Talk:LGBTQ rights by country or territory/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Globalise tag

I added the globalise tag as currently the section seems to be mostly written from a Western POV. Firstly, the section seems to concentrate on the differences between Abrahamic religions and Pagan religions. While pagan religions technically includes all non Abrahamic religions, it's usually unwise to use it in this context in wikipedia IMHO. Also according to religion and homosexuality, the attitudes of Dharmic religions in particularly (and Taoic religions to a less degree) while obviously not as strong as Abrahamic religions don't necessarily appear to be that supportive. Definitely according to the article in contemporary times homosexuality is often frowned upon and while the article doesn't cover the issue of more traditional attitudes that well I don't really see any evidence that their attitudes towards homosexuality was significantly different in the past or that they were significantly influenced by Abrahamic religions. Their intepretations do vary more then Abrahamic religions obviously. However the article seems to suggest that same-sex relations were a part of everyday life for all non-Abrahamic religions and in all areas and intepretations which changed with the spread of the Abrahamic religions. Also, the talk about colonialism seems to suggest it was the sole cause for the spread of Abrahamic religions (and therefore the spread of homophobia and homophobic laws). This ignores the complexity of the spread of the Abrahamic religions particularly Islam which spread to thru a variety of means including conquest but which is mostly not associated with colonialism except perhaps in a few areas (as the conquests had a different character from what is usually considered colonialism). Nil Einne (talk) 11:06, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

New Discussion

A discussion has been started at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countries/Lists of countries which could affect the inclusion criteria and title of this and other lists of countries. Editors are invited to participate. Pfainuk talk 11:53, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Explanation of recent changes (switching to using transclusions for tables)

Switched to using transclusions for tables, so that the World (this page) and Continent pages will be able to all transclude from the same tables, making it easier to keep data synchronized and current. This page was already in need of updating, and hopefully this will help update-needed creeping in the future. (Will also allow all continent LGBT pages to have their own rights tables, which currently Africa and Asia do not have (they actually do not even have pages yet)).

Summary of changes:

• Africa section moved to {{LGBT rights table Africa}}
• Asia section moved to {{LGBT rights table Asia}}
• Europe: LGBT rights in Europe tables copied to {{LGBT rights table Europe}}
• Oceania: LGBT rights in Oceania tables copied to {{LGBT rights table Oceania}}
• Americas: LGBT rights in the Americas tables copied to {{LGBT rights table Americas}}

The section headings for each continent are located within the transcluded page, so the section "edit" links on the Homosexuality laws of the world page link directly to the templates for editing.

Basically: now all continents will be transcluded onto this page, and also transcluded individually onto their own continent LGBT rights pages, and edits made to either will appear on both.

Will work on upgrading all of the templates to the cosmetic quality of the Europe template (unless someone else wants to work in there)

It would be insane to try to keep country data current both on this page and the continent pages (the way it had been done) (it already is hard to keep it up to date), so hopefully this solution should help w/ updating and keeping things current. Outsider80^(User0529) (talk) 06:50, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Though I find the templates amazing, cheers mate!, I do have one minor remark. Aesthetically I found, and find with regards to the Oceania template, the use of "small lettering for explanatory purposes" making the templates/articles more easily readable. I would like to see this lettering changed back to the "small-lettering". Of course if you, or anyone, disagrees the normal-size lettering can stay too. LightPhoenix (talk) 22:54, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

thanks for your kind words (here and on my talk) (moving the tables to templates was the easy part, upgrading Africa, Asia, and America to the level of the Europe and Oceania tables was the harder part lol. you guys had put together good tables.)

