Jump to content

Talk:LGBTQ rights by country or territory: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
No edit summary
Line 7: Line 7:
}}
}}
__TOC__
__TOC__

== Russia ==
Incorrect. In R. discrimination of gays is officially illegal.--[[Special:Contributions/94.228.193.11|94.228.193.11]] ([[User talk:94.228.193.11|talk]]) 17:49, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

== LGBT rights by issue ==
== LGBT rights by issue ==


Revision as of 17:49, 20 November 2011

Russia

Incorrect. In R. discrimination of gays is officially illegal.--94.228.193.11 (talk) 17:49, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

LGBT rights by issue

There has been discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies about the need for an article that discusses LGBT rights by issue. This article breaks it down by country, and the LGBT social movements breaks it down by timeline, but I think it would be beneficial to break it down by issues. We made up a good list on the WikiProject page. Here it is:

  • Legality of same-sex sexual activity: sodomy laws, age of consent
  • Legality of trans/gender-variant behaviour: anti-cross-dressing laws, laws about SRS
  • Relationship recognition: adoption & parenting, hospitalization, immigration
  • Gender transition laws: ability to change name, ability to change legal gender, gov't recognition of new legal gender
  • Discrimination by the government: military service
  • Non-discrimination laws: housing, employment, public accomodations
  • Hate crimes laws

Also, someone suggested "bodily autonomy". The thought was to list all of these things on an article called LGBT rights, which currently redirects to here. Thoughts? Joshuajohanson (talk) 19:01, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I support changing LGBT rights to be its own article, organised by issue, instead of a redirect to this page. As a note, we'd need to update a lot of the redirects to this article to point to the new article. --Alynna (talk) 01:04, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
About the breakdown - we should compare with the rights described in the Yogyakarta Principles. --Alynna (talk) 13:21, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I support this change as well. I would like to see MSM blood donation on that list as well, if possible. - Axel Löfving (talk) 23:22, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse the intrusion, but I want to know where countries have laws restricting people in other services such as the police. I know many armies have homophobic policies, but are there any countries ( or states, including foring dependancies ) Where it's legal to be a homosexual, but not OK to join law enforment agencies and companies? Is the stance on excluding homosexual men from donating blood, aply to a man, simply for being a homosexual, even if he is still a virgin? Civilian knowledge (talk) 18:25, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Homosexuality in the United States

For the United States, regarding the legality of homosexuality itself, it states "Legal since 1962, nationwide since 2003" ... indeed, homosexuality has been legal in the United States since 1962, but the part where it states "nationwide since 2003" is referring to Lawrence v. Texas, which was a Supreme Court case in which sodomy laws were struck down in the various states that still had them. The case was not regarding the legality of actual homosexuality and the legality of homosexuality (i.e. public displays of homosexual affection, simply being able to freely state "I'm homosexual" without facing charges, as is the case in places where homosexuality is illegal) has been legal in the United States since 1962. Lawrence v. Texas was only regarding states that still had sodomy laws in place which applied to all persons not just homosexuals, and it must be considered that not all homosexual males engage in acts of what is considered to be sodomy, and that homosexuality also applies to females, not just males. Therefore Lawrence v. Texas should not apply to the issue of actual legality of homosexuality itself in the United States and should be removed from that particular section. Agreed or perhaps I'm not properly understanding the case? Aurora30 (talk) 21:36, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are not properly understanding the case. The Texas sodomy law, in particular, was passed by the state legislature as the "Homosexual Conduct Act" and only applied to oral and anal intercourse with members of the same sex. Heterosexuals engaging in the same behavior would not have been prosecuted. As Justice O'Connor stated in her concurring opinion, the Texas law would have been thrown out on equal protection grounds regardless. But the Supreme Court majority, led by Justice Kennedy, went even further and nullified all sodomy laws in the United States. This is because the court majority found that the laws - whether applied to everyone or just homosexuals - were an unconstitutional invasion of privacy. Technically, it was a 6-3 decision to rule against Texas' "Homosexual Conduct Act" and 5-4 for getting rid of all sodomy laws in general. In either case, however, homosexuality was explicitly illegal in Texas before Lawrence. And thus, it was not "legal nationwide" until 2003 as the article states. 67.188.55.242 (talk) 21:33, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Additional maps

I believe that maps in a very good way makes information easily accessible. As of now, this article is illustrated only by a map detailing the status of same-sex unions and marriage as well as detailing the status of homosexuality as a crime.

