Talk:LGBT rights by country or territory

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Decriminalization map inconsistencies[edit]

On one hand it considers territories that were "annexed" or dependent as if they had laws of the annexing country in their territory e.g. Poland, Luxembourg. On the other hand, it fails to do so in case of colonies e.g. Mali, which was a sunni country (Tijaniyya Jihad state) and sharia country (Songhai Empire, implementing Sharia Law) before France's annexation. In other words, this map is highly euro-centric. -- (talk) 16:50, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Sufism, Ancient Persia, Ancient India[edit]

The article is quite biased and i think the semi-protection status makes this worse. I suggest to do not add information without sources to the article, and to not make generalisations, this is making it to be very imprecise one.

In ancient persia the zoroastrian religion was not pro-gay, in fact there are clear admonitions against homosexuality found in various texts of zoroastrian literature. You can see more about this in the wiki article about homosexuality and zoroastrianism. regarding hinduism, the article shold make clear that there are many variations of hinduism, most are anti-gay, some are pro-gay. The kama-sutra actually speaks negatively of homosexuality.

And finally, regarding sufism, the claim that sufism has a gay doctrine is absurd. There were a small number of sufis who did this practice but the vast majority rejected it as sinful.

Cyprus update[edit]

The table should be updated per — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:28, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

In Cyprus now there have been gay marriages officially accepted by the state in 2016. Moreover Cyprus does not belong to Eurasia but is a clear member of EUROPE and EU. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:38, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Isle of Man needs to be updated[edit]

According to most of the rights listed in this table were granted in 1992-2011. On this page they are all still listed with red X'es.

I would update it but the page is locked... (talk) 00:17, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Pitcairn Island[edit]

This article claims that Pitcairn only bans SOME discrimination, but the new constitution clearly bans ALL discrimination "on the basis of Sexual Orientation". — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:20, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

LGBT rights in Africa template[edit]

Please comment on the unilateral reversion of needed clarifications and changes to this template. The template would be enhanced to cover the adoption of children by LGBT persons as individuals (already covers adoption by couples), which is strangely and unjustifiably omitted. The reversion is here: — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:24, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Firstly, if that information is to be added it should be added to all continents, not just Africa, and it should be discussed here first. Secondly, when it comes to adoption by LGBT individuals there are two possibilities: either a country specifically bans LGBT individuals, in which case a note to that effect could be included in the adoption column. Otherwise, just because a country hasn't actually banned adoption by LGBT individuals doesn't mean that they've actually recognised any rights, and it doesn't warrant a tick mark. - htonl (talk) 23:40, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
There's no Wikipedia policy that every article has to be organized the same. I'm surprised you don't know that already. Clearly, the table is about whether countries statutorily or constitutionally prohibit adoptions by LGBT persons. These articles universally discuss and cite those laws. There's no support for your unilateral, multiple reversions. And the template is clearly better now. (talk) 04:15, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
I disagree, the article isn't better this way! As adoption is a rather complex legal issue and if there is NO law governing this matter, it can be proven that, in most cases, it will end up in a negative ruling from the court(s). Therefore, there should be an "X-mark" with the mention: "although there are no specific laws governing same-sex adoption".
The article isn't just about the negative aspect, but more about the positive aspect: an v-tick should ONLY be used when something is recognised by the law (the same goes for discrimination for example, only a green tick should be used when there are laws governing this topic). --Checkxp (talk) 11:45, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
If you think there should be something in between, I suggest we change the red "X-marks" into orange "X-marks" when there are no laws governing a certain topic. This was already a suggestion I made in an earlier post. --Checkxp (talk) 11:45, 18 September 2012 (UTC)


"There is a law which can be, and actually was, interpreted as a ban on public speech about LGBT" is not quite right. It is the Law on the Protection of Minors [1] that is strangely interpretated. Only "Bans all anti-gay discrimination" should be left there - the law is not even close to that ban in Russia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AugustHey (talkcontribs) 11:56, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Missing Territories[edit]

This list is missing entries for the territories of Curaçao and St. Maarten. Also, it would be better to make separate entries for the Cocos Islands, Christmas Island and Norfolk Island, as they are in fact territories separate from Australia proper, and Norfolk Island, at least, has LGBT policies that differ from Australia's. Furthermore, if you're going to make a separate entry for territories like Hawaii and the Canary Islands, which are clearly an integral part of their mother country, surely autonomous regions like the Åland Islands, the Azores and Madeira should get a separate mention as well (the Azores and Madeira being part of a different continent, even). — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:47, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

LGBT in the Philippines[edit]

In the Philippines, please add Cebu City that passed an ordinance to protect LGBT rights. Vernonereyes (talk) 16:57, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

LGBT in the Philippines[edit]

In the Philippines, please add Cebu City that passed an ordinance to protect LGBT rights. Vernonereyes (talk) 16:58, 21 October 2012 (UTC)


I think the article should not be called "LGBT rights" but rather "Legislation Lgtb (Or homosexual) in the world" as it appears in the wiki in Spanish. The reason is that, like it or not, there are many human beings in the world (possibly the majority) who do not consider as "rights" the legal recognition of homosexuality, but rather as anti-rights of the rest of the people.

I think it would be better to make the article more accommodable to the general opinion of the inhabitants of the planet, as wikipedia is universal and we have no right to change the ideas of anyone without their consent.

