Talk:Political activity of the Catholic Church on LGBTQ issues/Archive 1

Archive 1

New editor

Interesting to see a new unregistered editor has taken such an interest in this article. Welcome! I wonder who it can be? Contaldo80 (talk) 15:26, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Aww no the unregistered editor has gone now :( But thankfully other editors have now appeared to help work on this article. Just in time! Contaldo80 (talk) 11:36, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome Contaldo, glad to be here. – Lionel^(talk) 09:02, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Fantastic! We can never have enough Conservative Catholics ready to collaborate on articles relating to gay rights and the Church. I always feel they bring a distinct insight, free from narrow personal prejudices and with an enlightened attitude - and so welcome indeed.Contaldo80 (talk) 10:42, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Name change

This article does not contain any material relating to transgender issues. I have therefore more accurately named it. If editors believe this to be an error then please can they clarify where they believe transgender issues are covered and we can make an informed decision on the basis of that. We must stick to the facts. Contaldo80 (talk) 08:43, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Ratzinger letter on pastoral care

I think the excerpt from Ratzinger's letter on pastoral care sits bizarrely in the middle of this article with no context. The letter may say that gay people should not experience "violent malice in speech or in action." What's this to do with political action? Contaldo80 (talk) 07:50, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

The rest of the quotation makes it clear: the law must protect LGBT people from violent malice, among other things. I'd love to see some additional context provided, ideally from secondary sources. Do you want to work on that together?--BrianCUA (talk) 13:06, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm always happy to work collaboratively on text but this section needs to stay out until we've worked out the value that it adds. It's not helpful to parrot material from random Church documents. Sure this letter talks about violent malice in speech and action but that doesn't mean that it doesn't go in within the church. And once again I can't see what it has to do with political activity? It seems simply designed to invite the reader to think that the church does not do harm to gay men and women. Contaldo80 (talk) 11:18, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm glad you are willing to work together on it. However, nothing states that it needs to stay out until we've worked out every issue with it. After all, this is a WP:WORKINPROGRESS. Additionally, you were bold and removed some text. That's great. You have been reverted (by multiple editors). The next step is to discuss the issue here on the talk page before you delete again. I pledge to spend some time to find some reliable, secondary sources that talk about the letter so it can be put into greater context. Will you do the same? --BrianCUA (talk) 13:11, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

No. Because the letter is dealt with in the article on pastoral care. You created multiple spin-out articles and now you want to cherry-pick the best bits and duplicate them in a range of different places?! What on earth for?? Other than to push an agenda of catholic apologetics. Contaldo80 (talk) 11:36, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

They are related articles. It is natural that there is going to be some overlap between them. --BrianCUA (talk) 15:19, 27 July 2018 (UTC) Also, let's not forget that you spun some of them off, too. Appropriately, too, I'd say. --BrianCUA (talk) 17:53, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

LGBT Usage and Inclusion

LGB -- T

Contaldo has twice now (1 and 2) removed the T from LGBT in the lede of the article, saying it is a separate issue. However, the title of the article is "Political activity of the Catholic Church on LGBT issues." That means, by definition, transgender issues are included in the scope of this article. If anyone can come up with an article long enough on the "Political activity of the Catholic Church on transgender issues" that would warrant spinning off the "T", then I would support it. However, as it stands now, this article is about LGB and T issues. --BrianCUA (talk) 14:06, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Who is "Contaldo"? The name of the article needs to change. BrianCUA came up with the original name but clearly didn't think it through - perhaps they think gay men are also transgender. Transgender issues are not covered in this article. Contaldo80 (talk) 12:00, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

There was no consensus to move this page or to change the name. Please do not take a major action that you know is going to be contentious without seeking consensus first. I am going to move it back. If you would like to further discuss the issue, I would be glad to do so. If all interested parties agree that this is a worthwhile move, then I will support the change in name. --BrianCUA (talk) 12:51, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Contaldo80, you know that renaming this article is a contentious issue. Despite this, you were bold and changed the name. Fine. However, you were reverted. Per WP:BRD, the proper thing to do here is to discuss the issue here on the talk page and gain consensus for the change. Simply changing the name again without consensus is edit warring. I would suggest that you self-revert, discuss it here, and gain consensus for the move. --BrianCUA (talk) 15:38, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

I have requested a third opinion about the proper scope of this article. --BrianCUA (talk) 13:34, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Lead

I made the following changes to the lead for the reasons below:

(i) None of the material relates to transgender issues. I appreciate some editors may think it "inclusive" to use the common term "LGBT". However, the issues are different in this case. The teachings and action of the church in relation to homosexual orientation and sexual acts are separate from its treatment of those who are transgender.

