Template talk:World laws pertaining to homosexual relationships and expression/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about Template:World laws pertaining to homosexual relationships and expression. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Proposed new color scheme for map

So, WP:BRD and all that: what about this proposed new map? I think it's an improvement because (a) it distinguishes between civil unions that are marriage except the name and those that are distinctly less than marriage; and (b) it's a better colour scheme than the current one - I've noted in the past a couple of complaints that the "marriage" and "death-penalty" colours in the current scheme are visually not so distinguishable on certain monitors. (That's kind of why I drew up the new map, for which I used the ColorBrewer to choose a sensible color scheme.) - htonl (talk) 22:37, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Proposed colour scheme is really awful, current map is much better. Distinguish is completely unnecessary. We don't need million positions in the legend. Besides, where is the exact line beetwen 'most' and 'some' rights? It's a subjective matter. Ron 1987 (talk) 22:55, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

The map follows the most-vs-some distinction made by the ILGA report, which is a pretty reliable source. It's not just some made-up original research. And I think there's really a pretty huge distinction between, say, UK civil partnerships which are explicitly supposed to have all the benefits of marriage, and (for example) "designated beneficiary agreements" in Colorado, which only include "limited rights, including making funeral arrangements for each other, receiving death benefits, and inheriting property without a will". I think it's odd to treat them as if they're the same thing on the map. As to the colour scheme, I think the proposed new one is clearer and more harmonious. Obviously you disagree, so I'd like to hear some other editors' feelings on this matter of opinion. - htonl (talk) 23:07, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

The current map also implies, by giving it a darker blue color, that no state recognition of marriage (medium blue) is a greater degree of rights than state recognition of marriage (light blue), which is backwards. You can be legally wed in Mexico and Israel. You can't be legally wed in France or Australia. — kwami (talk) 00:00, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

The map implies nothing. That is an absurd argument. Ron 1987 (talk) 00:53, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Of course it does. Under 'illegal', the darker the color, the harsher the penalty. It's a cline. If we gave the death penalty a medium shade, it would be out of order. Same for the 'legal' column: the darker the color, the greater the recognized rights. — kwami (talk) 01:18, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

So you can change recognition of marriage colour from light blue to green on the current map. Ron 1987 (talk) 02:09, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

What is your objection to following the ILGA and distinguishing minimal from near-equal civil union rights? — kwami (talk) 03:01, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

It's dispensable. I don't see a reason to implement that distinguish. Current legend is absolutely enough. Ron 1987 (talk) 13:13, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, several of us disagree with you there. It's equivalent to minor vs major penalties.

Also, AFAIK, homosexuality is not illegal, homosexual acts are. I don't think anyone would be sentenced to death for being a non-practicing homosexual, whereas a homosexual act by a heterosexual would still be illegal. Am I wrong? — kwami (talk) 19:35, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Fine, if you want that distinction do it on the current map. Ron 1987 (talk) 20:17, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

So, your basic objection is the color? How would you deal with the problem of the two dark colors being confused? — kwami (talk) 20:25, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

What problem? Difference between dark blue and dark brown is very clear. But, if you want, we can find some new colour for death penalty. Ron 1987 (talk) 20:32, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

If you'll read the explanation, the original reason for changing the color is that people have complained that they look the same. — kwami (talk) 21:00, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

In my opinion the fact that 2 or 3 people have some problems with monitors is not a sensible reason to change the whole colour scheme. But, as I said in previous post, we can change death penalty colour (maybe pink or purple?). Ron 1987 (talk) 21:29, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

True, I don't know how common the problem is.

Personally, I like the color being iconic, with a darker shade meaning a heavier penalty. It makes it easy to scan the map without having to refer back to the key. — kwami (talk) 23:32, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Two points about the map above. First, the light green is problematic because for those with red-green colorblindness (affecting as many as 1 in 10 people) it may be confused with the pink, while for those with total colorblindness it may also be confused with the light blue. A possible workaround would be applying some sort of texture, such as diagonal bars. Second, the wording of the various categories under the "Homosexual acts legal" heading is confusing. For instance, "Recognized, but not performed" refers to marriage, but that's not immediately obvious, since the boldface heading refers to homosexual acts. I wonder whether it would be better to have two separate maps, one addressing the legal status of homosexual activity and the other dealing only with marriage equality. Rivertorch (talk) 21:51, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Both good points.

