Talk:LGBT rights in Serbia/Archive 1

Archive 1

Important notice to all contributors

Please, all contributors to this article: use signed-in profiles so we can keep track who is adding and what, and always sign your comments in the discussion page! I propose to all people interested contributing to this article to check the project pages and instructions (text is simple and short) mentioned in the upper stubs. I hope that my requests will be heard. goodone (talk) 22:34, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I will try again! People, please sign your contributions! goodone (talk) 20:43, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Massive cleanup and sources needed

We need someone knowledgeable about this issue to work a lot on the article. There's a lot of confusing grammar, which makes things unclear. I can't fix it up because I can't figure out what is factual or not. This leads me to the other thing needed: good sources. There are a lot of bold claims made that are unverified and need sources (or should be removed). I cleaned the article up a little bit, but I don't know enough about this issue to properly fix it up. Any Serbs around that would know about this? --clpo13 07:21, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I know about LGBT rights in Serbia. I can find something out :) --Göran Smith 15:30, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Kosovo

Unless Kosovo becomes part of Serbia again, formally and in real-life, meaning both Kosovo Wikipedians and other contributors start merging Kosovo articles back with Serbia ones, Kosovo should not be included into this article; any such additions will be edited out. Please, keep this article clean. See LGBT rights in Kosovo for more info on Kosovo topics. goodone (talk) 17:37, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Kosovo was, and still is part of Serbia. In real-life. If you don't believe me, take a look at map from UN. Cheers :) Brcha (talk) 12:46, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

That's highly irrelevant, since Wikipedia has it's own standards and practices. goodone (talk) 16:57, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Homosexuality was illegal in Serbia since 1929, not 1959

The (first) Yugoslav Criminal Code of 1929 banned "Lewdness Against the Order of Nature" (anal intercourse) between human beings (Art. 286). Thereby it recriminalized anal intercourse in those parts of the new Yugoslav state, which formerly belonged to the Turkish empire (which decriminalized in 1858) and to the Kingdoms of Serbia and Montenegro. Socialist Yugoslavia restricted the offence to homosexual anal intercourse (Art. 186 CC 1952; maximum sentence reduced from 2 to 1 year in 1959).

Can you provide some online references, so that we could integrate this new info to the main topic? goodone (talk) 12:39, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

[1] (End of the page) CROATIA: NEW PENAL CODE —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.12.171.218 (talk) 08:05, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Further studies suggested your tips are legitimate, and I will start introducing this new info into the article, shortly. Thank you very much for providing them. goodone (talk) 17:52, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Homosexuality became illegal again in Vojvodina and Kosovo??

The legalization lasted until 1990, when Vojvodina lost its powers, falling back to the legal system of Serbia, which was forbidding male homosexuality at that time. That means that homosexuality in Vojvodina (and Kosovo) became illegal again.(?) And it was legalised under Serbian legistaltion in 1994 in both regions. (???) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.12.171.218 (talk) 12:17, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. goodone (talk) 12:22, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

So, the date of legalisation of homosexuality in Kosovo should be revised in the article from 1970 to 1994! Similar, some mistake was made in article on Romania homosexuality, look into discussion http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:LGBT_rights_in_Romania. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.12.171.218 (talk) 08:09, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Yep. I might do that too, since I am on it already. goodone (talk) 17:52, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Legality of same-sex marriage

If you take a look at current Serbian constitution, you will see the following text:

1. Right to enter into marriage and equality of spouses
3. Article 62
4.
5. Everyone shall have the right to decide freely on entering or dissolving a marriage.
6. Marriage shall be entered into based on the free consent of man and woman before the state body.
7. Contracting, duration or dissolution of marriage shall be based on the equality of man and woman.
8. Marriage, marital and family relations shall be regulated by the law.
9.
10. Extramarital community shall be equal with marriage, in accordance with the law.

Same sex marriage is obviously not allowed (line 6) directly. But, in line 10 it is said that extramarital community is equal to marriage. As that is the only occurrence of the word "extramarital" (or extram) in the whole constitution, I can only assume that extramarital community is every community that is not married couple, which also includes same-sex couples, doesn't it? Maybe somebody who knows a bit more about the laws could be of some help here, but it seams to me that my conclusion is right. If it is, then same-sex marriage is allowed in Serbia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brcha (talk • contribs) 12:55, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

This legal loophole does exist in constitution. But, Family Law explicitly defines extramarital community as one based on the free consent of a man and a woman, effectively banning things out of heteronormative approach for all extramarital community variations. Anyways, I thank you for highlighting this. I will try to refine the article and specify this data in a better way. goodone (talk) 17:52, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Recent edit war and possible solution

New version of the file which is more neutral than other two.