This does not, in my opinion, give a good overview of the various subjects detailed on this page. This page would benefit greatly from maps detailing

  • gender reassignment laws
  • Protection from discrimination
  • same-sex adoption

I'm not really sure how this should be organized. This map by ILGA details the same issues as the currently avalible as well as anti-discrimination, and does not seem cluttered, but every issue could not possibly be accounted for in one single map. I suggest we add anti-discrimination to the map in use, and create a new map regarding transgender issues. Adoption could have a map of its own, I suppose – I don't think we could detail that as well in the updated current one. Would three maps in quick sucession seem cluttered? Axel Löfving (talk) 23:42, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Uganda Anti-Homosexuality Bill

The 2009 Uganda Anti-Homosexuality Bill punishes by death repeat offenders (two or more times) of such crimes as uploading/downloading gay pornography and failing to report homosexual activity. The extreme nature of these provisions should be reflected in the information made available about the state of the law there. See ss.s(1)(f), s.3(2), and s.1 "serial offender", as well as s.16(b) and s.13(1)(a) of the Bill. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.1.156.123 (talk) 14:50, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Adoption in India

There is no particular law which says LGBT people cannot adopt kids. So to say same sex adoption is banned is wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Timofeyevich (talk • contribs) 10:16, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The field refers to adoption by same-sex couples, not by individuals. Some countries don't allow adoption for single people, I don't know if India is one of them, if single people may adopt, is important that the country have an explicit legislation bannig discrimination based on sexual orientation. Considering that in 2009 India legalises homosexuality I think the adoption field in India should be filled with NO. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.27.175.28 (talk) 04:48, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Afghanistan

Is Afghanistan in South Asia or Central Asia?--71.111.229.19 (talk) 21:55, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Geographically speaking, it is both.

Politically, culturally and ethnically speaking, as a "whole" it can be reasonably considered Central Asian, South Asian, both or neither.

66.108.243.166 (talk) 12:17, 31 October 2010 (UTC)Moi[reply]

Notice of proposal to rename "LGBT rights activists" category

A proposal to rename the category "LGBT rights activists" has been created. Thoughts on the matter can be discussed at its entry, here:Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2010_May_29#LGBT_categoriesAdrigon (talk) 17:51, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

South Korea

"Yes Transsexuals allowed to change legal gender but sometimes"

Why does it cut off and what is suppose to be there? --142.162.69.96 (talk) 17:04, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd guess the edit was done by someone whose first language is not English, but it is unsourced and should go for now. I'll remove it. Rodhullandemu 17:06, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lesbian and Gay Kingdom of the Coral Sea Island

If there is a gay rights by nation you should mention the micronation called the Gay and Lesbian Kingdom of the Coral Sea Islands.

Southern europe?

According to the wikipedia article on southern europe either from a geo-political , mathematical , as defined by the UN ..etc, many of the balkan countries should be included in the definition of southern europe. A personal definition of southern europe cannot be accepted in this article and should rely at lest in the UN definition. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.82.184.35 (talk) 09:20, 2 July 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.82.184.35 (talk)

Mosaic Law Vs. Men Lying With Men

The article has this statement:

"The first recorded Abrahamic laws against sexual intercourse between men are dated by scholars to circa 550 BC, during the Babylonian captivity of the Jewish people; they are recorded in Leviticus (though conservative scholars date Leviticus to be much older), and prescribe the death penalty."

