doubt, you will simply be taken for a ride. It is neither xenophobic nor bigoted, just practical.


    Well, fortunately for the sake of human rights and dignity, your point of view is now irrelevant.

    The British empire pillaged much of the world for centuries. My great grandparents had personal experience of British concentration camps during the Boer war. Maybe it is time to give back just a little bit.