![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Over half of the references are to commondreams.org. Is that supposed to be a Wikipedia-worthy source of information? And there's not one reference to any studies about homosexuality in Iran, if any such studies exist. If such studies don't exist why bother putting up this article? Because everything that has a US article should also have a parallel for every country? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.133.201.109 ( talk) 16:48, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
See my change here. All are cited to a Guardian article. [1]-- Marksspite133 02:08, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
...because it impossible for a homosexual to exist in any form within the geopolitical boundaries of Iran. Of course I cite none other than the most authoritative person on matters pertaining to Iran. < http://www.towleroad.com/2007/09/ahmadinejad-in-.html> 76.104.224.97 05:57, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
This article should be moved to Gay and lesbian rights in Iran or Gay, lesbian, and bisexual rights in Iran for inclusiveness. Thoughts? SouthernComfort 11:46, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
BTW, why do you want the inclusion of this sentence: "No civil rights legislation exists in Iran to prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation." It's absurd because civil rights legislation isn't possible under the current system in the first place. The sentence makes it appear that such legislation may very well be possible. It's not, since Islamic law, as established by the system (through the Judiciary), does not accept or acknowledge the existence of individuals who are homosexual. It's misleading. SouthernComfort 12:34, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
Article moved as per discussion. SouthernComfort 06:10, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
There are a few calims in the article about "praising homosexuality" in persian literature. These claims are baseless and a result of misunderstanding. A big part of Persian literature is sufi literature in which sufi poets talk about a love relationship between a man (e.g. poet himself) and a "beloved God" (that is usually portrayed as a human). It is also a tradition that any sufi has a teacher and a spiritual guide. Sufi usually praise that man in their potery, considering themselves as his slave or in his love. They also do not distinguish between a man who reaches the highest level as their teachers and the beloved God. These have absolutely nothing to do with sexual orientation. When these poems are translated to English, a western reader will interpret the distorted translations in western cultural context. This will lead to this misunderstanding. Please notice that this is a very well known style in persian poetry. We need academic sources for any calims. We can not use a personal opinion of a western journalist or blogger who has just started to learn persian language or can not even read in Persian as a source. Only opinions of literary figures who master Persian language worth looking at. -- Mitso Bel13:00, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
I have a copy of this book. If the author of the sentence in the article about Qabusnama provides us with a reference page or something, I can look into it.-- Zereshk 02:59, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
I've merged the article Homosexuality in Iran into here. It had very little information and anything there was already here. Feel free to revert if you think that the other article has a future. Also if anyone has anything to add to Age of consent in Asia#Iran that you can verify feel free. -- Monotonehell 15:47, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
As a person of the Islamic faith and a transsexual I feel compelled to comment. While I recognize that the rights of the GLB in Iran are non existant and this is a bad situation for them. I cannot help but read statements on "heteronormativity" in articles like this and feel slighted. It is as if some authors feel that no one who is transsexual is being honest. The attitude of the whole article seems bent on "Sure Iran is relatively open to transsexuality but that's only as a way to "cure" gay people." The whole transsexuality as a cure for homosexuality argeument went out with disco. So without objections registered I propose the following alteration...
I took the liberty of rewritting the first paragraph. I agree with the user below that the tone is unacceptable. jaaronw 06:46, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Wow When I read this sentences "Since the revolution of 1979, LGBT rights in Iran are non-existent due to fact that it is a fundamentalist Islamic Republic that sees heterosexuality expressed within a traditional marriage as the only permitted sexual orientation," I could tell that this article was going to be poorly written. This is problematic for at least one of two reasons: either the author(s) is saying that there are no special rights for LGBTQIetc. people, which is basically contradicted at the end of the paragraph, or he is saying that there are no human rights at all, which is a bit bombastic, as the human rights situation in Iran isn't that dire (it's not North Korea, or the Holocaust.) I suppose there is another option, which is that the author is claiming that LGBTQIetc. people are fundamentally sub-human and have no intrinsic rights; I'm assuming that's not the case. This article seriously needs to be reviewed and de-politicized, if for no other reason than intelligibility. - Justin (koavf)· T· C· M 04:00, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Hi, can someone please explain to me what the problem is? Khoi khoi 03:37, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Yeah what kind of nonsense is this person talking about? I was passing by and saw him/her removing information like it's profanity! --Jay
Maybe we should ask wider community for their input? I guess gay rights are of interest to many editors. Alex Bakharev 00:40, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Any reason why this article should not be plcaed in the category Iranian law? Wuzzy 23:02, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
the first sentence implies that the iranian people have denied having any gay people in iran. THIS IS NOT TRUE!! the source for the statement is the speech of ahmadinejad, in which he said in farsi:
"ma dar iran hamjensbaz mesle shomaha nadarim"
(here is the youtube video)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4_3RUwAJ_MI
THIS DOES NOT MEAN "we do not have homosexuals in iran", it means "we do not have homosexuals *in the same way* as you do", what he said has been badly mistranslated, what the proper meaning was is that in iran, homosexuals are not as open as they are here, they are more underground-ish. what he said was mistranslated, if you can speak farsi, you would know what he meant. that sentence should be taken out POST HASTE. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.63.227.155 ( talk) 18:03, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
im removing that section because it is untrue, as these news stories point out:
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3458605,00.html http://www.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUSBLA05294620071010 http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/10/11/no-gays-in-iran-an-aide-says-make-that-not-many/
in the articles, it is clearly explained that what ahmadinejad meant was not 'there are no gays in iran" but rather "compared to American society, we don't have many homosexuals". Siavash1989 ( talk) 21:28, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
wait, this is your position "We have multiple sources all saying he said it, and no reliable sources which say he was misquoted" :
Reuters = unreliable news agency
New York times = unreliable news agency
are you being serious? this is bias in its truest form. you have an agenda: to make people feel worse for gays in Iran, instead of actually informing people. regardless here is the proof, it is broken up into different sections because it is actually more than one proof:
(PART A)
what *you* have is a bunch of people who don't speak Farsi, who hate the man, who want to dehumanize and humiliate him saying that he said there were no gays in Iran, but what *I* have is the MEDIA ADVISER saying he was misquoted and thats not what he meant, now keep in mind this man speaks fluent Farsi, heard what the president said and actually cleared things up because he heard what sort of rubbish CNN was saying about it.