--Annalium Hispaniarum (talk) 19:17, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

"Anti-rights"???--В и к и T 19:53, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, some religions and cultures think that homosexuality is not acceptable...and wikipedia is for all the world, including that peoples.

--Annalium Hispaniarum (talk) 14:13, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

EDIT REQUEST for the tittle — Preceding unsigned comment added by Annalium Hispaniarum (talkcontribs) 14:14, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

It is a mistake to think that "rights", in English, implies a particular point of view about whether people are morally entitled to that right. It is a simple word decribing legal abilities: do same-sex couples have the right to marry? to adopt? etc. etc. The POV term that implies a moral entitlement is "human right": which is why there is the campaign slogan "LGBT rights are human rights".
Anyway, the term "LGBT rights" is not just used in this article, but all over Wikipedia (for example the "LGBT rights in X" articles which exist for each country). And this use has been established for a long time. If you think this should be changed, you will need to develop a firm consensus with many other editors. (I would suggest WT:LGBT as the appropriate location.) - htonl (talk) 15:37, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Ok Mister, I understand. --Annalium Hispaniarum (talk) 15:07, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 21 November 2012[edit]

The information about Macau is now accurate> single gay persons can adopt and there is anti-discrimination protection in the fields of labour (Article 6/2 of Law 7/2008), personal data (article 7/1,2 of Law 8/2005) and ombudsman (article 31-A of Law 10/2000, after amended by Law 4/2012).

Offshore111 (talk) 13:49, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. Vacationnine 03:24, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Reference #38 is a broken link. The document can now be found at

Done Vacationnine 03:24, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

(Ancient) China[edit]

I first tried to clean up the sentence structure, then realized that it actually contradicts itself as written (as well as being vague).

The first line needs a reference (and a date). The first reference leads to a dead link; the second to an article in Chinese (which I can't read).

Given its placement, I assume "laws were passed" in "ancient" China, but no date/reference is given. The two cited lines say that "homosexuality was decriminalized", and then suggest that--while "hooliganism" was used as a catch-all--prior to 1997 there were "no specifically anti-homosexuality laws".

(I'd also suggest the reference to Victorian mores and Abrahamic religions is relevant, but not made very clear.)

Basically, it needs work, but I don't know enough to fix it. :(

[My first major edit/talk page, please forgive and correct me if I made a mistake.] Lamerc (talk) 04:41, 15 December 2012 (UTC)


Sweden no longer requires people to be sterilised and unmarried before having a sex change. So that should be removed from the list. Nothingbutmeat (talk) 13:54, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Gay Marriage Has Passed In The UK's House Of Commons[edit]

On February the 5th 2013, Gay Marriage was passed in the UK House of Commons. — Preceding unsigned comment added by J88nyr (talkcontribs) 16:35, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

It has passed second reading. It still has to go through committee and report stages, pass third reading, and go through the House of Lords. There is a long way yet before it becomes legal. - htonl (talk) 16:41, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Russia - Changing laws against LGBT[edit]

New United Russia's laws banning what they call "homosexual propaganda" or whatever are sort of homophobic (or "very heterosexist and homonegative on the very least", if you are bothered by the word as my conservative friends), even when dealt in a perfectly NPOV, aren't they? They outrightly ban freedom of expression and association of queer people with a wide, blurred-defined purpose, so that it may be not allowed (not taking former de facto absence of safety in consideration entirely) anymore to request its own civil rights, to fight unjust discrimination, to be an out-of-the-closet public figure, perhaps even to be openly non-straight. It is a different kind of state-sponsored homophobia, and I am not the only one to see that way, Portuguese news media online sources said that Russia "legalized homophobia". What I mean is that while this fame is not new (Brazil trains its law enforcement personnel to not bother same-sex couples doing what everyone else is allowed do, there cops just watched white supremacist thugs trounce attempters of the realization of politically-motivated prides – hell, it is not our winter/spring Carnaval party/orgy, and even if it was this it isn't justifiable), I find that their notable aggressiveness now makes very clear that it is reasonable according to Wikipedia policies to make mentions about such laws here. Lguipontes (talk) 09:36, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

..Agreed- this article may need to reflect that Russia has now legalised brutality against members of the LGBT community. Is this then classified as indirectly criminalising homosexuality and should it be reflected in this article? Mario (talk) 19:39, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Changing gender in Finland[edit]

The article claims that "Legal sex change is possible without stelirization". This isn't true, the linked resource only talked about that a new law was worked on, but that didn't go anywhere. This is the current law — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:29, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree. The law is still under consideration, and the false information should be edited as soon as possible! — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:47, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Still uncorrected. Could anybody with editing rights fix this? RNAWES12 (talk) 07:39, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

And still the same. Wouldn't take long to correct that it's still under consideration? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:53, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

I have edited the entry for Finland. For the record, anyone can edit Template:LGBT rights table Europe. - htonl (talk) 22:09, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
Why is this situation n Finland marked with a red X, while similar situation in France, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Russia, Ukraine, Moldova and Montenegro is marked with a green V? Also, does the requirement of surgical or medical treatment before recognition in the case of some countries (South Africa, Canada, Brazil, Colombia, Iran, Japan, Taiwan, Czech Republic and Romania) refer to sterilization? I don't know, whether a country requiring such treatment should be marked with a red X or with a green V, but I'm hoping some consistency. -- (talk) 14:07, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
I can't speak for other countries, but the surgical or medical treatment requirement in South Africa can be fulfilled by hormone therapy alone or by surgery. - htonl (talk) 14:46, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
Nevertheless, whether the surgical or medical treatment means sterilization or not, at least it is expressly stated that the recognition of sex change in France, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Russia, Ukraine, Moldova and Montenegro requires sterilization. Either these countries should be marked with the red X, like Finland, or Finland should be marked with a green V, like these other countries. -- (talk) 16:36, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Consistency of table headings across the continents[edit]