i agree w/ you on the font size... I started to add font size coding to the individual cells on one of the tables, but there has to be a way to apply the font size to the whole table (either by a font size that applied to the whole table, or to whole columns -- and then we could apply larger font sizes to the country names and headers if need be). I never figured out the right coding though (and actually had forgotten about it till you mentioned it)... Outsider80^(User0529) (talk) 23:20, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I know what you mean, I've been experimenting with the coding a little but but I don't get the small lettering into a whole column either. LightPhoenix (talk) 19:09, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I finally got it to take... (not sure what I was doing wrong).. I fixed Americas, Asia, and Oceania (Europe and Africa already had global font-sizes to the tables, not sure if you did that or if it was already that way.) going to remove the manual small text codes from Oceania now. peace .. Outsider80^(User0529) (talk) 20:21, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Wait, we're going to add small-text, when something has to be variefied behind the country name (e.g. an overseas territory of the U.K.) or behind the Yes/No boxes (e.g. when it was legalised) right (instead of removing it)? Or maybe I'm just missing something...yeah, that's possibly the case. Take care, LightPhoenix (talk) 20:36, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I left the small-texting code under the territory names... wouldn't the normal (90%) size text w/ a line break between male & female be enough for the legal column? (unless it got really wordy). whichever font size works for me though. btw, agree w/ your shortening of the wordier table cells.. some rows are a whole screen length long. Outsider80^(User0529) (talk) 20:45, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, my reasoning is that since we're bound to make notes even in an "oversight" table like this one (e.g. "Legal since year-X" or something in the Notes column) everything should be "small"-sized (at least, in my opinion). Because I think the thing we want is to have a table that is relatively easy to browse through (and if people want more info they can always go to the specific article about the country's LGBT-rights) and as we've seen...the table about The Americas is currently huge and is thus not improving our whole intention of giving people an easy oversight. Anyway, since my specialist field is not really the (en)coding business I'll leave it up to you if you want to extend the "small"-size encoding over the entire of columns, or just keep it in the column with the country's name in it. Because it's not a "major" problem to have normal font-size but simply a minor remark I have so yeah. Take care, LightPhoenix (talk) 21:37, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

(un-indent) hmm...... are you proposing small-texting all of the Homosexuality legal? (2nd column) cells, or just certain ones? if we were to do it for all of them, it might be easier to just use table cell (or column) style coding (removing the need for manual <small> codes) ... but that raises the question of if we were going to make all of the 2nd column cells smaller, then why not all columns' cells (not counting country names & column headers) -- but we are already at 90% font-size for the tables, so going down much smaller than that for whole columns (instead of just in cases where a specific cell is too wordy) might make it harder to read. anyway--either font size works for me, the reason I initially removed the small text codes from Europe was to standardize it w/ the other tables on the world page. so whichever method we go with, will just have to be repeated for the other continents - Outsider80^(User0529) (talk) 22:30, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Resolved

 – resolved topic, overcrowding issues since addressed

Banning of 'all' anti-gay legislation

I'm confused as to what this means in the Anti-discrimination column. According to the entries the UK bans 'most' anti-gay legislation, whilst Ireland is listed as banning 'all' anti-gay legislation. Yet navigate to the relevant pages and there appear to be more red 'x's in the Summary table for Ireland than for the UK. I confess that I am confused. I may be missing something and the references are correct, but at the very least there appears to be misleading impressions being given here.--Augustusr (talk) 00:56, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

It is a mistake that I have corrected. It is not accurate to say "all" heterosexist discrimination is banned when there is marriage denial, adoption denial, and so forth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.133.102.198 (talk) 11:06, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I believe it's intended to mean discrimination in the private sector; areas such as housing, employment etc. MaesterTonberry (talk) 13:46, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Asia

Turkey is Asian and is in Asia. Please correct this. 13 May 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.255.190.62 (talk) 05:04, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Also, the link to LGBT_rights_in_Asia is self-referential, indicating it has a separate page when it does not. Ruodyssey (talk) 07:18, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

The article says gay sex is legal in Jordan. When I was there in 2000 I heard the contrary from local gays. Up to 4 years prison -exile if you were of sufficient social stature. I was told an owner of the only well known yet discreet gay establishment (a literary cafe) had just recently been forced to leave the country because of those laws (AI). Someone should double-check this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.253.73.104 (talk) 08:56, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

UK rights

Why isn't the "gay marriage" tickbox for the UK ticked when a civil partnership is exactly the same as marriage in terms of rights. The only difference is the name. Eraserhead1 (talk) 19:36, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