(END OF PART A) (PART B)
if the media adviser said the president meant "there were not that many gays in Iran" as opposed to "no gays in Iran", then that means the official position isn't what you say it was, now is it? if the adviser says something, the president has to approve it, which means that the president agrees that he was misquoted, which means his policy is that "there are not that many gays in Iran" as opposed to "there are no gays in Iran". either way you look at it, the official position is *not* "there are no gays in Iran".
(END OF PART B) (PART C, now this one is a tad longer)
you want an article which shows it was an actual mistranslation? YOUR articles prove it was because, and stay with me here, I'm doing a little thing called logical reasoning, it might be a tad complicated, but I'm sure you can get it if you try hard enough:
1. Ahmadinejad said something in Farsi, which was translated by a woman who was in a hurry to catch up to him as he spoke (because she was a translator)
2. this is what she said as the translation (and pay attention because this is where it gets messy): "we do not have gays, like in your country". good? ok, we can move on:
3. darn, i was wrong, this one is more messy, now look closely at the following sentence that billy said to jimmy: "my parents (my country) don't have boats (gays), like your parents"
now look at the two possible endings for it:
"my parents (our country) don't have boats (gays), like your parents (your country), because we're poor and don't have any (ie. we don't have ANY gays)"
OR
"my parents (our country) don't have boats (gays), like your parents (your parents), because ours are purple and yours are white (they exist in a different way than your country)"
3.5 Ok, did you understand what the point of those two sentences was? if not, I'll tell you, the word "like" can have different meanings, usually people get the right meaning when they are speaking, but sometimes they don't, depending on the circumstances. anyway, on with the logical reasoning.
4. in order to deny the complete and utter non-existance of something, the word "ANY" is usually applied, like so:
"my parents (my country) don't have any boats (gays), like your parents"
this sentence doesn't need a second part, because we have already concluded that what billy said to jimmy was that his parents didn't have any boats at all, unlike jimmy's parents, who had several.
if he meant there were no gays in Iran at all, what he would have said would have been " we don't have any gays, like in your country". anyone who can speak, would add the word 'ANY' to a sentence like that to make sure the correct meaning is harvested (because, remember the word "like"? its tricky to use it). now, to any sane person with a decent mastery of linguistics, if the following sentence
"in Iran, we do not have any gays, like in your country"
is not missing the word "any", then it would be SAFE to assume that the sentence was denying the existance of gays in iran. now, lets look at this again, using everything we just learned:
1. Ahmadinejad was quoted to have said:
"in Iran, we do not have gays, like in your country"
2. the media said that what Ahmadinejad said was:
"there are no gays in Iran"
3. we just concluded that in order for him to, without any doubt, have ruled the existance of gays in Iran, he should/must/would have used the word 'any', somewhere in that sentence.
4. thus, by using our heads, we can easily conclude that there is at least a slight possibility that what he meant is not what the media said he meant.
5. now lets explore the possibility a little more: the word "any" is 3 letters, and easy for a translator to say, and seeing as how it is a very critical word to the overall meaning of the sentence, it is unlikely that it would have been left out if the president had actually said it.
ALSO, since i speak Farsi, and so do many other people you could ask, the president never uses the Farsi equivalent of the word "any" in his sentence, and seeing as how in any language, such a word would be critical to the meaning of the sentence, it is very unlikely that he left it out when he was speaking, which means the possibility that the media mistranslated/misquoted him is now pretty reasonably high.
6. finally, we have the MEDIA ADVISER coming and saying that he was indeed mistranslated/misquoted. suddenly, if we use simple logic, the possibility that Ahmadinejad actually did deny the existance of gays in Iran is shrunk to something near 0, or a very low number.
7. now, as reasonable people, if there are 2 possible solutions to a problem (such as getting the sides of a square with an area of 9 cm2), and one is much more likely to be correct (sides are 3 cm each) than the other (sides are -3, and since -3*-3 = 9, it could be true), we don't use the one with the lower correctness possibility, we choose the one with the greater possibility of being correct (sides are 3 cm each). see what im saying here?