(ii) All government legislation is by its nature secular. There are no instances where the article refers to ecclesiastical legislation.

(iii) In terms of discrimination, the Catechism says "Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided". This confirms there are cases where it is just to discriminate against those that are gay. To build on this the letter "Some considerations concerning the response to legislative proposals on the non-discrimination of homosexual persons says "There are areas in which it is not unjust discrimination to take sexual orientation into account, for example, in the placement of children for adoption or foster care, in employment of teachers or athletic coaches, and in military recruitment." None of those examples implies it is "just" to deny a heterosexual person to adopt, be a teacher/ coach, or join the army based on their sexual orientation.

(iv) The additions to some of the statements are necessary because without them they are incorrect (regardless of whether the material is dealt with in more depth later on the article). Contaldo80 (talk) 09:07, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

This is a god explanation. Thank you. To point number 1, there is only a small section on transgender issues. There's not enough to justify spinning it off into an article on the political activity of the church on transgender issues. Maybe someday, but not today. If you don't think a discussion about the church's response to transgender issues belongs here, where would you suggest it go? To your second point, in a theocratic state, government legislation is not secular. Finally, to your third and fourth points, we have been down this road before. The lede should be concise and provide an overview of the article. We should not get into a great level of detail in it. Your edits here have been reverted, multiple times. Instead of edit warring, if there is language you would like to add, why don't you put it here and we can workshop it and get it ready for the main? Thanks. --BrianCUA (talk) 03:20, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

On (1) you've just put in the stuff on transgenderism to make a point. The discussion and documents of the church make clear that gender issues are separate. Maybe you've seen the term "LGBT" is some magazine or something and think all the people in that group are basically the same thing. It's not really my problem to work out where the transgender material should go - I think it's fine to put in a separate article. And if you're genuinely interested in understanding transgender issues then you can do some research and tell the back story/ add context. (2) I want the article to be clear that the church doesn't just expound its views within the institution but tries to influence the secular world. I can use civil government if you prefer. (3) The additions to the lead do not go into lots of detail - they are just a few points to clarify and over-simplistic summary. I think you're at risk of exagerrating. Without them the lead is incorrect. Contaldo80 (talk) 11:31, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

I have requested a third opinion about the level of detail appropriate for the lede. Again, the WP:LEDE should serve as a "concise overview" and "should avoid... overly specific descriptions – greater detail is saved for the body of the article." I contend that the parenthetical and other details are greater detail than is warranted for the lede. --BrianCUA (talk) 13:31, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Discussion

Hi all, came to provide a third opinion, but this talk page is a little bit confusing for editors new to the conversation because it appears the same editors are arguing very similar arguments in different parts, so I hope you don't object to the way I've re-organized it here to make it easier to follow and add to.

As far as providing a third opinion, I think the article should use “LGBT” instead of “homosexuality” and should include issues related to transgender people. LGBT is a widely accepted, non offensive term and includes area for potential expansion. I would argue WP:WIP in favor of the broader term. To contaldo80's point that "The teachings and action of the church in relation to homosexual orientation and sexual acts are separate from its treatment of those who are transgender." I would remind about Wikipedia's neutral point of view (WP:POV) and argue that the scope of this article does not have to, and actually should not, be dictated by the church's views on the LGBT community.

Additionally, editing the T out of LGBT is nonsensical to me. I’ve never seen anyone use “LGB” community in any context. Issues affecting the LGBT community don’t need to affect every member of the community individually for it to be considered an issue affecting the LGBT community. ^†Basilosauridae❯❯❯Talk 13:54, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

I think you've misunderstood the background to this (not surprisingly as some other editors only like to tell a partial story). This article was spun out of the main article on Homosexuality and the Catholic Church. That article does not talk about LGBT issues. This article didn't include the reference either until an editor added a random paragraph on transgender issues. While LGBT is often spoken about as a community when it comes to issues in relation to religious teaching and practice the issues are distinct. Calling this article "LGBT" seems to aim at catching a trend for naming but is misleading and inaccurate. Contaldo80 (talk) 10:21, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Dignity and rights of all people

