Comments on: My Civil Union http://cmcforum.com/opinion/03102009-my-civil-union The Official Student Publication of Claremont McKenna College Wed, 08 Feb 2012 07:14:00 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Brad Walters http://cmcforum.com/opinion/03102009-my-civil-union#comment-5604 Brad Walters Wed, 25 Mar 2009 04:41:56 +0000 http://cmcforum.com/?p=2170#comment-5604 Sebastian, That website is an affront to reason. By suggesting its legitimacy, you do nothing more than inspire hatred and discourage productive discussion. A forum should aim to find truth, not hurl insane ideas. You've lost all credibility. Cheers, Brad Sebastian,

That website is an affront to reason. By suggesting its legitimacy, you do nothing more than inspire hatred and discourage productive discussion. A forum should aim to find truth, not hurl insane ideas.

You’ve lost all credibility.

Cheers,
Brad

]]> By: Brad Walters http://cmcforum.com/opinion/03102009-my-civil-union#comment-47022 Brad Walters Wed, 25 Mar 2009 04:41:00 +0000 http://cmcforum.com/?p=2170#comment-47022 Sebastian, That website is an affront to reason. By suggesting its legitimacy, you do nothing more than inspire hatred and discourage productive discussion. A forum should aim to find truth, not hurl insane ideas. You've lost all credibility. Cheers, Brad Sebastian,

That website is an affront to reason. By suggesting its legitimacy, you do nothing more than inspire hatred and discourage productive discussion. A forum should aim to find truth, not hurl insane ideas.

You’ve lost all credibility.

Cheers,
Brad

]]> By: Brad Walters http://cmcforum.com/opinion/03102009-my-civil-union#comment-47023 Brad Walters Wed, 25 Mar 2009 04:41:00 +0000 http://cmcforum.com/?p=2170#comment-47023 Sebastian, That website is an affront to reason. By suggesting its legitimacy, you do nothing more than inspire hatred and discourage productive discussion. A forum should aim to find truth, not hurl insane ideas. You've lost all credibility. Cheers, Brad Sebastian,

That website is an affront to reason. By suggesting its legitimacy, you do nothing more than inspire hatred and discourage productive discussion. A forum should aim to find truth, not hurl insane ideas.

You’ve lost all credibility.

Cheers,
Brad

]]> By: Sebastian Arcus http://cmcforum.com/opinion/03102009-my-civil-union#comment-5602 Sebastian Arcus Wed, 25 Mar 2009 04:17:49 +0000 http://cmcforum.com/?p=2170#comment-5602 Despite your "scientific" theories of why homosexuality may be naturally occurring due to genetic reasons, they remain theories. I caution you to tread carefully on the subject, lest your theories lead to the conclusion that homosexuals are capable of raising children. While I do not argue that every homosexual is, indeed, unfit to parent (or care for children of close kin), we must debate it before we entrust every homosexual with the care of society's most vulnerable members. I will not waste space on this blog to demonstrate some examples of homosexual misconduct with children, but instead prefer to provide you all with a link. I urge you to keep in your mind NAMBLA and other like-minded organizations. http://www.traditionalvalues.org/urban/one.php Despite your “scientific” theories of why homosexuality may be naturally occurring due to genetic reasons, they remain theories. I caution you to tread carefully on the subject, lest your theories lead to the conclusion that homosexuals are capable of raising children. While I do not argue that every homosexual is, indeed, unfit to parent (or care for children of close kin), we must debate it before we entrust every homosexual with the care of society’s most vulnerable members. I will not waste space on this blog to demonstrate some examples of homosexual misconduct with children, but instead prefer to provide you all with a link. I urge you to keep in your mind NAMBLA and other like-minded organizations.

http://www.traditionalvalues.org/urban/one.php

]]> By: Sebastian Arcus http://cmcforum.com/opinion/03102009-my-civil-union#comment-47020 Sebastian Arcus Wed, 25 Mar 2009 04:17:00 +0000 http://cmcforum.com/?p=2170#comment-47020 Despite your "scientific" theories of why homosexuality may be naturally occurring due to genetic reasons, they remain theories. I caution you to tread carefully on the subject, lest your theories lead to the conclusion that homosexuals are capable of raising children. While I do not argue that every homosexual is, indeed, unfit to parent (or care for children of close kin), we must debate it before we entrust every homosexual with the care of society's most vulnerable members. I will not waste space on this blog to demonstrate some examples of homosexual misconduct with children, but instead prefer to provide you all with a link. I urge you to keep in your mind NAMBLA and other like-minded organizations. http://www.traditionalvalues.org/urban/one.php Despite your “scientific” theories of why homosexuality may be naturally occurring due to genetic reasons, they remain theories. I caution you to tread carefully on the subject, lest your theories lead to the conclusion that homosexuals are capable of raising children. While I do not argue that every homosexual is, indeed, unfit to parent (or care for children of close kin), we must debate it before we entrust every homosexual with the care of society’s most vulnerable members. I will not waste space on this blog to demonstrate some examples of homosexual misconduct with children, but instead prefer to provide you all with a link. I urge you to keep in your mind NAMBLA and other like-minded organizations.

