Talk:LGBT rights in Indonesia/Archive 1

Aceh
Material relating to Aceh is out of date - homosexual acts even by non-Muslims is punishable by up to 100 lashes: http://www.lgbtqnation.com/2014/09/muslim-indonesian-province-to-punish-gay-sex-with-100-lashes-with-cane/ 125.168.185.45 (talk) 13:18, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Latest entry (May, 2017)
@Rivertorch: I do appreciate your message, thanks ever so much. However: sources ARE given. So I reckon that's not per se up for discussion. You do, however, seem to mind my entry a lot. So maybe you can point out what it is that is troubling you. If you feel this entry should be pointed out in another section; be my guest. Let me know, and maybe we can find a solution. 217.120.219.67 (talk) 16:27, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for discussing. We have a mutual goal of improving the article, and I see no reason why we can't find agreement here. I asked you to read the guideline on lead sections. As I said on your talk page, a lead section is supposed to summarize the main points of an article. It is not a place to catalog recent events that are in the news unless they are covered in sufficient depth later in the article to qualify as main points. Your edit consisted of two parts. Let's take them in turn.
 * First, you added a broad claim that Indonesian authorities are taking a "harder stance against homosexuality". That claim appears to be an generalization based on two recent incidents that have been in the news. It may well be true—and, if so, it may well be lede-worthy content—but it isn't supported either by content in the body of article or by either of the sources you cited.
 * Second, you noted two recent incidents, the sentencing of two men to caning and the arrest of many more at a party. One of those incidents was already mentioned in the body of the article but did not constitute a main point, so it really shouldn't be echoed in the lead section. The other wasn't already mentioned, so I moved its mention to an appropriate place.
 * On a procedural note, it isn't a good idea to keep adding disputed content. (See the guideline on edit warring and the essay on the bold-revert-discuss cycle.) The burden is on the editor adding the content to explain why it's appropriate. If consensus is reached that the content is appropriate, then it can go back in. Rivertorch   FIRE WATER   17:03, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I've asked for outside opinion at the talk page of a relevant WikiProject. Rivertorch   FIRE WATER   17:47, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see what you mean know. Concerning the first thing you pointed out ("harder stance against homosexuality"): I totally agree, it is not as objective as it should be. I shall change that immediately. About that second point: I couldn't find any information about either of the incidents I added. Could you tell where I can find it, please? If it is already there, then of course I agree with you - no need to put the same stuff twice.


 * Feel free to put the information given by me in the appropriate section of this article, and thank you very much for taking the time to explain what you meant. :) 217.120.219.67 (talk) 13:41, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for replying again. I'm not in a frame of mind (or body) to deal with it right now, but I'll try to take a look early tomorrow. I did see at least one news article today that might support the "harder stance" wording but I need to study it more carefully. (I think it was at the BBC News site, if you'd like to take a look.) Rivertorch   FIRE WATER   19:56, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Contradictions
Speaking from 20 years of experience living in Indonesia: Just wanted to say that its true LGBT are discriminated in laws, but Homosexuals and Cross-Dressers are extremely present in the Indonesia medias. They can also show themselves truly in public areas without disturbance from anyone (obviously following the same rules as heterosexuals of not overexposing themselves), but I'd agree that they must be forced to hide their sexuality when back in traditional home situations and such. I just felt the need to report the contradictions between facts and acts. --222.124.46.178 (talk) 06:00, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Living Conditions outdated
The section on living conditions seems to be based mostly on a scholarly article from more than a decade ago. Considering the extremely rapid pace of change on issues of homosexual rights and treatment, the entire section may very well be invalid. (Consider that a decade ago, being gay in Russia was relatively safe, but now is quite dangerous). A more recent source, or perhaps information on current trends in behavior rather than a historical set of statements would be nice. Does anybody have any information on reception of LGBT individuals in Indonesia today? 71.237.162.153 (talk) 18:11, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Summary table
Could someone compile a summary table for this article?--Baruch ben Alexander - ✉ 13:50, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Indonesia new laws in 2010
In Indonesia, Homosexuality Equals 100 Lashes ; Aceh government rejects Shariah bylaw   —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.51.136.157 (talk) 07:47, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

<!--Offensive, incorrect, highly subjective, unsubstantiated Western intellectual imperialism, moral superiority== Nonsensical and unsubstantiated commentary on Indonesia. Most esepcially offensive is the atrocious: "Legal guidelines regarding HIV/AIDS do not exist, although AIDS is a major problem in most countries in the region. Those infected with HIV travelling to Indonesia can be refused entry or threatened with quarantine. Due to the lack of sex education in Indonesian schools, there is little knowledge of the disease among the general population. Some organisations, however, do offer sex education – though they face open hostility from school authorities. In the beginning of the gay rights movement in Indonesia, LGBT organisations focused exclusively on health issues which led to the public believing that AIDS was a ‘gay disease’ and led to LGBT people being stigmatised.[4]"'

This is completely incorrect and a statement made from a position of utetr ignorance and total lack of Indonesian language facility. Indonesia has been an active promoter of normative sexual activity including the use of condoms in sexual acts as evidenced by the UNWHO as well as launching several AIDS awareness initiatives through UNWHO as well as NGO's associated with the churches.

