Limiting Rights of One Group Is a Slippery Slope

Friday, May 11, 2012

By Brian Deaton

Special to The Pilot

The approval of Amendment One is a very unfortunate result. But my purpose here is to reflect on the implications of some of the commentary and actions that have occurred in support of this amendment.

First is the acknowledged stealing of signs that opposed the proposal.

Columnist Geoff Cutler trivializes a significant issue by characterizing the act as something akin to a teenage prank and ranking on the harmful index next to texting while driving. Those signs had a financial value. Thus, the act was stealing, not simply vandalism.

I would further note that the action amounts to an absolute infringement on one of the fundamental constitutional freedoms (speech) that Cutler is so fond of extolling.

The justification provided by the woman who has been charged, and apparently admits to taking the anti-Amendment One signs, shows a misunderstanding of the word of God. The true words of God are few - found in the Ten Commandments and in the actions of Jesus Christ and probably others sent to Earth to educate those of us prone to sin through their own behavior.

One of those commandments is "Thou shalt not steal." No amount of quotations from the Bible - a document developed by humans - can trump the fundamental principle of this commandment.

Another troubling aspect of the debate over Amendment One is the selective interpretation of religious doctrine by church leaders and their followers to support political positions. My faith is driven by the following statement of the priest who brought me back to the church: "The word of God is infallible; the words, and actions, of humans, are always subject to fallibility."

Two gifts distinguish humans from other species and allow us to progress culturally: scientific knowledge and the power to reason, not simply respond to external stimuli.

Scientific research has demonstrated that sexual orientation is a genetic determination. Given that, how can we deny the right to love - and have that love be publicly recognized - to one set of individuals and not to all?

It is not correct to say that the sole purpose of marriage is procreation. That denies the co-equal purpose of a unitive, mutual love between two individuals that is the real foundation of a healthy society. And, if procreation were the sole purpose, there are a slew of us who are living in sin.

Our power of reason should tell us that it is ridiculous to suggest that it is not a sin to be a homosexual, but it is a sin to engage in homosexual acts.

For most humans, sexual activity is a natural expression of strong attraction and affection. You might as well say that it is not a sin to be a frog, but it is a sin to croak.

The constitution is a defining set of principles for who we are as a society. The opening statement of the U.S. Constitution is: "In order to form a more perfect Union." Not "the perfect Union," but a more perfect one. It recognized that a confederation of states was not a workable model for developing the country, and that there would need to be changes over time to accommodate an increasingly diverse society.

In more than 200 years, the document has been amended 27 times, generally to extend - not restrict - the rights of citizens and to instill more democratic principles into our form of government. The notable exception was the 18th Amendment, which was subsequently invalidated by the 21st Amendment.

Limiting the rights of one set of citizens based on one set of religious interpretations is a very slippery slope and not one, in my view, that is supported by the First Amendment.

Brian Deaton lives in Pinehurst.

More like this story

JimHeim 1 year ago

Well reasoned and well said.

Bentpan 1 year ago

"Scientific research has demonstrated that sexual orientation is a genetic determination."................

The author is mistaken while there are studies that "suggest" that sexual orientation "maybe" affected by genetics, there is in fact no hard evidence to support such a claim. There is on the other hand ample evidence to show homosexuality to be a sexual dysfunction. As for limiting the behavior of various groups society determines undesirable, there is plenty of precedent ie prostitution, drug use, beastiality. We have only those rights we as a society give ourselves. However I will agree with the writer that theft especially theft with intent to deny anyone their first amendment rights is a crime and should be dealt with firmly to send a clear message that this act is unacceptabe and will not be tolerated.

JimHeim 1 year ago

Bentpan, you are incorrect and Mr. Deaton is right. It's a shame that your side is allergic to facts. The genetic component of sexual preference is solid science.

The_AnonymusProfit 1 year ago

No scientist or researcher has ever proven that homosexuality is genetic, immutable or unchangeable. In fact many of the so-called gay gene studies, such as the Bailey/Pillard “twin studies,” prove the exact opposite – homosexual behavior is not genetic. Homosexual advocates and the media have pushed the “there is a gay gene” myth for over a decade and a large share of the public has bought into this misinformation.

