Jump to content

Talk:LGBTQ rights by country or territory/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

Namibia Information Just Plain Wrong?

I think we need some verification of the information provided. No sodomy law and anti-discrimination enshrined in the constitution? Are we talking about the same Namibia where President Sam Nujoma said in 2001:

"In Namibia, we don't allow lesbianism or homosexuality...We will combat this with vigour...Police are ordered to arrest you and deport you and imprison you....Those who are practicing homosexuality in Namibia are destroying the nation" 24.69.170.138 (talk) 16:47, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Greece Legalized Same Sex Marriage, Keep Eye Out For Norway

On Greece: http://www.365gay.com/Newscon08/03/031308gr.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.230.232.48 (talk) 02:47, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Religion and homosexuality

Personally, I think the connection between religion and homosexuality is presented in slightly too simplistic a fashion and conflates opinion with fact a little too much. If the Abrahamic tradition is the primary source of homophobia, then how have cultures such as that of China and Hindu India, with peripheral Abrahamic influences, nevertheless developed heterosexist and homophobic cultures? And what of admitedly somewhat conjectural reports that the Christian church was much less unambiguously condemning of homosexuality during the Middle Ages? And the biggie, as far as I'm concerned, is Falun Gong, a new Chinese religion which has responded to the modern spoken awareness of homosexuality with overt homophobia. Don't forget that sodomy was a crime in atheist Soviet Russia, too.

It makes me wonder if possibly some of the ancient world's tolerance and celebration of homosexuality may be somewhat overstated as well.

It could be that heterosexism and homophobia arise for reasons other than religion and that religion interacts with some cultures' pre-existing inclination in this area in a positive feedback loop. In other words that yet again religion is acting as a vehicle of social control and not necessarily the cause of social control, if that makes sense.

I'll check back on this later. I may try softening the existing text and making it equivocate somewhat and suggest that other viewpoints on the origin of homophobia are at least possible.

--Steve D 04:57, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Yea, I was thinking this too. I don't know about your anthropological analysis (its very speculative and irrelevant to the article), but I think the veracity of this part of the article is highly suspect, and warrants a change until it is sourced. If nobody sources the info--it borders on commentary really--I'm going to remove it. Any objections? The statment is far to broad. I highly doubt that the Abrahamic religions invented intolerance towards homosexuality.Brentt 22:40, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
The "History of homosexuality laws" section has gotten worse in my opinion. The contention that the Abrahamic religions are the source of anti-homosexual attitudes is entirely speculative and no references are cited. Furthermore, how does this theory explain Chinese homophobia and heterosexism, when China was never conquered or colonized, historically has had spiritual traditions that make no reference to it, and has spent more than half a century now as an officially atheist state? I'm just going to go ahead and edit it, to at least stimulate some discussion that there are claims here that need to be substantiated. Anthropological theories are fine for the talk page, but anthropological theories presented as fact with no references do not belong in the article. --Steve D (talk) 16:45, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
I edited the section to add an "original research" tag, to ask for citations for statements of facts, to add a contrasting point of view inasmuch that the theory really has to stretch to explain China, and in a couple of places to hedge the language. Speaking personally, I hate the "Abrahamic religions" as much as the next hellbound fag ;). But this section just does not present a neutral point of view, it is stating a theory as fact without at least citing credible external references so that people can look it up and make up their own minds. The theory that religion is the source of homophobia and homophobic laws might not be true, and presenting it as factual without citing sources is far from neutral. Speaking personally, I'd really like to see some quality scholarship citing references for this interesting topic instead of what amounts to an urban legend. --Steve D (talk) 17:21, 18 January 2008 (UTC)


coloring

Is anybody, who can tell me , where it take informations from? ( - where homosexuality is forbidden in country? Because I fear several countries be captivate not correctly. What be based it on writing Homosexuality laws of the world. For example - there is ILGA Report (from 29 June 2005 - http://www.ilga-europe.org/docs/reports/List%20of%20criminalising%20countries%20(Web).doc )in which, such countries as Nepal, or Bhutan, criminalise homosexuality. But map captivates these countries as, homosexuality is legal.