This article was the site of a recent edit war regarding the two versions of the LGBT pride map of Serbia (one including Kosovo, and second excluding Kosovo). These are the two maps in question:

• First (Kosovo included)
• Second (Kosovo excluded)

I created third version of the LGBT pride map (see picture), and I hope that we can reach consensus to use this third version (which is more neutral than other two).

So tell me your opinions about this (Should we use this third version? Should we use any map at all?)

Regards!--В и к и в и н д T a L k 22:40, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

That would be acceptable to me. My only issue is the previous map showing a reality that no longer exists. Fry1989 ^eh? 22:49, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I will wait one or two days, and, if nobody else objects, I will put this flag map in the article.--В и к и в и н д T a L k 23:03, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

To be honest, I am not sure what information this map is supposed to convey. Is it an official symbol of some sort or just the map of Serbia in rainbow colors? If it is a controversial issue and the purpose of the map primarily is decorational, perhaps it would be best to remove it entirely? Njaelkies Lea (d) 19:48, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

I tend to agree here. There's no real and concrete reason to have such a map on this page, and I do question its decorative value also [especially in presently suggested state, it looks just, well, bad]. Moreover, given the entire Kosovo status controversy, it would benefit the entire article to stay away from it. LGBTs have completely independent set of rights in Kosovo. There's an article on that topic, too. So, I will cut the map from the article right away, since I am the article's main contributor anyway [almost all the text is written by me, which is funny, given the number of LGBT organizations, and therefore activists, in Serbia; but let's not change the subject]. It can be re-inserted back, if and when appropriate solution is found or situation changes [I, however, do not expect we'll be seeing Kosovo on Serbian maps in the future]. goodone (talk) 13:53, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I agree with removing map :)--В и к и T 13:59, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

'Gay' as a noun

Whoever wrote this should stop using the word 'gay' as a noun, as in 'Gays are allowed...'. It is inappropriate and incorrect. It should be primarily used as an adjective. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.148.162.17 (talk) 21:17, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Martinovic

I've removed the following section of text until we can find a way forward. My concern is that it is not really about LGBT rights at all and is pretty tangental to the article.

The depth of Serbia's homophobia played a role in its relationship with Kosovo, and subsequent Breakup of Yugoslavia. One of the major landmarks of escalating tensions between Albanians and Serbs was an affair involving the forceful insertion of a bottle into the anus of Đorđe Martinović, a Serb resident of Kosovo. He claimed that he had been attacked by two Albanian-speaking men while he was working in his field. After being interviewed by a Yugoslav People's Army colonel, Martinović reportedly admitted that his injuries had been self-inflicted in a botched attempt at masturbation.Community leaders in Gnjilane, Martinović's home town, subsequently issued a statement describing his injuries as the "accidental consequences of a self-induced [sexual] practice." However, after his transfer to Belgrade for further investigations at the prestigious Military Medical Academy, a medical team there reported that his injuries were not consistent with a self-inflicted wound. Following this report, Martinović recanted his confession, saying that an Albanian had done the deed, leading to mass media attention and a nationalistic outcry in Serbia. There was later circulation of nationalistic material comparing the "impalement of Đorđe Martinović" with Turkish forms of torture due to the shared Islamic religion between Albanians and Turks.

Can we firstly be clear on whether Mertus actually uses the term "homophobia". How has Mertus described the incident? Was Martinovic actually gay? If he had inserted the bottle into his own anus I'm not sure that's evidence in itself of a homosexual orientation. If someone else inserted the bottle were they really making a statement about homosexuality? Just what are the sources actually saying?Contaldo80 (talk) 08:44, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

1st of all, i do not like how u remove something just cause u want to talk about it. if u find something objectionable, and yet fully referenced and in terms with wp rules, 1st research about it, then talk, and finally remove it, if that's what talks come about to.

2ndly, how about u examine the sources before u act; expecting someone else to do ur research for u, r we? there's no place for in-depth quotes and specific references for this topic in this article; it should merely be a small mention, and if someone wants more info, there's another article on wp and ofc, all those books. just cause of ur objections, i had to expand this topic beyond what it should have been.