Green: We were in disagreement as to the order of the scale. To me, legal marriage trumps civil unions, even if they're not performed locally, and so should be a darker shade of blue. The creator of this map disagreed, and set them out as a separate color. Texture gets to be problematic, when we also use stripes for countries which fit more than one category. It would also be difficult to use texture for Israel, when even a solid color barely shows up. (Israel actually fits two categories, recognition + civil unions, but is too small for us to pattern it that way.)

2 maps: the two complement each other, so I think it's good to have them in one map. Maybe we could rename the first column to "Same-sex marriage or unions"? Grey would then be a third group, 'other' or 'neither' or s.t. like that.

— kwami (talk) 23:27, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Hmm. Another advantage of having separate maps is that fewer colors would be needed for each one, which would allow the use of more easily differentiated colors. I have to say, however, that if we're continuing with a combined map, the one currently in use seems preferable overall to the one proposed on this page. It's not perfect and perhaps could be modified slightly, but its color contrasts are pretty good and its legend's wording pretty easy to understand. You're right about Israel, of course. Shades of gray (I mean this in the figurative sense) like that may be beyond the reasonable scope of this template and will need to be fleshed out in the relevant articles. If none of the categories/colors seems to fit a given country very well, maybe there should be an extra one just labeled "other". Rivertorch (talk) 05:08, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Similarly to Ron 1987, I disagree with the distinction between "most of all rights of marriage" and "some rights of marriage". The key problem with the distinction is that it is difficult to neatly categorise all recognition schemes into two neat categories. Of course, when you compare UK civil partnerships with designated beneficiaries in Colorado, there is a clear difference. However, many schemes are in between - for example, registered partnerships in Germany do not provide taxation or joint adoption benefits, while civil partnerships in Ireland provide no parenting rights at all. It is unclear why they are in a different category to Uruguay, which does provide joint adoption in a civil union. Similarly, in Australia, couples in many states do not have access to a registered partnership scheme, but gain pretty much all of the rights of marriage through unregistered (de facto) cohabitation laws. Indeed, in Western Australia, same-sex couples are allowed to jointly adopt. Why should these states be shaded in the lighter colour, when they provide more substantive rights than the German or Irish schemes? Why is Ecuador shaded in the lighter colour but Colombia in the darker colour, when their schemes are essentially the same? What I've found over the years is that no matter what way you try to categorise same-sex recognition schemes, you will always oversimplify. Ronline ✉ 05:13, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree that a map will always oversimplify, but that's just reality. No map can possibly convey the many many many exceptions and variations in partnership laws around the world, and perhaps a succinct note should be added to the legend advising the reader to consult the article for any given country to get more details. But I do strongly feel that the distinction between "all or most rights" and "few rights" is a very important one, and that is exactly the sort of thing a reader would like to know at a glance when turning to a map, instead of reading an article. Textorus (talk) 21:27, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Ron, you may disagree with the judgements of the ILGA, but that's where we start getting into OR. We might be able to make a non-judgemental map, if we have the sources: which states allow adoption, inheritance, etc. (For all I know, some allow marriage but not adoption, since marriage alone does not qualify you for adoption.) We could also have a series of maps: one for adoption, one for taxation, etc. if it's too complicated to combine them. Of course, things are changing so fast that maintaining them might be impractical. But if we're going to make judgement calls, which several of us think is useful, we need an external source rather than using our own judgements. — kwami (talk) 20:50, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Same-sex marriage legal now