The headers used for the by-country tables should really be consistent across the whole article. At present there are the following variations:

  • "Same-sex sexual activity" versus "Homosexual acts legal?"
  • "Recognition of same-sex relationships" versus "Recognition of same-sex unions" versus "Recognition of relationships"
  • "Same-sex marriage"
  • "Adoption by same-sex couples" versus "Same-sex adoption"
  • "Allows gays to serve openly in military?"
  • "Anti-discrimination (sexual orientation)" versus "Anti-discrimination Laws (sexual orientation)"
  • "Laws concerning gender identity/expression" versus "Anti-discrimination Laws concerning gender identity/expression"

We should really decide on a single consistent set of headers. We should perhaps also consider whether there should be a column for adoption of children by single LGBT individuals; my inclination is to say no, but there was an editor (see up the page) who thinks there should be. If there is to be such a column, it needs to be added to all the continent templates. - htonl (talk) 01:07, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Since no-one else has commented, I'll say what I think the column headers should be:
  1. Same-sex sexual activity
  2. Recognition of same-sex relationships
  3. Same-sex marriage
  4. Adoption by same-sex couples
  5. Military service while openly gay or bisexual
  6. Anti-discrimination laws (sexual orientation)
  7. Laws concerning gender identity
Thoughts? - htonl (talk) 19:19, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
Is a separate column for same-sex marriage really necessary? I think that should be one column for all types of recognition. The rest is fine for me. Ron 1987 (talk) 19:36, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
That's a possibility to consider, though I feel that marriage is distinctly different from all the other forms of relationship recognition, since it implies full equality before the law. I was also thinking that the last column should really be split into two: one for the ability to change legal gender, and another for laws prohibiting discrimination on the basis of gender identity. - htonl (talk) 00:09, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm gonna go ahead and put my two cents in here as well. I think that your proposal, htonl, is the one that we should make standard. I might add that we could add legal to Recognition of same-sex relationships. I attempted to changed the Europe template to this style, though my work was reverted by another user. They believe that the dates on countries with legal same-sex marriage would have to be edited to show that there was previous recognition, which I agree with. Denmark for example first recognized same-sex couples in 1989 with registered partnerships, however that scheme was repealed with the gender neutral marriage bill in 2012. I think that we should make simply highlight that the Nordic countries (and others) recognized them since their first marriage alternative was introduced, followed by the date for when marriage was legalized in the respective columns. I have to admit though, the current column headers are annoying the hell out of me, especially when it comes to what we as a group of editors are trying to present. The Nordic countries all have red X marks in the Civil Union column and while that is accurate, it gives the illusion that there is some kind of legal right still being denied. Hopefully we can resolve that. Chase1493 (talk) 03:27, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Edit request on 26 April 2013[edit]

The information on Israel is incorrect: Israel has labor anti discrimination protection laws since 1992 [2]

Capellb (talk) 10:53, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Not done Source please. Arctic Kangaroo 08:39, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Most of the anti discrimination of LGBT legislation in Israel is in the form of precedents (as the Israeli legal system is based to some extent on common law).

Here are some references (All in Hebrew):

1 - Prohibition of discrimination in products, services, entry to businesses (restaurants, clubs, etc), including on the basis of sexual orientation. Webpage from the Economy Ministry website (previously named Industry, Trade and Labor Ministry).

2 - 1994 Supreme court ruling in the case of El Al vs. Yonatan Danilovich. This ruling set a precedent according to which an employer may not discriminate in benefits between employee's spouses of different sex and same sex.

3 - 2004 Knesset protocol, passing a correction in the law of rights of the patient, prohibiting discrimination in medical treatment due to sexual orientation.

Yunis (talk) 21:17, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Done. I ran the first two links you cited through Google Translate and I'm satisfied. I've made the change to the article and used those two links as references. Thanks, --ElHef (Meep?) 03:41, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Decriminalization in Malawi[edit]

Didn't Malawi took down its homosexual criminalizing laws? Amnesty: Malawi suspends anti-gay laws Should the map be edited? Titanicophile (talk) 18:22, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

No. See [3], [4], [5]. Ron 1987 (talk) 19:10, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Really sad. Thank you! Titanicophile (talk) 19:20, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 17 May 2013[edit]

Portugal has approved today limited adoption rights for gay marriages: (talk) 17:22, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello! It seems this is already reflected in the article, as referenced by source# 166. Setting this to Not done but  Done by someone else. Thanks! JguyTalkDone 17:13, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Claim about "no official heterosexist discrimination"[edit]

Just before the tables we have the uncited claim, "In modern times ten countries have no official discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, including the rights of marriage and adoption. They are..." It looks like it's based on the assumption that countries with marriage equality - excepting Portugal because of the adoption issue - have no official discrimination. We don't actually know that there isn't residual discrimination in these countries. Unless we can find a citation, this claim needs to go. - htonl (talk) 11:00, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Mexico/Quintana Roo recognition[edit]

Was just wondering if same-sex marriages performed in Quintana Roo (Mexican state) were recognised nationwide as those performed in Mexico City are? Thanks Bezuidenhout (talk) 17:45, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

USA federal marriage and civil unions recognition: Post DOMA[edit]

Shouldn't the USA be all teal, because if marriage is recognized federally? Gay couples who married to immigrants from other countries are no longer being deported.

