Sexual Orientation Should Be Considered Grounds For Asylum.
No introduction at present. Why not write one?
You can also add to the debate by leaving your comment at the end of the page.
Today the majority of us live in an established society where homosexuality along with others are accepted. However, many countries still prosecute, imprison, and hold laws against these individuals because of their sexual orientations. This is an act of discrimination against Human Rights.
Thereupon, if an individual is violated from his or her rights, he or she should be fully able to seek asylum. Adhering to the “The 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees” by the UN Refugee Agency, a refugee is a person who "owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality, and is unable to or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country…". Therefore homosexuals can seek asylum due to their circumstances.
Homosexuals form a “particular social group” which exists all over the globe. Its Legality has been accepted in most countries; however 80 countries criminalize consensual homosexual acts. Within these 80 countries 37 of them are African countries. Statistics state that 2 to 15.4% of the population are either homosexuals or bisexuals. According to research, most African countries consider homosexuality as ‘immoral’, a ‘curse’ etcetera. Recently, Burundis’ president Pierre Nkurunziza has confirmed a law criminalizing homosexual conduct and threatening to exacerbate the deplorable treatment of gays and lesbians. These people are persecuted, threatened by police, outcasted by family and friends and most importantly violated from human
rights. Consequently, sexual orientation should be considered grounds for asylum, and thus the motion stands.
In recent times, homosexuality has been considered legal in a number of countries but the truth still stands that majority of countries do not recognize homosexuality by law. For the sake of reference, Wikipedia define sexual orientation as 'a pattern of emotional, romantic, or sexual attraction to men, women, both genders, neither gender, nor another gender' [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_orientation]]. Among the three categories of sexual orientation, homosexuality is given much importance than the others.
We in the opposition say that homosexuality (gay or lesbian) as a sexual orientation should not be considered grounds for asylum. It will interest the proposition to know that in countries where homosexuality is frowned upon by law; is practice just as practices of corruption is regard illegal and criminal. Moreover, an individual who practices it in these respective countries who are being prosecuted or imprisoned is not tantamount to discrimination or against the human rights of the people. Human rights of a person is emphatically guaranteed and safeguarded in the respective county. Laws contain rules and regulations as to how a country should be governed. It will interest the proposition to know that in forming a law of a country, the culture and life style of the people is taken into consideration. Any activity that is considered ‘foreign’ against the laws of the land by which the people are governed is rather seen illegal and to an extend criminal.
The1951 Convention Relating to the status of a refugee by UN Refugee Agency which the proposition quoted only qualifies for political asylum. This is due the fact that the legality or illegality of the sexual orientation emphatically homosexuality is a sovereign decision by that respective countries. Considering asylum for homosexuals from countries where they are considered as illegal is not an ideal one.
Sexual orientation is valid as a type of social group
According to the Article 1 of “The 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees” by the UN Refugee Agency, a refugee is a person who "owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality, and is unable to or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country…".[[ ]] Thus, sexual orientation should be considered grounds for asylum as homosexuality exists and homosexuals form a “particular social group”. There are millions of homosexuals all around the world and many surveys have been conducted to estimate the number of homosexuals in particular areas. For example, Cornell University published that according to their research of young Americans around 14.4% of the females and 5.6% of males were either homosexuals or bisexuals. Also, in Rio de Janeiro, 15.4% percent of the population - 94,234 people –has identified themselves as either homosexuals or bisexuals.
Furthermore, there are many organizations and communities representing homosexuals and fighting for homosexuals’ rights including InterPride and International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission, which has began collaborating with the United Nations recently.
We wonder on what basis the proposition consider homosexuals as a social group. Homosexuals form part of a social class not a social group. A social groups can be defined as, ' two or more people who interact with one another and who recognize themselves as a distinct social unit [[http://www.sociologyguide.com/basic-concepts/Social-Groups.php]], the definition goes on to give examples of a social group and a further explanation as 'a family, a village, a political party a trade union is all social groups.