(END OF PART C)
therefor, we should not conclude that the official position of the government is that there are no gays in iran, because of the preceding reasons.
i know you are going to skim over what i just wrote (because there is a high possibility that your denial defense mechanism is going to kick in and try to prevent you from reading what could prove you wrong), and go back to your mission of misinforming people, regardless, here are some more articles which support my position:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-naiman/iran-ahmedinijad-never-s_b_68225.html
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,301043,00.html
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article18471.htm
have a good day. Siavash1989 ( talk) 23:07, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
wait, i was trying to use farsi? i wasn't aware i was! thanks for pointing that out. but, wait a minute, i just read what i wrote over, and only a small, small section of it says anything about my speaking farsi, in fact, its not even one of my main points, its a small section of a main point. but wait, there's more! my longest arguement, the one i thought you would not read, or if you did you would not read carefully enough to understand, actually isn't about farsi at all! it was about the translation, i analyzed it for you and pointed out the fact that in order for ahmadinejad to have denied the existance of all gays in iran, he should/would/must have used the word "any". please read it again, there is no original research, its called logic, logic is an acceptable source, in fact, i think all of mathematics comes from logic!
second: you don't want to use informationclearinghouse? thats fine, mind you, the webpage is actually built by an american citizen (whaaaa. oh.) at the very least, ill make my first argument again, maybe this time you will read it:
1. you say the supposed policy of the iranian government towards gays is that they do not exist.
2. you think that the policy is so because you think the iranian president said it (thats fine, for the sake of argument, lets just say that is what he said (even though its not).
3. a few weeks later, the media adviser, a man who is picked by the president to clarify what the president has said, says that what the president meant to say is that there were not that many gays in iran.
4. since the media adviser is in fact, an official, approved by the president, and is supposed to carry out the president's wishes regarding what is to be said, and since what the president says is state policy (according to what you think), and what the media adviser says has to be approved by the president, THEN, doesn't that mean that the state policy is "there are not that many gays in iran"?
i know that you understand what i just said, i know you understand my point, and agree that it is quite valid, so therefor, we have 2 options:
1. we can argue more until i convince you (which might take some time, seeing as how you don't seem to want to budge on this)
2. we can just change the sentence to:
"...in part due to institutionalized assertions that no branch of the community exists in Iran, though this is disputed", and put a dispute tag on this article.
OR
"...in part due to institutionalized assertions that no branch of the community exists in Iran, though this may be a misquote"
which do you want to do?
PS. the issue here is not that ahmadinejad said something about gays, we know he did, the issue here is that he was misquoted, i really don't see why you can't seem to accept this, the media adviser said he was misquoted, which is a pretty powerful piece of evidence, i think. its like this:
bush saying "i dislike black people who kill other people, as well as whites who kill other whites, and hispanics who kill other hispanics, and any other person who kills other people", and the german newspapers printing this as "BUSH: I DISLIKE BLACK, WHITE AND SPANISH PEOPLE", because the newspaper didn't speak perfect english. then, dick cheney comes along and says "the president doesn't hate black people, he hates it when people kill themselves".
if that had happened, and cheney came and said bush was misquoted, the germans would no longer think bush hates black people, because the issue had been clarified. i dont see why this works for you, but not for iranians. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.63.227.155 ( talk) 23:47, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
yes, that seems fair enough. Siavash1989 ( talk) 23:31, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
The article makes the claim (with a dead ref I removed [2]) that the law makes no distinction between consensual and non-consensual homosexual conduct. However this is not supported by the fact that various cases have been brought up in Iran where people were charged with & executed for (homosexual) rape as highlighted by HRW et al. My guess here is that the law criminalises homosexual conduct (liwat?), with the death penalty as an option, but also criminalises rape, homosexual or not, and people will usually be charged with rape (perhaps in addition to homosexual conduct) if the sex is alleged to have been non-consensual and will often receive a harsher penalty for it. If any refs could be found to help clarify this it would be much appreciated Nil Einne ( talk) 22:35, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
I'd change "civilian law" to "criminal law" as the crime of sodomy both applies to the military and civilians. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.78.200.239 ( talk) 11:26, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
"Sa'di's own attitude toward homosexuals was more negative than positive. In the Gulistan he stated, "If a Tatar slays that
hermaphrodite / The Tatar must not be slain in return." This statement seems to be not very reasonable. On the one hand, I don't know much
on the subject, on the other hand, if one speaks on "hermaphrodites", does it mean he speaks on gays? Is this the case?
Cause there are masculine gays that don't like feminine gays·, and hating them, they don't hate homosexuality or themselves. I'd like that
passage to be more specified, please. Այնշախոր ( talk) 22:54, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
"Human rights activists and opponents of the Iranian regime claim between 4,000 and 6,000 gay men and lesbians have been executed in Iran for crimes related to their sexual preference since 1979" [3] David ( talk) 00:58, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
Moving this text from the Post Islamic Republic subsection. It also seems out of place.
‘That seens plausible, considering the awkward use of words of the translation, and the fact Persian-speakers understood what the president said differently than what Americans did.’
