File talk:Asia homosexuality laws.svg

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Update/correction needed[edit]

The Taiwan coloration is inaccurate and will need updating to reflect changes on 24 May 2019. See w:Same-sex marriage in Taiwan. AjaxSmack (talk) 03:30, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Afghanistan[edit]

Spots throughout Afghanistan in different color represent places where Taliban insurgents are allegedly in control. This should be removed, because the Taliban are not internationally recognized and only the Afghan republic is the official state. Regardless, the war is ongoing and it doesn't make sense to keep updating this image with changing battlefronts of control (which could likely also be inaccurate). So I strongly believe that it should be removed with the entire country being one orange color - perhaps with a circle to represent the non-state "laws" like it used to be on this older revision of the image [1]. --DQttwo (talk) 18:31, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I striped it. The Taliban is the govt where they're in control, regardless of recognition. Kwamikagami (talk) 19:44, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Armenia[edit]

No evidence of any recognition in Armenia so it should be changed to gray as per the world map. Kaleetan (talk) 17:46, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't see this comment from you, and changed both maps to lavender. Does that work for you? I think the SC decision is notable, we just don't know exactly what it means. Given that similar SC orders in other countries resulted in only minor rights (Curacao, Estonia), I figured lavender would be best. But maybe striped, since there are no known cases? Or do we accept SC decisions in general? Kwamikagami (talk) 19:42, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Kwamikagami What SC decision are you talking about? On 3 July 2017, the Ministry of Justice announced that all marriages performed abroad are valid in Armenia, including marriages between people of the same sex. However, as of 2021, no such recognition has yet been documented.

I think we should strip Armenia as it doesn't seem the marriages were ever fully recognized.

The first reason is that, as of 2021, no such recognition has yet been documented. You have to admit, that 5 years is quite a long period of time.

The second reason is that, it is unknown if recognition would give such couples all the rights of marriage under domestic law, also in light of the existing constitutional ban.

The final reason is that, it's certainly not the same as Bulgaria(1) and Lithuania(2) where the courts have explicitly confirmed the residency rights of same-sex couples.

(1) In July 2019, a Bulgarian court recognized a same-sex marriage performed in France in a landmark ruling.

(2) In January 2019, the Constitutional Court ruled that foreign, same-sex spouses must be granted residence permits. Dustssics (talk) 20:17, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

China[edit]

Exactly, Beijing didn't have any policy about foreign partnership registration and Chinese embassy and consulate says they can not recognize the Married Certification issued by foreign governments[1]. Only have Legal Guardianship to guarantee same-sex partners relationship.--K.Y.K.Z.K. (talk) 17:49, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ↑ China does not recognize the legal effect of "same-sex marriage"

Japan[edit]

--Kwamikagami, Japan does not recognised same-sex co-habitation, so I have reverted your change back to stripped (non-binding certificates). If you can find any documentation for same-sex cohabitation, please share it here and I'll happily undo the revert (and avail my partner and I of the same). Paullb (talk) 09:41, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Hokkaido? court has ruled that cohabitation must be recognized by the state. I assumed that counted. If not, my bad. Kwamikagami (talk) 19:59, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I can't read Chinese so I'm not sure what that article is about. (I think this is what you are referring to? http://www.asahi.com/ajw/articles/14276429 ) Yes, the lower court in Hokkaido ruled in favour of the plaintiffs in the court case but it had no direct legal implications and unlike courts in other countries it did not place a timeline on the government to fix it. The court basically said "Yes, it's unconstitutional and so...." (one can hope it's a step forward though) Paullb (talk) 21:26, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vietnam[edit]

Vietnam is colored light blue on the map, implying that it recognizes unregistered cohabitation. However, Vietnam does not have specific unregistered cohabitation laws. I can provide you with a list of reliable sources.

Kwamikagami claims that: "In Vietnam, you have to register where you live, so that is quite literally registered cohabitation." (citation needed)

First of all, what does "registered cohabiation" mean? Perhaps what they meant is "registered partnership", or maybe "unregistered cohabitation". The term "registered cohabitation" does not exist.

Besides, all content must be verifiable. In the English Wikipedia, verifiability means other people using the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source. Anyone can leave a note on the talk page asking for a source. Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed.

The accuracy of a statement may be a cause for concern if:

It contains unlikely information, without providing suitable references;

It has been written (or edited) by a user who is known to write inaccurately on the topic;

It contains information which is ambiguous and open to interpretation, either due to grammar, or opinionated wording;

There are reliable sources supporting two or more different claims.

Kwamikagami's claim about "registered cohabitations" in Vietnam is somewhat misleading. A list of reliable sources are presented below:

The first source states that:

"While the ruling, which came into effect on New Year’s Day, allows same-sex couples to wed without fear of criminal prosecution, Vietnam’s Communist Party stopped short of extending ANY rights or privileges to same-sex couples — the government won’t recognize same-sex unions nor provide legal protection to them."

Source: https://www.metroweekly.com/2015/01/vietnam-removes-same-sex-marriage-ban/

The second source states that:

"The law no longer specifically prohibits same-sex marriages, but says they aren't recognized by the government. It does not allow same-sex partnership either, although the issue has been open for discussion during many house meetings."

Source: http://thanhniennews.com/politics/vietnam-allows-surrogacy-within-families-denies-samesex-marriage-27502.html

The final source states that:

"There is a major flaw in the law. According to Clause 2, Article 8 of the new law, although it allows same-sex weddings, such couples are neither recognized nor protected under the law. Although Vietnam abolished its ban on same-sex marriage, the law has a very limited effect in practice. If not recognized by the state, such marriages will not be protected by law for matters such as personal and property rights."