The figures given by the proposition does not reflect the larger picture on the group. The figures only represent a minute of a country's population. Aside challenges to determine the population in the world, results shows that the general population is 'within a range of 0.6 to 5.4 percent. These studies include Bell-Weinberg, 1970 (2 percent); Billy-Battelle, 1993 (1.1 percent); Cameron-Ross, 1975-78 (3 percent); Catania-NABS, 1992 (2 percent); FRI, 1983 (5.4 percent); MacDonald, 1988 (2 percent); NCHS, 1988-91 (3.5 percent); Schmidt, 1987 (0.6 percent); and Trocki, 1988-89 (3 percent)' [[http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_percent_of_the_world_is_gay. Ideally, the population of homosexuals in legalized countries are far less than is between the range of 1-2%[[http://www.traditionalvalues.org/urban/two.php]].
The government is incapable or unwilling to stop or prevent discrimination against LGBTs
Many homosexuals are subject to violent, boorish hate crimes. Though many governments approve of any sexual orientation, sometimes LGBT’s face many dangers regardless of their government’s actions. Even in countries where homosexuality is tolerated, hate crimes are rampant. Brazil has the most famous gay pride parade with over 3.2 million attendees, yet also has the highest rate of hate crimes against LGBT people. In 2008 alone, over 190 LGBT murders were reported( exactly how many is unknown, as these crimes go mostly unreported). Police repeatedly fails to investigate hate crimes against LGBT individuals. Augusto Pereira de Souza, a Brazilian, was repeatedly attacked, beat and threatened by skinheads and even cops. In 2008, the President of Sao Paulo's Gay Pride Association was beaten and in 2007, a 19 year old gay teenager was brutally murdered.http://www.pinknews.co.uk/news/articles/2005-6830.html Although Brazil has anti-discrimination laws, LGBT individuals are still in danger.A Malawi gay couple, Monjeza and Chimilanaga, was sentenced to 14 years of hard labour just because they expressed their love for one another. The couple was accused of “gross indecency” and “unnatural acts”. Although, they were freed 5 months later by the president after international outcry, the couple split because of public hostility. Monjeza’s ‘furious’ villagers warned Chimilanaga that he will be ‘dealt with’ if he comes. This couple hasn’t harmed anyone, yet they were subjected to ugly discrimination. [[http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/may/30/malwi-gay-couple-freed-villages]] Burundi outlawed homosexuality in 2009. Homosexual acts are punished by penalties of 3 months to 2 years of imprisonment.[[http://www.365gay.com/news/burundi-criminalizes-homosexuality/]]
Since sexual orientation is not chosen and unchangeable, we believe that countries where the government is unwilling or incapable of stopping or preventing discrimination against LGBTs, seeking as
We ask the proposition this simple question, if the life of homosexuals can not be guaranteed in their respective countries where that type sexual orientation is legalized what guarantees their life in another country where it not legalized?
Governments are incapable because the laws of the land do allow them to protect the lives of homosexuals.
Homosexuals are persecuted
In 1948, the General
Assembly of the United Nations stated in the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights that “everyone has the right to
life, liberty and security of person”. However, in many countries around the
world, people are being persecuted on the basis of their sexual orientations.
Just because they are homosexuals, many people are suffering from series of
tortures from being publicly condemned and verbally abused to being physically
attacked to severe degrees that they sometimes have no choice but to flee from their
countries of birth or even commit suicides.
Regardless of the fact that individuals have no control over their sexual orientations, history is littered
with shocking abuses against homosexuals including beating
to death with baseball bats and pool cues,firing with
automatic rifle fire upon going into a gay youth club, stabbing and chopping 70 times with a machete and even bombing a gay bar and thus injuring more
than 70 people.
Even people from
countries where homosexuality isn’t censured attack homosexuals. For example,
in Brazil where homosexual acts were legal since 1830, activists say that a
staggering number of 2680 gay people were murdered in the last two decades. To
make matters even worse, police and the government who should be protecting
homosexuals’ rights turn against them. In Kosovo, Gramoz Prestreshi was almost
beat to death by thugs, but police merely laughed at him and the emergency room
workers forced to him to mop up his own blood.
The Proposition believes that human beings should not be subject to such injustice just because they are homosexuals and that they ought to seek asylum.