If someone is married in say Maryland and moves to Tennessee than that married couple would received all of the federal benefits of marriage under the law, regardless of state law.

So US law, regardless of what state law says, recognized same-sex marriage even in places where it's not performed in the jurisdictions in the USA.

I know it's very complicated but from a legal standpoint marriage is recognized every in the USA, regardless of state law. Gay conservative (talk) 15:38, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

States are not required to recognize same-sex marriages from other states, and it's not at all clear that people in your situation (married in MD and moved to TN) will get federal benefits. In any case, many of the most important benefits of marriage are dependant on state law, not federal. - htonl (talk) 21:56, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
I know. US Supreme Court didn't strike down Section 2 of DOMA. The state of Tennessee currently constitutionally bans gay marriage. But from a legal standpoint, if I get married in Maryland and move to the state of Tennessee I would have to get all of the legal federal benefits from the state of Tennessee that is prescribed to my marriage, while it's not granting me the state benefits. So there is some recognition every in the USA, but it's very complicated. For example under federal law the death penalty is legal, but many US states still ban in the death penalty and on the wiki map of the death penalty by country, it shows the death penalty legal nationwide. Also if you are gay married in a country that allows gay marriage and move to the USA you would be allowed to under the current immigration system now. Maybe we could have it stripped with teal and grey across the USA and have a disclaimer saying that the federal government recognizes gay marriage, but not state laws in the states.Gay conservative (talk) 03:44, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Turkey is twice in list[edit]

please check this :)

Copyright problem[edit]

‎ This article has been reverted to an earlier version as part of a large-scale clean-up project of multiple article copyright infringement. (See the investigation subpage) Text entered in this edit et seq. duplicated at least in part material from [6]. Other content added by this contributor may have been copied from other sources and has been removed in accordance with Wikipedia:Copyright violations. Earlier text must not be restored, unless it can be verified to be free of infringement. Content added by other contributors subsequent to the introduction of this material can be restored if it does not merge with this text to create a derivative work. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions must be deleted. Contributors may use sources as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously. ----Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:55, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Clarification needed on decriminalization map[edit]

Please clarify two items on the decriminalization map:

  • Add meaning of gray to the key
  • Is Missouri being two colors an error? Either it is an error to be fixed, or it is correct and this difference in rights need to be noted in LGBT_rights_in_Missouri.

Thisisnotatest (talk) 06:09, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Legality of lesbianism in the UK[edit]

I have a definite memory that lesbianism was not a criminal offence in Britain, well before the 1967 reform. I think Queen Victoria objected to it being mentioned in some Victorian law that tidied up the law on the matter. It was widely discriminated against, but unofficially.

Does anyone know more definitely? The current entry fails to mention it. --GwydionM (talk) 09:10, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

That is correct. Lesbianism has never been a criminal offence per se in the UK. The article LGBT rights in the United Kingdom notes that "lesbians were never acknowledged or targeted by legislation." But the story about Queen Victoria is an urban legend. - htonl (talk) 09:27, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Pro-LGBT Bias[edit]

This article seems to suggest that these people deserve rights for their immorality.

A paragraph about "Criticisms of LGBT rights" would help.

-- Add one and see how far you get :-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:44, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

As I have stated before, This page is not biased, it's just not blatantly homophobic. If you want all pages to agree with you, go to conservapedia. Weegeerunner (talk) 21:55, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Um, you need to change something[edit]

So, if you live in the US and saw some change in legislation, gay marriage is mandatory and that on June 26, 2013, there was legislation passed for benefits for gay marriage. So, just to let you know, this means that every state is REQUIRED to succumb to the federal government's demands and that they are just being stubborn. Thank you for your consideration :-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Farfaraway269269 (talkcontribs) 00:18, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

clarity in transgender terminology under "Ancient Persia" heading[edit]

Under the subject heading "Ancient Persia"... "The two most commonly documented forms [of homosexuality] were commercial sex with transgender young males or males enacting transgender roles exemplified by the köçeks and the bacchás [...]"

Confusing: "transgender male" sounds like "transgender man", which would be a person born female-bodied who lives as a man ([7]). Also, the article for bacchas makes clear they are child sexual slaves and child prostitutes; it's distasteful to appear to equate "transgender" with "prostitute" (especially as US pop culture does this too much, and police profiling of and mistreatment of trans women is a problem in the US), and describe sexual slavery as "exemplifying" a "transgender role".