Even the American Psychological Association (APA) now acknowledges that there is not a gay gene. In their “Answers to Your Questions for a Better Understanding of Sexual Orientation & Homosexuality,” they state the following:

“There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles….”

Sorry Jim even the APA says its a myth

http://www.apa.org/topics/sexuality/orientation.aspx

MattWilson 1 year ago

AP - Psychologist are not geneticists. How are they in any way qualified to prove or disprove if homosexuality is genetic? Quote something from the American Geneticists Association (or whatever) and i'll give it some credence.

MattWilson 1 year ago

Also, saying there is no consensus in no way equates to saying it's a myth. Quit trying to sound smart and failing miserably.

MattWilson 1 year ago

That last sentence was uncalled for. Apologies.

Bentpan 1 year ago

JimHeim 3 hours, 30 minutes ago Bentpan, you are incorrect and Mr. Deaton is right. It's a shame that your side is allergic to facts. The genetic component of sexual preference is solid science.

Mr. Heim, you have shown yourself to be untruthfull yet again ( I have to assume the chairman of the Moore Co. Democrat Party is Not an idiot ;-), The_AnonymusProfit has in fact stated the case far better than I have and on the issue of homosexual marriage he is in fact on your side.

Nezumi 1 year ago

This is anecdotal, but my father was a psychiatrist who treated patients for over 45 years - including many, many gay patients. He was very conservative in his politics but as a man of science it was his firm belief that homosexuals are hard coded (aka - born that way). Unfortunately, so many of them tried to hide their sexual orientation, some even living a heterosexual lifestyle, and were miserable.

clarabelle 1 year ago

"Unfortunately, so many of them tried to hide their sexual orientation, some even living a heterosexual lifestyle, and were miserable."

yes - because of the religious nuts who keep discriminating against them claiming god doesn't like his own creation.

GJohn 1 year ago

For all those confused about what the Bible really says about marriage, please see this link...http://img.gawkerassets.com/img/17m7ymo0bc12hjpg/original.jpg

clarabelle 1 year ago

GJohn - great link...........

fugitiveguy 1 year ago

"Columnist Geoff Cutler trivializes a significant issue by characterizing the act as something akin to a teenage prank and ranking on the harmful index next to texting while driving. Those signs had a financial value. Thus, the act was stealing, not simply vandalism.'

Sorry, didn't vote for the ammendment but have to call bs on this. It was $2 worth of cardboard at the most. If you think that was worth following a woman with her child in the car to her home just so you could sick the police on them then you need to get a grip. I wonder if the concerned citizen would have made such an effort if the sign the lady was taking was a pro ammendment one sign. I kind of doubt it. I'm glad the woman didn't wreck trying to get away from the man following her. I wish she had not have done it because it was wrong. I also hate that she gave the losing side an issue to rally around to further their claim of victimhood.

Thatcher 1 year ago

Good Lord! We had an election. It is over. The voters here did nothing different than voters in every other state which has ever voted on this. Put your outrage in context...and tell us all what you did (email posts, etc.) when the other states voted the same way.

clarabelle 1 year ago

thatcher - no offense - but - relax and chill - you knew the content of the column. if it upsets you so much - DON'T read the damn letters!

MattWilson 1 year ago

So Thatcher, are you saying that now the election is over we should stop caring about equal rights for all? Sorry, but that's not gonna happen. Why should we who believe strongly give up because an election didn't go our way? Do you think the for voters would have just dropped the issue had the vote gone the other way? I for one will continue to do what I can to advance the cause and speak my mind. Also, the difference this time is that this vote happened in NC. This being a local NC paper, of course there is going to be more disciussion than when the issue was voted on in other states. Same sex marriage will eventually be legal in this country, unless we who are for it just give up.

chubbs 1 year ago

Scientists have an agenda many times for their findings. For example, many want to claim that evolution of the earth/universe and life is fact. it's been taught in school as fact. It's not so. It hasn't and can't be proven. I can't prove that God created the earth/universe and all that it contains. I use logic and then faith in God's Word that the God of the Bible created it all. Logic only takes you so far. I can't prove God created and science can't prove that He didn't . Bible believers have faith that He created all while others have faith that He didn't. It can be worded that simply. Evolution isn't the only theory. There's global warming, a fetus isn't a baby, homosexuals are born that way etc. The agenda I'm speaking of is this, if science can discount the Holy BIble then God's judgement that all will face can be discounted and life can be lived for one's own will rather than God's (being born again or saved.)