Indeed homosexuals just like every person has the right to life, liberty ans security. Yet, these rights and freedoms are exercised in conformity with the laws of the state. By this we do not ascribe to brutalities of homosexuals. What we are saying is that, going against the laws of the state is illegal.
Aside the illegality of their sexual orientations in countries that do not recognize them, report shows that homosexuals also commit grave crimes. A Chief Magistrate of the New York City Criminal Court, Judge John Martaugh said, "Homosexuals account for half the murders in large cities" and again Captain William Riddle of the Los Angeles Police says, "30,000 sexually abused children in Los Angeles were victims of homosexuals".
Such reports of crime commuted against homosexuals as the proposition puts it, is only blowing the issues out of proportion. In all aspects of life homosexuals access all social, economic and political opportunities available to any other man. Homosexuals aren't discriminated against in employment, education or health. The average yearly income of a homosexual is $55,430.00 (most of which is disposable because no children to take care of!) and that of the average of blacks is $12,166.00 . 59.6% of homosexuals are college graduates and 18.0% of the general population are college graduates and 49.0% of these homosexuals hold professional/managerial positions.
In January 1980 there were 5 openly gay or lesbian elected officials in the USA and in subsequently in January 1994 there were 133 openly gay or lesbian elected officials in the USA.
Of all these statistics what do the proposition call discrimination?
The laws and practices of the originating country of asylum-seekers is irrelevant
The question concerning whether asylum should be granted for citizens of countries in which homosexuality has been declared to be illegal arose from the response of the team opposition to our first point.
The Proposition believes that laws and practices of the originating country of an asylum-seeker is irrelevant to another country's offering an asylum to that person.
Suppose a man named Bo from Bondoloi is being persecuted by a Bondoloin law that states that all people named Bo must be whipped thirty times every morning. He is also discriminated by his fellow Bondoloins and have once even been flogged. Another country, however, can (and probably should as it is very immoral to leave Bo being persecuted just because of his name!) offer him asylum because of this persecution. It doesn’t matter whether if every other Bondoloins think whipping Bo is perfectly okay.
The statement made by the opposition which states 'the Proposition believes that laws and practices of the originating country of an asylum-seeker is irrelevant to another country's offering an asylum to that person' clearly demonstrate the ignorance of the proposition of the mechanism of international laws or immunity or probably the mechanism that goes into consideration for seeking asylum.
First, the UN Refugee Agency (UNHCR) defines citizenship, or nationality (both terms are used interchangeably), as
"a legal bond between a state and that country’s laws and an individual. It encompasses political, economic, social and other rights as well as the responsibilities of both government and citizen"[[http://www.actnow.com.au/Issues/Asylum_seekers_refugees__more_definitions.aspx]]. What this simply means is that people seeking asylum or having a refugee status does not lose his /her citizenship or nationality from their originating countries. In simple fact, originating country of an asylum seeker plays a significant role in the asylum seeking process.
We in the opposition wonder significance of the story of a man named Bo from Bondoloi as metaphorically narrated by the proposition comes to bear here. There have not been any substantial evidence as to how homosexuals are mistreated or discriminated simply because of their sexual orientation that should warrant an asylum. Reports shows clearly that gay/lesbian hold political positions and public offices with most regarded as celebrities. For instance in Texas, despite the oppositions anti-gay rhetoric against lesbian Annise Parker, she was elected Mayor of Houston, Texas a country with a population of 2.2 million, the largest city in the country to elect an openly gay mayor[[http://gaygenderissues.suite101.com/article.cfm/influential_lgbt_politicians]]. Homosexuals like Billy Porter
Jonathan Groff, Chris Colfer and Bill T. Jones among many are celebrities with large followings and admirers.
Imagine a world where no one is bound to a society which violates them from their own rights. Imagine a world where one can reveal their "real" sexual orientations without fears of being prosecuted, discriminated and threatened to be murdered. Imagine a world where everyone is accepted for who they are.
Side proposition believes it is feasible for homosexuals to seek asylum based on the foreboding issues they are withheld in. This will give numerous individuals the hope of living at liberty, the route to a brighter future and the hope of finding peace. We find a compelling story in Burundi that advocates this motion.