I was wondering why Gambia is on there twice. Someone should figure out the conflicting figures.

This article sure needs some fleshing out - perhaps if everyone would chip in and add their own country. Feel free to just add your country in the appropriate category at first if you don't know any more than the mere acceptance or outlawing of homosexual behaviour - others will fill out the extra information later on.Vice 22:02, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

There is some conflicting information between the map and the text. For instance, the map of Australia shows the states of Western Australia and Queensland as places where same-sex civil unions are legal, however the text only mentions Tasmania and the Australian Capital Territory as such. Also, Mexico City is not indicated in the map as a place of legal same-sex civil unions Resparza 06:55, 28 December 2006 (UTC)


Same sex unions are legal in Argentina, but I don't know how to change the graph. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.235.47.6 (talk) 02:35, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Homosexuality in Vatican City

Would it be appropriate to say that homosexuality is taboo in the Vatican, especially after the pope's statements on it? Redfarmer 20:22, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I'm suprised that it's even legal there! That aside, I think that saying that it's taboo would be appropriate. //GurraJG 18:13, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Sex distinction

Why are there so many countries that outlaw male homosexuality but permit female homosexuality (lesbianism), yet none that work the other way around? — JIP | Talk 11:00, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I'm wondering the same thing. Maybe it has something to do with a "man being a man" or something like that. If you look at the history in the Britain and its colonies, male homosexuality was considered a "gross indecency", there's nothing about female homosexuality. It's misandrism if you ask me. Mario12 15:52, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
That's really dumb. 156.34.229.25 16:24, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
Actually this is a form of misogyny. Homophobia and misogyny are rooted side by side in the collective unconscious, and both are based in the concept that female roles (and partnering to a man is a "female role") are inferior and subjected to despise. 201.80.151.191 (talk) 01:23, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Rename

I am going to rename this article "Homosexuality laws" Apollomelos 09:51, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Why? "Homosexuality laws" doesn't strike me as very precise. The current title might not be the best, but I'm not sure if the move would help much. --Conti|✉ 11:06, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)

Vatican City No - - - No Homosexuality is technically legal but very taboo, as a theocracy of the Roman Catholic Church. Well, I have added further detail to justify that naming convention such as same-sex unions. I feel this is an appropriate use now. Apollomelos 23:38, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

"Homosexuality laws of the world" sounds like bad English to me. Maybe World laws relating to homosexuality or something like that? -Seth Mahoney 23:36, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)

Source

What is the source of the information in the tables? Particularly the column dealing with non-discrimination laws. Psychobabble 02:50, 18 May 2005 (UTC)


one of the maps doesnt have a key! talk about confusing... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.39.52.185 (talk) 00:00, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Inbound merger

I removed redundant content from Gay rights around the world. Some ideas I did not merge here:

  • Developed countries tend to be more tolerant.
  • Democratic countries with strong political and civil rights regimes tend to be more tolerant.
  • Developing countries tend to be more religious, and thus less tolerant.
  • The general trend worldwide has been toward increasing tolerance.
    • Russia and Belarus are considering recriminalizing gay sex.

Are these accurate, neutral statements appropriate for inclusion? (Perhaps with some supporting details?)

Other unmerged material suggests we could also do breakdowns showing:

  • Is protection in Constitution?
  • Protection against workplace discrimination?
  • Asylum granted based on sexual orientation?
  • Immigration rights for same-sex partners?

...though details might be better left to the individual country articles. Thoughts? -- Beland 06:25, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

Macao

Macao or Macau is not in Oceania, neither is the Phillipines or Brunei. They are all Asian countries. --Notquiteauden 19:32, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Help

Hi. I am translating this entry to the portuguese version of wikipedia and have some questions.

  1. Some contries (like Fiji and Namibia) consider the homosexuality as ilegal act but is present at this article that these contries have protection to homosexual people. This information is correct?
  2. How to I get more information in max. penalty at the Swaziland? This article don't have precise informations at this case.
  3. The max. penalty in Uganda is prision to rest of live or for "only" 20 years?

Tanks and sorry for my bad English. --555pt 21:37, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Regarding Fiji and Namibia, they do have legal prohibitions of discrimination based on sexual orientation. Fiji prohibits such discrimination in its' Constitution and Namibia prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation in employment since 1992.

Homosexuality laws... OF THE WORLD!

Is the "of the world" in this article's title really necessary? Isn't it kind of.. assumed.. that most laws.. are "of the world"? -Silence 02:55, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

It indicates the emphasis of the article, in being a worldwide review of laws relating to homosexuality, rather than primarily e.g. a review of arguments about such laws, or a history of legislation relating to homosexuality, etc, etc. A person seeing the title immediately understands what the focus of the article will be. Anyway, the words seem to me to be serving a purpose, even if they do so in a possibly non-optimal and silly way. Aris Katsaris 16:01, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
OK, I agree. But isn't there a more optimal and less silly way to word it? What about "Worldwide homosexuality laws" or "Global homosexuality laws" or "List of homosexuality laws by country" or something? -Silence 16:05, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
Thread continued below: "Title, scope and content of article". ntennis 06:15, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Chechnya

Hi. I've removed Chechnya from the Europe list. I've searched on google about the Chechen criminal code and its criminalisation of homosexuality, and haven't found any clear sources, even though some dated from 2002 state that Chechnya was in the process of implementing a new Sharia constitution which criminalises homosexuality (with the death penalty as the highest sentence). Now, if this is true, I think this should be written about in the Russia section, since Chechnya is not a sovereign nation. Perhaps a statement saying that homosexuality is legal in all of Russia except Chechyna (i.e. in the "Laws against homosexuality" column, write "No, except Chechnya") and then in the Notes section, write more information about the Chechen situation. I personally find it quite disturbing that a non-sovereign republic in a state that permits homosexuality can introduce such laws... Ronline ✉ 08:59, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Country list

The country names in the list are linked with the country's site. I would replace it with the links of Gay rights by country. Means Brazil would not link to Brazil but to Gay rights in Brazil. Other suggestions how to include the links of Gay rights by country before it will be deleted? LiangHH 14 Mar 2006 (solved)

Why did somebody put stars and a link to the "Gay rights in..." to the country name, although there is no article like that yet? This is senseless... I'm gonna remove that soon. 亮HH 17:48, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Why no information on the age at which youths are allowed to have such relationships?

The age at which each states grants its citizens sexual emancipation seems like an essential and illuminating bit of information, deserving of its own column and map. For example, in Europe, those states previously under Turkish occupation are the most strict, and other such interesting relationships could be revealed by documenting this aspect. Haiduc 12:21, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Title and scope of article

Taking up the discussion above, I agree with Silence that "Homosexuality laws of the world" sounds a bit odd. How about moving this page to Gay rights by country (a page whose content now looks like an impoverished version of this one)? Each country in the list already links to a full "Gay rights in..." page whenever possible. I agree with Haiduc that age-of-consent would be an interesting addition to the table, and well withing the scope of the article as such laws mention same-sex relations specifically. A lot of work to do the research though! As an aside, I can't help but want to see a transgender-specific laws side-by-side for comparison, but I guess there are too many different laws to fit in one table. ntennis 06:15, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

This seems relevant but no place to put it in the current article

In 2003 the New Hampshire Supreme Court ruled that same-sex relations do not constitute sexual intercourse, based on a 1961 definition from Webster's Third New International Dictionary in Blanchflower v. Blanchflower, and thereby an accused spouse in a divorce case was found not guilty of adultery based on this technicality. savidan(talk) (e@) 21:34, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Old Greeks - Laws for Paederastie?