There is no documentation for this statement. The expression "dated by scholars" is an invalid statement in this context, since scholars differ on practically any and every statement one could make on the Bible. Educated persons cannot agree on who is a scholar. "Abrahamic" is a useless and unsubstantiated adjective. The objective phrase is "Law of Moses," i.e., the Torah or the Pentateuch. This statement should simply read (proposed change):

The ancient Law of Moses (the Torah) forbids men lying with men (intercourse) in Leviticus 18 and gives a story of attempted homosexual rape in Genesis in the story of Sodom and Gomorrah, the cities being soon destroyed after that. The death penalty was prescribed.(EnochBethany (talk) 03:30, 4 July 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Edit request from PUNAISTA, 8 July 2010

{{editsemiprotected}}

On the section concerning Finland I would take into notice that there is a new proposition on a law legalising same-sex marriages. The proposition is supported by the major political parties, including the National Coalition Party, the Social Democratic Party, the Left Alliance, the Green League and the Swedish People's Party and the liberal wing of the Centre Party.

The law would become into effect in 2012 at it's earliest.

PUNAISTA (talk) 20:52, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. And, furthermore, I'd wait until this bill is passed or gets shot down. Salvio ( Let's talk 'bout it!) 21:13, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

UAE Status in image

I was told on the image discussion page to post corrections on a page that links to the image, so I will.

The map of LGBT rights is wrong for the UAE. It should be dark red, not orange. (It uses the death penalty). This got changed during some dispute over Switzerland (I think), during which time the UAE became gray, then orange. Could someone please change this who knows how to do so?

99.60.56.161 (talk) 00:29, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This question is unclear. See [1] Ron 1987 01:28, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
If that is the case (and most of the source you cited says that the death penalty is in place in the UAE), then why hasn't this article been updated to reflect that? That's my main problem. If there really is no death penalty in the UAE for homoseuxality, then both the article and the picture should reflect that. If the death penalty is applied, then that should be stated in both. 99.60.56.161 (talk) 07:41, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ireland and California

Noticed in the image that the statuses of Ireland and Cali aren't quite up-to-date. Ireland has civil unions now (it's officially law, will be enacted in 2011) and California... well its status is ambiguous, but as of right now it is legal. Might want to change the image to reflect that. 66.31.36.245 (talk) 01:05, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Argentina

Erm why hasn't Argentina been updated on this page? Same-sex marriage and adoption are now legal and are being preformed! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.15.142.73 (talk) 16:36, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

South America

The Same-sex marriage section of: Ecuador, Paraguay and Chile should be changed to 'but proposed.' Also, Peru's Civil Union section should be changed to but proposed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.15.142.73 (talk) 22:20, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

USA - Matthew Shepard Act

Under the United States anti-discrimination laws section, it first says "No federal protections", then goes on to say that the Matthew Shepard act means it's "Included in the federal hate crimes law since 2009." I'm confused. If they mean no specific federal protections, can someone edit it to say this? --76.166.187.131 (talk) 23:25, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Discrimination in Serbia

I wonder why does this article say that "some discrimination is banned in Serbia" since The Law agaist Discrimination forbids all discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender (includes all LGBT population).

Discrimination in Serbia

I wonder why does this article say that "some discrimination is banned in Serbia" since The Law agaist Discrimination forbids all discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender (includes all LGBT population). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stefflo88 (talk • contribs) 22:03, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Map--Recognition of same sex marriage, but same sex marriages not performed category underrepresented.

In Wyoming, for example, same-sex marriages from other places are recognized. There is a law that restricts marriage to male/female partners, but it does not disallow the state from recognizing same sex unions certified in other places, which they currently do; In fact, proposed legislation in 2009 in the WY state legislature that would have disallowed recognition of gay marriages from other states failed. So as of now, while marriage lisences are only issued to male/female couples, same sex unions from other places are reconggnzed (so WY should be light blue like most of Mexico on the map). I don't have a reference handy, but the reason I'm mentioning this is that I bet there are more places where this is the case. Wwelch000 (talk) 05:52, 17 December 2010 (UTC)wwelch000[reply]