In the article ‘Forbidden’, several homosexuals from Burundi reveal their sexual orientations in hope of being released from their anguish and of their government accepting them for who they are. In 2009, Burundi officially passed the law criminalizing homosexuality. 22 year old Pascal stated “I feel like I’m in a prison. I need to be free.” Explicitly we can infer that they are motivated, seeking a route to the future , hoping to be accepted in a society and wishing to not be undermined from human rights. This clearly articulates that if we bestow homosexuals the right to seek asylum then the more advantageous it is to several factors. First, evidently the homosexuals will be given a chance to live without harassment. Second, the country that outlawed homosexuality will not have to take actions against homosexuals and instead give them an option, comprehensive to both sides, to seek asylum. We won't say that there are definite benefits to receiving refugees, but does it have to be based on it's benefits? Can't giving hope and freedom to unjustly persecuted homosexual asylum seekers be an act out of compassion?
The opposition imagines the world the proposition is proposing but our imagination always carry us to the simple fact that homosexuals just like any other person has the rights and freedoms guaranteed. What is seen as an affront is their activity.
The world has developed to understand and has chosen heterosexuality because that is what has been handed down to us by our ancestors. Homosexuality which is greatly rejected by 90% of countries in the world has not reached that understanding. Homosexuals have undertaken initiatives that has resulted in the legalization of their sex preferences in some countries what prevents others from other countries where their activity is criminalized from educating and undertaken moves to demonstrate why the society in which they live should accept their activity? If it is the case of murder or molestation, what about heterosexuals that receive similar treatment. Can we conveniently say they receive those treatment because of their sexual orientation or the circumstance in which they find themselves?
We believe we all as humans have developed in a stage where we can reason as one. Definably, there are those that will oppose what you believe in or like but the onus lies on them (homosexuals) to reason with others about what they and why society should accept them as one. Seeking asylum will not solve the problem but even widen it. What if the country in which they sort asylum revoke their claim or do not accept their claim? They will have to come back to that very country and society only to meet the problem they were avoiding. We in the opposition believe that in one nut, the 1951 Convention on refugee solves this issues by first regarding us humans and one can only seek asylum base on politics or war claims.
The following paragraphs cover the five major clashes, considering the Opposition has already admitted that homosexuals are inhumanly persecuted and that they DO form a social group, of this debate and why side Proposition is correct.
Most importantly, the Proposition has made it clear that homosexuality exists and is natural. The Opposition gave emphasis on the fact that homosexuality is rejected by 98% of the world population which is far from the truth. But, they have fully contradicted their own statement, without our help, by later giving examples of many homosexuals with "large followings and admirers".
The Proposition has made it clear that governments are unwilling and incapable to prevent discrimination against homosexuals. In some countries, homosexual acts are punished severely. However, the Opposition further believes that asylum shouldn't be granted to homosexuals from countries where homosexuality is illegal which seems absurd. Laws of the originating country are irrelevant to another country's granting asylum.
Throughout the debate, the Opposition kept saying that it is better for homosexuals to stay in their respective countries and educate others regardless of the draconian laws and mistreatment in those countries. The process of convincing the society is ongoing, but the lives of the homosexuals who protest are in danger. Many innocent people could die trying to change the minds of people who are inherently biased that homosexual acts are immoral. We should also take into note that, as stated before, many governments are unwilling, let alone incapable, to stop these discrimination. So, instead of putting their lives on stake, homosexuals should seek asylum from countries where they can start a whole new life.
The Opposition has made two major points that are worth being discussed in the summary so far. Firstly, to the Opposition's point that there is no guarantee to homosexuals' lives in the world where the majority of the population are against them, the Proposition has successfully refuted that the majority of the world is NOT against homosexuals and that it's still better to live in a country where they are safe, secure and generally accepted than to suffer under continuous threats and abuses in a country where homosexual acts are considered illegal. The second argument the Opposition has made was that upon granting refuge to homosexuals, the spread of HIV and STDs will widen. However, the team Proposition has found out from studies that prevention and treatment amongst homosexuals are rare. They are often ignored and denied treatment just because, again, of their sexual orientations. So, a part of the spread of HIV is caused by persecution of homosexuals rather than by homosexuals themselves.