ArdClose ( talk) 05:34, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
It is unclear which parts of the section on Gender Identity apply to both FTM and MTF trans people and which apply only to MTFs. Some sentences assume only men and MTF transsexuals, e.g.: "Some gay and bisexual individuals in Iran are pressured to undergo sex change operation and live as women" I think it would be helpful to clarify cases that only apply to MtF people / gay men and otherwise choose a more inclusive wording. 79.223.147.114 ( talk) 02:52, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 8 external links on
LGBT rights in Iran. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 02:48, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 18 external links on
LGBT rights in Iran. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 05:48, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 3 external links on
LGBT rights in Iran. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 04:07, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on LGBT rights in Iran. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 23:05, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
I've removed nearly all of the content of the Adultery section, including the heading and multiple sources, and am pasting it below for review. If I have misunderstood and this content is somehow relevant to the topic of the article, then of course it should be restored. Rivertorch FIRE WATER 09:18, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
removed content |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
AdulteryAdultery (zina-e-mohsen) is punishable by 100 lashes for unmarried people and by death on the fourth offense. It is punishable by death by stoning (under moratorium since 2002, officially replaced in 2012 by an unspecified punishment) for married people and in all cases of incest. If an unmarried non-Muslim male has sexual relations with a Muslim female, the non-Muslim male will be put to death. Four witnesses (rather than two witnesses) are required to prove adultery, the person must confess four times, or they must be convicted by judge's knowledge (through definite circumstantial evidence). If the person confesses twice and is "repentant" or the victim's family forgives the adulterer, the judge can give a tazir sentence of 99 lashes instead, or imprisonment. Convictions and executions for this crime are extremely rare, usually only carried out in the case of death and rare even then. In April 1992, Dr. Ali Mozafarian, a Sunni Muslim leader in the Fars province (Southern Iran), was executed in Shiraz after being convicted on charges of espionage, adultery, and sodomy. His videotaped confession was broadcast on television in Shiraz and in the streets of Kazerun and Lar. On November 12, 1995, by the verdict of the eighth judicial branch of Hamadan and the confirmation of the Supreme Court of Iran, Mehdi Barazandeh, otherwise known as Safa Ali Shah Hamadani, was condemned to death. The judicial authorities announced that Barazandeh's crimes were repeated acts of adultery and "the obscene act of sodomy." The court's decree was carried out by stoning Barazandeh.(Islamic Republic Newspaper – November 14, 1995 + reported in Homan's magazine June 10, 1996). Between 1979 and 2002, 40–76 adultery/incest executions (by stoning) were recorded for both men and women. [1] After 2002, allegedly eight men were stoned to death [2] and one woman hanged. [3] Even if the actual numbers are higher, the punishment is nonetheless very rare especially in proportion to confirmed cases of adultery. The punishment is given mostly in aggravated circumstances when the four witnesses or a confession is available and the spouse died. Most adulterers go unpunished, or receive a lighter sentence. Divorce is usually the most common method in dealing with adultery.References
|
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on LGBT rights in Iran. 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.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 18:07, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
I think its important to note that the Worker Communist Party of Iran (who we mention alongside other bourgeois parties like the CIA's Green Party of Iran as "pro-LGBT"), are left communists and have condemned Marxism-Leninism in both the Soviet Union and China. As it stands now, because of the vague nature of the party name, it looks like real communists (Marxist-Leninists) are somehow working to subvert Iran, when Marxist-Leninism in fact advocates similar views to the present government of Iran on such social issues, for different reasons. Claíomh Solais ( talk) 22:12, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on LGBT rights in Iran. 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.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 12:28, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
Rupert loup, regarding this, the section needs a good summary of what is stated in the LGBT history in Iran article. Right now, that section is wholly inadequate. Seeing this recent you edit you made to the Capital punishment article, I see that you are already aware of WP:Summary style, although that section needs a good summary too.
And just as I was about to post this, I see that United Union restored some of the content to the LGBT history in Iran section. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 14:01, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
No civil rights legislation exists in Iran to prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation. Depictions of homosexuality are prohibited in society or in the press, unless it is negative. No organization or political party is permitted to exist that endorses LGB human rights.
The concept of sexual orientation is not recognized in Iran, nor does the Judiciary acknowledge the existence of LGB people and instead believes that all people are normally heterosexual and thus homosexuality is a a violation of the supreme will of God.
As a result no laws exist that protect LGB Iranian from discrimination, harassment or bias-motivated violence, and as a theocratic political system no such laws are permitted to exist. Most Iranian LGBT people remain in the closet about their sexual orientation for fear of being the victim of discrimination, hate crimes, government sanctions, corporal punishments and/or capital punishment.
The only legal recognition for couples is a legal marriage between one male and one female, both Muslim. The Islamic based legal system prohibits opposite sex couples from associating in public, and dating is taboo. Male homosexual couples might be able to pretend that they are just platonic friends, but any type of sexual activity outside of a legal marriage is illegal.
Censorship of the literature and of history has been documented, under the rule of both the Pahlavi dynasty monarchy and the Islamic Republic in Iran. In 2002, a book entitled Witness Play by Cyrus Shamisa was banned from shelves (despite being initially approved) because it said that certain notable Persian writers were homosexuals or bisexuals www.iranmania.com/News/ArticleView/?ArchiveNews=Yes&NewsCode=12103&NewsKind=CurrentAffairs .
___________
All I would do is remove the T from this section of the article and it expresses the situation accurately. The fact is primary T and I people have the right to choose for themselves what gender to live as. Then they are recognized as that gender. (I do not use my registered name on this issue as I enjoy privacy on this matter.) 66.92.130.180 04:37, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
The Iranian Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgender Organization (HOMAN) organized a conference on homosexuality in Iran in 2003 and operates a homepage on LGBT issues in the region [4].
Article doesn't give any source for its provisions of the Islamic Penal Code, and the article numbers (and also contents) don't agree with the translation provided by the UN High Commission for Refugees. 119.18.2.248 ( talk) 01:26, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
Source 40 contains no mention whatsoever of the derogatory term "evakhahar" as is claimed.
213.124.185.66 ( talk) 20:09, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
Why is this article festooned with mentions of the penalties for rape? That's not specifically relevant. DoctorCaligari ( talk) 06:12, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
I really think a section with this content should be included Geopony ( talk) 12:16, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Over half of the references are to commondreams.org. Is that supposed to be a Wikipedia-worthy source of information? And there's not one reference to any studies about homosexuality in Iran, if any such studies exist. If such studies don't exist why bother putting up this article? Because everything that has a US article should also have a parallel for every country? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.133.201.109 ( talk) 16:48, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
See my change here. All are cited to a Guardian article. [1]-- Marksspite133 02:08, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
...because it impossible for a homosexual to exist in any form within the geopolitical boundaries of Iran. Of course I cite none other than the most authoritative person on matters pertaining to Iran. < http://www.towleroad.com/2007/09/ahmadinejad-in-.html> 76.104.224.97 05:57, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
This article should be moved to Gay and lesbian rights in Iran or Gay, lesbian, and bisexual rights in Iran for inclusiveness. Thoughts? SouthernComfort 11:46, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
BTW, why do you want the inclusion of this sentence: "No civil rights legislation exists in Iran to prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation." It's absurd because civil rights legislation isn't possible under the current system in the first place. The sentence makes it appear that such legislation may very well be possible. It's not, since Islamic law, as established by the system (through the Judiciary), does not accept or acknowledge the existence of individuals who are homosexual. It's misleading. SouthernComfort 12:34, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
Article moved as per discussion. SouthernComfort 06:10, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
There are a few calims in the article about "praising homosexuality" in persian literature. These claims are baseless and a result of misunderstanding. A big part of Persian literature is sufi literature in which sufi poets talk about a love relationship between a man (e.g. poet himself) and a "beloved God" (that is usually portrayed as a human). It is also a tradition that any sufi has a teacher and a spiritual guide. Sufi usually praise that man in their potery, considering themselves as his slave or in his love. They also do not distinguish between a man who reaches the highest level as their teachers and the beloved God. These have absolutely nothing to do with sexual orientation. When these poems are translated to English, a western reader will interpret the distorted translations in western cultural context. This will lead to this misunderstanding. Please notice that this is a very well known style in persian poetry. We need academic sources for any calims. We can not use a personal opinion of a western journalist or blogger who has just started to learn persian language or can not even read in Persian as a source. Only opinions of literary figures who master Persian language worth looking at. -- Mitso Bel13:00, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
I have a copy of this book. If the author of the sentence in the article about Qabusnama provides us with a reference page or something, I can look into it.-- Zereshk 02:59, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
I've merged the article Homosexuality in Iran into here. It had very little information and anything there was already here. Feel free to revert if you think that the other article has a future. Also if anyone has anything to add to Age of consent in Asia#Iran that you can verify feel free. -- Monotonehell 15:47, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
As a person of the Islamic faith and a transsexual I feel compelled to comment. While I recognize that the rights of the GLB in Iran are non existant and this is a bad situation for them. I cannot help but read statements on "heteronormativity" in articles like this and feel slighted. It is as if some authors feel that no one who is transsexual is being honest. The attitude of the whole article seems bent on "Sure Iran is relatively open to transsexuality but that's only as a way to "cure" gay people." The whole transsexuality as a cure for homosexuality argeument went out with disco. So without objections registered I propose the following alteration...
I took the liberty of rewritting the first paragraph. I agree with the user below that the tone is unacceptable. jaaronw 06:46, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Wow When I read this sentences "Since the revolution of 1979, LGBT rights in Iran are non-existent due to fact that it is a fundamentalist Islamic Republic that sees heterosexuality expressed within a traditional marriage as the only permitted sexual orientation," I could tell that this article was going to be poorly written. This is problematic for at least one of two reasons: either the author(s) is saying that there are no special rights for LGBTQIetc. people, which is basically contradicted at the end of the paragraph, or he is saying that there are no human rights at all, which is a bit bombastic, as the human rights situation in Iran isn't that dire (it's not North Korea, or the Holocaust.) I suppose there is another option, which is that the author is claiming that LGBTQIetc. people are fundamentally sub-human and have no intrinsic rights; I'm assuming that's not the case. This article seriously needs to be reviewed and de-politicized, if for no other reason than intelligibility. - Justin (koavf)· T· C· M 04:00, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Hi, can someone please explain to me what the problem is? Khoi khoi 03:37, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Yeah what kind of nonsense is this person talking about? I was passing by and saw him/her removing information like it's profanity! --Jay
Maybe we should ask wider community for their input? I guess gay rights are of interest to many editors. Alex Bakharev 00:40, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Any reason why this article should not be plcaed in the category Iranian law? Wuzzy 23:02, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
the first sentence implies that the iranian people have denied having any gay people in iran. THIS IS NOT TRUE!! the source for the statement is the speech of ahmadinejad, in which he said in farsi:
"ma dar iran hamjensbaz mesle shomaha nadarim"
(here is the youtube video)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4_3RUwAJ_MI
THIS DOES NOT MEAN "we do not have homosexuals in iran", it means "we do not have homosexuals *in the same way* as you do", what he said has been badly mistranslated, what the proper meaning was is that in iran, homosexuals are not as open as they are here, they are more underground-ish. what he said was mistranslated, if you can speak farsi, you would know what he meant. that sentence should be taken out POST HASTE. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.63.227.155 ( talk) 18:03, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
im removing that section because it is untrue, as these news stories point out:
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3458605,00.html http://www.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUSBLA05294620071010 http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/10/11/no-gays-in-iran-an-aide-says-make-that-not-many/
in the articles, it is clearly explained that what ahmadinejad meant was not 'there are no gays in iran" but rather "compared to American society, we don't have many homosexuals". Siavash1989 ( talk) 21:28, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
wait, this is your position "We have multiple sources all saying he said it, and no reliable sources which say he was misquoted" :
Reuters = unreliable news agency
New York times = unreliable news agency
are you being serious? this is bias in its truest form. you have an agenda: to make people feel worse for gays in Iran, instead of actually informing people. regardless here is the proof, it is broken up into different sections because it is actually more than one proof:
(PART A)
what *you* have is a bunch of people who don't speak Farsi, who hate the man, who want to dehumanize and humiliate him saying that he said there were no gays in Iran, but what *I* have is the MEDIA ADVISER saying he was misquoted and thats not what he meant, now keep in mind this man speaks fluent Farsi, heard what the president said and actually cleared things up because he heard what sort of rubbish CNN was saying about it.