Western intellectual colonialism for nefarious and ulterior political aims by Homophilic and Zionist nations. No discussion of mass popular support for anti-LGBT movement. No discussion of massive public support for the opposition of weswtern intellectual and cultural perversions/imperialism. No discussion of pan-religious unity on homosexual position of Indonesian state. No discussion of pan-academic and pan-religious opposition to the reduction of human dignity and identification to sexual (sensual) preference. Supporting scholarship highly suspect and subjective catering to Indonesian rejected subjected post-modernist/deconstructivist perspective. Article is Biased and highly prejudicial and written from the perspective of assumed Western moral superiority. Wikipedia is treading on dangerous grounds. Request immediate article deletion.. Wikipedia must be highly sesnitive to the fact any and all anti-Indonesian content particularly that which is libelous and defamatory will be blocked via Indonesia see https://www.digitalnewsasia.com/indonesia-tightens-its-censorship-grip-internet and Defamation and Privacy Law in Indonesia[] and [].


 * ...astaga mas berisik amat sih lu, udah mandi dulu sana, gak usah ngeganggu orang queer, lu ga ada urusan juga. emang mak lu gak pernah bilang, lu jangan ikut campur urusan orang kalo mereka gak ngeganggu orang lain kah?? astafirullohalazim, saya doain mas surat ayat al-kursi ya biar setan didalem tubuh mas ilang semua aamiiin180.243.1.138 (talk) 13:08, 23 June 2022 (UTC)-->

Demand a return to strong anti LGBT Indonesia prior to "softening the tone" by Gunkarta
Gunkarta's highly POV edits have softened and weakened the true position- that Indoenesia is overwhelmingly anti LGBT rights vis-a-vis the West- and has instead chosen to electively and selectivly edit so as the more sensationalist elements of Indoensian (for example minority positions within the MUI) have been instead retained. This creates bias- there is no third party so0urced information as per the original edit to clarify the position that is the actuality- Indonesia is overhwelmingly and cvohesively anti-LGBT, there is pan-religious and pan-scoial opposition to LGBT rights agenda being pushed in Indonesia and this unwanted LGBT rights creep is seen as a subversive momevement.
 * I do not know who you are, but I suspect you are User:Seperjuangan, it was you that have done massive edits in this article to promote strong homophobic sentiments, and painted as if it is shared among the whole of Indonesian population. Although, today maybe majority of Indonesians unsupportive to LGBT rights, it is important to write it in fair and unbiased perspective. It was you that biased, highly subjective, and done a POV pushing on promoting anti LGBT homophobic sentiments. Just because you hate LGBT person, does not mean the whole Indonesians shares your sentiments. I respect human rights, regardless of their sexual identity and orientation. At least my edits that you called "softening" edits are tried to be neutral, cover both sides (pro and cons), and based on well-referenced sources. Learn more on Wikipedia policies on Neutral point of view and Citing sources before accusing anybody on anything.  Gunkarta  talk 15:55, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

User:Gunkarta is correct. Wikipedia is not for pushing homophobic or nationalistic claims based on spurious claims of societal support. Also, talk pages are not the place for bluster and threats. Davidelit (Talk) 04:47, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Except now it would seem like Gunkarta is wrong. Why were two men caned for homosexual sex if there's not a strong anti-LGBT sentiment? Seems like it would be pretty hard to cane somebody of their own free will. And unless they're doing it of their own free will the government either has laws against it, or is overstepping its authority due to hatred. It seems to me the article as written IS trying soften the homophobic impact of the muslim government, or has very recently become outdated. The glaring contradiction being the phrase about it not being illegal juxtaposed with the public admistration of caning for homosexual acts.


 * Being transgender and being a crossdresser and being gay/lesbian are three completely different things. This article seems to have descended into chaos.  Objective statements from both sides should be included or the article should be deleted.  We can all live and let live in peace on this planet without violence and oppression -- IF we choose so to do.  .  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:100E:B04E:D325:ECF4:8457:4B1B:D849 (talk) 18:31, 14 February 2017 (UTC)