"Nothing Is More Powerful Than an Idea Whose Time Has Come"
this post was submitted on 22 Jul 2024
337 points (97.2% liked)
Map Enthusiasts
3512 readers
310 users here now
For the map enthused!
Rules:
-
post relevant content: interesting, informative, and/or pretty maps
-
be nice
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Oh, another squirrel in the wild. Hi!
Oh I love squirrels! Hi!
Hello, friend! Have some 🥜 🌰
And now in german. Repeat after me: Eich-hörn-chen... Eichhörnchen
ike-hurn-shin
civil unions were sorta funny. it was like bsd. you can have the same thing but you can't call it marriage. after awhile it becomes obvious its just sorta a stupid waste of time and we will use the same word. Granted I was for it because I know there is a subset of my country that needs the name thing to make it more palatable till their children are grown and don't care.
It was straight-up bigotry, and I hate every minute I spent arguing that with douchebags on reddit. Mostly people too stupid to figure out "one man one woman" is discrimination on the basis of sex... or too stupid to realize their smug denial was utterly transparent.
If men can only do X and women can only do Y, you don't need a fucking diagram.
I’d like to see all laws referencing marriage deleted. Don’t let the government specify what it it’s at all. Get out of the church’s business. But also assign zero rights to it.
If people want to form a union for property ownership or raising children, don’t attach that to the religious concept at all. Just let them do it. This way religious people wouldn’t feel the need to weigh in on who is allowed.
And then we’re not discussing who the government is allowing to marry. Let each church decide which ones they’ll recognize.
Marriage was political before it was religious. Don't cede aspects of civil life to religious bigots.
Libertarian horseshit from people still confused about marriage versus matrimony.
You can hold whatever religious ceremony you want. You can bless the union of yourself and a horse. But marriage has always been a legal concept, and that union needs to be well-defined to be actionable.
Marriage does not have to be religious, and it's not exclusively religious in origin. Many millions of married yet irreligious people who had zero church involvement would take issue with that assertion.
I don't see the point in doing this even if it was. It's just semantics. We'd still need a legal shorthand for all the rights and responsibilities currently attached to marriage, as people would still want that. Then it's just marriage by another name.
Also, I'm not sure any of these countries "force" any church to recognize a marriage they don't agree with. That wouldn't change, since I'm sure different churches would still disagree on which marriages count.
The problem is that "keeping the government out of the church's business" is not the goal of the religious right when it comes to gay marriage. They want theocratic rule and the criminalization of what they see as sin. If both sides agreed on the principle of separation of church and state, most battles over LGBTQ rights would've been over long ago.
Separating the legal concept of unions between individuals and the religious institution of marriage would be almost as unpalatable to many evangelicals as fully legal gay marriage, because they'd rather outlaw homosexuality altogether.
I mean marriage is essentially a standard contract where the goverment allows any clergy to act as notaries for some reason. prenups are just modifications to the standard contract.
In some countries maybe, but in other countries you need a civil mariage first before you can do an optional church mariage ceremony.
For what it's worth, you can form a partnership with someone and not be married, there are a lot of ways to do it, including incorporating if you want to go that route or just performing a partnership agreement, which allows for things like shared ownership, there are a lot of other rights, but business are making it their goal to get those right for things like partnerships too.
The map is outdated.
Greece legalized gay marriage because the current conservative government(which opposed it in the past) decided that it was more useful to deny the "gay marriage" as a weapon for the opposition and made it legal.
Still, only half of their mp supported the bill and the bill passed because the opposition supported it.
The map is outdated.
as the title specifies, it compares years up to 2023. right now it's 2024, which means it's not 2023 anymore. this is how years work.
Yup, Same with Nepal legalizing gay marriage in April 2024.
Sometimes I hate how time is linear.
Love this!
What’s the deal with Asia
Opposition in North Africa, the Middle East and parts of South and South East Asia is at least partially explained by religious political ideology.
Russia, as the biggest area, and China might be fueled by opposition to their percieved cultural enemies.
I don't know why India and Japan haven't legalised marriage equality yet.
Non religious conservatism is a thing. Those countries also tend to be much worse on women's rights too.
India? the country with deeply rooted religious society that has little regard for women in general? that India would go for equality?
A 2023 Pew survey found 53% of Indians being for recognizing same sex marriage and 43% against (for comparison Switzerland in their 2021 referendum had 64% for and 36% against same sex marriage).
India relatively recently decriminalized gay sex and passed a law legally recognizing the gender trans people choose to identify as, and the national health insurance covers abortions and transitioning.
Its not as simple as your comment makes it out to be, equality in marriage might sometime be recognized.
eastern countries have varying levels of it. most are fine with couples, but they havent tied the relationship to the legal version of it.
Taiwan i think is the only region that outright performs it. Thailand is probably up next as they already have many rights in.(edit: they it it very recently) other countries like Cambodia, Japan and such have some rights to gay couples, but they arent entirely 1:1 to their hetero couples yet. The graph probably represents gay marriage being analogous to all rights offered to both types of couples in a binary fashion.
Wow BC and Ontario killing it, who would have thought
I know I’m so proud.
I was so sure this map was wrong showing nothing in the UK in the first map, but civil unions came in in 04 not 03.
Also its crazy how this is almost entirely limited to Europe and places with strong historical ties to Europe (with the notable exception of Taiwan)
Why? Who else would come before that? Europe & North America are the most progressive places on Earth for quite a while now.
Its not that its first that is surprising, its that with one exception its only them.
Again: Who else? The rest of the world is in varying degrees of "ass backwards", especially regarding social issues. Hell, a lot of them aren't even moving forward but backward.
I'd really expect southeast asia next considering historical support for third genders there
The thing is that Abrahamic religions were extremely ass backwards on this issue for the longest time. My expectation would be that countries with a majority of atheists or buddhists would never have been as ass backwards about gays in the first place.
IIRC China is supposedly atheist, and so was the Soviet Union, but things were not particularly rosy there either. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_history_in_the_Soviet_Union
Whether religion or not, it's often a case of despicable hardliners taking charge and making things worse for pretty much everyone but them.
It's a good overview. As a bonus I would love to see the number of people affected (in absolute numbers and share of global population) in each category for each point in time.
I think Thailand should also be blue
I thought they literally only just allowed same-sex marriage.
No heterosexual marriage allowed?
The last map is based on data from 2023, so some things have changed since then.
Saskatchewaannnn!