Terminology change

See here for a discussion about changing "homosexual" to "same-sex" CTF83! 23:59, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Changes to the template should take place here. I oppose the proposed change to "same sex", as "homosexual" is the usual term used in legislation. And I don't know if anyone use the phrase "same sex acts". St Anselm (talk) 10:48, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, no, it would have to be "Same-sex sexual acts", which is rather an awkward construction. Either that or "Sexual acts between persons of the same sex", which is even more awkward. While I understand the problems with using the word "homosexual", I'm coming to feel that in this particular case it's the most suitable word. (Incidentally, as to legislation it would be rare to see either term, I think. In criminal laws you either see something vague like "crime against nature" or "unnatural sexual act", or something like "A male who commits a sexual act with another male...". In partnership legislation you usually see things like "two people of the same sex" or "two people, regardless of their sex".) - htonl (talk) 11:21, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Legislation where? Many gay people in eastern Europe, Asia, and Africa were persecuted under broad and vague statutes against "sodomy", "unnatural acts", "hooliganism", "acts against nature", etc. By the way, a lot of people are laboring under the assumption that gay identity was not criminalized, but that gay sex was. This is not true: according to the U.S. military: "Homosexual conduct is engaging in, attempting to engage in, or soliciting another to engage in a homosexual act or acts; a statement by the Soldier that he or she is a homosexual or bisexual, or words to that effect; or marriage or attempted marriage to a person known to be of the same biological sex." They discharged soldiers as a result of information found by snooping into their private emails, and not just those caught in flagrante delicto (which was very rare). Antigay legislation has been used to prosecute people in Africa who have attempted gay weddings, rather than gay sex. The laws about this taboo are not internationally or even internally consistent, so I think the quest for a precise, neutral, and non-anachronistic internationally-recognized legal term will be fruitless. Let's find a term that works for Wikipedia. Shrigley (talk) 23:45, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Just further on this (since there have been a couple of recent attempts to change it) - I looked at the first country listed at LGBT rights by country or territory (Algeria) and LGBT rights in Algeria quotes Article 338, "Anyone guilty of a homosexual act is punishable with imprisonment of between 2 months and two years..." so "homosexual acts" seems appropriate in describing the legal situation. St Anselm (talk) 10:33, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

This discussion has been had before, where there was a rough consensus here. Here the second point would apply. Pass a Method talk 10:40, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

The general consensus does not necessarily apply to this template, and we haven't reached a consensus here yet. In any case, the second point you mention ("When using a term to refer to a period before it was widely adopted (1960s for "gay", late 19th century for "homosexual"), be careful to avoid anachronism") would suggest "homosexual" is better than "gay" for this template - it is referring to legal situations in various countries, and many of the laws referred to predate the 1960s. Furthermore, the template uses "homosexual" as an adjective, whereas the consensus concerned the use of "homosexual" as a noun. St Anselm (talk) 10:49, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

The majority of the laws on this template were at the very least modified since the 1960s. Pass a Method talk 11:04, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't know about majority - this document from the International Lesbian and Gay Association shows a wide range of dates (1966 for Algeria, 1949 for Panama, 1860 for Bangladesh). But more to the point, the lists it gives (page 45) have "homosexual acts" throughout. St Anselm (talk) 11:23, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

The problem with same-sex act is that it's a bit vague... if I high-five a male friend, that's a same-sex act, isn't it? We have to go with a wording that acknowledges that we're generally talking about sex and relationships, which means that our adjective has to be one explicitly associated with sexuality (which same-sex really isn't - I mean, you can say, like, "same-sex debate teams tend to perform significantly less well than opposite-sex ones"). Gay does sound a tad casual, and gay act brings to mind tap-dance routines and drag shows. (I'm gay, I can say that.) But homosexual acts, as noted in the discussion at WT:LGBT, can sound rather clinical. So I'd say to choose neither. Instead, go with gay and lesbian acts: It's not nearly so scientific sounding, but the extra syllables and the more precise wording lend it more authority and sincerity; plus, it has the added benefit of not so summarily dismissing lesbians - yes, you can say "gay rights" and everyone knows you're including women in that description, but gay acts has much more of a male feeling to it. — Francophonie&Androphilie^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 14:51, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Gay might actually be more accurate in that regard, as as in several of these countries, sex between men is outlawed 'while sex between women is not. Perhaps something like gay or gay/lesbian acts acts? Add a different color for countries that outlaw both? Whatever the solution is, the text should somehow make clear what the map actually shows.

Regarding a comment above, I'm not sure that we should be basing our choice of terminology (in Wikipedia's voice) on the terminology used in the laws. Looking at this document, the term sodomy seems to dominate the legislation, and I'm certain that's not on the table for discussion. Similarly, buggery appears in the document (I've not done a country-by-country count) nearly as often as homosexual and homosexuality.