Thus, the Proposition firmly believes that sexual orientation should be considered grounds for asylum. Should this motion fail, homosexuals will continue to be violated, murdered and deprived of their human rights.
Widen the spreed of STDs and HIV
Globally the fight of HIV/AIDS and other sexually transmitted diseases have become a source of worry for every one. We in the opposition believe that granting refugee base on homosexuality will widen the increase that spreed of HIV/AIDS and other Sexually Transmitted Diseases (STIs) and the fight against this worries will be overhauled.
Homosexuals are said to be responsible for spreading AIDS and in in the United States account for well over 50% of the AIDS cases, and 78% of homosexuals are affected by STDs [[Rueda, E. "The Homosexual Network." Old Greenwich, Conn., The Devin Adair Company, 1982, p. 53 and San Francisco AIDS Foundation, "Can We Talk]]. This is a very large number considering the fact that they represent 1-2% of the population.
Considering this sexual orientation for asylum will only put innocent individuals such as children, women and teenagers at risk base on the well known life style of homosexuals. A Psychological Reports published in 1986, showed that homosexuals commit more than 33% of all reported child molestations in the United States and also 73% of all homosexuals have had sex with boys under 19 years of age [[Jay and Young. The Gay Report. Summit Books, 1979, p. 275]].
Regarding homosexuality and promiscuity, in 2004 the Baptist Press reported the following: "A new study by a group of University of Chicago researchers reveals a high level of promiscuity and unhealthy behavior among that city's homosexual male population. According to the researchers, 42.9 percent of homosexual men in Chicago's Shoreland area have had more than 60 sexual partners, while an additional 18.4 percent have had between 31 and 60 partners...As a result, 55.1 percent of homosexual males in Shoreland -- known as Chicago's "gay center" -- have at least one sexually transmitted disease, researchers said. [[http://www.conservapedia.com/Homosexuality_Statistics]].
This activities trustfully will add up to the worries of respective countries.
It is true that homosexuals are in more danger of being affected by HIV/AIDs than any other social group. But, it is also true that prevention and treatment amongst homosexuals are, unfortunately, very rare. Studies show that:
-Gays who come forward with their diagnosis are usually denied treatment.
-Only 9 percent of gays were reached with HIV prevention services.
-Funding for HIV treatment for gays is not proportional to amount of gays with HIV. [[http://bit.ly/cB6J70]]
(Also, 79 countries failed to report on HIV prevalence among gays. [[http://bit.ly/cClPak]] Such scarcity of data is at times interpreted as justification for few HIV(AID/STD) services. It also makes gays’ dilemma less known to HIV/AIDs services.)
Data says, in contrast to what the opposition is trying to say, 90% of child abuse is committed by heterosexual men and from a study of 269 cases of child sexual abuse, only 2 were by homosexuals. [[http://bit.ly/1Ye1e6]]
Furthermore, we have found out that The Gay Report - the second reference used by the opposition - gave away approximately 400000 questionnaires to be answered, but only 4000 were returned. Since the respondents were selected themselves, it is wrong to think the study’s founding as a representation of the homosexual community as a whole. The outcome of this questionnaire with 1% return rate cannot possibly be a full description of the gay community.
Lives of homosexuals are still not guaranteed
The fact still remains that most countries and majority of the population have not come to understand and accept homosexuals as they are. Most religion that the world’s population adheres to its teachings do not recognized these individuals. It will be difficult for homosexuals to live comfortably in such environment.
A compilation made by staff librarian Linda Scheimann suggest that most religious denominations such as Assemblies of God, Baptist General Conference, Catholic, Jewish (Orthodox), Lutheran (Missouri Synod), Lutheran (Wisconsin Evangelical Synod), Methodist, Muslim and the Presbyterian have their Worshipers vehemently opposing homosexuality and the gay lifestyle recognized as sin, ministers who practice this are not allowed and same-sex unions greatly opposed. In the case of Muslims, any act such as this is punishable by death. How then can a homosexual seek refugee in a world where 98% of the population opposes their activity?
The ideal thing is for these individuals to stay in their respective countries and educate their people in understanding them rather than moving to countries their lives are not guaranteed.
