Comments about ‘Common Ground rally aims to influence lawmakers’

Rights? Let's get real here. This isn't about rights, it's about morality, and about redefining the family. Two same sex people living together is not a family, they are two gays living together. They can't reproduce, they can't further the race. Gays rights is a formula for world disaster.

The article states: "Supporting this initiative does not require that you say that being gay is OK. It requires that you say that discrimination, hatred and prejudice are wrong."

Of course most people will agree that discrimination, hatred, and prejudice are wrong. The biggest disagreement in this debate is what actions fall under those definitions. To many in the gay community, voting your conscience to keep the institution of marriage from changing constitute bigotry and hatred. I disagree.

I have always been puzzled by the inclusion of bisexuals in their group. When you listen to pro-gay marriage arguments, they are always saying that this whole issue is about letting those who have no attraction to the opposite sex have a legal marriage to someone they are attracted to. Bisexuals have attraction to either sex so they should be able to find a spouse of the opposite sex to marry and be happy, shouldn't they? Why should they get special rights?

This folks keep trying to twist the facts of reality. Their rights are protected under our laws,we understand about descrimination,hatred,and prejudice because I myself belong to a minority race group,but your cause is not justify because nobody gender is a danger, we born man and women and in order to keep our human race foward the most logical thing is men and women relantionships is the only normal way to continue our existence in the world. If I am talking from the non-religious way still you loose because our human race needs husband and wife to keep protecting our right to survival in the world. Please just go home and think about this with logical minds.

Advocacy through adopting the language of one side's viewpoint?

"securing BASIC rights for gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender Utahns"

Check.

Complete failure to cover the other side?

Check.

Making a mountain out of a mole hill by reporting on an event which very few showed up for, and then likely providing a number which came from the event organizers rather than performing an independent count or verification?

Check.

I'm too busy to call this morning, but I'll be calling to cancel my subscription to the Deseret News tomorrow. This "story" is one of the most pathetic pieces of "journalism" I have seen come out of this entire state. The DN ought to be ashamed. Then again, it has always seemed to side with these groups.

It would have been interesting and informative if you had written in the article just what they are trying to get passed this time around? I see no problem with some of the things they say they want - as long as they leave marraige alone.

To Anonymous: By your definition a household with an abusive, child molesting, murderer of a father is a family as long as he has a wife and at least one child. Anatomical components do not make a family.

To Definitions: I believe the issue is about giving all people access to the "pursuit of happiness" as he/she sees it as long as it doesn't impinge on other people's right to the same. Now you may argue that by giving all people the right to marry whomever they choose your rights are being violated but that is failed logic. By giving all people the right to marry you can still marry whomever YOU want.

To gp: So you choose to make this argument hinge on procreation. I want to point out the fact that population growth is still doing just fine. Also, there are many straight, married couples who don't have children. Would that make them less in your eyes because they don't "keep our human race" going foward?

All: Remember this is a civil union. Not a religious ceremony. Don't confuse the two.

Let us review here. Do gays get the benefit of constitutional rights to assemble, vote, practice religion, freedom from self incrimination, etc, etc... I am curious what rights are they talking about? There is zero right to wed. There is no line in the U.S. Constitution or The Bill of Rights that say being married is a right.

What this is about is defining a victim class and creating false rights for that victim class. This is about forcing others to accept their notion of values. This is about the gay self image and their claim that they want to be like everyone else. No law can make anyone accept anyone else. For those so desperate to be accepted by others when they can not accept themselves nothing will ever be enough. For the gay agenda ANY disagreement with their view is homophobic.

Did you know that with proper planning and careful preparation that the gay agenda can get everything they want out of a civil union? They dont want to talk about that because it isn't marriage. It is about illusion, fear, and denegration towards everyone else but them

Everyone has the right to marry...someone of the opposite sex.

to LDS Church:
~silence is betrayal.
I always thought the purpose of one's religion was to support compassion, understanding, unconditional love. It seems to me that people get so wrapped up in the ideology and mechanics of religion that it is used to oppress and discriminate against others...not what it probably was intended to do.

As long as I am not permitted to believe the gay lifestyle is harmful to its participants and to society, there can be no common ground.