Among the first laws on same-sex love relations ca. 600 BC are those in ancient Crete and Sparta, which required all adult men to engage in mentoring homoerotic friendships.
I know it was in some times and some polis common and has a well reputation. And i know from the homoerotic military troop in sparta. But a law or rule for all free adult man to do this? Are there any further sources? --Fg68at de:Disk 20:56, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I have been scouring primary sources to find evidence of this. It is clearly a generalization, probably based on secondary sources. I am waiting to consult Aelian, Various Histories (III 12?). Other than that, we have that the quasi-legendary lawmakers instituted the practice: Lycourgos in Sparta, who mandated a chaste pederasty (Xenophon, Constitution of the Lacedaemeonians, 13); Minos in Crete, who "devised intercourse with males" (Aristotle, Politics, 2.10); Solon in Athens, who was held to have promoted love between free men and boys by forbidding slaves that right (Aeschines, Against Timarchus, 139). Haiduc 03:45, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
I have just located the material in question: "Any man of good appearance and character who did not fall in love with someone well bred was also fined, because despite his excellence he did not love anyone." (Aelian, Var. Hist. 3.10) Nota bene - Aelian is ONLY talking about relationships with males here, women are excluded from the discussion. Haiduc 11:53, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

North America map

Currently, Image:Samesex Map North America.png is rife with cleanup and copyright warning tags. I've made an attempt at a free replacement, at Image:Same-Sex-Unions-North-America.svg.

Could I get some confirmation that the data is transferred correctly before I go ahead and switch in the image? I would like to get this squared away before someone decides to delete the old one.

(I am aware if a few borders and colored areas that need fixing (GMT data seems to missing Nunavut, etc.), and that's been fixed on my copy. I'm mostly worried about the right status being assigned to the right countries and states, the rest is cosmetic.)

Thanks! --iMb~Meow 05:05, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Cuba

I've removed out dated material from the entry on Cuba, some of it referring to "concentration camps" in the 1960's - a time when many countries jailed homosexuals. Other sentences were dubious - "In theory private acts of homosexuality between consenting adults are not a crime" - yet the evidence to the contrary is uncited and (I imagine) hopelessly out of date. If anyone wants to put it back in then they need to get investigating sources.--Zleitzen 10:19, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Inappropriate title

The title and the content do not match each other. The majority of the laws discussed are those affecting buggary and not homosexuality. Homosexuality is broadly defined as the disposition or the emotional connection, with or without buggary. It is quite possible to be a homosexual without every engaging in any physical sexual activity with someone of the same sex. I suggest the title be changed to "Buggary Laws of the world" and linked articles updated likewise. 60.48.34.166 07:58, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

That's like saying that since it is quite possible to be a christian while not attending church, any article about laws banning christian worship is not about laws concerning christianity, but rather about laws concerning open worship.

Further, laws concerning same-sex marriage are laws concerning love. Therefore, as homosexuality is the inclination to love, laws concerning same-sex marriage concern homosexuality. This article is largely about same-sex marriage laws. Therefore, it is about laws concerning homosexuality.

Also, buggary is not an apporpriate term to use here. For one, it's derogitory. It's more respectful to refer to it as gay sex or gay love. For another, buggary refers to one specific sex act. This article is not about that particular sex act, although it does mention places where it is illegal to perform it. Therefore, the article is not about anal sex (the proper way to refer to the sex act you mentioned).

QED-Wandering Star 04:10, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with your comment. The article is titled 'Homosexuality laws of the world'. This should therefore focus upon any laws which either permit or restrict whether one is a homosexual or not. This isn't a pro-gay / anti-gay issue but one of encylopedic accuracy. Only laws which make it illegal to have a homosexual mental/emotional disposition should be included in an article with this title. Do not forget that many buggary laws restrict buggary between hetrosexual couples just as they do between homosexual couples. Note that 'gay love' is particularly inappropriate term as love does not require a physical penetrative act. 'Gay sex' itself seems to be a term designed to confuse matters. If the word buggary does not seem appropriate, perhaps sodomy is more respectful. There is no need for a dumbing-down of terminology in an encylopedia such as this - a simple link on the term will suffice to provide explaination.