(END OF PART A) (PART B)
if the media adviser said the president meant "there were not that many gays in Iran" as opposed to "no gays in Iran", then that means the official position isn't what you say it was, now is it? if the adviser says something, the president has to approve it, which means that the president agrees that he was misquoted, which means his policy is that "there are not that many gays in Iran" as opposed to "there are no gays in Iran". either way you look at it, the official position is *not* "there are no gays in Iran".
(END OF PART B) (PART C, now this one is a tad longer)
you want an article which shows it was an actual mistranslation? YOUR articles prove it was because, and stay with me here, I'm doing a little thing called logical reasoning, it might be a tad complicated, but I'm sure you can get it if you try hard enough:
1. Ahmadinejad said something in Farsi, which was translated by a woman who was in a hurry to catch up to him as he spoke (because she was a translator)
2. this is what she said as the translation (and pay attention because this is where it gets messy): "we do not have gays, like in your country". good? ok, we can move on:
3. darn, i was wrong, this one is more messy, now look closely at the following sentence that billy said to jimmy: "my parents (my country) don't have boats (gays), like your parents"
now look at the two possible endings for it:
"my parents (our country) don't have boats (gays), like your parents (your country), because we're poor and don't have any (ie. we don't have ANY gays)"
OR
"my parents (our country) don't have boats (gays), like your parents (your parents), because ours are purple and yours are white (they exist in a different way than your country)"
3.5 Ok, did you understand what the point of those two sentences was? if not, I'll tell you, the word "like" can have different meanings, usually people get the right meaning when they are speaking, but sometimes they don't, depending on the circumstances. anyway, on with the logical reasoning.
4. in order to deny the complete and utter non-existance of something, the word "ANY" is usually applied, like so:
"my parents (my country) don't have any boats (gays), like your parents"
this sentence doesn't need a second part, because we have already concluded that what billy said to jimmy was that his parents didn't have any boats at all, unlike jimmy's parents, who had several.
if he meant there were no gays in Iran at all, what he would have said would have been " we don't have any gays, like in your country". anyone who can speak, would add the word 'ANY' to a sentence like that to make sure the correct meaning is harvested (because, remember the word "like"? its tricky to use it). now, to any sane person with a decent mastery of linguistics, if the following sentence
"in Iran, we do not have any gays, like in your country"
is not missing the word "any", then it would be SAFE to assume that the sentence was denying the existance of gays in iran. now, lets look at this again, using everything we just learned:
1. Ahmadinejad was quoted to have said:
"in Iran, we do not have gays, like in your country"
2. the media said that what Ahmadinejad said was:
"there are no gays in Iran"
3. we just concluded that in order for him to, without any doubt, have ruled the existance of gays in Iran, he should/must/would have used the word 'any', somewhere in that sentence.
4. thus, by using our heads, we can easily conclude that there is at least a slight possibility that what he meant is not what the media said he meant.
5. now lets explore the possibility a little more: the word "any" is 3 letters, and easy for a translator to say, and seeing as how it is a very critical word to the overall meaning of the sentence, it is unlikely that it would have been left out if the president had actually said it.
ALSO, since i speak Farsi, and so do many other people you could ask, the president never uses the Farsi equivalent of the word "any" in his sentence, and seeing as how in any language, such a word would be critical to the meaning of the sentence, it is very unlikely that he left it out when he was speaking, which means the possibility that the media mistranslated/misquoted him is now pretty reasonably high.
6. finally, we have the MEDIA ADVISER coming and saying that he was indeed mistranslated/misquoted. suddenly, if we use simple logic, the possibility that Ahmadinejad actually did deny the existance of gays in Iran is shrunk to something near 0, or a very low number.
7. now, as reasonable people, if there are 2 possible solutions to a problem (such as getting the sides of a square with an area of 9 cm2), and one is much more likely to be correct (sides are 3 cm each) than the other (sides are -3, and since -3*-3 = 9, it could be true), we don't use the one with the lower correctness possibility, we choose the one with the greater possibility of being correct (sides are 3 cm each). see what im saying here?