pov-pushing by article title

This is supposed to be a serious article about homosexuality laws worldwide. "LGBT rights", by contrast, is just an idiosyncratic propaganda term used by proponents of certain homosexuality legislation. It is a blatant violation of our neutrality principle to use this term as if it had any official currency. Show me one official government document where "LGBT rights" is used as a term for such legislation. My impression is that this is just an attempt to abuse Wikipedia for the promotion of a neologism. Homosexual acts are legal and have been legal as a matter of course in all of the western world for half a century. This means just that, the legal status of homosexual acts. It has nothing to do with the term "LGBT", a term coined decades after the legislation of homosexual acts in the western world. --dab (𒁳) 21:25, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree completely, dab. This article (and many others) pov-push simply from the title itself (not to mention the pov-pushing content). The title should definitely be changed. It is a direct violation of NPOV. ΙΧΘΥΣ (talk) 05:13, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have a specific proposal to offer or are you content with nagging that any article that isn't anti-gay must be POV?--DVD-junkie | talk | 13:05, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've responded to this mainly at Talk:LGBT#tautology. Just to add, I don't see why we can't use new terms to describe things that happened in the past. I mean, we write about Ancient Rome in modern English on Wikipedia, the fact that these words didn't exist back then is irrelevant... Mdwh (talk) 23:51, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A POV is absolutely being pushed. Homosexuality and transgenderism are not the same phenomenon. They're no more related than heterosexuality and transgenderism. The information is distinct enough and copious enough to justify separate articles, such as Homosexuality laws by country or territory (or even Gay and lesbian rights by country or territory) and Transgenderism rights by country or territory. Why not just throw women's, minorities', disabled persons' rights into this article? Nothing is gained by conflating homosexual (or gay) rights with transgender rights; and clarity and functionality are lost by doing so.

How come so few people can understand--especially here on Wikipedia--how mortifying and offensive and, indeed, bigoted it is for homosexual men's romantic and sexual preference to be put in the same category as transgenderism? And this is where I'm coming from. 75.132.142.26 (talk) 01:40, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Same-sex Unions in India

Someone put "YES", in general terms same-sex unions are not illegal (in many countries where homosexuality is not illegal) and many same-sex couples officiate (simbolic) unions, the deal in that field is the recognition,the state's recognition of such unions, and it would have been an important news if India as a country would recognize it. In many journal it would be appearede "FIRST ASIATIC COUNTRY that legallizes same-sex marriage" I think it is a NO —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.69.101.111 (talk) 05:04, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, I think LGBT rights is a smart idea. But, this Wikipedia not LGBTRightsAreTheBestThingToMankindSinceBreadAndWallets.org. Thus, I would to complain about the section's POV.

"Throughout history and across cultures, the regulation of sexuality reflects broader cultural norms." --- Wikipedia

That to me screams pro-LGBT. What do you think? --SomeDudeWithAUserName (talk with me!) 21:48, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • I agree wholeheartedly. This article title (and many others under the "LGBT" umbrella, contain blatant bias). Something tells me, though, that gay-agenda-friendly Wikipedia won't be too quick to change it. ΙΧΘΥΣ (talk) 23:57, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Can you give an example of where the article pushes "LGBTRightsAreTheBestThingToMankindSinceBreadAndWallets"? And it's not like we're not covering the anti-pov - on the contrary, the whole point of this article is to extensively cover entire nations that are evidently against such rights. Mdwh (talk) 13:57, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well the sentence at the end screams of POV: "even though all donated sperm is screened for sexually-transmitted diseases and even the most promiscuous heterosexual men are not barred from donating.[10][citation needed]". What? Why single out promiscuous people except to push a viewpoint? Needs more neutral language here.--GoodandTrue (talk) 20:26, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2011: Situation in Nauru (Pacific) and in Sao Tome and Principe (Africa)

In these news i read that on these both islandstates homosexualy will be legalised in 2011.