Contaldo is persisting in removing the section entitled "Dignity and rights of all people." However, he has not given a valid reason for doing so. So far he has said the reason he is doing so is because it is offensive or embarrassing, among others. As I've pointed out, we do not WP:CENSOR articles to avoid offending people. His most recent argument is that it is "straying well beyond the brief of the article." The section discusses why the Church teaches that rights of every person, irrespective of sexual orientation, should be protected in law. Explaining the political motivations of the Church is clearly is within the scope of this article. I am asking Contaldo to please stop deleting text sourced to reliable sources simply because it does not conform to his worldview. If you can improve it, please do so. Don't just delete text without citing a valid reason, though. --BrianCUA (talk) 13:04, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

I have removed this section because it is SYNTHESIS. The first part is about "dignity" of humans - how is this related to political activity (this is surely teaching?) The second section talks about Benedict condemning "gay-bashing". He does not. In fact you may be surprised (or not) to know that in the letter Ratzinger drafted as prefect for the congregation of the faith he wrote "When such a claim is made and when homosexual activity is consequently condoned, or when civil legislation is introduced to protect behavior to which no one has any conceivable right, neither the Church nor society at large should be surprised when other distorted notions and practices gain ground, and irrational and violent reactions increase." In other words Ratzinger says don't be surprised if someone beats you if you insist on saying you have the same rights as others. And again what does this paragraph have to do with political activity? I've moved the final section to the part concerning discrimination in the UK - because that's what it's about. Can I also suggest that editors don't confuse actions in english-speaking countries as the totality of what the catholic church is and does. Contaldo80 (talk) 09:21, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

I think you are confused about what WP:SYNTHESIS is. It is combining "material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." That does not happen here. If you think it does, please provide a specific example so that we can address your concern. It is certainly within the scope of this article to provide some background and explanation for why the Church takes the positions that it does. As has been pointed out to you before, in some of these documents it talks about the rights that must protected in "in word, in action and in law." The "in law" part of it shows that is clearly relevant to a discussion about the Church's political activity.

I'm not confused thanks. I rolled back your recent reversion. I could see no compelling reason why the earlier version was better than the latter - this moved relevant material all to one place. Contaldo80 (talk) 10:18, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

I have again reverted changing the name of this section to "Church view on dignity of individuals and rights." MOS:HEAD states that headings should "not redundantly refer back to the subject of the article (Early life, not Smith's early life or His early life)." To say it is the church's view in an article about the church is redundant. --13:31, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

"Dignity and rights" simply won't do - it's another one of these euphemisms that conceals more than it reveals. Contaldo80 (talk) 08:42, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Text

"As it can be with heterosexual people..." - do any of the sources make this point or is this making a statement without the supporting evidence? Contaldo80 (talk) 11:35, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes, the source cited does not limit the restriction of rights to just gay people. The language below is what I propose. How would you tweak it to improve upon it? --BrianCUA (talk) 14:25, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm afraid I've read the letter again and it does not state instances where a heterosexual person can be denied certain rights because of their orientation. Quote it here please and don't simply reinstate the text until we've established this important point. Thanks. More broadly I don't see what the section has to do with political activity at all - it looks just like apologetics. Contaldo80 (talk) 09:33, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Where does it state that rights can be limited based on orientation, and only on orientation? --BrianCUA (talk) 03:22, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

There is no source that says the Church teaches that rights can be limited only for gay men or lesbians. Continuing to say this is WP:OR. Please stop. --BrianCUA (talk) 13:23, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Rights can be limited on the grounds of sexual orientation. If you are gay you can be denied housing or to be a teacher. Yes the sources do say this. The text does NOT say that rights can ONLY be denied to gay people - they can to heterosexual people too. Maybe heterosexual people are denied rights routinely - although you've not given one example of where that might happen. Contaldo80 (talk) 08:51, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

The way you were phrasing it before made it look as if the church was saying that rights could be limited only for LGBT people. The new language makes clear that it includes, but is not just, LGBT people. --BrianCUA (talk) 13:33, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Proposed text

The Catholic Church has been described as sending "mixed signals" regarding discrimination based on sexual orientation. It holds that sexual orientation is different from qualities such as race, ethnicity, sex, or age in that it is usually not known unless disclosed. The Church holds that all people, including those who are LGBT, should be treated with respect and that the "intrinsic dignity of each person must always be respected in word, in action and in law."

As it can be with heterosexual people, the Church teaches that rights to public housing, employment in certain industries, or other areas are not absolute and that they can, and sometimes should, be limited to "protect the common good." Acting is this way does not constitute unjust discrimination.

References

Lede

As I have pointed out in the edit summary, to say that marriage should be limited to a single man and a single woman necessarily means that it can not be entered into by two men, or two women. It is redundant to say it both ways. --BrianCUA (talk) 13:25, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

It is not redundant to clarify that two men may not get married - this is very relevant in relation to the article. Contaldo80 (talk) 08:43, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Flip the argument around. If I said that marriage was open to any two people, regardless of gender, would I then also need to specify that it was not limited to a single man and a single woman? --BrianCUA (talk) 13:36, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

If 99.9% of people in the world from time immemorial getting married had not been a man and woman then yes you would have had to specificy it - as it isn't the norm. Plus the article is about LGBT rights. What apologists for the church love to do (and we need to be careful not to fall into this trap) is say "we are not against gay people marrying it's just that marriage can only be understood as a man and a woman marrying and anything else isn't properly marriage. Contaldo80 (talk) 11:54, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

"Gay bashing"

Where does Raztinger talk about his concern about "gay bashing". This is frankly insulting to portray the letter in this way. Contaldo80 (talk) 12:25, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

The source cited talks about "gay bashing." WP:SECONDARY sources are preferable to primary sources, and that is what is being used here. If you find it insulting, you should take it up with the source. That you find it offensive is not a good enough reason to remove the text, nor all the other text in that section. We do not WP:CENSOR articles to avoid offending people. --BrianCUA (talk) 14:10, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

It's a poor source and fails WP:RS. It uses anachronistic language. Tell you what if you can find a reliable second source that uses the term "gay-bashing" specifically in relation to Ratzinger's letter then you can keep it in. Contaldo80 (talk) 11:52, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Which tenant of WP:RS does it fail? --BrianCUA (talk) 22:38, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

It is a local church website - it cannot be used to justify wider church practice. Ratzinger has written "When such a claim is made and when homosexual activity is consequently condoned, or when civil legislation is introduced to protect behavior to which no one has any conceivable right, neither the Church nor society at large should be surprised when other distorted notions and practices gain ground, and irrational and violent reactions increase." Hardly a refutation of "gay-bashing" is it. Contaldo80 (talk) 09:24, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

That is incorrect. There are several sources included in this section. Only one of them is published by a parish church, and that is allowed as a WP:RS. The term "gay bashing" is attributed to a source published by the Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance. Not only is it a reliable source, as a secondary source it is actually preferable to the primary source you are citing per WP:RSPRIMARY. All of the sources used in this section are reliable. Even if one of them failed, the proper response would be to remove the information attributed to it, not the entire section. --BrianCUA (talk) 15:59, 25 July 2018 (UTC) PS - If you are going to make the argument that a source isn't reliable, could you please cite the relevant section of WP:RS? Thanks. --BrianCUA (talk) 03:37, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Ratzinger never spoke about "gay bashing"! Actually it's pretty outrageous for you to fling the term around. Do you know what it is to actually experience "gay-bashing"? Can you begin to understand what it is? Ratzinger never used the term - he has never even once used the world "gay" publicly. For him "gays" do not exist - he would never call or define a group by their sexual orientation! On the contrary he is on the record as saying if you "gays" shout too loudly then don't be surprised if someone beats you up. The section on "dignity" does not need to go at such length in an article about politics. It just serves as a warm-up for the reader eg "further down you're going to read that the catholic church is mean to gay people but up-front let's make clear that it really loves them all". Contaldo80 (talk) 11:41, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Again, the term gay bashing is attributed to a reliable source. Whether or not I have ever experience gay bashing is irrelevant. You can't delete it just because WP:IDONTLIKEIT. You have failed to make a compelling argument citing a WP policy for why this material should be deleted. I am going to restore it again. If you delete it, I will report you for edit warring. --BrianCUA (talk) 13:12, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

But you can't find another source that has "Ratzinger" and "gay-bashing"? Funny that. Contaldo80 (talk) 11:55, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Dignity and rights

I have collected related material under the section about dignity and rights. So why does another editor think this doesn't work. Can they lease explain. Contaldo80 (talk) 11:47, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

BrianCUA you have just again restored your prefered version of the section on dignity and rights without setting out why you think this is a better version, presenting concerns you have or trying to reach for compromise. These edits now have just become disruptive. If you think there is a point to make then please make it and let's see if we can find a way forward. Reverting perfectly fine material is tiresome and immature. Contaldo80 (talk) 13:27, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Contaldo, you keep creating new talk sections to discuss the same issues. I will respond to your comments on this topic above. --BrianCUA (talk) 12:51, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Cardinal Williams

Briancua you deleted the photo of Cardinal Williams saying that he was not named in the source. The source is "Laurie Guy, Worlds in Collision: The Gay Debate in New Zealand". He was named in it. So why did you delete the photo with the justification you submitted. This may have been accidental but it was poor editing. Contaldo80 (talk) 11:39, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

The image did not (and still does not) have a citation. It's not my job to go searching through the 60+ citations in this article to find it. Would you please add a footnote? --BrianCUA (talk) 12:58, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

It's not obligatory for images to have citations. Your previous ones of the Oregon capitol didn't. Can you stop being deliberately awkward and displaying double standards. Contaldo80 (talk) 13:22, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

As you can see over a series of my recent edits, I tried to get all three headshots to fit in this section. No matter what I did, it was too much. They either overlapped when one was on the left, squeezing the text, or the third one crept down into the next section. That's bad enough when the photo is on the right, but in this case it was on the left which ruins the formatting. I removed the picture of Williams, but if you would prefer that we remove one of the others I would be OK with that. --BrianCUA (talk) 12:49, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

So basically you're saying you managed to find a way to keep in the two photos you added but found there was not enough space to include the photo I added? I'll take you up on your offer then - let's replace Gracias with Williams. Thanks again. Contaldo80 (talk) 10:56, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Cardinal Tomasoni

Is it untrue to state that "Archbishop Tomasi opposed recognition of gay rights at the United Nations"? Contaldo80 (talk) 11:40, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

As I said in my edit summary, his comments were much more nuanced than that. I have changed the caption to just include his name. That is neutral and undeniable. --BrianCUA (talk)

And pointless. In what way is it incorrect to state "Archbishop Tomasi opposed recognition of gay rights at the United Nations"? You can't keep cherry-picking this stuff! Contaldo80 (talk) 13:23, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

As I stated above, his comments were much more nuanced. He opposed a particular resolution, not the idea of "gay rights" in general. He also spoke of the need to protect to protect the human rights of LGBT people. Your caption only shows one side of his comments, and even then it is more nuanced than what you present. --BrianCUA (talk) 12:41, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

I've added a caption to the photo which aligns with a news source. Hopefully this meets you're concerns that he is being misrepresented. I think his argument is that if you are gay then no-one should stop you from getting aroused in your head if you see someone you are sexually attracted to. But that states should be allowed to prosecute people from then acting on that impulse and having sex. His statement drew (tastefully?) drew parallels with paedophilia and incest. Contaldo80 (talk) 11:29, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Lead

My changes have been "The Catholic Church also supports legally defining marriage in civil legislation as the union of one man and one woman, therefore generally opposing efforts to introduce gay civil unions and gay marriage - although some clergymen have expressed support for same-sex unions. The Church teaches that not all discrimination is "unjust," and that sometimes the rights of gay men and women can be limited. The Church is active in local, national, and international forums."

Why can we not be clear that the Church's activity has NOT just been to support the continued ability of a man to marry a woman (passive activity) but has campaigned to stop a man marrying another man. It legally supports defining marriage as only being between a man and a woman BECAUSE it doesn't want it being granted to two men. It hasn't suddenly decided that men marrying women is a good thing. Likewise I have not seen any material that suggests rights can be denied to people on the grounds of a heterosexual sexual orientation. Produce the goods here or let the matter drop. Thanks. Contaldo80 (talk) 11:45, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

From the 1992 letter: "Among other rights, all persons have the right to work, to housing, etc. Nevertheless, these rights are not absolute." "All persons." Saying here, either implicitly or explicitly, that the only people whose rights can be limited are "gay men and women" is unsourced and untrue. You have admitted as much (and I'm not sure why you created a new section on this talk page). If you want to say that only the rights of gay men and women can be limited, find a reliable source to back it up. Otherwise it is WP:OR. --BrianCUA (talk) 13:09, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Unfortunately it is true. The section is sourced to the document: "SOME CONSIDERATIONS CONCERNING THE RESPONSE TO LEGISLATIVE PROPOSALS