If you take a look at the photos of separate drinking fountains for people of different races during Segregation in America, you may realize that a name is part of the right. It's an inseparable part of the institution. Change the name, and you change the institution. Marriage is marriage, whether it's between two homosexuals or two heterosexuals. A "civil partnership" institution is unnecessary in any system that has a secular marriage institution, like the USA does, where couples can get a marriage license at a courthouse without any religious affiliation. Only in a theocracy can the argument be made that a separate category can legitimately exist for same-sex marriages. But, that is discriminatory if it is viewed as inferior culturally. Heterosexism is the belief in heterosexual superiority. Anything that fosters that is anti-gay discrimination. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.133.102.198 (talk) 11:09, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Which to many is considered the equivalent to the separate but equal arguments in the United States during the Segregationist period.--67.240.87.16 (talk) 16:07, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah but that's not a good argument as gay marriage is only separate by name with marriage. And in the US in the segregationist period, blacks weren't actually equal with whites, for a start Blacks had to sit at the back of the bus, and move to stand if a white got on and wanted to sit in that row of the bus. If they were actually "separate but equal" then they wouldn't have had to move. Eraserhead1 (talk) 09:02, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

PS See http://news.bbc.co.uk/player/nol/newsid_5230000/newsid_5230800/5230826.stm?bw=bb&mp=wm&news=1&ms3=6&ms_javascript=true&bbcws=2 and what the judge says: Abiding single sex relationships are in no way inferior, nor does English Law suggest that they are by according them recognition under the name of civil partnership. Eraserhead1 (talk) 09:07, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

A civil partnership is a civil partnership. It is not a same-sex marriage. They might be legally "equivalent," but they're not the same. And until the law changes in a manner so as the word "marriage" is defined as gender neutral, then the UK does not have same-sex marriage. The Scottish Parliament is currently considering legislation to do just that (which suggests the two institutions are still distinct). After all, why debate something that already is? 24.69.161.68 (talk) 18:27, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

On Singapore's description it reads "or 'Gross indencency' between males" after describing homosexual male sex acts. Not only is 'indecency' misspelled, I also believe this to be homophobic vandalism. Someone take this out please. -anonymous —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.62.61.66 (talk) 05:56, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

US same-sex adoption

I'm pretty sure the statement "no state disallows single gay persons from adopting" is inaccurate -- I believe Florida does (although there is a pending court case which may overturn the ban).--Inonit (talk) 21:25, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Illegal

Under sexual acts, we currently have some with male illegal, female legal and some with just illegal. This would imply that in all these cases sexual acts between females or between males is illegal but I'm pretty sure in some cases it's far less clear cut or just plain wrong. E.g. Malaysia [1] there is no law explicitly banning it under the civil code and therefore it may not be illegal for non-Muslims but this is I suspect largely untested in court and provisions banning sodomy or whatever could technically apply. Similarly our own source says in Ethiopia it's largely the same [2]. It wouldn't surprise me if some of the ones listed it as illegal sexual acts between females are in fact legal. So while this may seem redudant, I would suggest instead of just putting illegal we put illegal for both (with appropriate sources) so it's clear when it's definitely illegal for both or when it's just someone just dumped illegal there because they or their source didn't differentiate Nil Einne (talk) 17:33, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Why is the T silent?

I was looking for transgender rights and was happy to find this article. Until I realised there was nothing about transgender rights in the article! Until someone actually includes transgender rights in the article, I say the headline for this article should be LGB-rights by country or territory. If the T is silent, don´t try to protect it´s not, thats not a good way of making a better encyclopedia.--Godfellow (talk) 09:30, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

This is a good point but it's quite difficult to put a column in this article saying whether or not being transgender is illegal, isn't it? Are there countries that ban cross-dressing for instance (I realise cross-dressing isn't synonymous with being trans at all, just mentioning that as a possible indicator of transgender discrimination), or sex-change operations? If so, maybe that could be put in the columns. Otherwise, isn't the legality of being a transgendered person kind of hard to define?--125.238.84.87 (talk) 07:15, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

There sureley are countries banning cross-dressing, Iran is one of them I think. And a lot of countris bans sex-change-operations. Other legal problems is when you can´t get a new legal gender, no protection aganist discrimination or hatecrimes, no option to marry in your new gender and not being allowed adopting children.

So you see, it´s not harder to define the legality of being transgendered than it is to define the legality of being homosexual, it´s never the identity thats banned, in neither case. It´s the actions.

But I´m not specialized in international transgender-rights, so I don´t have the knowledge to rewrite the article. I hope someone have the knowledge. And that someone, until the article actually containes transgendered rigths, rewrites the headlines. There should be no "T" in the headline if theres no transgender rights in the article, it´s just common sense.--Godfellow (talk) 04:53, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

We should definitely add transgender info to the article. The "laws concerning gender identity/expression" column is a good start, but I think it would make more sense if it was broken into specific issues, like the LGB columns. Some possible columns:

• Anti-discrimination (gender identity/expression)
• Cross-dressing legal?
• SRS legal?
• Change legal gender?

There's no hate crimes column for sexual orientation, so we don't necessarily need one for gender identity/expression. As far as not being allowed to marry or adopt, is there any place for a catch-all "discriminatory laws" or such? I'd imagine there are laws in some countries that bar LGB people from things not otherwise mentioned in this article (e.g. teaching, holding office, maybe?), but those don't seem to be in here. --Alynna (talk) 01:15, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Possibly we could merge with Legal aspects of transsexualism, as that article is fairly comprehensive. I second the addition of columns at the very least for the legality of changing gender on passports or identification documents. I feel like "cross-dressing" is in adequately covered under "anti-discrimination on the basis of gender identity/expression"; and generally the availability of SRS is more of a issue with the medical community than the legal community. Genderhack (talk) 20:45, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Mexican law allows "change of sex"

sorry but i dont know how to edit the article.

http://trans.ilga.org/trans/welcome_to_the_ilga_trans_secretariat/news/mexico_mexico_city_extends_official_rights_to_transgender_individuals

http://www.bahamasissues.com/archive/index.php/t-18068.html

http://trans_esp.ilga.org/trans/bienvenidos_a_la_secretaria_trans_de_ilga/noticias/mexico_personas_transgenero_obtendran_acta_de_nacimiento_con_nueva_identidad_sin_someterse_a_cirugia —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.132.195.205 (talk) 05:24, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Delhi High Court decriminalises homosexuality

Delhi High Court today decriminalised homosexuality, for more search google —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.180.75.149 (talk) 09:06, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Accessibility of LGBT rights tables

Many of the rows in these tables use colspan=6 to join the various columns. While one may infer that this means that the contents of the joined cells apply to the first column, this joining would produce inaccurate results to a visually disabled person reading down a column using screen reader software. For instance, the code

|{{flagicon|Singapore}} [[LGBT rights in Singapore|Singapore]] |colspan=6|<!--Legal status--> [[Image:X mark.svg|15px|No]] Male illegal (Penalty: up to 2 years prison sentence; not enforced) [[Image:Yes check.svg|15px|Yes]] Female legal |<!--Gender identity/expression--> |<!--Immigration equality for same-sex couples--> [[Image:X mark.svg|15px|No]]

would lead the software to report (as of the date of this comment) to a person navigating down the Same-sex adoption? column that Singapore had a 2 year sentence for males that was not enforced and that it was legal for females, where that actually applies to the Homosexual acts legal? column.

The only way to report this information accurately to screen reader software is to hold to a strict grid pattern and not join columns.

I am applying this correction to the Africa template for now, and waiting to see whether there are any objections before applying this correction to all tables.

Thisisnotatest (talk) 11:14, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

No objection, at all. Thanks for catching it. Scarykitty (talk) 21:32, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Usage of "gays" as a noun - pejorative

There's a pejorative implication when using "gays" as a noun, similar to using "blacks" as a noun. I don't think anyone appreciates being called a "gay." I believe it would be more appropriate to reword the "Allows gays to serve openly in military?" column using LGBT instead. For instance, "Allows LGBT people to serve openly in military?" 70.153.123.46 (talk) 17:15, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm neutral on replacing "gays" with something else, but "LGBT people" includes trans people too. I know some countries allow LGB people to serve openly, but I don't know their policies on trans people in the military. --Alynna (talk) 13:07, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Region of Iran