Map colors

Should the map colors be changed? Currently, dark brown (Death penalty) looks very much like black (same-sex marriage allowed). Very distracting. Zakhalesh (talk) 09:43, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Same sex marriage countries are dark blue. It's clearer when you bring up the large map. Czolgolz (talk) 17:05, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it's clear enough, especially on worse monitors (and possibly even worse for the colorblind). If someone can create a better scheme it would be appreciated. Zakhalesh (talk) 17:07, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2011: Situation in Malawi (Africa) and and other African countries

Malawi Enacts Criminalisation of Sex Between Women Botswana's Landmark Decriminalisation of Homosexuality Case Begins The Botswana Government's Opposition Strategy in Decriminalisation of Homosexuality Case Date Set for Decriminalisation of Homosexuality Case in Botswana Uganda:Drop the Death Penalty. MP David Bahati's New Stragegy MP David Bahati's Anti-Homosexuality Bill of 2009 Reportedly Dead Michael Sata Reiterates Position that He Will Not Legalise Homosexuality in Zambia Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) Bill Criminalising Homosexuality Will Likely Die in Committee Time to Add Sexual Orientation to the Bill of Rights of Mozambique's Constitution São Tomé and Príncipe Set to Decriminalise Homosexuality —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.117.57.146 (talk) 16:21, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent sources, thank you. Czolgolz (talk) 17:53, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Botswana prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation in employment This is the third African country, which prohibits homosexual acts but it also prohibits discrimination against them in employment. (Other countries are Mozambique and Mauritius) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.117.57.146 (talk) 08:39, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Top right hand map of the world

Just some recommendation

Could you consider using different colours for the Death Penalty and Same Sex marriages allowed on the global map you have at the top of this page? At a glance the colours are very similiar especially when looking on the African continent. When looking at the African continent the Death Penalty colour is sooo similiar to that of the Same sex allowed colour which gives it the impression that South Africa imposes the Death Penalty for same sex unions - please could you consider changing this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.38.131.69 (talk) 07:08, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gender reassignment in Finland

I have just come across a very interesting article here: http://www.icenews.is/index.php/2011/08/22/young-finns-requesting-sex-changes/ - which indicates that it is legal to change gender within this country. Do you think this article is strong enough to be cited and this added to the Finland section? Being protected and all, I wanted to get your opinion first if this should go in.

Considering Changes to the Table section of the article (rights by territory)

I would like to propose some changes to the table section of the article:

  • For a start, I strongly believe that the Anti-discrimination column belongs in the 3rd place as it is far more important than SS-relationships or Gay Marriage in a country or a territory (as it reveals the state of advancement of HR's laws on homosexuality). It would also allow you to determine quicker whether a country is safe or less safe to homosexuals.
  • On another point (less important in my opinion, but it would make the table clearer and easier to read), I think that instead of having X/V marks for fields which are unclear or debatable, it would be better to replace them by an orange dot. In the explanations, the V could be then put next to what is allowed and X next to what isn't (I'm mostly thinking about the row of USA, where most boxes are made of X/V, and it's not directly clear what is V and what is X).


I hope these ideas will help improve this page, which is a great place to relate and compare territories on HR about homosexuality

--Checkxp (talk) 20:44, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Blood donations in Canada

For Canada, donation of blood is illegal if a man has had sex with another man since 1977. I think it should be included since this issue is mentioned for other continents. see [2] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.71.45.217 (talk) 08:33, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request from 69.200.247.204, 16 September 2011

my home state New York now allows for marriage equality and i'm proud and want to see it listed among the US states on the site that allow for marriage equality 69.200.247.204 (talk) 02:48, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — Bility (talk) 16:22, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request Fiji footnote, 6 October 2011

This is a very helpful page!

Just one small error, in section 2.52 Melanesia, please change the footnote for Fiji from [33] http://old.ilga.org/Statehomophobia/ILGA_State_Sponsored_Homophobia_2010.pdf (which does not contain a reference to Fiji) to http://www.fijitimes.com/story.aspx?id=140812 (which discusses the changed law in 2010)

Thank you

202.62.127.134 (talk) 00:28, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. --Jnorton7558 (talk) 00:58, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Homosexuality in Germany

Errorneously, the year in which same-sex sexual activity was legalized in Germany is stated as 1994. In the linked article to LGBT rights in Germany, it correctly says 1968 (East Germany), 1969 (West Germany). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abrmal (talk • contribs) 03:16, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, WP needs to convey this information better, but it's complicated; see Paragraph 175. West Germany eased §175 in 1969 and 1973 but did not entirely repeal it until 1994. So, roughly, what East Germany did in 1968 corresponds with what WG did in 1973, and what EG did in 1987/89 corresponds with what WG did in 1994. AV3000 (talk) 12:47, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bosnia and Herzegovina

Bosnia and Herzegovina

Please correct the information on the main page!