It is true that homosexual is at its least problematic when used as an adjective to describe actions. I don't have a particular problem with its use here, but gay would be a more accurate description of what the map depicts.--Trystan (talk) 16:45, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps part of the solution is to not lump the countries with no laws against homosexual acts in with the countries that recognize same-sex unions (to varying degrees). The primary difference being that same-sex is the most accurate qualifier when it comes to such unions: Two bisexuals of the same sex can enter into a "homosexual union"; or take any number of same-sex couples where one partner has never had feelings for any member of the same sex other than their partner - in other words, people who would describe themselves most accurately as heterosexuals, but who are in "homosexual unions." This way, we don't have to use a shared term for both categories. And once you do that, it makes easier to decide the criminality column, since we don't need to worry about finding a term that will also work for the unions. In that case, the second column would really be entirely about sex (in theory, for instance, in most of these countries there's no law against kissing a member of the same sex), so I think "Gay and lesbian sex acts illegal" would be best (with no prejudice against, as soon as we settle this issue, setting to separating the anti-gay-male laws from the anti-lesbian ones). Anyways, this way it could be "Same sex unions recognized" in the left column, "Gay and lesbian sex acts illegal" in the right column, and "Same sex unions not recognized, gay and lesbian sex acts legal" as a bottom option. — Francophonie&Androphilie^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 17:04, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

I like your idea except for the term "gay and lesbian sex acts". There are lots of men who have sex with men and women who have sex with women who would not identify as "gay" or "lesbian", particularly outside the developed world. "Gay/lesbian" is an identity rather than an act. - htonl (talk) 17:27, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree with you in terms of semantics, but what do you suggest instead? Sounds to me like this takes us back to "same-sex sex acts." — Francophonie&Androphilie^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 00:14, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to propose an alternative to the suggestions: What about something along the lines of Same-gender relationships legal/illegal or Same-gender sexual activity legal/illegal? That seems to cover everything well. -- Interested Anon.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.134.220.140 (talk) 17:10, 8 December 2012‎ (UTC)

"Gender" sounds a bit prudish to my ears - in any case, "same sex" is used much more frequently in this context than "same gender". But nothing suggested in this discussion is an improvement on "homosexual acts", as being the International Lesbian and Gay Association usage. St Anselm (talk) 01:21, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

So how about F&A's example, except with "homosexual acts" in place of "gay and lesbian acts"? I'm not generally a proponent of the word "homosexual", but when we're talking about the actual acts, and not about people's identities, I think it's appropriate. - htonl (talk) 11:34, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

It's clearly the correct word, and was stable for some time. — kwami (talk) 21:10, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

I can see the case for "homosexual acts"... the only thing that bugs me is that, if you take the literal definition, wouldn't me high-fiving a straight male friend be a "homosexual act"? We're the same sex, and are engaging in an act together. The reason I suggested "gay and lesbian acts" is that it avoided both that definition issue, and the clunkiness/clinical-ness of "homosexual sex acts." — Francophonie&Androphilie^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 22:20, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, neither is terribly precise. It's the sex that's illegal, so you'd need to say "gay and lesbian sex acts". (I'm not sure if we could get away with just "sex". Depends on the letter of the law.) — kwami (talk) 23:05, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Good point Francophonie CTF83! 11:37, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Removed clinical and imprecise terminology

This is the English Wikipedia. "Homosexual acts" sounds clinical. See Avoiding Heterosexual Bias in Language. Furthermore, same-sex unions are not mere "acts," as it includes various other components ranging from romantic attraction to legal status. Finally, non-sexual behaviour is also penalized in some countries. For example, this Cameroonian got jailed for texting 'I'm in love with you' to another man.[1]. "Same-sex relationships," is -therefore- more encompassing and precise. Cavann (talk) 22:26, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Firstly, see the discussion further up the page. There is dissatisfaction with the present terminology, but there was no consensus as to what to change it to. Secondly, we don't have to follow the APA guidelines here on wikipedia, but we do follow the terminology used by reliable sources. Thirdly, I suspect Cameroon might be an outlier - it would normally be the sexual activity that is outlawed. St Anselm (talk) 22:38, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

There was also no consensus to keep it. Hence, your behaviour seems to be Wikipedia:Status quo stonewalling. In any case, I added some sources. Please do not remove sourced material based on dated discussions that have not produced a consensus. The sources are invisible within '<-....->' not to mess with the appearance of the template. Cavann (talk) 23:01, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

"Persecution" is not neutral terminology. Please work for a consensus here before you change the template again. I don't know what you mean by the discussion being "dated". St Anselm (talk) 23:08, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