So how am I supposed to turn aside my personal and religious beliefs in order to do what is right? That is exactly how I define what is right. Add in the constitution and our laws and that pretty much sums up what is right for our country.

The only discrimination, hatred and prejudice I see is by some (not all) individuals who support this alternative lifestyle.

As I lesbian I don't want so-called "special rights," I am striving for GLBT individuals to have the same rights as other citizens: protection under the law.

With the Common Ground Initiative are not seeking marriage, we are concerned with basic rights. These include: the right to work and not be fired solely because we are gay; the right to know that we will not be evicted from housing; the right to health care, and etc. Even the LDS church has said it not against these types of non-marriage- related rights.

Don't we want protections that help keep people productive, healthy members of our society? I know we can find common ground!

anon didn't say anything about an abusive situation, you just made a comment up that they never stated. A civil union is one thing a marriage is another, don't confuse the two.

It seems most of the previous posters find it easy to hate the gays -- by hiding behind religion, the Constitution, etc. I challenge each of you to think of family, friends and co-workers when I tell you that each of you know and love someone who is gay. If you even can take pause to think of them, maybe you can find it in your hearts to be less judgemental of other gays. They aren't hurting you.

Even during the most liberal education that I received at a 'pro' gay-rights school, they had to admit there was no physical, universal characteristic that defined a person as 'homosexual'. Remember, homosexuality is sexual preference. At the risk of seeming extreme, though the principal still applies, are we going to give those with pedophilia, bestiality, bestiosexuality, fhormicophilia, ephebophilia, zoophilia or any other sexual preference the right to marry their sexual preference?

They make the same arguments as. "I'm in love". "I was born this way". "Your discriminating me for not allowing me to indulge in what I believe is right". It would seem to me that this question would have to be defined by some other means than simply enough people with the perversion making a ruckus that their skewed moral minority should be publicly and politically justified.

As far as natural selection is concerned, homosexuality would be extinct after one generation. If homosexuality was truly a physical characteristic someone was born with, as pro-gays believe (though theres no physical characteristic discovered) than nature itself doesnt even support the propagation of their lifestyle. Some argue that some heterosexual couples can't procreate, this destroys the argumentnatural selection deals with the organism populations ability to fulfill a biological role, not every organism in that particular population fulfilling it. An individual claiming homosexuality as being physical would have to acknowledge they were a different sort of organism, a different population from the hetero. It would of course mean that the moral question with homosexuality is not whether society let gays indulge in their preferred lifestyle, but rather if we create a societal initiative that propagates something that would otherwise be extinct.

Society propagates this 'preference' among humans; its not a natural thing being condemned by bigots. To him who said he believes in science and god is the reason 'anti-gays' are bigots; it would seem you should be more upset with science-it's much less merciful to your cause than God.

To "it's interesing to note": I'm embarrassed for you and your so-called scientific arguments. You state "as far as natural selection is concerned, homosexuality would be extinct after one generation." Does that mean we inherit all of our characteristics from our parents? So the color-blind boy has a color-blind mom or dad? The downs syndrome girl has a downs parent as well? Please, review the basic tenets of natural selection and hope that your God is merciful on your ignorant soul.

I respectfully disagree that society propagates gay sexual preference. To be gay is to be a second-class citizen, subject to discrimination and inequality. People have been gay for centuries in societies more hostile than ours. Why would someone make that choice? Though we may not understand the mechanism there is something undeniable different about people who are gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender.

I have something to say about discrimination. I discriminate on a daily basis. I like oatmeal but not farina. I like honey nut cheerios but not the regular type. I like orange juice but no milk thanks. Discrimination is how we operate within our society, how we choose whom to associate and whom not to associate. This legislation will take away a basic right of mine in being able to make a choice about whom I associate with due to what I consider a moral deficiency.

Gay is not the new black. You that choose the LGBT lifestyle in fact make a decision. Try to hide behind what is considered an operation of genetics but there are many that treat genetic defects by making decisions to overcome their respective disorders without crying to the legislature to change the rules. If your lifestyle makes me uncomfortable then I should have a right to make my decision in that respect. This legislation would rob me of that right and I would consider that a denial of something that is fundamental. My right to choose.

What are they doing here? Calif Government setup a Prop 8 not Utah or the lds church. They lost- GO HOME!