Perhaps the title would be better phrased "Laws restricting practices of some homosexuals", if you feel it would be inappropriate to make this into an article on buggary laws, which is what most of the laws it cites are 218.111.25.78 07:01, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Anonymous user, your request is an absurd one. It is physically impossible for any law to "restrict whether one is a homosexual or not", nor is it possible for anyone to ever determine whether someone "has a homosexual mental/emotional disposition", except through their acting upon it. Thus, considering that both of the things you demand for something to be considered a "homosexuality law" are completely impossible, practically speaking, and considering that you have failed to provide a viable alternative to the current title (as the previous user correctly pointed out that you are misusing the word "buggery", and "sodomy" is similarly unacceptable as a vague and loaded term), there is no reason for us to change the title at this time. -Silence 07:07, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

'It is physically impossible for any law to "restrict whether one is a homosexual or not"' - in fact - such laws have been attempted in the past and have been some of the most damaging to the lifestyles of homosexual persons. I appeal to all readers to come up with a new title which describes the content as I still feel the title does not reflect the content. Anyway, I am just aiming to improve the encyclopedic reference quality of the article. 218.111.25.78 09:22, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Anonymous user, I appeal to you to create a profile. It takes less than a few minutes, and it's really quite easy. Also, could you please tell me why a discussion of same sex marriage is something that does not reflect the legal views of the world vis a vis homosexuality? After all, marriage is not neccesarily sexual, is it? Christopher Reeve was physically incapable of sex during the last years of his life, but he was still married, wasn't he? Love is what makes a marriage, not sex. And this article is about how the world's laws treat the love between two persons. Therefore, it is about relationships that exist between same sex couples. The English language word for a person who loves another person of their own gender is homosexual (although gay is a better, less clinical sounding term). Thus, this article is about the laws of the world that regard homosexuality. It is accurately titled.

Also, why use the term 'lifestyle' instead of 'life'? Wandering Star 14:19, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

"Thus, this article is about the laws of the world that regard homosexuality. It is accurately titled." I have listened to your argument and there is merit in it. Perhaps you would consider it fair for there to be an additional paragraph within the article to explain that some portion of the laws references do not only affect homosexuals but affect hetrosexuals as well. It may be worth pointing out which countries it is legal to be homosexual within but where it is not legal to engage in physical homosexual acts. Would this seem reasonable? I do not agree with profiles as part of a wikipedia as I feel they are against the original ethos of such a community of equals. 60.48.32.147 09:08, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

A community of equals it is. But do you have any idea how cold and inhuman it sounds to refer to someone by their numerical IP address? A name of some kind, even if it's a silly one like mine, makes it easier to address somebody. Also, it means that you are not hiding from anyone. An anonymous user who commits acts of vandalism by using a proxy IP address and signing themself by that address alone, rather than a profile name, does so with the knowledge that they won't have to worry about being banned from making future edits, even temporarily. Not all anonymous users are vandals, to be sure. But those that are dodge the consequences of their actions, and by so doing, make it impossible to stop vandalism on Wikipedia. Further, if multiple users sign on with the same IP address, either from sharing a computer or from all of them using the same proxy server, and do not have a profile, that IP address is the only thing that can be blocked to prevent vandalism. Thus, all of the users who utilize that IP address will discover that they are blocked from use.

Also, please consider that Wikimedia is eventually going to have to deal with the proxy IP address issue. If they decide that the only way to do it is to block every user who uses a proxy IP address, then alot of people who are not vandals will suffer for it.

Isn't it better to create a profile, just so that other people will not have to deal with being bloked from editing just because some idiot decided to vandalize a bunch of articles?