"Homosexual acts" is not neutral terminology either and it is not sourced. You have removed sourced material citing nonexistent consensus. Wikipedia is not a battleground Cavann (talk) 23:19, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

That's the second accusation you've made in as many posts. Wikipedia:Status quo stonewalling says "Status quo stonewalling is typified by an insistence on keeping a current version instead of adopting a proposed change, or reverting to the version prior to a disputed change... and avoiding substantive discussion of the issues related to the change while engaging in behavior that is typical of disputes" (emphasis original). But I immediately discussed the issue here. I don't think these sorts of accusations are helping the discussion. St Anselm (talk) 23:36, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

You should realize though that there is no consensus for your changes either as there was also no consensus to keep the current wording, and various people have voiced concern about it. This template is a world map about laws on homosexuality. As such, the ILGA source was quite relevant [2]; given the lack of consensus in previous discussions, it would have made sense to adopt terminology used by a relevant source. Yet, despite this, you have edit warred and removed sourced material. This is also not helpful. Given your extensive contributions to Christianity-related content [3], I should again remind you that Wikipedia is not a battleground. Cavann (talk) 23:45, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

In any case, this is my current suggestion ("recognition" for same-sex unions and "persecution" for criminalization) based on ILGA map wording [4] (perhaps with a note such as this like on the ILGA map: "These laws are aimed at lesbians, gay men and bisexuals and at same-sex activities and relationships. At times, they also apply to trans and intersex people.") Cavann (talk) 23:53, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't have much to state about this specific issue with regard to the map, except for the following: I don't believe that using the wording "homosexual acts" is neutral in this case, and that's because a lot of gay and lesbian people still take issue with the word homosexual, and some people who engage in same-sex romantic and/or sexual behavior feel that using the word homosexual is saying something about their sexual orientation when they actually identify as bisexual, or as some other sexual identity that they feel is more accurate, or with no sexual identity label, or even as heterosexual. Yes, homosexual refers to behavior as much as it does to sexual orientation, but that doesn't stop some people who engage in same-sex romantic and/or sexual relationships from feeling that the word is inaccurate when applied to them. For further information on this topic, concerning when it's fine to use homosexual, when it can be problematic to use, as well as the topic of using the spelling variation homosexuality, see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies/Archive 43#Style guideline of gay vs homosexual. Flyer22 (talk) 23:54, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

It may be helpful to start an RfC on this. I think "persecution" is blatantly non-neutral. Whatever the faults in having "homosexual acts", that would not be an improvement. But because this is a template about laws (rather than perceptions and attitudes) we should follow the legal terminology. St Anselm (talk) 23:59, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

What legal terminology? The one in your imagination? Please cite sources, this is not a general discussion forum. UN also uses "persecution" for criminalization.

Persecution can be perpetrated against an individual as much for the fact of being LGBT, as for acts associated with the status. If harsh punishment is attracted by the latter, “it is scarcely possible that homosexuals are otherwise treated with dignity and respect”...being compelled to forsake or conceal one’s sexual orientation and gender identity, where this is instigated or condoned by the State, may amount to persecution...Criminal laws prohibiting same-sex consensual relations between adults have been found to be both discriminatory and to constitute a violation of the right to privacy.25 The very existence of such laws, irrespective of whether they are enforced and the severity of the penalties they impose, may have far-reaching effects on LGBT persons’ enjoyment of their fundamental human rights.26 Even where homosexual practices are not criminalized by specific provisions, others directed at homosexual sex such as those proscribing “carnal acts against the order of nature” and other crimes, such as “undermining public morality” or “immoral gratification of sexual desires”, may be relevant for the assessment of the claim.

[5] Cavann (talk) 00:16, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Please stop your personal attacks. They do not contribute to building consensus. The "legal terminology" I refer to includes, for example, Article 629 of the Criminal Code of Ethiopia:

Article 629.- Homosexual and other Indecent Acts.
“Whoever performs with another person of the same sex a homosexual act, or any other indecent act, is punishable with simple imprisonment.”