(END OF PART C)
therefor, we should not conclude that the official position of the government is that there are no gays in iran, because of the preceding reasons.
i know you are going to skim over what i just wrote (because there is a high possibility that your denial defense mechanism is going to kick in and try to prevent you from reading what could prove you wrong), and go back to your mission of misinforming people, regardless, here are some more articles which support my position:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-naiman/iran-ahmedinijad-never-s_b_68225.html
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,301043,00.html
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article18471.htm
have a good day. Siavash1989 ( talk) 23:07, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
wait, i was trying to use farsi? i wasn't aware i was! thanks for pointing that out. but, wait a minute, i just read what i wrote over, and only a small, small section of it says anything about my speaking farsi, in fact, its not even one of my main points, its a small section of a main point. but wait, there's more! my longest arguement, the one i thought you would not read, or if you did you would not read carefully enough to understand, actually isn't about farsi at all! it was about the translation, i analyzed it for you and pointed out the fact that in order for ahmadinejad to have denied the existance of all gays in iran, he should/would/must have used the word "any". please read it again, there is no original research, its called logic, logic is an acceptable source, in fact, i think all of mathematics comes from logic!
second: you don't want to use informationclearinghouse? thats fine, mind you, the webpage is actually built by an american citizen (whaaaa. oh.) at the very least, ill make my first argument again, maybe this time you will read it:
1. you say the supposed policy of the iranian government towards gays is that they do not exist.
2. you think that the policy is so because you think the iranian president said it (thats fine, for the sake of argument, lets just say that is what he said (even though its not).
3. a few weeks later, the media adviser, a man who is picked by the president to clarify what the president has said, says that what the president meant to say is that there were not that many gays in iran.
4. since the media adviser is in fact, an official, approved by the president, and is supposed to carry out the president's wishes regarding what is to be said, and since what the president says is state policy (according to what you think), and what the media adviser says has to be approved by the president, THEN, doesn't that mean that the state policy is "there are not that many gays in iran"?
i know that you understand what i just said, i know you understand my point, and agree that it is quite valid, so therefor, we have 2 options:
1. we can argue more until i convince you (which might take some time, seeing as how you don't seem to want to budge on this)
2. we can just change the sentence to:
"...in part due to institutionalized assertions that no branch of the community exists in Iran, though this is disputed", and put a dispute tag on this article.
OR
"...in part due to institutionalized assertions that no branch of the community exists in Iran, though this may be a misquote"
which do you want to do?
PS. the issue here is not that ahmadinejad said something about gays, we know he did, the issue here is that he was misquoted, i really don't see why you can't seem to accept this, the media adviser said he was misquoted, which is a pretty powerful piece of evidence, i think. its like this:
bush saying "i dislike black people who kill other people, as well as whites who kill other whites, and hispanics who kill other hispanics, and any other person who kills other people", and the german newspapers printing this as "BUSH: I DISLIKE BLACK, WHITE AND SPANISH PEOPLE", because the newspaper didn't speak perfect english. then, dick cheney comes along and says "the president doesn't hate black people, he hates it when people kill themselves".
if that had happened, and cheney came and said bush was misquoted, the germans would no longer think bush hates black people, because the issue had been clarified. i dont see why this works for you, but not for iranians. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.63.227.155 ( talk) 23:47, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
yes, that seems fair enough. Siavash1989 ( talk) 23:31, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
The article makes the claim (with a dead ref I removed [2]) that the law makes no distinction between consensual and non-consensual homosexual conduct. However this is not supported by the fact that various cases have been brought up in Iran where people were charged with & executed for (homosexual) rape as highlighted by HRW et al. My guess here is that the law criminalises homosexual conduct (liwat?), with the death penalty as an option, but also criminalises rape, homosexual or not, and people will usually be charged with rape (perhaps in addition to homosexual conduct) if the sex is alleged to have been non-consensual and will often receive a harsher penalty for it. If any refs could be found to help clarify this it would be much appreciated Nil Einne ( talk) 22:35, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
I'd change "civilian law" to "criminal law" as the crime of sodomy both applies to the military and civilians. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.78.200.239 ( talk) 11:26, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
"Sa'di's own attitude toward homosexuals was more negative than positive. In the Gulistan he stated, "If a Tatar slays that
hermaphrodite / The Tatar must not be slain in return." This statement seems to be not very reasonable. On the one hand, I don't know much
on the subject, on the other hand, if one speaks on "hermaphrodites", does it mean he speaks on gays? Is this the case?
Cause there are masculine gays that don't like feminine gays·, and hating them, they don't hate homosexuality or themselves. I'd like that
passage to be more specified, please. Այնշախոր ( talk) 22:54, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
"Human rights activists and opponents of the Iranian regime claim between 4,000 and 6,000 gay men and lesbians have been executed in Iran for crimes related to their sexual preference since 1979" [3] David ( talk) 00:58, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
Moving this text from the Post Islamic Republic subsection. It also seems out of place.
‘That seens plausible, considering the awkward use of words of the translation, and the fact Persian-speakers understood what the president said differently than what Americans did.’
