LGBTQ+ Rights Worldwide

OK, I clearly know nothing about Switzerland.

Erebor with sunshine and excellent cheese.

(Preface: These are all just my own observations, which are potentially flawed. If I'm mistaken, I'd be more than glad if you'd point it out.) Personally, I find Russia the most problematic. From what I've seen, LGBT rights around the world are either definitely getting better in more developed places, as expected in some places like the Netherlands and parts of Scandinavia, and unexpected such as in countries in South America, and the country of South Africa. In the majority of cases, if you don't have to worry realistically for the well-being of you or your loved ones for exercising controversial but traditionally seen by the West as basic rights, such as simply expressing an unpopular opinion in a firm, but polite way (without necessarily acting upon it), then things are getting better in the long term. They may be improving slowly, and they probably should be better, but thanks to faster connections. On the other side of the scale, you have countries that things don't seem to be noticeably getting better, but lgbt issues seem to be one of the many manifestations of a bigger problem at hand.

That's why I don't include India in my "problematic category" since the nation as a whole still hasn't adapted to other modern ideals such as the flexibility and relatively minor importance of gender ideals in determining who somebody "is" and family planning. The same goes for most of Africa and the most of Middle East. There's also a few other countries that don't seem to be going either way, such as Singapore, but they kind of fall into both categories at once. Russia seems to be the only country that defies this pattern.

To be fair, being ANY sort of minority isn't that fun in Russia, and there are other countries besides Russia where support for lgbt rights is slow or even going backwards, but they seem to be the only country that both seem to support the most basic western ideas of objectivity and CLASSICAL liberalism (not to be confused with the idea of modern liberalism in the United States today, which is founded upon the former and which I make no claim about whatsoever) which seems to reverse the trend towards equal treatment for people of all sexual orientations through generational shift. Half of me hopes that the new "propaganda" law will work against those afraid of the lgbt since removing any mentions of same-sex relations will also remove the stigma against same-sex relations, and the greater number of people coming out means more non-heterosexual people who discover something important or create something beautiful will demonstrate why such a ban is invalid. The other part of me, though, recognizes that the same country that only gives a charge of hooliganism to people who blind others in one eye just for "upsetting the religious beliefs" of said hooligan may not enforce this law in an impartial way, and the stigma will remain while more and more teens in Russia who may otherwise come out may learn to hate themselves and become homophobes, creating a very negative form of positive feedback.

The worst part is I can't really fight back. I'm not a Russian, so anything I say, no matter how impartial or logical, can (and is more likely to be) just acting as a spin doctor who uses propaganda, and any money I could donate just seems like an attempt to influence Russian politics with "outside" funds, i.e. more propaganda. (I mean, the few allegedly Russian people I've interacted with online could be poor representatives of their peers, but I doubt it.) Hopefully, this is just is a case of not being able to see the forest for the trees; I may not have ever believed there would be a non-Caucasian president back when slavery was around.

Anyway, sorry about the long post. LGBT issues are the one thing I feel like I know something about, so I tend to ramble. If anyone has any corrections, questions, or responses, I'd love to hear. I'd really love to hear about the stories of hope of lgbt-rights that aren't reported in the news.

edited 19th May '14 8:07:02 AM by Echoloco

I don't think "removing any mentions of same-sex relations" will be a consequence of this law. Churches and other media will keep hammering the point that they're awful.

'Silly' is not the word I would use to describe Northern Ireland.

Monty Python quote, in case I'm being stupid and you got it

Ha

edited 20th May '14 4:25:57 PM by joeyjojo

South Africa has lifted a blanket ban on gay men donating blood, in favour of new regulations which do not discriminate based on sexual orientation.

With the amount of HIV (and other STDs) knocking about the population at large, regardless of orientation... Yeah: about time to face facts. No. Sodding. Point. -_-

So: thank goodness it's now official.

edited 29th May '14 4:38:51 AM by Euodiachloris

South Africa let's gay men donate, but America doesn't.

Wow...

Wait, we still have that law about openly gay men being unable to donate blood?

Is that a law, or just a medical guideline which is basically a law (in that no blood banks will accept it?)

Definitely one of those weird things, since we're decades away from the 80s when this scare was at its height.

I know Australian Red Cross Blood Bank won't accept it, but I don't think its actually a law, just an internal policy here.

I don't know if it is a law or not but The Red Cross won't take homosexual blood unless you're a virgin. Every hospital I have been affiliated with in three different states wouldn't either.