http://www.traditionalvalues.org/urban/one.php

]]> By: Sebastian Arcus http://cmcforum.com/opinion/03102009-my-civil-union#comment-47021 Sebastian Arcus Wed, 25 Mar 2009 04:17:00 +0000 http://cmcforum.com/?p=2170#comment-47021 Despite your "scientific" theories of why homosexuality may be naturally occurring due to genetic reasons, they remain theories. I caution you to tread carefully on the subject, lest your theories lead to the conclusion that homosexuals are capable of raising children. While I do not argue that every homosexual is, indeed, unfit to parent (or care for children of close kin), we must debate it before we entrust every homosexual with the care of society's most vulnerable members. I will not waste space on this blog to demonstrate some examples of homosexual misconduct with children, but instead prefer to provide you all with a link. I urge you to keep in your mind NAMBLA and other like-minded organizations. http://www.traditionalvalues.org/urban/one.php Despite your “scientific” theories of why homosexuality may be naturally occurring due to genetic reasons, they remain theories. I caution you to tread carefully on the subject, lest your theories lead to the conclusion that homosexuals are capable of raising children. While I do not argue that every homosexual is, indeed, unfit to parent (or care for children of close kin), we must debate it before we entrust every homosexual with the care of society’s most vulnerable members. I will not waste space on this blog to demonstrate some examples of homosexual misconduct with children, but instead prefer to provide you all with a link. I urge you to keep in your mind NAMBLA and other like-minded organizations.

http://www.traditionalvalues.org/urban/one.php

]]> By: Epigeneticist http://cmcforum.com/opinion/03102009-my-civil-union#comment-5574 Epigeneticist Tue, 24 Mar 2009 16:00:46 +0000 http://cmcforum.com/?p=2170#comment-5574 To Spencer (to further Bio Major's argument): Your quote "The idea is that genes are blind to the particular body that they currently occupy. There can be no gene that is only activated in younger brothers. Richard Dawkins premise is that genes are blind to their particular carrier and instead must evoke strategies that allow them survive in a plethora of different, as he calls them, “survival machine.” A gene has no foresight or memory. It cannot know how many brothers came before it. Maybe you should actually read the book before you start quoting its ideas." It is true as far as the actual gene, the DNA sequence of As, Ts, Cs, and Gs, that genes do not generally change after conception (except for in cases of mutations caused by UV rays, etc.) or have any insight into their environment. But it is not true that genes are "blind to their particular carrier" or that a gene "has no foresight or memory" or especially that "there can be no gene that is only activated in younger brothers." The field of epigenetics has shown exactly the opposite. Epigenetics is the study of the markers and modifications of DNA and histones (protiens that interact with DNA) which do not change the actual sequence of the DNA, but that change the way genes are used by the body. For example, a single environmental factor experienced early in life (such as different hormone levels in the womb) can turn off a gene that would normally be expressed for the rest of an organisms life. This has been shown over and over in all eukaryote (this includes plants, flies, mammals, birds, etc) organisms studied. In fact, there are many examples of single doses of sex hormones in the womb causing life-long changes in behavior. It is highly likely that the higher rates of homosexuality in younger brothers can be at least partially accounted for by epigenetics, thought I'm not sure whether it has been studied. Epigenetics is a new but rapidly growing field supported strongly by the NIH (http://www.ninds.nih.gov/news_and_events/press_releases/pressrelease_New_Initiative_Epigenomics.htm). For more info look at the wikipedia page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epigenetics). To Spencer (to further Bio Major’s argument):
Your quote “The idea is that genes are blind to the particular body that they currently occupy. There can be no gene that is only activated in younger brothers. Richard Dawkins premise is that genes are blind to their particular carrier and instead must evoke strategies that allow them survive in a plethora of different, as he calls them, “survival machine.” A gene has no foresight or memory. It cannot know how many brothers came before it. Maybe you should actually read the book before you start quoting its ideas.”