How about rewriting the sentence like this: "The two most commonly documented forms [of homosexuality] were commercial sex with _crossdressing_ young males or males enacting _sexually submissive_ roles exemplified by the köçeks and the bacchás [...]" (talk) 13:01, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Why is the History section in this article?[edit]

Why do we have the history section in this article? It's quite fragmentary and incomplete, and in any case it would surely make more sense merged into LGBT history or History of homosexuality or somewhere like that. It really seems quite unconnected to the subsequent table which is the body of the article. - htonl (talk) 14:12, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Adding criterion: Coverage of medically necessary transition-related procedures[edit]

This is one that is very important to a subgroup of the T that suffers severe gender dysphoria regarding their body, yet none of the LGBT rights articles seem to discuss it. Perhaps we can work to implement it? --Beneficii (talk) 03:29, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 December 2013[edit]

LGBT-related laws by country or territory

Under South Asia - India - Same-sex sexual activity is listed as Legal since 2009. change to: Illegal


Thespeedofthought (talk) 06:16, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Already done with this edit. --ElHef (Meep?) 16:57, 11 December 2013 (UTC)


Australia Capital Territory doesn't perform same-sex marriage anymore. (That needs to be removed)

(Legal in Eight Native American Tribal Jurisdicitons and in Eight Counties of New Mexico; recognized in Oregon and New Mexico) (This needs to be added) Prcc27 (talk) 04:08, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 December 2013[edit]

Hello, Montserrat, a small African country in the Caribbean has outlawed discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation in its Constitution up to five years ago. Please would someone update the LGBT Laws for Montserrat. (talk) 07:39, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Biased beyond belief[edit]

Honestly, this tries to make it seem like Same-Gender Marriage is a good thing and what should happen everywhere. Even though I disagree with that, it needs to be represented as one viewpoint here. Per WP:NPOV, this page needs to be as critical of homosexuality as it is complimentary. Bobby Martnen (talk) 23:36, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

No it is not, this page is not biased. This page is just listing the rights of homosexual people in different countries. Just because a page is not blatantly biased towards your viewpoints does NOT mean it is biased against you. Just because this isn't conservapedia, does not make this rationalwiki. Weegeerunner (talk) 21:49, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Requested move per WP:NPOV[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Armbrust The Homunculus 10:54, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

LGBT rights by country or territoryLegal status of homosexuality by country or territory – Per WP:NPOV Calling them "LGBT Rights" is politically loaded and takes a side in the debate over homosexuality. This is a more neutral term, and conforms to WP:NPOV Bobby Martnen (talk) 23:56, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

I will alert WP:LGBT to this discussion. If you feel that any of the other WikiProjects listed at the top of this talk page should be alerted to it, feel free to alert in any of those cases of course. Flyer22 (talk) 00:04, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
Oppose. The page as it currently stands makes numerous references to the rights of trans people. Trans people can be of any sexual orientation, including straight. Changing the title to include only the legal status of homosexuality would therefore be inappropriate. Funcrunch (talk) 03:56, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
Oppose. "LGBT rights" has become the standard term for referring to this topic in the English language, and it doesn't imply a particular point of view. Besides excluding trans issues as noted above, the proposed new title would limit the focus of the article to the first column (legality of homosexuality) and exclude the other issues discussed. - htonl (talk) 04:33, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
Strong oppose In addition to the trans* exclusion, "rights" and "legal status" are not the same thing. Since its creation, this article has focused on rights. It should retain that focus. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 04:54, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose Everywhere that I read/see/hear about LGTB is about rights and not about legal status. And of course completely looking past trans NathanWubs (talk) 16:17, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

New Guardian article + infographics[edit]

This is an interesting and useful new article with various interactive infographics and worldwide data which can be used to edit and/or update the article: [8]. -- Softlavender (talk) 09:31, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Vietnam adoption laws[edit]

I think Vietnam should be status as "LGBT individuals explicitly allowed"

According to Vietnam's adoption laws (part 8/3), single person (as Same-sex couple are not recognized as a married couple) is allowed to adopt child. The law do not have any sentences to deny LGBT person to adopt child. In fact, I know at least 2 transgender singers have adopted child (Cindy Thai Tai and Lam Chi Khanh)

Vietnam's adoption law: (u can translate by GG)

-- (talk) 20:26, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Automated Archive Discussion[edit]

I think this page needs an automatic archiver, as it is often extremely long, somewhat disorganized with outdated information. It says here to make sure to establish consensus before setting up a bot on a talk page. What do my fellow wikipedians think? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:20, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

I have two problems with your request. One is that you are posting under an IP account that has had numerous incidences of vandalism; plus you don't seem to know how to sign your posts. Second, I find that automated archive bots tends to archive items much too quickly. I think it's probably better to request that someone manually archive the oldest and most outdated threads on this page. Softlavender (talk) 22:36, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Uruguay and blood donations[edit]

The map is wrong. Gays in Uruguay cannot donate blood. Update map accordingly.

-- (talk) 04:01, 21 July 2014 (UTC)


Uganda nullified its' strict law. -- (talk) 10:14, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

An harsh law about homosexuality was nullified, but the Penal Code still makes homosexuality punishable with life prison sentence. Titanicophile (talk) 21:27, 2 August 2014 (UTC)


Hello. Could somebody correct the status of Greece in the global map concerning the right to donate blood for MSMs? At the moment, it is gray, meaning it has no data, but in actuality, it should be in the dark red category of Permanent deferral. Also, if someone could correct something in the table that describes LGBT rights in detail in every country; in Greece, it says that civil unions are pending, which is false because the PM recently said that he has absolutely no intention to extend civil unions to homosexuals, so basically, not only aren't they pending but they've been rejected a looong time ago. If someone could erase the "pending" and just leave the X sign that'd be great.

Thank you!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:02, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: as you have not cited reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or altered in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 11:50, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Kyrgyztan[edit] Reprarina (talk) 11:22, 12 October 2014 (UTC)


It only says NO in the article, although there are many points on that subject, like judges ruling against the use of article 534 and the Lebanese Psychiatric Association stating that non-heterosexual orientations are completely natural.. See the main article about LGBT rights in Lebanon.. This article should say YES/NO about the legal status of same sex sexual activity with a bit of explanation!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:57, 18 October 2014 (UTC)


Kosovo's constitution does not define marriage between a man and a woman, and in September this year, a spokesperson from the Government of Kosovo stated in the United States that Kosovo indeed allows same-sex marriage, but it's yet to be practiced due to the country's other issues.

So please, since the same-sex marriage issue is still unclear in Kosovo, please don't put the "X", because the previous reference is from the 2004 constitution, but Kosovo adapted it's new one after 2008. Thank you. --PjeterPeter (talk) 13:03, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Sufism, Ancient Persia, Ancient India[edit]

The article is quite biased and i think the semi-protection status makes this worse. I suggest to do not add information without sources to the article, and to not make generalisations, this is making it to be very imprecise one.

In ancient persia the zoroastrian religion was not pro-gay, in fact there are clear admonitions against homosexuality found in various texts of zoroastrian literature. You can see more about this in the wiki article about homosexuality and zoroastrianism. regarding hinduism, the article shold make clear that there are many variations of hinduism, some are anti-gay, some are pro-gay. The kama-sutra actually speaks negatively of homosexuality.

And finally, regarding sufism, the claim that sufism has a gay doctrine is absurd. There were a small number of sufis who did this practice but the vast majority rejected it as sinful.

hinduism is not pro gay but probably neutral in that context. anti-gay religious movements were probably due to feminists and penis envy.

Kosovo de jure same sex marriage[edit]

  • The Constitution of Kosovo does not define marriage between a man and a woman, and in fact says that anyone can enter into marriage.[1] In 2014, the President of the Constitutional Court said that Kosovo de jure indeed allows same sex marriages.[2]
  • The "Family Law of Kosovo" or Law nr. 2004/32 was published on January 1 2004 by the UNMIK, so it's invalid with the adaption of the new constitution in 2008, and therefore can't be a justification that same-sex marriage isn't de jure legal in Kosovo.[3]

--PjeterPeter (talk) 12:37, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Adoption of the constitution does not mean that the family law is invalid. The law was approved in 2006, not 2004, and it was done by the Kosovo's parliament. Citation from the Kosovo Assembly site: "Law is approved by Assembly of Kosovo, date 20 January 2006 and promulgated by UNMIK Regulation no. 2006/7 of date 16 February 2006". It is on the list of laws on the Ministry of Justice website. No information about invalidation. See [9], [10].

First column of summary table[edit]

I'm thinking it would be helpful if the visual symbol first column of the summary table gave a bit more information. Consider (for example) India, Algeria, and Saudi Arabia. In India, same-sex activity is de jure illegal, but it's not enforced. In Algeria, the law is enforced, and you could go to prison. And in Saudi Arabia, you could be executed. That's a drastic difference! Yet all three get a red X. I realize you can learn this by reading the text, but I still think there should be a more prominent indication. For example, maybe India could get a yellow symbol of some sort? It's illegal, and that's a problem, but you are not going to prison for it. And Saudi Arabia would get something else -- not sure what -- as the risk there is on a whole different level.MissPiggysBoyfriend (talk) 09:22, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 June 2015 (United States - Same-sex marriage)[edit]

Please change the 'same-sex marriage' rights of 'United States' to 'Legal since 2015' because the Supreme Court has ruled that all states must allow same-sex marriage.

Source: Schoeneus (talk) 16:11, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Pictogram voting wait.svg Already done see this edit by Atakuzier (talk · contribs) at 17:05, 26 June 2015 (UTC). Thanks for the request though. Mz7 (talk) 01:57, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Age of consent for homosexuals in Canada[edit]

You wrote that the age of consent in Canada "discrepancy and prohibition of anal intercourse in some cases".

What do you mean by "some cases"?

In which cases does the age of consent in Canada is discrepancy for homosexuals?

P.S. - sorry if my English is not very clear... — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:37, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

The age of consent for most sex acts is 16, but for anal sex it is 18. Of course this affects gay men more than others. It has been found unconstitutional by courts in Ontario, Quebec and Alberta, and I think it's assumed that it would be found unconstitutional in other provinces as well if it came to trial there. - htonl (talk) 03:02, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
So the age of consent for anal sex is 16 for heterosexuals, but 18 for homosexuals? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:52, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
No, the age of consent for anal sex is 18 for everyone. But a prohibition on anal sex affects gay men disproportionately to others, even if it is nominally neutral. - htonl (talk) 20:29, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
@htonl: Then anal sex under the age of 18 is illegal for everyone in Canada, regardless of their sexual orientation? -- (talk) 22:45, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
Yes, isn't that what I just said? But that doesn't mean it's not especially unfair to gay men. Just like, if a country banned all anal sex, that would obviously be discriminatory towards gay men, even if it also applied to straight couples. - htonl (talk) 23:39, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
Why? If a country banned anal sex for everyone, why would it be discriminatory towards homosexuals only? -- (talk) 18:57, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
This is akin to asking how banning same-sex marriage is discriminatory if both heterosexuals and homosexuals aren't allowed to marry the same-sex (a question that Ann Coulter once asked to my amusement/horror). Anal sex is an activity disproportionally done by gay men, so they are the demographic most affected by such a ban. In that sense, it is discriminatory. ~ RobTalk 21:02, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 October 2015[edit]

Remove the first References section, the one between the sections on Africa and the Americas, because the article shouldn't have citations split up like this. (talk) 00:50, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

  • Yes check.svg Done The problem was with the template. I removed the second reference section that was being copied to the page. --Stabila711 (talk) 03:11, 3 October 2015 (UTC)


If no part of Antarctica can be owned by any country, why are colours displayed in the maps of Antarctica? It's more or less the same as displaying colours in the sea or the moon, I guess. Chocofrito (talk) 20:13, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Portugal Adoption Laws[edit]

We should update the map on the adoption laws around the world to include portugal. This has been done in the table, but has not been reflected in the map.


Same-sex adoption laws around the world

Rtheranikal (talk) 18:53, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done Eteethan(talk) 01:45, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
The bill awaits presidential signature. See [11]. Ron 1987 (talk) 04:45, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Separating "Maps" from "LGBT-related laws by country or territory"[edit]


I propose that we separate the "Maps" section from the "LGBT-related laws by country or territory" section. I love the maps section, but I think the page would be more efficient if we made the two things separate sections.

Anyone got thoughts?

Thanks! -TenorTwelve (talk) 23:21, 4 January 2016 (UTC) TenorTwelve (talk) 23:21, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Today is 1/15/2015. If no one proceeds to comment on this proposal within ten days, I will take action unilaterally to separate the maps and charts. The deadline shall be 1/25/2015 and if I am available to edit, I will make these changes on 1/26/2015 at the earliest.

Is this permitted under Wikipedia editing guidelines?

Thanks! TenorTwelve (talk) 04:07, 16 January 2016 (UTC) TenorTwelve (talk) 04:07, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Italy New Law[edit]

Italy status should be updated.


That's right. The image is not updated. (talk) 22:16, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
No. Civil unions are not legal yet. The bill awaits approval by the Chamber of Deputies. Ron 1987 (talk) 18:55, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
Indeed, not yet fully in force.

--Bouzinac (talk) 19:22, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Please change the map: Civil unions are now legal in Italy[edit]

I'm saying this because the map doesn't show that. I don't have an account, sorry. (talk) 18:10, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Recognition of sex change in Jordan[edit]

Please note that the highest civil court (Court of Cassation) in Jordan issued a judgment in October 2014 which instructs the state to recognise sex change and there are now a handful of instances in which a person's sex change has been officially recognised by the civil status department, see link in Arabic - could somebody please update the relevant section? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:58, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Swedish Discrimination Act[edit]

In the map called "Employment discrimination laws by sexual orientation and/or gender identity by country or territory", Sweden is colored blue which implies that Sweden's anti-discrimination law only covers sexual orientation and not gender identity. This is incorrect. The Discrimination Act (2008:567) bans discrimination based on both sexual orientation and gender identity/expression. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Notsquaregarden (talkcontribs) 21:51, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Including Ireland in List[edit]

Hello all - should Ireland now be included in the list under Note F? Referred to here:

"As of April 2016, nineteen countries, most of them located in North America, the Southern Cone and Western Europe,[f] recognize same-sex marriage and grant most of (if not all) the other rights listed above to its LGBT citizens."

with f reading

"Countries with same-sex marriage recognized nationwide are: Argentina, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Colombia, Denmark,[a] France, Iceland, Luxembourg, the Netherlands,[b] New Zealand,[c] Norway, Portugal, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, the United Kingdom,[d] the United States [e] and Uruguay."

I think the Irish change has come into effect now. - -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 09:00, 11 May 2016 (UTC)


Sodomy is illegal in Chad, but this is not represented on the map. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:59, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

This has still not updated. Chad should be coloured orange on the map. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:28, 2 March 2017 (UTC)


Add HRW link[edit]

Kindly add external link to Human Rights Watch on the subject, thank you.

 Done We try and avoid too many ELs but that seems a reasonable addition - and I removed a dead EL - Arjayay (talk) 15:36, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 April 2017[edit]

same sex marriage bill has passed royal assent and is now legal in the Falkland islands [1] 2A02:C7D:1214:F800:C4F9:609B:5772:9B97 (talk) 11:31, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. — JJMC89(T·C) 02:40, 8 May 2017 (UTC)


Homosexuality de facto illegal in Russia[edit]

In Russia, or at least Chechnya they seem to unfortunately carry the death penalty for homosexuality. The map should update Chechnya to death penalty, or all of Russia. Socialistboyy (talk) 09:30, 23 April 2017 (UTC)socialistboyy

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on LGBT rights by country or territory. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:36, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Corrections Germany Entry[edit]

As there will be editing in this section next week either way, please correct the date for the decriminalisation (1994 not 1969)and the status of protection against discrimination (not all discrimination is banned: the churches, small businesses and landlords are exempt). The sources may stay as they are cited now, if only someone would read them.

Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:27, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

LGBT rights maps (china and Lithuania)[edit]

The map shows incorrect information and colour on the LGBT rights maps both China and Lithuania doesn't have Laws restricting freedom of expression and association.

China : The laws in china Censored any sexual behaviour on web or TVs , 2.) according to the national law in China there's no LAW in restricting LGBT freedom of expression in public.

