Countries that ban homosexuality risk losing aid, warns David Cameron

[alp227]

Source: Press Assoc.

Britain has threatened countries that ban homosexuality with losing aid payments unless they reform, David Cameron has said.

But he conceded that "deep prejudices" in some countries meant the problem would persist for years.

The prime minister said he had raised the issue with leaders of some of the states involved when he attended the Commonwealth heads of government meeting in Australia.

Britain was "putting the pressure on", he said. But it was not a problem that would be solved by the time Commonwealth leaders are next due to meet, in Sri Lanka in 2013.

Read more: http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/oct/30/ban-homosexuality-lose-aid-cameron

[LiberalFighter]

1. If only that was done by the USA.

Even require it for our states if they want federal funding.

[Odin2005]

2. Sad that British TORIES are to the LEFT of many Dems on social issues.

[greiner3]

3. "countries that ban homosexuality with losing aid payments unless they reform;"

Does this apply to Britain stopping aid to us as well?

[alp227]

4. If you think that DOMA is the criteria then you may be right,

but gay sex was decriminalized 8 years ago in Lawrence v. Texas. I think that the foreign aid embargo aims to countries that criminalize same-sex intercourse, such as many African or Middle East nations.

[leftynyc]

9. Since when do we ban

homosexuality? Or is this just more "let's bash the US for any and all reasons" in which case I can just ignore your posts?

[Occulus]

10. We ban it civilly instead of criminally.

But yes, the US does indeed 'ban' homosexuality. It's just that most people don't think of it that way.

[leftynyc]

11. By far this is the stupidest comment

I've read on this site this year. Congrats.

[Occulus]

12. How so?

I live in MI. Please explain to me how we're not doing everything but trying to explicitly ban homosexuality itself.

They can't actually do that, so they everything they can up to that point. It's an attempt toward a ban in all but name, and our laws steadily and consistently reflect that core Christian value.

[leftynyc]

13. Ever since Lincoln vs Texas

not even sodomy is against the law so you're spinning in circles trying to claim we're just as bad as countries that imprison and murder their gays. Like I said - stupid.

[azurnoir]

5. How noble how progressive of Mr Cameron

it wasn't as though he was going to do it anyway, right? Couldn't be simply putting prettier lipstick on a 'pig'

Britain to cut aid to world's poorest countries Tuesday 1 March 2011 16.29 EST

Sixteen nations will no longer receive bilateral aid from Britain by 2016 as UK refocuses on security rather than development

http://www.guardian.co.uk/global-development/2011/mar/01/uk-cuts-aid-poorest-countries

no mention of Gay rights but I'll hand it to him for inventiveness sort of

[Prophet 451]

6. Bingo n/t

[No Elephants]

7. Well, it is another way to save money, isn't it? Those countries are probably not going to stop

persecuting gays in an instant, especially if the general perception of their respective populations is that they'll burn in hell for all eternity if they stop persecuting gays.

(Yes, that is one perverse belief, but, sadly it exists.)

So, what is Cameron's predominant motive here, saving money or encouraging equal human rights?

Do members of the GLBT community have equal human rights in the UK? If not, has he been trying to change that?

Otherwise, this is bs on his part, but it may help some anyway and it's better than nothing.

[closeupready]

8. Since homophobia stems from the same poison that is the scourge of misogyny,

this is more attacking the symptom than the cause, but I think this is a step in the right direction. K&R