It is true as far as the actual gene, the DNA sequence of As, Ts, Cs, and Gs, that genes do not generally change after conception (except for in cases of mutations caused by UV rays, etc.) or have any insight into their environment. But it is not true that genes are “blind to their particular carrier” or that a gene “has no foresight or memory” or especially that “there can be no gene that is only activated in younger brothers.” The field of epigenetics has shown exactly the opposite. Epigenetics is the study of the markers and modifications of DNA and histones (protiens that interact with DNA) which do not change the actual sequence of the DNA, but that change the way genes are used by the body. For example, a single environmental factor experienced early in life (such as different hormone levels in the womb) can turn off a gene that would normally be expressed for the rest of an organisms life. This has been shown over and over in all eukaryote (this includes plants, flies, mammals, birds, etc) organisms studied. In fact, there are many examples of single doses of sex hormones in the womb causing life-long changes in behavior.

It is highly likely that the higher rates of homosexuality in younger brothers can be at least partially accounted for by epigenetics, thought I’m not sure whether it has been studied. Epigenetics is a new but rapidly growing field supported strongly by the NIH (http://www.ninds.nih.gov/news_and_events/press_releases/pressrelease_New_Initiative_Epigenomics.htm). For more info look at the wikipedia page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epigenetics).

]]> By: Epigeneticist http://cmcforum.com/opinion/03102009-my-civil-union#comment-47018 Epigeneticist Tue, 24 Mar 2009 16:00:00 +0000 http://cmcforum.com/?p=2170#comment-47018 To Spencer (to further Bio Major's argument): Your quote "The idea is that genes are blind to the particular body that they currently occupy. There can be no gene that is only activated in younger brothers. Richard Dawkins premise is that genes are blind to their particular carrier and instead must evoke strategies that allow them survive in a plethora of different, as he calls them, “survival machine.” A gene has no foresight or memory. It cannot know how many brothers came before it. Maybe you should actually read the book before you start quoting its ideas." It is true as far as the actual gene, the DNA sequence of As, Ts, Cs, and Gs, that genes do not generally change after conception (except for in cases of mutations caused by UV rays, etc.) or have any insight into their environment. But it is not true that genes are "blind to their particular carrier" or that a gene "has no foresight or memory" or especially that "there can be no gene that is only activated in younger brothers." The field of epigenetics has shown exactly the opposite. Epigenetics is the study of the markers and modifications of DNA and histones (protiens that interact with DNA) which do not change the actual sequence of the DNA, but that change the way genes are used by the body. For example, a single environmental factor experienced early in life (such as different hormone levels in the womb) can turn off a gene that would normally be expressed for the rest of an organisms life. This has been shown over and over in all eukaryote (this includes plants, flies, mammals, birds, etc) organisms studied. In fact, there are many examples of single doses of sex hormones in the womb causing life-long changes in behavior. It is highly likely that the higher rates of homosexuality in younger brothers can be at least partially accounted for by epigenetics, thought I'm not sure whether it has been studied. Epigenetics is a new but rapidly growing field supported strongly by the NIH (http://www.ninds.nih.gov/news_and_events/press_releases/pressrelease_New_Initiative_Epigenomics.htm). For more info look at the wikipedia page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epigenetics). To Spencer (to further Bio Major’s argument):
Your quote “The idea is that genes are blind to the particular body that they currently occupy. There can be no gene that is only activated in younger brothers. Richard Dawkins premise is that genes are blind to their particular carrier and instead must evoke strategies that allow them survive in a plethora of different, as he calls them, “survival machine.” A gene has no foresight or memory. It cannot know how many brothers came before it. Maybe you should actually read the book before you start quoting its ideas.”

It is true as far as the actual gene, the DNA sequence of As, Ts, Cs, and Gs, that genes do not generally change after conception (except for in cases of mutations caused by UV rays, etc.) or have any insight into their environment. But it is not true that genes are “blind to their particular carrier” or that a gene “has no foresight or memory” or especially that “there can be no gene that is only activated in younger brothers.” The field of epigenetics has shown exactly the opposite. Epigenetics is the study of the markers and modifications of DNA and histones (protiens that interact with DNA) which do not change the actual sequence of the DNA, but that change the way genes are used by the body. For example, a single environmental factor experienced early in life (such as different hormone levels in the womb) can turn off a gene that would normally be expressed for the rest of an organisms life. This has been shown over and over in all eukaryote (this includes plants, flies, mammals, birds, etc) organisms studied. In fact, there are many examples of single doses of sex hormones in the womb causing life-long changes in behavior.