The proposition can not understand how 98% of the total world population oppose homosexual acts when, according to the data given by the opposition themselves, 3.5% of the world are homosexuals (we have chosen their most recent but also long-lasting study - the study by National Center for Health Statistics). We should also take into note the number of bisexuals and people who are reluctant to admit themselves as homosexuals on these studies.
Furthermore, automatically inferring that almost half of the world who do not follow Abrahamic religions (religions mentioned by the opposition) are all against homosexual acts is just absurd. Even the "supposed" homophobes who follow Abrahamic religions have started to change. For example, the number of Christian churches that are open to the ordination of people who are homosexuals is increasing. [[http://ow.ly/2sZ84 ]]
As the proposition stated, it is indeed true that in some Muslim countries and in other African countries with draconian laws homosexuals can be under the penalty of life sentence and this is why sexual orientation should be considered grounds for asylum. If homosexuals were given the choice either to stay in their country and suffer through insurmountable tortures caused by both neighbors and the government or to go to a country where they are secure, safe, accepted and evaluated not on the basis of their sexual orientations but on their characters which are likely to further bloom, it is clear that the latter will be chosen.
So, the proposition believes that asylum should be granted to homosexuals who were so inhumanly tortured that they had no choice but to flee just because of their sexual orientations and who are so eager to start whole new lives in countries where even same-sex marriage is accepted such as Netherlands, Canada, Belgium, Spain and Argentina. [[http://ow.ly/2sZn0]]
Recent asylum claims granted do not promise hope
It is very interesting to know that homosexuals that seek asylum in Britain for example is not the best of options. In that asylum claim is what is termed as "discretion test" which educates gay or lesbian asylum seekers from countries including Iran, Cameroon and other African nations to go home and keep their sexuality secret to avoid repercussions. No if the solution is to keep quite why can't they in their respective country? Is this not the same reason for which they sort asylum?
But Lord Hope, suggest that this asylum clause is discriminatory that any other thing by stating "to compel a homosexual person to pretend that his sexuality does not exist or suppress the behavior by which to manifest itself is to deny him the fundamental right to be who he is". Is this the sort of treatment homosexuals want to put themselves into?
If the answer obviously is no, then what needs to be done is a program that will afford individual society to understand and treat them alike for who they are. An illustration given by justanotherworkerbee commenting on this same very topic says much as he puts it 'I really feel like hopping on a plane to, say, Tasmania and saying that I fear for my children safety walking the streets of the UK and that I am being persecuted by my government. I may kill myself if they put me back on the plane home. Whats my chances?[[http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/07/should_gay_and_lesbian_asylum.html]]' Another comment by James Hardaker on that same platform says 'the fact that a foreign citizen has to keep their sexuality a secret back home is not our problem. It is also not grounds for allowing an asylum seeker entry into this country, because we are then interfering in other cultures, which let's not forget is what has earned us such a bad reputation overseas already'.
The opposition asks whether the discretion test is the sort of treatment homosexuals would want themselves put into. The answer is, of course, no. But there’s no need to answer or ask that question as the discretion test no longer exists.
On July 7th 2010, the UK Supreme Court brought an end to the policy which made immigration authorities ask asylum seekers whether they can tolerate conditions in their native country if they make some adjustments. Lord Rodger wrote in the ruling that“[To] reject his application on the ground that he could avoid the persecution by living discreetly would be to defeat the very right which the [Refugee] Convention exists to protect - his right to live freely and openly as a gay man without fear of persecution.”
This decision will help make a new standard for determining asylum status which doesn’t contradict international human rights guidelines. [[http://colorlines.com/archives/2010/07/gay_asylum_in_united_kingdom.html]]
Also, justanotherworkerbee, in the very same comment the opposition cited, said “Why dont we just send out planes daily to every country in the world, let anyone on with a problem and bring them back here to this vast Island that we live on? People never seem to go the the nearest "safe country" do they?” [[http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/07/should_gay_and_lesbian_asylum.html]] Now, his comment seems to be criticizing the amount of asylum seekers to the UK, rather than asylum seeking itself. But then again, James Hardaker and justanotherworkerbee could be and probably are viewers from the sidelines. Their comments don’t change the fact that homosexuals are persecuted because of their sexual orientation and are being denied from their human rights.