St Anselm (talk) 00:28, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

So I'm using terminology of global organizations such as United Nations and ILGA for a global map, and you are using terminology of Ethiopia for a global map. Ok then. Cavann (talk) 00:30, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

I should also re-iterate that in the previous discussion I also appealed to an ILGA source,[6] which uses "homosexual acts" throughout (see p. 45). St Anselm (talk) 00:08, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Not in the main map, however. Picking and choosing seems to be non-NPOV.Cavann (talk) 00:17, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Also, I question the reliability of the ILGA map. It refers to "8 states" in Australia, when there are, in fact, only six. St Anselm (talk) 00:13, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Comment: looking at the previous discussion, there seemed to have been an emerging consensus for Same-sex unions recognized/Homosexual acts illegal, with an adjustment made to the columns for the "neutral" territory. St Anselm (talk) 00:50, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Given your contributions here, you are not a neutral party to assess such a consensus, and some of those discussions are old. Cavann (talk) 00:54, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

No, I wouldn't think of closing the discussion - and it is sad that it just petered out. But in what sense is it "old"? Just because IGLA has published a new document, it doesn't mean we should change our template accordingly. St Anselm (talk) 00:59, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Solution for illegality

In the countries where even e.g. same-sex kissing or love letters is illegal too, what about using "homosexuality and/or homoaffectivity illegal" or "homosexuality [and homoaffectivity] illegal"? I know this construct is very rare in the English-speaking world outside the asexual community, but it is widely common in the Spanish-speaking and Portuguese-speaking ones (for example, media in Brazil talk about the casamento homoafetivo because often it is understood that gay may be confusing due to the reasons here presented), and it is a perfectly valid parallel to homosexuality.

It is generally good because often people confuse acts, identity, affectivity and sexuality altogether, but these laws do not repress just "active" sexual minorities, they can repress anyone questioning the status quo. For example, in Brazil, we had a tendency in 2006-2009 where even heterosexual male emos (i.e. people who are obviously very distant to any sort of gay identity), about my age at the time (11-14, I don't think people are regarded as gay or bisexual anywhere in the West for experiences at this age, and they certainly aren't in Brazil), would go a la Katy Perry just to stand that they have no prejudices and stand for freedom and happiness of everybody (and I trolled a lot of rock music macho sectarians in internet forums saying emos indeed are punker than the own punks for this).

If this happened in Cameroon, they would be arrested (idk if kids can be arrested there but let's say it "isn't Brazil" where only adults are criminally charged and they are 16 or so), so it theoretically is something limiting to everybody (while it affects homoaffective people the most for obvious reasons). As in Latin America, homoaffectivity would be the most appropriate word for both the non-sexual acts (that can be done by "everyone" with typical and entire human mind and body – lol, without taking into account "disgussin'!11!11!", I am not mono-affective to know how it works, so "my bad", please – and is independent of an inherent orientation), such as Argentina's and Brazil's "egalitarian marriage", and the same-sex romantic feelings (apart of gays, lesbians and other homosexuals, felt by anyone bi or heterosexuals and asexuals that are "kind of bi", afaik some ~20-25% of the population). Finally, putting the two together strengthens the meaning that the "homosexuality" in question refers especifically to the acts (a usage that indeed exists and is very prevalent) rather than the orientation, that is inherent. I agree with Cavann that "homosexual acts" is misleading if more than sexual acts is punished in those countries. Lguipontes (talk) 09:14, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

I would prefer ~~"prosecution"~~ "persecution" like the ILGA map and use what the source says, rather than coming up with random names. Cavann (talk) 19:09, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

1. People in Wikipedia care too much about sources. We mayn't, and often shouldn't, use the exact same words sources present. Seriously, I see no logical difference between prosecution or illegality. 2. Using illegality aside of homosexuality and homo-affectivity would work for the reasons I stated. Those are not random words, it is current English usage. Anyway, I think either my Portuguese reasoning still affects my English language skills significantly or you didn't pay attention to what I wrote, my proposition was to determine a term better than 'same-sex sexual acts', 'homosexual acts', 'gay/lesbian sexuality', whatever, rather than a term better than 'prosecution' or 'illegality'.

If this is the sole objection, I think I will apply it, then. Lguipontes (talk) 19:40, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Because the map should also include "propaganda laws" like in Russia, therefore ~~"prosecution"~~ "persecution" makes sense. Homo-affectivity is not used in English. I would rather prefer "same-sex intimate relationships illegal" which includes everything from texts to affection to sex. But that would still not cover "propaganda laws". Cavann (talk) 20:00, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

You will need community consensus for that first. There were at least two attemps on discussion commenting it, one of them by me, but none came to the conclusion that censorship should be covered under criminalization of homosexuality. Actually, no one commented at mine. If I get out of this place, no one will note. xD

That is one of the reasons why criminalization of homosexuality needs to be changed with ~~prosecution~~ persecution, similar to ILGA map. You suggestion that "People in Wikipedia care too much about sources" is completely weird and would lower the quality of Wiki project. Cavann (talk) 20:49, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Cavann, I notice you've shifted from "persecution" to "prosecution", which is definitely an improvement, but in some of these countries gay people are not necessarily prosecuted. The map concerns legislation, not really how the legislation is enforced. St Anselm (talk) 21:14, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

I did not shift, seems like I confused the terminology in ILGA map. As for the latter part of your comment, your personal opinions are irrelevant. Please see Wikipedia:verifiability. Cavann (talk) 21:24, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

If it improves the encyclopedia, WP:Ignore all rules. In this case, verifiability is clearly one of them as it is wholly unnecessary. We don't need to source that [outside at midday, in non-cloudy weather conditions] the sky is blue. Lguipontes (talk) 21:32, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand what personal opinion you mean. That the map is about legislation? That's why it's called the "World homosexuality laws map"... St Anselm (talk) 21:45, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Meaning it is not up to you to assess that "in some of these countries gay people are not necessarily prosecuted" although a reliable sources says otherwise. Cavann (talk) 21:58, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

And both of you and Ron 1982's conclusions seem to have quite of a different assumption on the meaning of the word "English" in relation to me, as a quick Google search presented numerous English page uses of the term, that, as I said, is used by the Anglophone asexual community for some time. Lguipontes (talk) 20:45, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

It's fringe and there are better alternatives. Cavann (talk) 20:49, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Fringe covers THEORIES. Ask any romantic asexual, bisexual or bi-affective monosexual if the level and/or proportion of romantic attraction exactly corresponds to those of the sexual one and in more than 99% of times the response you will get is "no". As a bi-affective person of unknown sexuality, I already answer you. It is "no". Affectivity and its divisions equating sexual orientation is a perfectly valid construct and it indeed is present in contemporary English usage. Lguipontes (talk) 21:32, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

What are you talking about? "Homo-affective" is not widely used in English. Cavann (talk) 21:42, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

The fact that most people don't know a word doesn't mean it is an invented word. In Portuguese we are generally acceptive of finding weird, never-heard-of lexicon in encyclopedias because people who read them admit they want to learn new things. Google and even Urban Dictionary agree with me that it is English. Actually I'd even say it is an English construct that entered Iberian languages because of left-wing and/or identity politics, including those of women and LGBT people. Lguipontes (talk) 22:02, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Map Versions

Why are there two versions of this map? (This map is more accurate and updated more often.) Prcc27 (talk) 21:24, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

About this map

If this map is about "World Homosexuality Laws" then why doesn't it include laws that prohibit GLB discrimination..? That definitely qualifies as a law that pertains to homosexuality and is very important to the GLB community. Furthermore, same-sex marriage doesn't necessarily have to be between homosexual/bisexual people because anyone regardless of sexuality can get married to the same-sex. Plus, there's already a same-sex marriage map anyways. At the very least I suggest that laws that prohibit GLB discrimination should be added to this map; but I also think that the marriage/partnership laws have got to go! I will be posting this same message on the other talk page since this page has two talk pages for some reason.. --Prcc27 (talk) 01:03, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

If I don't get a response in at least the next 24 hours, I'm going to request this page for deletion. --Prcc27 (talk) 02:15, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Crimea

Crimea is disputed territory, therefore should be stripped with Ukraine's laws. 98.248.157.202 (talk) 19:24, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Russia???

In Russia, a woman just legally married a woman despite the nation's anti-gay laws. They found a legal loophole in the law (pardon my redundancy). One bride is transitioning from male to female and she is still marked as male on her documents. Both women wore bridal dresses. Does anyone have thoughts on this? Should we put a blue ring in Russia for a case-by-case basis? This is definitely a same-gender wedding, but some might say there is (and I almost regret to say there is) a debate over whether this was a same-sex or an opposite-sex ceremony. Personally, I don't want to discount this as a non-lesbian wedding because gender is more important than sex when it comes to dignity.

Should we put this up there?