Now, back to the subject of this discussion. It's fair to point out that sodomy laws affect heterosexuals as well. However, I think it would be even more appropriate to create an article dealing with sodomy laws themselves, and mention within that article the fact that they affect people of every sexual orientation. This article isn't concerned with sodomy laws per se, it's more concerned with laws that affect the lives of homosexual people, whether those are laws pertaining to love, sex, marriage, or freedom of expression/speech. At best, mentioning the fact that laws regarding specific sex acts affect everybody makes a good supporting argument, but since this article is not really about sodomy laws themselves, such a statement should not be a major focus within the article. Also, please note that a country which passes laws barring homosexuals from marrying, having sex, making any public declaration of their identity (cf, Don't Ask, Don't Tell), serving in the military, or which explicity states that homosexuality is immoral or a mental disorder, or which supports laws that create a disparity between gay rights and straight rights, is a country that restricts the rights, dignity and freedoms of homosexual people. For example, let's examine the Nuremberg Laws. Jewish people were required to wear a yellow star, couldn't work, had to live in a ghetto, had their possessions stolen, couldn't own or operate a business, couldn't employ non_Jewish peoplem could not marry, could not walk on the sidewalk and were subject to being shipped off to a concentration camp. Was it illegal to be Jewish? What about the Jim Crow Laws of the South, which said a black person couldn't vote, use the same public facilites as white people, marry a white person, defend themselves in court or hold public office? Did those make it illegal to be black? Or would you argue that these laws merely 'hated the sin' of being Jewish or Black, rather than the 'sinner'? Now, if a country passes laws like that for gay people, does that make it illegal to be gay? Wandering Star 14:48, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Somewhat related aside: this discussion began with a suggestion that "the title and the content do not match each other". A parallel claim is being discussed at Talk:LGBT rights in Jamaica. ntennis 16:48, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Image size

Is it just me, or is that first image WAY too small? Is there any particular reason for keeping that image the size it is, or should we just blow it up to a readable size? IMacWin95 21:46, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

It does seem a little hard to read, now that you mention it. Wandering Star 16:21, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Situation in Italy

Hello all!

I'm new to this... I was able to correct the table about Italy who stated that same-sex union were recognised by some regions which is not true.

I couldn't change the image... is there a way to contact the author or what is the correct way to do this?

A big "Ciao" from Italy

Moritz

Situation in Chile and Uruguay

Civil union bill have good chances to pass, so that 2007 there will be the first two coutries with civil unions in the whole land

Only Uruguay, in Chile is not even mentioned, and that recognition is so far right now..so please don't say nonsense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.255.190.243 (talk) 08:20, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Arab world - reference

I notice that this article is very short on references. There is a very good survey article on homosexuality laws in the Arab world (and Israel): "The Law" in Index on Censorship, Volume 34, Number 3, 2005 (p.166-168). ISSN 0306-4220. It's an excellent issue of the magazine, and this is one of about 10 articles on gays in the Arab world in that issue. I strongly suggest that someone working on this article get hold of that at a library, use it for citation, and also look for any discrepancies between our list and the article.

I don't have this page on my watchlist, so if someone wants to ask me something about this, please use my user talk page. Thanks. - Jmabel | Talk 19:39, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

category for renaming

Interested editors please see Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 December 16#Category:People imprisoned or executed for homosexuality. — coelacan talk — 22:50, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Columbia update

According to the Boston Globe, "The Colombian Constitutional Court has ruled that same-sex couples are entitled to the same inheritance rights as heterosexuals in common-law marriages". That country's gay rights article has yet to get started, but it sounds like there are interesting things going on there. -- Beland 22:20, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Interwiki cleanup

The interwiki links here are messed up. I cleaned them up.

checkYThe following language should be linked to here because their content is the same/comparable:

☒NThe following articles deal with "Sodomy" or "Sodomy laws" and shouldn't be linked to this English page:

☒NArticles which (seem) to deal with another topic:


Please update this list if you translate the "Homosexuality laws of the world"-Article into another language, so we can keep the clearity within the interwiki-links

Thank you 亮HH 15:20, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Table expansion: ADOPTION

I'm gonna add a row to the table, which will show if a country gives same-sex Partners the right to adopt. In order that the table won't become to wide, I'll merge Max. and Min. Penalty together. Please help finding information about adoption for same-sex partners, thank you! 亮HH 22:22, 15 March 2007 (UTC)