ON THE NON-DISCRIMINATION OF HOMOSEXUAL PERSONS". This says the following: "Sexual orientation” does not constitute a quality comparable to race, ethnic background, etc. in respect to non-discrimination. Unlike these, homosexual orientation is an objective disorder and evokes moral concern. There are areas in which it is not unjust discrimination to take sexual orientation into account, for example, in the placement of children for adoption or foster care, in employment of teachers or athletic coaches, and in military recruitment. Homosexual persons, as human persons, have the same rights as all persons including the right of not being treated in a manner which offends their personal dignity. Among other rights, all persons have the right to work, to housing, etc. Nevertheless, these rights are not absolute. They can be legitimately limited for objectively disordered external conduct. This is sometimes not only licit but obligatory. Including “homosexual orientation” among the considerations on the basis of which it is illegal to discriminate can easily lead to regarding homosexuality as a positive source of human rights, for example, in respect to so-called affirmative action or preferential treatment in hiring practices." Nothing in this source suggests that the Church supports restricting rights of heterosexual men and women. It only talks about homosexual people. Nevertheless the text you keep rejecting does not say that rights cannot be restricted for heterosexuals; but in the context of this article (about LGBT issues) it does say they can be restricted for gay people. So let's not mix apples and pears. Contaldo80 (talk) 13:21, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

No one is arguing that they can't be restricted for gay people. It simply does not say that they can only be restricted for gay people, however. To say otherwise is WP:OR.--BrianCUA (talk) 12:56, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

I fear we are going in circles. Do you think any of the text we have says explicitly that rights can only be restricted for gay people? Could you flag the wording please that causes you concern and in the spirit of compromise we can find an alternative. Thanks. Contaldo80 (talk) 10:52, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Gladly. Your text says that "The Church teaches that not all discrimination is "unjust," and that sometimes the rights of gay men and women can be limited." This is statement is misleading in its omission. The Church teaches that the rights of people of any sexual orientation can be limited to protect the common good. That is why I have proposed "sometimes the rights of individuals, including gay men and women, can be limited." --BrianCUA (talk) 14:13, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Dignity and discrimination

Contaldo was bold and moved information from the section on discrimination into the section on dignity. However, this edit was reverted. The next step per WP:BRD is to discuss here, not to edit war. While no doubt related, discussions about dignity and rights in a general sense, and discussions about discrimination in the law, are two distinct topics. They properly have their own sections. If other editors feel they should be closer together, I would propose moving up the section on discrimination. it's not my first choice, but I would be willing to compromise. How do other editors feel about this? --BrianCUA (talk) 13:39, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

I can so no differentiation in the material. The edits I made simply set the context and then the following sections gave the examples in practice. The changes I made were perfectly legitimate - they were not "bold" in any way. This is not about searching for a compromise. Set out a stronger argument for why the material should NOT be combined please as it seems odd to have two separate parts covering context. You even separated the points about the UN apart. Contaldo80 (talk) 08:46, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

The changes you made were WP:BOLD. That's a good thing. No one is complaining about that. Your edits were reverted, though. According to the WP:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle (or WP:BRD if you clicked on the link above), though, the next step is to bring the changes you want to make here to the talk page. Edit warring whereby you continue to insert your preferred version is not helpful. I am going to revert again, but I'd be glad to work with you here to come up with a version that's mutually agreeable. --BrianCUA (talk) 13:14, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

No, Briancua that won't work. Because you haven't said what the actual problem is. How on earth is someone meant to come up with a "mutually agreeable" version if you haven't stated what the issue is? Which sentence - which wording? edit-warring is when you don't like something another editor has done and keep insisting the previous version should stay. My additions make plain that there are "mixed signals" (sourced) - on the one hand the church says it wants to give dignity to gay people and avoid discrimination but elsewhere it doesn't always (mostly?) abide by that. So what we are not going to have is a big "scene setting" section that claims the church smells of roses where the sources and material says otherwise. Can I ask you one again to respect the principle of neutrality.Contaldo80 (talk) 11:51, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

I have stated what the problem is: dignity and discrimination are related, but distinct, topics. You are the one who wants to make a change. It is incumbent upon you, not me, per WP:BRD to make your arguments here and to change the consensus. --BrianCUA (talk) 12:53, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

I wonder if consensus really has been established - as a reminder, you created the section in question and I made additions. I'm not clear that discrimination and dignity are that different that they can't be combined in a section that sets the broad context. That said I do have concerns about general discussion about the Church's position on the "dignity of the individual". I can't see what this has to do with political activity - can you clarify please? Thanks. Contaldo80 (talk) 10:47, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

The Church advocates for laws that align with its social teaching, and against those that do not. The diginity of the human person forms the "bedrock" of that teaching. Everything else flows from there. That's the relevance. If you don't see the difference between dignity and discrimination, then why did you only move some of the content? --BrianCUA (talk) 14:21, 9 August 2018 (UTC)