Shouldn't Iran be mentioned under the region "Middle East" rather than "South Asia?" #REDIRECT [[3]] Serialno9 (talk) 10:21, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Pederasty laws

It would be interesting if relevant material could be added about pederasty laws around the world, such as pederasty laws in the United States, pederasty laws in Canada, etc. There have been numerous scandals involving pederasty in recent years, such as the Roman Catholic sex abuse crisis. There appears to be an increasing amount of LGBT people who would like to change existing laws regarding pederasty, such as Michael Jackson, who was recently described as gay and not pedophile in the media. [4] ADM (talk) 05:05, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

There are no such thing as pederasty laws in the United States or Canada. Above a certain age, it's consensual sex between adults protected by the right to privacy, and below it, child sexual abuse. Legally and socially, the idea of pederasty is archaic, and belongs more in history articles than current legal status articles. Ssahsahnatye (talk) 06:28, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

This seems to be, yet another, provocative post by ADM to link pedophilia, LGBT people and Michael Jackson. Please ignore unless they present reliable sources to back up their POV. -- Banjeboi 01:40, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Brazil adoption

the citation shows some cases of judges that allows adoption to same-sex couples, I think that is a good jurisprudence for same-sex couples in Brazil, but I don't think that the oposite sex couples face that procedure. I mean the law doesn't allow same-sex adoption at all. In fact acording to Ilga, there is one place where it is posible adoption, in Sao Paulo (since 2005). Maybe the YES marked in Brazil, should be changed for a "no/yes" (only in Sao Paulo). http://new.ilga.org/ilga/en/countries/BRAZIL/Law —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.24.23.114 (talk) 05:53, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

The adoption in Brazil is ruled by the "Estatuto da Criança e do Adolescente". The law of adoption does not deny this right for same-sex couples: there are many procedures that are applied for all adoptions. The judges that allowed adoption to same-sex couples only has entered in the merit if a same-sex couple is as good as an opposite-sex couple for adoption since same-sex couples has no law conserning it. In addiction, the "Estatuto da Criança e do Adolescente" is a federal law and the jurisprudence is valid for Brazil at all to. Reference in portuguese: http://www.lfg.com.br/public_html/article.php?story=20081112120027857#15 --201.1.202.104 (talk) 23:58, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

There are other countries when adoption has happened in specific cases facing a judicial battle, such as France (in this Article France's adoption field is a NO), it doesn't mean it is legal, because it doesn't apply for all the same sex couples. I think the citation for the YES isn't appropriate, it should be a "YES" if it were referring to a Supreme Court decision or a congress law (such as Uruguay; there are also plenty of links when you can see that Uruguay became the first latinamerican country that legalize same-sex adoption). Even in the "LGBT Adoption" wikipedia's article you can see, that in Brazil it isn't legal. And in "LGBT rights in Brazil" in the summary, the adoption field is filled with "already happened". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.27.52.36 (talk) 01:17, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

some/all??

How is a nation represented as fighting against 'some' rather than 'all' anti-gay discrimination? This is not referenced nor made clear in the article; presumably it's not arbitrary. Ελληνικά όρος ή φράση (talk) 17:11, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Anti-discrimination laws vary significantly from country to country. In some countries, anti-gay discrimination is banned in all areas, including employment, the provision of goods and services, accommodations, health care, education, etc. In other countries, anti-discrimination laws are more narrow, covering only employment, or only education. This is reflected in the article through the word "all" (to refer to comprehensive laws) and "some" (to refer to less-comprehensive laws). Ronline ✉ 05:41, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Clutter and inconsistency

Hi. This article has become very messy recently, as more and more categories and captions have been added. The intent of this article is to present a summary or snapshot of LGBT rights worldwide, partly for the purpose of comparison. For this reason, any extra detail should be moved to the country-specific article (e.g. notes such as "proposed" or "only in registered partnerships" or "Civil Partnership Bill expected to be passed by end of 2009").

Some countries include a totally unnecessary amount of detail. For example, the table cell on whether homosexual acts are legal in San Marino states "Legal since 1864, recriminalised in 1974 and again legalised in 2001 + UN decl. sign." This mini-history of LGBT rights in San Marino is too much for a summary table. Instead, "since 2001" would suffice.