Some restructuring

One of Sethie's hopes is that in creating a History section that one day an entire article will be born from it. Sethie 06:30, 8 June 2007 (UTC)


To someone more knowledgeable then Sethie

(and committed) :)

There appears to be a lot of overlay between Homosexuality laws of the world and sodomy laws. Sethie has no sense of how to connect the two or maybe merge the two and it seems like there is some possibility here. Sethie 06:38, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Situation in Norway

A bill that allows same-sex marriage has a good chance to pass. It's due for evaluation in Stortinget on the ninth of September this year. Harepusbrenning 21:17, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

"Western" Samoa

The country has not been "Western" Samoa since 1997. My simple change removed "Western". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.39.246.96 (talk) 21:56, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Homosexuality is legal in Nauru since 2006 and probably in Palau since 2007. Nauru has changed its Criminal Code [Criminal Code (Amendment) Act 2006; 11/08/2006] and add to the article 208 (which ban homosexuality) sentence (some like) that “it in not crime if both partners are over 18 years” Giving by that higher age of consent for homosexuals (16 is for heterosexuals). But I can’t find now the text of that law. Former Art. 208. „Any person who: (1) Has carnal knowledge of any person against the order of nature; or (2) Has carnal knowledge of an animal; or (3) Permits a male person to have carnal knowledge of him or her against the order of nature; is guilty of a crime, and is liable to imprisonment with hard labour for fourteen years"

Palau proposed bill (in 2005) to up higher penalties for rape. This bill also legalise homosexuality. It was passed by Senate upper house of parliament in early 2007, but no information what about the bill now. Former text of Palau National Code 1990; Article 2803 (Title 17.2803) put sodomy on either males or females – up to 10 years imprisonment. Amendments: (2007) “Section 2801. Definitions. (a) “Sexual intercourse” includes vaginal and anal sexual intercourse, with some penetration however slight; emission is not required; (b) “Actor” means a person accused of any offense proscribed under this chapter. 

(c) “Human being” means a person who has been born and is alive;

(d) “Bodily injury” means physical pain, illness, or any impairment of physical condition; (e) “Serious bodily injury” means bodily injury which creates a substantial risk of death or which causes serious permanent disfigurement or protracted loss or impairment of the function of any bodily member or organ; (f) “Dangerous weapon” means any firearm or other weapon, device, instrument, material or substance, whether animate or inanimate, which in the manner it is used or is intended to be used is known to be capable of producing death or serious bodily injury. (g) “Sexual contact” means the touching with any clothed or unclothed body part or any object, either directly or through the clothing, or the genitalia, anus, groin, breast, inner thigh, or buttocks or any person with the intent to gratify the sexual desire or an person. Section 2802. Incest. (a) Incest is marriage to or engaging in any prohibited act enumerated in subsection (b) with a person who is known to the offender to be related to the offender as any of the following biological, or adoptive relatives: parent, child, grandchild of any degree, brother, sister, half-brother, half-sister, uncle, aunt, nephew or niece. (b) The following acts are prohibited for purposes of subsection (a): 

(1) sexual intercourse as defined in Section 2801 and amendments

thereto; or 

(2) sexual battery, as defined in section 2806, and amendments thereto.
(c) A person convicted under this section is guilty of a Class D felony.

Section 2803. Rape. (a) Every person who shall have sexual intercourse with another human being, by force and against the person’s will, shall be guilty of a Class B felony. (b) Sexual intercourse is presumed to be “by force” if: (1) the actor compels the victim to submit by any threat that would prevent resistance by a reasonable person; or 

(2) the actor knows the victim suffers from a mental disease or defect

which renders the victim incapable of appraising the nature of his or her conduct; or 

(3) the actor knows the victim is mentally incapacitated by drugs or

alcohol or is otherwise unaware that a sexual act is being committed on him or her, or the victim is a female and she submits because she mistakenly supposes that the actor is her husband. Section 2804. Aggravated rape. Every person who commits rape, as described in 17 PNC 2803, and: 

