Difference between revisions of "Talk:Tanah Burung"

From NSwiki, the NationStates encyclopedia.
Jump to: navigation, search
Line 40: Line 40:
 
Been thinking the same thing. Just refrained from saying it to avoid a RL discussion. --[[User:Knootoss| |Knoot]]|[[User talk:Knootoss|KNOO<small>talk</small>]] 00:47, 22 Oct 2004 (GMT)
 
Been thinking the same thing. Just refrained from saying it to avoid a RL discussion. --[[User:Knootoss| |Knoot]]|[[User talk:Knootoss|KNOO<small>talk</small>]] 00:47, 22 Oct 2004 (GMT)
 
----
 
----
 +
 +
Oooh, Tanah Burung is a ''cafeteria'' Catholic.  *plots*  Anyway, the Church's condemnation of homosexual activity was never contested until the "gay rights" movement of the late 20th century.  True, there have been homosexuals before that, but nobody in the Church AFAIK said that homosexual activity was morally OK until the gay rights movement.
 +
 +
So, restoring "traditional teaching" (yet again) to the thingy.  Whether that teaching is correct or not, I'm not going to say (in the factbook, in respect to the "NPOV") ~Syskeyia

Revision as of 10:46, 22 October 2004

Edit remark:
>Syskeyia
>It is a KNOWN FACT that the Catholic Church has TRADITIONALLY codemned homosexual relationships.
>My edits are neutral, stop trying to say homosexuality is OK by the Church.

For future reference, before you re-revert your edit again, start a discussion on the talk page instead. You do not resolve an issue by having an edit war on the nation page of someone else. I am not constantly editing in how atheists all hate Syskeyia and how they must be opressed, there ought to be a certain measure of respect on NSWiki.

The thing is, TB is in communion with HVS (the Catholic NS pope you conveniently ignore) and the HVS from NS is rather more liberal regarding homosexual relationships then the real-life pope (which does not even exist in NS!). Hence, Tanah Burung is in communion with the HVS Catholic Church. I think the reference in the article specifically to you being critical was quite enough of a concession to make.

Since you IGNORE HVS (for some rather trivial reasons beyond my understanding) it is really none of your business how these two players define their mutual relationship. -- |Knoot|KNOOtalk 23:40, 21 Oct 2004 (GMT)


I edited the remarks again. HVS is in there. :P Also, I said it was traditionally condemned by the Church, and that the issue has nonetheless generated much controversy within the Catholic communion. Or are you trying to single the Church in my country out?

Anyway, there is the remark, so there. :P --Syskeyia

In the interests of compromise, i'd be prepared to accept the "traditional Catholic teaching" line instead of the link singling out Syskeyia. But i want to be really clear: i am NOT claiming to be in communion with the real-life Holy See, which is what you edited in, Sys. This is a role-play in progress with the NS player Holy Vatican See, which i am fully prepared to see end in ex-communication. But at the moment the entry is factual. TB 00:02, 22 Oct 2004 (GMT)


Note to self: see Talk page before reverting edits *smacks self and reverts own edit* --Goobergunch|? 00:05, 22 Oct 2004 (GMT)


Hmm, that looks odd. In the intersts of clarity, that was 2 paragraphs from Sys and one from me. Sys, pls. sign your remarks with 4 tildes (~) so we know who said what, or people will think i'm you! TB 00:05, 22 Oct 2004 (GMT)

One, it's only one diocese that's doing this, and two, why the heck must I be singled out? ~Syskeyia


In the current edit, you're not singled out. I think we have an agreement on the text as it stands now. TB


"as this practice has traditionally been condemned by the Roman Catholic Church" Now wait a minute here. TB may be all nice and compromising but that is not the case in my RPing universe. HVS (whom I do recognise) does not condemn it, nor do TB, Galdago and my OWN (admittedly small) Catholic population.

Instead of the current line I would like it to be: "some elements within the Roman Catholic Church have condemned this practice" which would reflect the difference of opinion that exists much better.-- |Knoot|KNOOtalk 00:23, 22 Oct 2004 (GMT)


Totally off topic, but i feel like saying this anyway. I attend an inner-city Roman Catholic parish which holds a monthly mass for lesbian and gay Catholics, and where the priests always preach accepting attitudes on homosexuality. The teaching may be traditional, but it is not uncontested, even within the RL church. Fortunately, Vatican II gave us the right to conscience. TB 00:41, 22 Oct 2004 (GMT)


Been thinking the same thing. Just refrained from saying it to avoid a RL discussion. -- |Knoot|KNOOtalk 00:47, 22 Oct 2004 (GMT)


Oooh, Tanah Burung is a cafeteria Catholic. *plots* Anyway, the Church's condemnation of homosexual activity was never contested until the "gay rights" movement of the late 20th century. True, there have been homosexuals before that, but nobody in the Church AFAIK said that homosexual activity was morally OK until the gay rights movement.

So, restoring "traditional teaching" (yet again) to the thingy. Whether that teaching is correct or not, I'm not going to say (in the factbook, in respect to the "NPOV") ~Syskeyia