Furthermore, I think some of the categories should be eliminated. The "immigration equality for same-sex couples" category is particularly redunant, since there is already a category for "Recognition of same-sex unions". Most countries that recognise same-sex couples include immigration rights within the schemes they offer. Immigration rights are only one type of right offered by same-sex union schemes, alongside domestic health care benefits, taxation benefits, welfare payments, etc. I don't see why immigration equality should specifically be singled out. Ronline ✉ 05:54, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Your example of San Marino is perfect to show why we do include this detail. It's detailed but more accurate. This helps those who are looking for this information. And immigration for same-sex couples can be eliminated when all countries do so equally thus negating the needs to differentiate. Immigration rights is a huge and presently changing issue affecting all bi-national LGBT couples' status. If there is a better way to present this then what is it? I'm against eliminating it. -- Banjeboi 08:45, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

With regard to the San Marino example: if people are really interested in the legislative history of LGBT rights in San Marino, they can see LGBT rights in San Marino. The main purpose of this page is to simply give a global overview of LGBT rights. It is designed as tabular information, and the more information that is included, the more cluttered the page becomes and the harder it is to gain an "overall picture" of LGBT rights.

As to immigration rights - I understand that they are important, but I'm saying that immigration rights can largely be subsumed under the category of "recognition of same-sex couples". If we include a category for immigration rights, why should we also not include another category for joint taxation rights, or social security rights? Ronline ✉ 09:32, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Some clean-up certainly could help. I don't like the death skulls, for instance, and instead of listing the amounts of fines we could just state that there are fines. I'm also not seeing an explicit statement that readers should reference the main article on each country by clicking on the country name. That likely should head the tables section.

as for San Marino, perhaps "re-legalized in 2001" would appease both our concerns? For marriage equality maybe we could wait on a fix for that; one idea could be bundling with recognition of same-sex couples if they are indeed synergistic - I'm not sure they are. -- Banjeboi 09:54, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm in favour of removing the 'immigration equality' category as well for same the reasons. MaesterTonberry (talk) 16:14, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Okay as there's been no further objections, I'll remove the column. MaesterTonberry (talk) 09:53, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Brazil Military

There is no concordance between the information in this article and the main wikipedia article about sexual orientation and military. Reading the section of Wikipedia "sexual orientation and military service" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_orientation_and_military_service in english, and other languages such as Spanish (that article include a map showing that Brazil disallows gays in the Army). Actually I don't know the situation in that country, I don't know which one is the article that is wrong, but I think it should be concordance between that wikipedia with this one. So if someone speak Portuguese it will be great to read the citation in this article about Brazil allowing gays in the military. I speak Spanish (as some people know Spanish is quite similar to Portuguese) and what I understood, that citation is not saying that Brazil allows gays to serve openly in the army, I think that is an article of someone who thinks that it should be allowed (but still banned). SO revision is required for Portuguese speakers.

Spain Civil Unions

Where it says (12 of 14 communities legalised Civil unions), it should say 12 of 17. Updated --Rober2D2 (talk) 21:52, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Ironic

I'm Not Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, Or Anything Like That. I Am Just A 13 Year Old Straight Virgin Male, Putting His Foot Down! LGBT Rights are Ok With Me, But Why Is Everyone Being A B**** About It? Why Can't We Just Let The Gays, The Lesbians, The Bi-Sexuals, And Other Same-Sex Lovers Have Their Way? Hell, If I Was President, I Would Make A Law Stating That LGBT Rights Are Legal In The 48 Contiguious States As Well As In Alaska And Hawaii! I Wouldn't Give A S*** If God Kicked My A**! Hell, All The Ignorant Christ-Lusting S***bags Can Kiss My Straight A**! I have Had Enough Of The Unfairness In The World. I Want The Human Race To Be At Peace! That Is My Destiny, Even If I Am A D*** 13 Year Old!

The president doesn't make laws, congress does. Please limit posts to discussion about the articles. Also, you do not have to capitalize every word of a sentence. Czolgolz (talk) 17:43, 6 November 2009 (UTC)