Talk:DignityUSA

message: There's probably content enough for an article about Dignity Canada (that's a note to self or anyone who beats me to it.) — coelacan — 00:28, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  sister org 

message: I don't dispute the basic facts of the article.  However, I would like to point out that the Catholic Church, in my understanding and in teachings I have seen, makes a clear dsictinction between homosexual orientation (almost certainly not a choice and therefore not a sin) and homosexual actions (which the Church deems sinful).  The Church teaches, clearly, that all human beings are children of God, deserving of love and respect, and with an essential, innate human dignity.  The Churh follows Jesus Christ, and Jesus Christ taught love.  He also taught clearly against sin, but always within a context of love (as I understand Him).  I am a Catholic and my dad is a Catholic priest (formerly Episcopailan - he was married well before he converted).  I do not see anything factual in the article, per se, with which I necessarily disagree.  The tone of it, however, strikes me as unloving and harsh.  One person's view.  Take care. Rmcghee 15:28, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: View

message: I removed the following sentence from the second graf of the History section: It is important to note that "Gay, Lesbian, or Bisexual Catholic" is known as oxymoron, because a Catholic by definition does not participate in heresies against the Church. Besides the POVishness, the assertion struck me as possibly being a misleading simplification of how the RCC actually defines the status of non-obedient Catholics, gay or otherwise.
Throbert McGee 06:23, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: History

message: Please learn how encyclopedia entries are to be written. They describe how things actually exist (objective fact), not how certain people claim they exist (subjective opinion). Introducing the group "in their own words" introduces obvious bias and is obviously unprofessional (and suggests that the author of that paragraph is himself a member of the group).
Reflecting on what someone decided to quote from them (without citation, too): Calling them a political activist group would be fine, because that is what they are; quoting their claim to "be a group that strives for justice" (or whatever) is not, because granting marriage legalities and adoption privileges to same-sex couples, etc., is in fact (or "very well may be") contrary to justice (cf. "Considerations Regarding Proposals To Give Legal Recognition To Unions Between Homosexual Persons" from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, a teaching body of the Catholic Church). My main point here is that there is no consensus within Wikipedia of what "justice" here means or is. The article itself contains no summary of justice preceding the statement, so it's also unprofessional (i.e., don't introduce the idea of "justice" in an encyclopedia article until it's clear what "justice" is). -- Newagelink (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 02:12, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: None of this "in their own words" nonsense

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on DignityUSA. 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/20151017032241/http://www.glhalloffame.org/index.pl?page=inductees&todo=year to http://www.glhalloffame.org/index.pl?page=inductees&todo=year
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:39, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified