If you look at each country individually within the UK, it shows the correct details.
I suspect it is because in the original law, there were nuances such as "The privacy restrictions of the Act meant a third person could not be present and that gay men could not have sex in a hotel. These restrictions were overturned in the European Court of Human Rights in 2000"
I'm looking into that right now. Not sure why both of those entries are referring to the age of consent rather than simply homosexual activity being legal/illegal (the both received quite a few accurate votes too). Age of consent has a separate section further down the page.
Would be cool for the "Equality Index" to be 2 or multi dimensional. I feel like laws on adoption, gender/sex change, age of consent, blood donations, marriage etc. fall on the absolute/objective liberty spectrum. While stuff like anti-discrimination laws, housing policies, conversion therapy bans etc are interventionist regulations.
I've run into that issue a few times but I thought I fixed it. Before, reloading seemed to have fixed it. I'll look into it though. Thanks for pointing it out! :)
On the 'comparison' pages, the Equality Index score is listed as a horizontal bar chart, which makes at-a-glance comparison impossible. If you need to keep it as a bar, please consider making them vertical, so you can easily compare visually. Currently, I'm only able to compare that score based on color, so places with the same color aren't comparable on that metric. Personally, I'd prefer if you just put your number there.
Of course, I can just keep using right click -> Inspect Element :)
Great point about the Equality Index being vertical -- that's something I've been considering.
Regarding it being represented as a number, I originally wanted to include that, however, the way the Equality Index is calculated is pretty rudimentary. Creating a number representing the "amount of equality" people have is going to be pretty arbitrary, especially without enough public opinion data. Eventually, once it becomes more sophisticated/accurate, and I include more data points and surveys, maybe I will reconsider. For now, I purposely left it as an unlabeled bar so that it's a little clearer that it's a "rough visualization."
"Conversion therapy" is a controversial therapy used to "convert" gay people "back to straight." The process is almost always heavily influenced by religion, and can be very harmful, psychologically. Some gay people are forced into this against their will, by their parents. There have been cases where people have committed suicide or had suicidal thoughts.
The organizations who run the therapy are super sketchy as well.
Banning snake oil is never a part of a free society.
Whether you want to admit it or not, some people commit themselves to these centers and come out straight / believing they're straight/cisgendered/etc. Their motivations are generally because they come from a culture/family that is not accepting of who they really are. They themselves probably hate who they truly are. So they pay thousands of dollars for the chance of tricking themselves into believing that things are different.
Does it commonly fail? Of course.
But does there exist someone in the world who is living a happier life because they attended this therapy? I believe it's possible. And for that reason, I think banning it is wrong.
I imagine that choosing between being accepted by your community/family and being unhindered in expressing your sexuality is a very difficult and personal decision. I don't think any lawmaker has the right to make it for you.
> Banning snake oil is never a part of a free society.
The problem is parents forcing it on their kids. Set the minimum age to 22 or so (where most kids will be finished with college, since most kids are dependent on their parents for that now too), and it would be a lot more palatable.
I think it comes down to a game theory style argument. Most people who would undergo this would do so unwillingly by pressure from family, religion, etc. and face large downsides. The small minority that actually desires to do this are hurt by making it illegal, but the large majority that would otherwise be coerced into it are spared.
Many laws banning sexual practices are more justifiable under such laws. If society were different, such a law would be net negative, but instead it's a good idea. Thomas Schelling's "The Strategy of Conflict" talks a lot about ideas like these style arguments and I would recommend reading it. For example, it is often illegal to take or display a picture of your voting ballot, since making that universally illegal makes coercing votes harder.
That is a good argument for the existence of these laws, but anyway it is kinda strange that the LGBT movement promotes this kind of thing so enthusiastically. I don't imagine that people promoting these laws -- for example, the guy who made this website -- are aware of your argument.
The site is crowdsourced, so if you click "Accurate?: No" on anything incorrect (on a country's page), you can supply details so that our moderators can look into it. :) Thanks!
Where is it getting that, and which part of the UK does it apply to?
Same sex sexual activity was legalised in England and Wales in 1967; in Scotland in 1981; and 1982 for NI.
The age of consent was equalised in 2001 (for England, Wales, and Scotland) and 2009 for NI.