Consensus building is key
Granting asylum seekers base on sexual orientation will produce a more complex and more difficult society to manage. Aside the fact that those who commit crimes could hide behind the sake of 'homosexuality' or any other sexual orientation just to escape prosecution and vase effects is, more and more groups that believe they have a right under the asylum seeking, hiding behind falsehood will want to push their way through just to leave the place of abode. let us not forget, there are children and women who are been molested and not granted asylum in other country. Hunger is killing a lot more innocent souls out there, will they also have a right to seek asylum because they live is in danger and being persecuted by hunger? Obviously no.
We in the opposition believes nature have distinctively separated us and there is no need for we humans to draws differences among us. Granting asylum base on sexual orientation will not only discriminant against those seeking it but also but unnecessary cause division among us. The United Kingdom did not stand up one day to accept homosexuals into their society but was involved in gradual process that sort the understanding of the fact that as humans we have several preferences. This same move can equally be taken in countries where homosexuality is not legalized. It is up to them to convince the society, pull resources together and join hands in making the society and that nation as a whole accept them as they are.
The truth is one can not stay in asylum for the rest of your life. One day you will return to your country and when you do will you want to return to the troubles you were once upon a time avoiding since unlike wars that end some way some how, cultures take a very long time to ullter.? The opposition believe building consensus is a vital tool that can be used in solving the problems so mentioned.
According to side opposition, bestowing the right to seek asylum for homosexuals because they are persecuted will become a cover for criminals to escape from their country and abode their current situation. This is an absurd argument. It attenuates (a) the government that allows the criminal to counterfeit for asylum without their awareness, (b) the government that the con artist seeks asylum to; for their argument proposes that the government will allow immigration without further investigation of the personnel.
Moreover, side opposition is oblivious of the fact that countries have laws to protect molested women and children, however for persecuted homosexuals; (in over 80 countries) there are no laws to protect them at all from being molested. Thus persecuted homosexuals should be bestowed the right to seek asylum. Clearly, being persecuted by hunger and being persecuted because of one’s sexual orientation are two parallel proposals. Hunger is a factor that can be altered whereas homosexuality is not.
We on side proposition believe that consensus building for countries that have illegalized homosexuality is infeasible. Consider the following proposals. First, the government of these countries are shrewd in their homophobic opinion and do not wish hinder their laws to protect them[[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homophobia#Efforts_to_combat_homophobia]]. Second, as the opposition mentioned, the culture and tradition of these countries neither wish to tolerate nor accept them unless they change[[http://www.hrw.org/en/features/forbidden-gays-and-lesbians-burundi]]. Therefore why not make it advantageous for both involving factors and bestow homosexuals the right to seek asylum?
We in the opposition strongly stand against the motion that sexual orientation should be considered grounds for asylum. First and foremost, homosexuals, bisexuals, heterosexuality and many others are humans and posses the same rights and freedoms just like any other person. Granting asylum based on sexual orientation will mean that one section of the society is treated special and different from others. This is inequality and discrimination in the highest level. The illegality of homosexuals in their activity and their rejection by society has been as a result of the fact that in those countries it is against their culture and in some instances, laws.
Granting asylum based on sexual orientation will turn countries against countries in a culture war that will result in habbly adoption and recognition. This will be deadly in the country since it can break at any time resulting into more crime than ever.
Another thing that needs to be considered is the fact that sexual orientation of a person can only be measured by personal attestation. This will provide avenue for individuals to fake their sexual orientation to leave their countries for 'greener pastures' and also for criminals to avoid prosecution. Unlike wars where the level of persecution,threat of life and danger to peoples lives base on race,ethnicity,colour and political views can be measured and ascertained,sexual orientation is unascertainable and far fetched
For these reasons, we believe that granting asylum based on sexual orientation will widen the spreed of HIV/AIDS,discriminate against a section of the society,break cultures and create an avenue where criminals will use sexual orientation as bases to avoid prosecution, therefore opposition says sexual orientation should not be considered grounds for asylum.
What do you think?