kiki 1 year ago

In the sake of keepiing comments factual . . . most of the sites and posters that are trying to PROVE that a gay gene is a "myth" have left the last few words out of the APA quote. This portion leads me to think that there is a complex set of circumstances that determine a persons sexual preference. The statement does state that "most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation". That is from the site reference given by TAP and others to "prove" that homosexuality is a myth. Sounds like the jury is still out . . . no real proof either way but the APA does state that there is "little or no sense of chioce" whatever the reason that a person is gay.

Here is the FULL statement from the APA's site:

"There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay, or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles; most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation."

Thoughts?

kiki 1 year ago

chubbs - I agree with much of what you said but I would also add that religions have agendas. The many religious agendas can be as contrary as there are science "facts". I feel it is a mixture of intellect, logic, and faith that lead us to believe what we believe. I feel that any one of those traits alone can lead to conflict within one's self and with society in general.

JimHeim 1 year ago

chubbs, Evolution is fact. Full stop.

There are not other theories. There are only groups attempting to cloak religion as science. There is no controversy within science regarding the fact of evolution. Studying how it works is the task at hand.

Global warming is equally confirmed. There is no controversy within the earth sciences community about its existence. Scientists are learning the scope and consequences of human-caused warming of the atmosphere. The other side is simply political posturing, paid for by the energy industry.

You are welcome to your opinions, but facts are stubborn things and will not be denied.

You might care to look up the definition of the word theory sometime. It does not mean wild stab in the dark or some guys guess work.

MikeNC 1 year ago

JimHeim 39 minutes ago ..."Global warming is equally confirmed." (as evolution)

If your statement is factual; that can only mean that evolution is hogwash and junk science as well; designed to get into tax payers wallets and purses $$....Mike

Toda 1 year ago

An interesting read from a Rice University Professor who provides links as well and biases on both sides of the debate, A good day worth of information overload:

The Genetics of Homosexuality

http://www.ruf.rice.edu/~sch/Intro%202006/Genetics%20and%20Homosexuality.htm

kiki 1 year ago

Evolution is a theory. Theories are not fact. They are beyond a hypothesis but not proven. BTW . . . I did look it up and with 3 sources and nowhere was it referred to as a fact..

We have a whole slew of quality evidence regarding Darwin's work on natural selection and the orgin of some species. We do not have facts as to where humans evolved. This is all theory and yet to be proven as fact. The biggest questions is where did the first piece of matter come from. I believe it is from God but others may believe differently. I believe that boith the theory of creation and the theory of evolution can coexist. It is not either / or but both / and.

MikeNC 1 year ago

Ditto kiki....I also believe that God put the spark into all life and evolution played a role...a role that God intended it to play. Global warming on the flip side is pure junk science designed by devious man to play other men for suckers. It's purpose is to provide a source of income to pay for all the other deviant ideas and give away programs that congress and other world 'leaders' can come up with and to harness a massive voting block. Most all of this 'income' will be at the direct expense of America and our people and will not play any role in changing our climate one way or the other. God put nature in charge of that....Mike

Thatcher 1 year ago

Man-made global warming? http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/07/the_global_warming_hoax_how_soon_we_forget.html. I think not.

MikeNC 1 year ago

Good information Thatcher. That's a link which everyone should save for future reference....Mike

MattWilson 1 year ago

Here's another article, written by actual scientists, rather than a conservative journalist...

link text

The 3rd to last paragraph is particularly interesting. It doesn't specifically say global warming is man made, but makes ya wonder what's been going on the last couple hundred years that wasn't before. Hmmmm...

dustyrhoades 1 year ago

It's impossible to have any kind of conversation with conservatives any more, because they'll just reply to any factual source you cite by dismissing it as 'biased' or 'having an agenda'. Award Winning author Dr. David Brin, who's also an astrophysicist, has an excellent blog on which he suggested that you could win an argument with a right winger by pulling a Mitt Romney: bet them actual money that they're wrong. I pointed out that it's impossible to ever settle such a bet, because right wingers now reject facts out of hand if they don't fit their narrative, and refuse to acknowledge any factual source as authoritative. Or, as one wingnut put it: "CDC? LOL!!"

So that's why I mostly just make fun of them.

getreal 1 year ago

I enjoyed the article, thanks. The debate rages on, I am just surprised and proud on the stance of the Pilot. I need to get back to my life for awhile and stop getting involved in this debate. Time will tell how this amendment affects us all. Good luck, we'll need it.

Thatcher 1 year ago

I agree with dustyrhoades: let them bet, just like when liberal icon Paul Ehrlich ("The Population Bomb") made his bet against conservatives. Ehrlich lost big time. http://tierneylab.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/12/19/flawed-science-advice-for-obama/. Better yet, every doomsday prediction he made turned out to be false. http://www.trivia-library.com/a/past-predictions-by-famous-scientist-dr-paul-ehrlich.htm. I say, make the bet with a liberal. It's fun!

Bentpan 1 year ago

Jim Heim You are welcome to your opinions, but facts are stubborn things and will not be denied.

You might care to look up the definition of the word theory sometime. It does not mean wild stab in the dark or some guys guess work.

And yet your mouth keeps opening spewing manure with you labeling it as facts. You make it difficult to determine if your a liar or just woefully ignorant. Personaly I believe you to be a rather witless narcissist whos' main concern is the approval of a group of inept liberal sheep.

dustyrhoades 1 year ago

You might care to look up the definition of the word theory sometime. It does not mean wild stab in the dark or some guys guess work.

No, it means : "a coherent group of tested general propositions, commonly regarded as correct, that can be used as principles of explanation and prediction for a class of phenomena".

Thatcher 1 year ago

Oh, and I forgot to mention...Paul Ehrlich is a "scientist," completely unbiased don't you know. Let's see which liberals here try to defend him and his ridiculous predictions. Don't argue with "science."

Thatcher 1 year ago

MattWilson-- Here's an actual letter from a "global warming scientist" resigning from the movement: thttp://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100058265/us-physics-professor-global-warming-is-the-greatest-and-most-successful-pseudoscientific-fraud-i-have-seen-in-my-long-life/. You know about this, right? Cheers!

Thatcher 1 year ago

And here's another one of your guys that has given up the ghost of fraud: http://www.dailytech.com/Nobel+Laureate+Resigns+from+APS+Over+Global+Warming+Policy+/article22744.htm. Funny.

Thatcher 1 year ago

You'll like this too...or maybe not: http://blogs.dailymail.com/donsurber/archives/48534. This global warming nonsense is fun! Do you have any of the '70's "Global Cooling" and "New Ice Age" stuff? That would be great! Oh lookie here! http://denisdutton.com/cooling_world.htm. You guys believed this because it was "science?" We need to have a beer, so I can tell you about pranks...and guys who are paid to support a hoax.

Thatcher 1 year ago

Gosh I love those unanimous Newsweek "scientists" from the '70's. They had a dang "consensus." Uh, where are they now?

Thatcher 1 year ago

Thankfully, here's a clip about an infant receiving news about the "global warming" hoax: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RP4abi.... Enjoy!!

Jibbs 1 year ago

On an unrelated note, check out this video all the way through (have some kleenex handy).

Mother's Inspirational Video of Blind Baby Boy - Lacey and Christian Buchanan by Lacey Buchanan

MooreNorth 1 year ago

Hey folks. They past the law about 17 years ago.

jimt 1 year ago

Here's another "theory" Chubbs, which I suppose is as valid as your beliefsm afterall, is just a "theory."

"A well-known scientist (some say it was Bertrand Russell) once gave a public lecture on astronomy. He described how the earth orbits around the sun and how the sun, in turn, orbits around the center of a vast collection of stars called our galaxy. At the end of the lecture, a little old lady at the back of the room got up and said: "What you have told us is rubbish. The world is really a flat plate supported on the back of a giant tortoise." The scientist gave a superior smile before replying, "What is the tortoise standing on?" "You're very clever, young man, very clever," said the old lady. "But it's turtles all the way down!"

Comments No Longer Accepted

Limiting Rights of One Group Is a Slippery Slope

More like this story

Comments

May events