Note that if this is put on the map it may in the future be disregarded by the government because they're pretty frustrated about it.

For more info on this, see http://jezebel.com/lesbian-couple-pulls-of-first-gay-marriage-in-russia-1656610125 http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/two-women-marry-russia-despite-countrys-anti-gay-laws 98.253.175.243 (talk) 01:34, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

North Korea

The map suggests that while same sex marriage is not recognised it is still legal to be gay in North Korea. This does not seem to be the case, LGBT rights in North Korea seems to suggest that it is similar to Russia (no 'gay propaganda'), but with the possibility that some gay people have been executed and killed. Should the colour be changed to reflect this? As the is no clear answer should we just add another 'unclear' colour? CH7i5 (talk) 13:58, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

"Marriage" to "same-sex marriage"

How is this a significant change? I think it just makes it clearer and less sloppy to use the full term, especially since that's what it links to anyway. I suppose it might be objected to on brevity grounds, but I must be missing something as to how it can be called significant or in any way controversial. I thought "same-sex marriage" was a neutral term. 110.22.123.142 (talk) 14:41, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

That's debatable, but never mind. Thanks for discussing. My edit summary was inadequate, but it really comes down to this: what sort of marriage other than same-sex marriage could it be referring to in Template:World laws pertaining to homosexual relationships and expression? Rivertorch^FIRE _WATER 20:13, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

ISIS and Lebanon

Lebanon legalised homosexuality in 2014, so should no longer be orange. ISIS territories have also shrunk considerably. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.38.233.219 (talk) 23:57, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

China??

China doesn't really have anti-gay laws like Russia and Iraq. It's much more of a grey state.

Is that "Laws restricting freedom of expression and association" created just for Russia and China? No other country falls in this category? In China, there is limit on the freedom of expression and association on everybody, not only gays. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wlyu2001 (talk • contribs) 22:19, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Misleading wording

A few problems with the wording or application.

Marriage -- marriage isn't open to everyone in all cases (Akrotiri). We should either note that or remove the non-universal polities. We're also inconsistent in coloring some territories with no permanent population, but not others. It should be all or none.

Marriage recognized but not performed -- perhaps we should be clear that they may not be recognized as marriage, e.g. in Estonia, Aruba, Curacao and St Maarten, where they're recognized either as CU's or only for residency. (Armenia I have no idea, since it's never happened.)

Civil unions -- we're inconsistent here. Some CU states, which AFAIK all also recognize SSM, are striped as 'recognized' + 'CU' (Estonia, Aruba), some as just 'CU'. All should be striped or all solid (unless of course there are some CU states that don't recognize SSM, in which case only those that do -- e.g. Italy, N. Ireland -- should be striped).

Limited legal recognition -- we're inconsistent here too. Some states that recognize SSM for residency only are this color (e.g. Latvia, Hong Kong -- but why is Lithuania striped?), some are the 'recognized but not performed color' (Curacao, St Maarten).

Same-sex unions not recognized -- they are recognized in some (e.g. the British Antarctic Territory).

— kwami (talk) 07:59, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Foreigners can’t get same-sex married in the Netherlands. Should the Netherlands be uncolored? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:120B:2C41:B7D0:28B8:937E:B9D1:E9B4 (talk) 16:45, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

I don't know what that means. Actually, if your country allows SSM, you can get married in your embassy in the Netherlands, but I suspect that anyone can get married in the Netherlands. Do you have a ref that they can't? But if you're referring to Akrotiri, then the point is that the people who live there can't get married. Only UK military can, which makes Akrotiri rather like a US base in Afghanistan, or the Mexican embassy in Riyadh. — kwami (talk) 23:07, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Akrotiri and Dhekelia are only inhabited by UK military personnel and can all get married if they want.Taxydromeio (talk) 11:58, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Do you have any evidence that claim is true either? According to our article and the refs it's based on, 50% of the population is Cypriot, 50% UK and US military and their dependents. So only a minority are eligible for marriage. — kwami (talk) 08:19, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

But the Cypriot population are not citizens of Akrotiri. They are, for almost all purposes (with the exception of crime and road offences), Cypriot nationals and fall under the jurisdiction of Cypriot law. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:120B:2C41:B7D0:A533:2CA3:81CE:6ADD (talk) 08:41, 15 July 2019 (UTC)