Lithuania : in mid-May, Lithuania’s foreign minister announced that his government had granted visas to two Chechens who “suffered persecution because of their sexual orientation.” And last week, Joël Deumier, president of the French gay rights group SOS Homophobie, said a Chechen refugee had arrived in France.

There is no way that Lithuania has law restricting LGBT freedom of expression, especially Lithuania is part of the European Union. Please can someone change the colour of both countries, this is Misleading people who read the LGBT rights page. Thank you

So how is this Jadeadam731724 (talk) 09:34, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Same-sex intercourse legal/illegal[edit]

This is incorrect wording. Obviously marriage etc is more than just intercourse. On the illegal side, countries in Africa, for example, criminalize non-intercourse things such as kissing and texting. [12] [13].

Please change Same-sex intercourse legal to Same-sex relationships legal and Same-sex intercourse illegal to Same-sex relationships illegal. Thanks!

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 03:13, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Misleading information regarding controversial topic, July 26 2017[edit]

The current wording of this article specifies, under the United States; that "Transgenders not allowed to serve since 2017" with this citation. This is factually incorrect as at present time no executive order, house bill, or senate bill, or other military documents have issued such a prohibition. This is not to discredit the article used as citation, but to point out that such a decision has not been made, only discussed. Metalmkll (talk) 01:36, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Amnesty International broken link & same-sex marriage not a human right[edit]

The Amnesty International link in the front paragraph no longer takes you to a list of their rights, but now lists 3 cases, one of which is abortion, and it seems to indicate that they no longer consider same-sex marriage to be a human right. It also should be noted that the United Nations does not consider it to be a human right, and the European Court of Human Rights in June 2016 ruled that same-sex unions are not a human right, and that same-sex unions can never be marriage. Perhaps that aspect of the rights should be removed, as it no longer seems to be accurate. (talk) 14:28, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Link here: (talk) 14:30, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

It seems to me that the right to marry in itsalf is a human right, according to the UN. [14] --Bouzinac (talk) 06:36, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
As clarified by the European Court of Human Rights, the right to marry does not include the right to same-sex marriage. It is not now and never has been a human right. Mister Sneeze A Lot (talk) 12:06, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
I removed the now broken link to Amnesty International. I did not change the information though, as, other than the same-sex unions part, it does seem that Amnesty International considers the other LGBT rights to be human rights. I could not find an exact source though. It conceivably could be written that LGBT lobbyists consider same-sex marriage a human right, but it is not accurate to claim that Amnesty International or the United Nations or any other world body on human rights considers it a human right. This seems to be a misunderstanding based on the United Nations' 14th article on the right to marry, which, as above, has been clarified to not mean same-sex marriage. Nonetheless, a rewrite could include this in some different way. Please do not restore the inaccurate information that I removed. A rewrite that listed it as LGBT lobbyist right would be reasonable, however. Mister Sneeze A Lot (talk) 14:51, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
What Amnesty Int'l or the EHCR think is irrelevant, as indeed is the whole question of "is same-sex marriage a human right" - a question which is still subject to debate, obviously. Including the item in the list does not assert that SSM is a human right - the list is prefaced by the text "LGBT rights laws include, but are not limited to, the following:". Surely you agree that SSM laws are an example of "LGBT rights laws"? Possibly the paragraph needs to be modified to make that distinction clearer. - htonl (talk) 19:54, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
I have rearranged the article a bit, moving the discussion of human rights/civil rights below the list of types of law, so as to clarify that the article is not asserting that all the laws listed are human rights. I hope this helps. - htonl (talk) 20:01, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
Sorry for the triple-posting, but I wanted to add: it's clear that Amnesty does consider same-sex marriage a human right, as can be seen from page 5 of their Pride Toolkit: "Such bills [RFRAs] sanction discrimination, put LGBT people at risk of violence, and mean that LGBT people can be denied their rights to healthcare, education, and marriage. Amnesty International joins many social justice, civil rights, and human rights organizations by recognizing these bills for what they are: discriminatory violations of human rights." - htonl (talk) 20:10, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
That's a 2016 link, which was when Amnesty International changed their front page to recognise same-sex marriage as a human right, in probable reference to the June 2016 European Court of Human Rights decision that declared that same-sex unions are not a human right and that same-sex unions can never be described as marriage. Since the European Court of Human Rights were effectively acting to clarify whether same-sex marriage was a human right, as a clarification of the United Nations, then it flows that from that date Amnesty International were obligated to drop their position of same-sex marriage being regarded as a human right. You'd need a 2017 reference to make it current, and I don't believe there is one. While Amnesty International haven't publicly declared their change in position, the change in all of their links suggests that secretly they very much have. I stand to be corrected if there is a 2017 piece from Amnesty International, but I don't believe there is. Mister Sneeze A Lot (talk) 05:47, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
It's not really a debate anyway, as what is and isn't a human right is determined by the United Nations. The United Nations have *NEVER* declared same-sex marriage to be a human right, and the ECHR clarified the matter there. So there is no debate about it. It is not a human right. Amnesty International were simply incorrectly interpreting the United Nations as if it was a human right, and have since clarified that they were wrong. Wikipedia being wrong on this is important. Wikipedia should not go out on a limb to propose something to be a human right when it is not. The only thing to debate is whether it is an LGBT right, and how important it is. It is not a human right, as clarified by the United Nations, and we cannot consider it to be, especially not since the June 2016 clarification. Mister Sneeze A Lot (talk) 05:50, 18 October 2017 (UTC)