It is highly likely that the higher rates of homosexuality in younger brothers can be at least partially accounted for by epigenetics, thought I’m not sure whether it has been studied. Epigenetics is a new but rapidly growing field supported strongly by the NIH (http://www.ninds.nih.gov/news_and_events/press_releases/pressrelease_New_Initiative_Epigenomics.htm). For more info look at the wikipedia page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epigenetics).

]]> By: Epigeneticist http://cmcforum.com/opinion/03102009-my-civil-union#comment-47019 Epigeneticist Tue, 24 Mar 2009 16:00:00 +0000 http://cmcforum.com/?p=2170#comment-47019 To Spencer (to further Bio Major's argument): Your quote "The idea is that genes are blind to the particular body that they currently occupy. There can be no gene that is only activated in younger brothers. Richard Dawkins premise is that genes are blind to their particular carrier and instead must evoke strategies that allow them survive in a plethora of different, as he calls them, “survival machine.” A gene has no foresight or memory. It cannot know how many brothers came before it. Maybe you should actually read the book before you start quoting its ideas." It is true as far as the actual gene, the DNA sequence of As, Ts, Cs, and Gs, that genes do not generally change after conception (except for in cases of mutations caused by UV rays, etc.) or have any insight into their environment. But it is not true that genes are "blind to their particular carrier" or that a gene "has no foresight or memory" or especially that "there can be no gene that is only activated in younger brothers." The field of epigenetics has shown exactly the opposite. Epigenetics is the study of the markers and modifications of DNA and histones (protiens that interact with DNA) which do not change the actual sequence of the DNA, but that change the way genes are used by the body. For example, a single environmental factor experienced early in life (such as different hormone levels in the womb) can turn off a gene that would normally be expressed for the rest of an organisms life. This has been shown over and over in all eukaryote (this includes plants, flies, mammals, birds, etc) organisms studied. In fact, there are many examples of single doses of sex hormones in the womb causing life-long changes in behavior. It is highly likely that the higher rates of homosexuality in younger brothers can be at least partially accounted for by epigenetics, thought I'm not sure whether it has been studied. Epigenetics is a new but rapidly growing field supported strongly by the NIH (http://www.ninds.nih.gov/news_and_events/press_releases/pressrelease_New_Initiative_Epigenomics.htm). For more info look at the wikipedia page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epigenetics). To Spencer (to further Bio Major’s argument):
Your quote “The idea is that genes are blind to the particular body that they currently occupy. There can be no gene that is only activated in younger brothers. Richard Dawkins premise is that genes are blind to their particular carrier and instead must evoke strategies that allow them survive in a plethora of different, as he calls them, “survival machine.” A gene has no foresight or memory. It cannot know how many brothers came before it. Maybe you should actually read the book before you start quoting its ideas.”

It is true as far as the actual gene, the DNA sequence of As, Ts, Cs, and Gs, that genes do not generally change after conception (except for in cases of mutations caused by UV rays, etc.) or have any insight into their environment. But it is not true that genes are “blind to their particular carrier” or that a gene “has no foresight or memory” or especially that “there can be no gene that is only activated in younger brothers.” The field of epigenetics has shown exactly the opposite. Epigenetics is the study of the markers and modifications of DNA and histones (protiens that interact with DNA) which do not change the actual sequence of the DNA, but that change the way genes are used by the body. For example, a single environmental factor experienced early in life (such as different hormone levels in the womb) can turn off a gene that would normally be expressed for the rest of an organisms life. This has been shown over and over in all eukaryote (this includes plants, flies, mammals, birds, etc) organisms studied. In fact, there are many examples of single doses of sex hormones in the womb causing life-long changes in behavior.

It is highly likely that the higher rates of homosexuality in younger brothers can be at least partially accounted for by epigenetics, thought I’m not sure whether it has been studied. Epigenetics is a new but rapidly growing field supported strongly by the NIH (http://www.ninds.nih.gov/news_and_events/press_releases/pressrelease_New_Initiative_Epigenomics.htm). For more info look at the wikipedia page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epigenetics).

]]> By: curious formerly confused http://cmcforum.com/opinion/03102009-my-civil-union#comment-5567 curious formerly confused Tue, 24 Mar 2009 07:23:58 +0000 http://cmcforum.com/?p=2170#comment-5567 well now i really want to know.. well now i really want to know..

]]>