(a) the person forces the victim’s submission through the threat of death, serious

bodily harm, extreme pain, or kidnaping of the victim or any other person; or 

(b) the person forces the victim’s submission through serious bodily harm; or

(c) the person forces the victim’s submission through the use of a dangerous weapon; or (d) the victim is less than 17 years old or greater than 60 years old; or 

(e) the victim is in the custody of the Bureau of Public Safety; or
(f) the victim is detained in a hospital or other institution and the actor has

supervisory or disciplinary authority over the victim shall be guilty of a Class A felony. Section 2805. Unlawful voluntary sexual intercourse. Every person who has sexual intercourse with a person who: 

(a) is less than 17 years old and the actor is at least four two years older than

the person; or (b) is less than 21 years old and the actor is the person’s legal guardian or otherwise responsible for the general supervision of the victim’s welfare; shall be guilty of a Class C felony. Section 2806. Sexual battery. Every person who intentionally engages in sexual contact, as defined in section 2801, with the person of another who is 16 or more years of age and who does not consent thereto, shall be guilty of a Class E felony. Section 2807. Aggravated sexual battery. Every person who commits a sexual battery, as described in 17 PNC 2806, and: (a) the victim is less than 16 17 years of age; or (b) the victim is over 65 60 years old; or 

(c) the actor compels the victim to submit by force or by threat of death, serious

bodily injury; extreme pain or kidnaping, to be inflicted upon anyone; shall be guilty of a Class C felony. Section 2808. Oral sexual battery. Every person who intentionally touches the anus or genitals of another person, without such person’s consent, using the mouth or tongue of the actor shall be guilty of a Class C felony.” Repeal of 17 PNC Chapter 29. 17 PNC Chapter 29 is repealed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.12.171.218 (talk) 18:47, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

California

Please update image to reflect results of California Prop. 8. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.95.116.222 (talk) 19:44, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Needs List of countries by homosexual ratio

It would be great for research. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.188.25.34 (talk) 16:23, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

That's an impossible set of statistics to get, especially from countries where being gay is considered shameful or can get you killed. How would you poll people and trust their answers? 82.181.145.240 (talk) 21:28, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

North Korea

What is the justification for labelling North Korea as a country whose laws impose life imprisonment for homosexual conduct? The few sources that I've seen do not suggest life imprisonment. 74.68.123.162 (talk) 16:36, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Norway

Norway is recognizing Same-Sex Marriage now. Norway Opens Marriage to Same-Sex Couples —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aqualith (talk • contribs) 08:50, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Practice of homosexuality

The lead says there are laws against the practice of homosexuality. What does that mean? How do you practice a sexual orientation? Are these sodomy laws, or is it actually outlawing a homosexual orientation? If there are countries that would prosecute you just for having a homosexual orientation, I think that should be talked about in more depth. Otherwise, I think we should reword it so that it is clear that having sexual relationships with someone of the same sex is what is illegal. That would include people whose sexual orientation falls anywhere along the spectrum from complete homosexuality all the way through bisexuality. Joshuajohanson (talk) 16:20, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me that the map about the legality of homosexuality isn't about the legality of a sexual orientation, but instead about same-sex relationships. That applies to bisexuality as much as homosexuality. I have started a discussion of this at Image_talk:World_homosexuality_laws.svg. If no one objects, I am changing the map to reflect this. Joshuajohanson (talk) 22:51, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

This list cannot be right

How does lebanon have a penalty on being gay??? there are gay clubs in lebanon!!! that are legal! and there are publicaly open gay people, along with syria. i dunno which idiot made this stupid map but it isnt right at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashaiba91 (talk • contribs) 05:03, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Connecticut

Today, October 10th, 2008, Connecticut struck down a ban on same-sex marriage saying that same-sex couples have a right to marry. Just wanted to notify everyone that this happened so the map should be changed and the description under the United States saying that only Massachusetts and California allow same-sex marriages should be changed too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.142.200.129 (talk) 21:35, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:LGBTQ_rights_by_country_or_territory/Archive_5&oldid=1249870793"