3rd, if there was no reference to homophobia in the sources, please do explain how do u imagine motivation of someone wasting their time, bothering to put these things here and reference them? cause it surely makes no sense to me.

this being said, i'm moving this back into the article, it's a more than relevant information. it also serves foreigners visiting the country as a clear sign of depth of homophobia in Serbia, warning them in advance. maybe we can save a life or two that way, considering how many ppl r attacked or killed cause of it.

in conclusion, please stop wasting ur and my time on constant removing/readding stuff from/into the article. i'm fully willing to talk about stuff, and find a common ground, but i'm not willing to succumb to ur vandalistic burgeoning and making ppl angry. as one of the major contributor to this article, i do not like such attitude one bit, especially since it's obvious from ur edits ur knowledge about the matter in question comes from the article itself, at best, and u apply urself mostly fixing grammar/typos. sure, all commendable activities, but hardly expert ones. goodone (talk) 10:56, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

"It also serves foreigners visiting the country as a clear sign of depth of homophobia in Serbia, warning them in advance. maybe we can save a life or two that way". I think you've missed the point. This is not what this article is designed to do. It is an excyclopaedia article. It is meant to present the facts in a neutral way. It is not about saving anyone's life. At the moment there is nothing in the text that suggests this episode was about homophobia. Perhaps the sources support this argument but if you want the text included then the onus is on you to make sure this is clear. If it is not then it will be removed as does not fulfil the criteria of being relevant to the article. I don't frankly care how "angry" you get - just try harder at sharpening up this material. Contaldo80 (talk) 13:43, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

material is quite clear. be free to use ur expert skills at making it clearer, if u can. i can't spend time doing that. considering how controversial the whole thing is, copying the entire books dealing with the topic would merely be the start of neutrally factual pathway, and yet u would just scratch the surface of its controversiality, leaving doors open to another wise-man to question its merity.

that being said - sources talk about gay terms that were used at the time these things happened - such terms as homophobia or same-sex didn't even exist, especially not in serbian language or culture, so it would be stupid to expect they will appear. but when an old era writer says sodoma, sodomic, pervert in terms of men's sexuality, u do not think they r speaking about missionary relationships in a hetero marriage. it is known what they speak of. well, maybe not to a british reader with little knowledge about this culture or language. also, as the time, it was considered unethical speaking about gay stuff in academic texts, or even news articles. so, even if matters were completely gay related, writers would just workaround the topic as much as possible, so it could be accepted among peers.

btw, i'm starting to wonder what ur motives r for even suggesting such a removal. surely those can't be some high and mighty perfect wikipedia article standards, as such r simply unattainable in controversial political cases such as this. and by removing such information from the article, an uninformed reader could imagine Serbia being a somewhat of a promising gay paradise; law protection here, law protection there, all protections everywhere... now, that would be a completely skewed way of presenting gay rights in serbia, so much about neutrality. only a few years ago, a french citizen was brutally beaten to death in the center of Belgrade, in front of numerous witnesses, cause of homophobic histeria that was omnipresent. now that i mention this, maybe i should include it in the article too... was a rather notable case.

and u know what, it is my belief that true purpose of encyclopedic content isn't to satisfy some formal rules... but instead, educating its readers and through that, making world a better place. especially on topics as fringe as these r. many articles on wikipedia exist with very little or no references, yet they r worthwhile to readers and treasure to many. should we just delete them all instead? so, i would say, the question here is - where do U make boundaries?

in conclusion - if u came to this article to pursue some impossible purity, i'll just rest my case - be free to remove it. that's how much time i can spare to fight yet another absolutist. and rules r on ur side, so meh... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gwzrd (talk • contribs) 22:47, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm going to remove it. The way it has been drafted does not support the argument that this is about homophobia at all. You can question my motives all you like, but suggest you better use your time improve the article material. Contaldo80 (talk) 08:54, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on LGBT rights in Serbia. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101127021637/http://www.parlament.gov.rs/content/eng/akta/ustav/ustav_ceo.asp to http://www.parlament.gov.rs/content/eng/akta/ustav/ustav_ceo.asp

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: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:41, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on LGBT rights in Serbia. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160414120423/http://www.ageofconsent.com/slovenia.htm to http://www.ageofconsent.com/slovenia.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160304100051/http://legacy.montevallo.edu/SafeZone/PDF/LGBTQ%20Timeline%202011%20PDF.pdf to http://legacy.montevallo.edu/SafeZone/PDF/LGBTQ%20Timeline%202011%20PDF.pdf

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: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:33, 14 December 2017 (UTC)