Source: https://thediplomat.com/2020/02/the-fight-for-lgbt-rights-in-vietnam-still-has-a-long-way-to-go/

The claim that Vietnam recognizes same-sex unions is MISSING CONTEXT, because without additional information it could be misleading. It is true that Vietnam abolished its ban on same-sex marriage and allowed symbolic same-sex weddings. However, same-sex couples are neither recognized nor protected under the law.

Vietnam doesn’t recognize same-sex unions so it should be changed to gray. Please, update the map. Provide sources of the opposite if you disagree.

Indonesia[edit]

Erase The Orange dot in Southern Sumatra . For the issue of Palembang , a law against Homosexuality was proposed in 2004 with a maximum penalty of Five years in Prison but it was never enforced . In 2020 , the law against Homosexuality was Known to be Abolished (either that the Regional rule was expired as the mayor changes or it was abolished by the local Government ) . https://britabrita.com/belum-miliki-perda-pol-pp-palembang-sulit-tindak-kaum-lgbt/ http://inforepublik.com/palembang-perlu-perda-lgbt These are the resources in Indonesian which translates that Palembang doesn't have Anti LGBT laws . Bayu Fuller (talk) 11:34, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

South Asia needs an overhaul[edit]

There are a few issues I have with the way the "South Asia" grouping is represented in this map.

~~~~ Novomaniasi (talk) 09:54, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So, no real evidence provided that anything should be changed:
Bangladesh: no confirmed cases. Keep yellow.
Pakistan: report of an arrest warrant for a SSM, no further details. Keep yellow until evidence of arrest/conviction for homosexuality is provided.
Sri Lanka: not enforced. Keep yellow.
Maldives: no cases reported in ref. Keep yellow.
India: No details; not clear that cohabitation applies to all states. Keep striped.
Please let us know if you find any details about these countries, e.g. if the Indian SC says anything about cohabitation. Kwamikagami (talk) 10:39, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yemen under houthi control[edit]

Yemen that is under the Houthi government should be stripped with dark red because they use capital punishment against the LGBT. thats my opinion because places like chechnya is also striped Durranistan (talk) 14:03, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If we have RS's that the legal penalties differ, then we can do what we do with Somalia. Kwamikagami (talk) 01:10, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Non-binding certificates[edit]

It makes no sense for "non-binding certificates" to be considered a sub-status of unregistered cohabitation rights. Take Japan for example. Japan's non-binding certificates are registered (not "unregistered") and confer no actual legal rights, unlike unregistered cohabitation laws. The two concepts have nothing to do with each other and are completely different. Unregistered cohabitation laws are basically a light version of common-law marriage and involve no contracts or registrations, but do confer legal rights. Non-binding certificates are registered and convey no legal rights, only recognition and extralegal privileges. It's also very confusing that China has light blue stripes, as it has neither unregistered cohabitation rights, nor non-binding certificates. Instead they have a system for registering mutual guardianship, which is something completely different (as it is registered and does convey legal rights). It seems that over the years various colors and treatments (stripes) have changed meaning or been overloaded, thus leading to the current mess. Either we need to introduce additional colors to distinguish different statuses or we need to get rid of stripes and just lump all partial recognition into light blue (including unregistered cohabitation, non-binding certificates, and mutual guardianship). Personally, I favor the later solution as it is simpler and matches what similar maps are doing (e.g. File:Latin_America_homosexuality_laws.svg). Nosferattus (talk) 16:46, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Nacaru, Haha169, and Kwamikagami: What are your thoughts? Nosferattus (talk) 17:25, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
light blue indicates minimal rights, and these are all pretty minimal. the reason for the striping is just as you said -- these don't match the wording of the category. I think making them solid might be more confusing than what we have now, but I'm not opposed to expanding the wording so we can do so. Kwamikagami (talk) 18:19, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Of the 6 countries currently colored light blue, only one of them, Israel, actually has unregistered cohabitation rights, so it definitely doesn't make sense to say that light blue equals unregistered cohabitation. I propose that we change the key to say that light blue is "Limited recognition of same-sex couples." We then change India, Japan, and Cambodia to solid light blue. China will remain striped with light blue and gold indicating both limited recognition and laws restricting freedom of LGBT expression and association. I think this will make the map significantly less confusing and misleading. Nosferattus (talk) 16:29, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds reasonable, and easier to determine. Kwamikagami (talk) 01:02, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Nosferattus India was striped because SSM was not attested from all states. Do you think the recent SC rulings are sufficient for coloring the entire country? Kwamikagami (talk) 01:08, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Death penalty in Chechnya[edit]

Although homosexuals are often killed in Chechnya, including allegedly by prison authorities, these are extrajudicial killings. There is no de jure death penalty for homosexuality in Chechnya, nor is there really a de facto death penalty, as although detention and torture are common, the authorities typically leave the actual killing to families and vigilantes. I think Chechnya should either have the same color as Russia (reflecting the actual laws) or should be orange for "Imprisonment, arrests or detention" (as the de facto status). Nosferattus (talk) 18:20, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, will do. Kwamikagami (talk) 01:01, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Crimea[edit]

Crimea is erroneously represented as a part of Russia. That should be corrected. --BurghardRichter (talk) 20:47, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is part of Russia. That's what the war is about. Kwamikagami (talk) 01:00, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File_talk:Asia_homosexuality_laws.svg&oldid=843767274"