ArdClose ( talk) 05:34, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
It is unclear which parts of the section on Gender Identity apply to both FTM and MTF trans people and which apply only to MTFs. Some sentences assume only men and MTF transsexuals, e.g.: "Some gay and bisexual individuals in Iran are pressured to undergo sex change operation and live as women" I think it would be helpful to clarify cases that only apply to MtF people / gay men and otherwise choose a more inclusive wording. 79.223.147.114 ( talk) 02:52, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 8 external links on
LGBT rights in Iran. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 02:48, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 18 external links on
LGBT rights in Iran. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 05:48, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 3 external links on
LGBT rights in Iran. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 04:07, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on LGBT rights in Iran. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 23:05, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
I've removed nearly all of the content of the Adultery section, including the heading and multiple sources, and am pasting it below for review. If I have misunderstood and this content is somehow relevant to the topic of the article, then of course it should be restored. Rivertorch FIRE WATER 09:18, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
removed content |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
AdulteryAdultery (zina-e-mohsen) is punishable by 100 lashes for unmarried people and by death on the fourth offense. It is punishable by death by stoning (under moratorium since 2002, officially replaced in 2012 by an unspecified punishment) for married people and in all cases of incest. If an unmarried non-Muslim male has sexual relations with a Muslim female, the non-Muslim male will be put to death. Four witnesses (rather than two witnesses) are required to prove adultery, the person must confess four times, or they must be convicted by judge's knowledge (through definite circumstantial evidence). If the person confesses twice and is "repentant" or the victim's family forgives the adulterer, the judge can give a tazir sentence of 99 lashes instead, or imprisonment. Convictions and executions for this crime are extremely rare, usually only carried out in the case of death and rare even then. In April 1992, Dr. Ali Mozafarian, a Sunni Muslim leader in the Fars province (Southern Iran), was executed in Shiraz after being convicted on charges of espionage, adultery, and sodomy. His videotaped confession was broadcast on television in Shiraz and in the streets of Kazerun and Lar. On November 12, 1995, by the verdict of the eighth judicial branch of Hamadan and the confirmation of the Supreme Court of Iran, Mehdi Barazandeh, otherwise known as Safa Ali Shah Hamadani, was condemned to death. The judicial authorities announced that Barazandeh's crimes were repeated acts of adultery and "the obscene act of sodomy." The court's decree was carried out by stoning Barazandeh.(Islamic Republic Newspaper – November 14, 1995 + reported in Homan's magazine June 10, 1996). Between 1979 and 2002, 40–76 adultery/incest executions (by stoning) were recorded for both men and women. [1] After 2002, allegedly eight men were stoned to death [2] and one woman hanged. [3] Even if the actual numbers are higher, the punishment is nonetheless very rare especially in proportion to confirmed cases of adultery. The punishment is given mostly in aggravated circumstances when the four witnesses or a confession is available and the spouse died. Most adulterers go unpunished, or receive a lighter sentence. Divorce is usually the most common method in dealing with adultery.References
|
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on LGBT rights in Iran. 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.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 18:07, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
I think its important to note that the Worker Communist Party of Iran (who we mention alongside other bourgeois parties like the CIA's Green Party of Iran as "pro-LGBT"), are left communists and have condemned Marxism-Leninism in both the Soviet Union and China. As it stands now, because of the vague nature of the party name, it looks like real communists (Marxist-Leninists) are somehow working to subvert Iran, when Marxist-Leninism in fact advocates similar views to the present government of Iran on such social issues, for different reasons. Claíomh Solais ( talk) 22:12, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on LGBT rights in Iran. 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.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 12:28, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
Rupert loup, regarding this, the section needs a good summary of what is stated in the LGBT history in Iran article. Right now, that section is wholly inadequate. Seeing this recent you edit you made to the Capital punishment article, I see that you are already aware of WP:Summary style, although that section needs a good summary too.
And just as I was about to post this, I see that United Union restored some of the content to the LGBT history in Iran section. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 14:01, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
No civil rights legislation exists in Iran to prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation. Depictions of homosexuality are prohibited in society or in the press, unless it is negative. No organization or political party is permitted to exist that endorses LGB human rights.
The concept of sexual orientation is not recognized in Iran, nor does the Judiciary acknowledge the existence of LGB people and instead believes that all people are normally heterosexual and thus homosexuality is a a violation of the supreme will of God.
As a result no laws exist that protect LGB Iranian from discrimination, harassment or bias-motivated violence, and as a theocratic political system no such laws are permitted to exist. Most Iranian LGBT people remain in the closet about their sexual orientation for fear of being the victim of discrimination, hate crimes, government sanctions, corporal punishments and/or capital punishment.
The only legal recognition for couples is a legal marriage between one male and one female, both Muslim. The Islamic based legal system prohibits opposite sex couples from associating in public, and dating is taboo. Male homosexual couples might be able to pretend that they are just platonic friends, but any type of sexual activity outside of a legal marriage is illegal.
Censorship of the literature and of history has been documented, under the rule of both the Pahlavi dynasty monarchy and the Islamic Republic in Iran. In 2002, a book entitled Witness Play by Cyrus Shamisa was banned from shelves (despite being initially approved) because it said that certain notable Persian writers were homosexuals or bisexuals www.iranmania.com/News/ArticleView/?ArchiveNews=Yes&NewsCode=12103&NewsKind=CurrentAffairs .
___________
All I would do is remove the T from this section of the article and it expresses the situation accurately. The fact is primary T and I people have the right to choose for themselves what gender to live as. Then they are recognized as that gender. (I do not use my registered name on this issue as I enjoy privacy on this matter.) 66.92.130.180 04:37, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
The Iranian Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgender Organization (HOMAN) organized a conference on homosexuality in Iran in 2003 and operates a homepage on LGBT issues in the region [4].
Article doesn't give any source for its provisions of the Islamic Penal Code, and the article numbers (and also contents) don't agree with the translation provided by the UN High Commission for Refugees. 119.18.2.248 ( talk) 01:26, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
Source 40 contains no mention whatsoever of the derogatory term "evakhahar" as is claimed.
213.124.185.66 ( talk) 20:09, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
Why is this article festooned with mentions of the penalties for rape? That's not specifically relevant. DoctorCaligari ( talk) 06:12, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
I really think a section with this content should be included Geopony ( talk) 12:16, 11 February 2022 (UTC)