B&H was a part of SFRY where homosexuality officially ceased to be illegal SINCE EARLY 70s (even before that, it was not prosecuted, but treated as psychiatric condition). UN declaration has nothing to do with that (anyway, the declaration was signed by SFRY, where all six succeeding countries accepted all docs signed by SFRY before 1991). that includes legislative in Slovenia, Croatia, B&H, Serbia, Montenegro, Macedonia, even Kosovo! YOU CANNOT SAY THAT IT WAS LEGAL ONLY SINCE 1998!

In Bosnia and Herzegovina, the law prohibiting all discrimination, including against homosexual and transgender persons is in full force and is practically enforced.

Same sex marriage is not possible although this can be disputed, as the law(s) don't exactly specify that the marriage has to be between persons of opposite sex (it addresses spouses)! The courts DO RECOGNIZE all non-married communions (if someone claims this, which is easily confirmed by the officially registered address on which they were living "for some time" in the same household, the judge has the right, and usually practices it, to allow any inheritance, equal to "legally recognised married spouses")

Adoption. A very loose law. Anyone can legally adopt anyone. If you are 18 YO, you can adopt an 80 YO granny. I HAVE NEVER BEEN ASKED ABOUT SEXUAL ORIENTATION FOR ANY LEGAL PURPOSES!!!!Regarding adoption of children, if parents/custodians do not object, and if a person can offer a decent quality of life for a child (determined by social workers), YOU CAN ADOPT! Of course, a separate adoption procedure will have to be initiated by a partner! I still haven't heard of a "joint request" by two persons of the same sex (it is legally possible). The birth certificate NEVER specify the adopting parents as their "parents" the adoption details are mentioned in the "notes section".

Military. Until conscription was abandoned (some 5 years ago), being homosexual was one of the criteria for a person NOT to serve the obligatory period if he (conscription was for men only) does not feel comfortable (actually, a gay man had to insist to serve). Today, anyone qualified can apply to join professional army. Noone will be asked for sexual orientation (as it never has been a disqualifying criterion by law/regulation)

Therefore, we don't even have to change laws to allow same-sex marriage, adoption and all other GLBT issues. We have that. We only need to start practicing the law (re: marriage - for all the SYMBOLIC/IDEOLOGICAL reasons). all other legal issues are not a prob. the only prob is a wedding certificate form where you have a groom and a bride (why?)! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.255.155.6 (talk) 19:05, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request from , 8 November 2011

There's a key problem in the interpretation of Sodom & Gamorrah. The women wanted sex with "angels." We don't even know if the angels were male, female or hermaphrodite - or genderless. Also the Mishna postulates that it's a sin of property [meaning greed]. Please refer to Sodom & Gamorrah on wiki for these references.

The old testament talks about the primacy of dreams especially in prophecy & even once in the new testament with Mary & Joseph fleeing King Herod. So as a LGBT kabbalist, I have to throw the truth into the rink. In dreams, my sex is sometimes male sometimes, female sometimes, transgender in dreams. But my gender is always female in dreams [yes - despite having a penis], as I had dreams of husbands [not wives]. So if god speaks to us thru our dreams, we must be truthful in the interpretation of what is a man or woman can not be defined by their privates - and must be defined by how God tell us in our dreams.

173.248.213.31 (talk) 01:02, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Done I added some wikilinks. If that is not enough, please copy 'n paste here the paragraph and change it how you want to have it. After that replace the |answered=yes to |answered=no and I will hopefully come back and change it. mabdul 12:13, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:LGBTQ_rights_by_country_or_territory&oldid=461625476"