Honestly, if it is a law or not doesn't matter if it is just as restrictive.

Male homosexuals or homosexuals of both genders? Because as a regular blood donor in Australia I can report that here it is directed at male homosexuals (or male bisexuals who act on their attraction to men) specifically with no reference to female homosexuals.

The exact wording used is "male to male sex" which is pretty unambiguous.

I remember a question on the form about male-on-male sex from the time I was donating regularly (a few years ago). I'm not sure it was an automatic disqualification (I have no way to know, since my answer was always negative), since you gave the form to a doctor and talked about your answers, but it was certainly considered a risk factor (and probably still is). There were also questions about changing partners, surgery, stays in certain countries...

It is a tiny country, but I believe that it is relevant to the subject. Every little advance is something, I say.

The Republic of Costa Rica has made some progress regarding LGBT rights. It has formalized legal LGBT unions to allow coverage for their partners in the Social Healthcare system.

Basically, Costa Rica has had, for a long time, a Social, Public, Universal healthcare. To be subscribed to it, someone with a job (no matter how small or big) that is your spouse, child, close family, or parent, can subscribe you to the healthcare system.

Previously, gay couples were not recognized, and as such for them to be able to be recognized in the system, they would have BOTH have to be working. The administrative branch of the healthcare system in the government passed a law that allows same-sex couples to be recognized by the system, so same-sex couples can make their significant other be covered by the healthcare system.

Links in Spanish (though I am sure some googling might turn results in English)

Here Here And Here

This also allows other changes in the healthcare system...as in, previously, the same-sex spouse had absolutely no say in the treatments of the other (if he or she was incapable of doing them), or visit them in prison, or even visit them in the hospital if the partners family decided they did not like the other...

Same-sex marriages are not recognized legally. Some sort of "Unions" are, however, recognized (sort of), but they are NOT legally marriages. Of course some controversy arose from more conservative areas, but in large, the decision has been approved by the general populace.

LGTB in latin america would need its own thread

RSS reconsiders its stand on Section 377.

It's not much, but it is something. Thought someone would've put it up here.

Good news. Hopefully those in power will listen.

They are in power - you can't be more 'in power' within a system like ours. The BJP - alone - won enough seats to form the government, and it is pretty much the political wing of the RSS.

Personally, I think Narendra Modi is a reasonable man - when the RSS says that gay rights are negotiable, the Zeitgeist is undeniable, and he'll understand that.

I hope.

edited 2nd Jun '14 2:38:47 PM by arcanephoenix

Of course they are. How silly of me.

We can but hope. I suppose legalizing homosexuality might be the kind of conciliatory move Modi might make if he wanted to reassure those on the opposite side of the political spectrum, though, of course, he holds all the cards, so he might not feel a need.

Maybe. But not all of Modi's supporters are your hardcore Hindutva brigade, who worship godmen. Many of them do support LGBT rights; some even believe that our culture has supported LGBT rights all along and its the evil English that made us such intolerant prudes.

Honestly, a major factor going for LGBT rights here is the simple fact that the majority religion does not condemn it - nothing in Hinduism states that gay people are sinners or evil or whatever. It's purely 'eww' factor.

edited 2nd Jun '14 3:03:39 PM by arcanephoenix

I realize that; my point is that supporting LGBT rights is just the kind of thing he could do to demonstrate that to both India and the world. The coverage of Modi here in Blighty, for instance, has been almost relentlessly negative - Priyamvada Gopal in the Guardian argued Britain should cut ties with Modi ^note Not sure how we're supposed to do that - not speak to India until he's gone? while Mehdi Hasan in the New Statesman called him "India's Milosevic". Even more reasoned commentators, like William Dalrymple and The Economist have painted a picture of a dangerous sectarian leopard who might not change his spots once in power. Taking action in favor of LGBT rights would be a good way both to appeal to his more moderate support - who, as you say, he needs - and to reassure world public opinion, especially in the West, that he's not the chauvinistic butcher his critics are painting him as.

That's probably got a grain of truth to it.

Also, "British", not "English". The English are useless milksops who wouldn't have been conquering any Empires if we Scots, Welsh, and Irish hadn't done it for them.

edited 2nd Jun '14 3:18:31 PM by Achaemenid

http://www.towleroad.com/2014/05/south-africa-swears-in-first-openly-gay-black-member-of-parliament.html