Cal Twentythree | Arkansas news, politics, opinion, restaurants, music, movies and art

Cal Twentythree 
Member since Dec 4, 2011

Favorite Places

  • None.
Find places »

Saved Events

  • Nada.
Find events »

Saved Stories

  • Nope.
Find stories »

Custom Lists

  • Zip.


  • No friends yet.
Become My Friend Find friends »


Recent Comments

Re: “Gay rights are human rights

Thomas Pope:

As to "Marriage is not a right...", you are just plain wrong.

In Loving v. Virginia, 1967, the Supreme Court decision said:
“ Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State. ”

Under the Constitution, it is the Supreme Court who has the authority to make that call.

As to "...the Human Genome Project after its completion did not find a "gay gene".Their conclusion was it's impossible to distinguish homosexual interests or behaviors of any kind from the general population by their genes." Lack of a "gay gene" doesn't mean that homosexuality is a choice. Homosexuality almost certainly has a genetic component and has potentially been associated with certain areas of the human genome. However, “genetic component” does not equal “gene.” Genetics is way more complicated than what you learned back in middle school – it’s not just single genes with dominant and recessive alleles. You can have multiple genes affecting the same trait, numerous alleles per gene, and interactions between certain combinations of certain alleles between different genes.

If this sounds complicated already, it’s just the tip of the iceberg. You can also have mutations in regulatory regions of genes. These aren’t DNA sequences that code for the actual protein, but rather regulate things like how often or in what tissue that protein is made. You can also have copy number variants (CNVs), where some people have extra (or less) copies of a certain gene.
Thanks to massive advances in technology, we can study stuff like mutations, regulatory regions, and CNVs pretty well now… but they’re still not the full story. Often times a single “hit” – one mutation in a gene, or one big deletion in a chromosome – isn’t enough to actually cause a trait. This is especially true when dealing with neurological traits like autism or learning disabilities, and may be implicated in a behavioral trait like homosexuality. Often times you need multiple mutations or deletions – or a combination of both – until you actually show the trait in question.
But it’s still even more complicated than that. It’s not as easy as saying Mutation A + Deletion 2 = FABULOUS! Both of these events are extremely rare, and there are likely thousands and thousands of different combinations of “lesions” (messed up DNA) that could cause a trait. So even if you sequenced a baby’s full genome, you’d have no idea what all the de novo (new) mutations and deletions would do, because they’ve likely never been seen in that combination before.
And all of this isn’t even taking into account epigenetics (which can further regulate DNA, and can even differ between twins), and environmental factors (which can range from hormones you’re exposed to in the womb, to listening to too many show tunes as a small child).

This "no gay gene" nonsense may be an effective way to prey on the scientifically ignorant, but I'm afraid it doesn't mean at all what you think it does.

As to "The AMA and APA are currently under an austere political correctness which discourages unbiased research and opinions. Simply put, academia is corrupted", those organizations are NOT academia....they are professional associations. As a matter of fact, every single major mainstream professional medical and psychological association agrees that homosexuality is both normal and not a choice. Included in those organizations are: the American Academy of Pediatrics, American Counseling Association, American Association of School Administrators, American Federation of Teachers, American Psychological Association, American School Health Association, Interfaith Alliance Foundation, National Association of School Psychologists, The American Psychiatric Association, the Council on Child and Adolescent Health, National Association of Social Workers and National Education Association.

Posted by Cal Twentythree on 01/01/2012 at 7:15 PM

Re: “'Those activist judges'

Michael Emerson's specious reasoning fails in so many ways.

Is there a right to privacy in the Constitution?

Well, I searched my copy of the Constitution of the United States and I couldn't find the word privacy anywhere in the document. Similarly, I searched the bible and didn't find the word "monogamy".
I also searched the Constitution and I couldn't find the word marriage either. Does that mean I don't have a right to be married — that a so-called "right to marriage" was invented by some bleeding-heart liberal judge somewhere?
The Constitution also doesn't include the right to have children, or to read a book, or even to eat food to survive.
How could the Constitution have overlooked such basic human rights?
Because the Constitution isn't about what people can do; it's about what government can do.
The Constitution was created to spell out the limited rights or powers given to the federal government, not to enumerate the rights of citizens. Duh.

He then goes into a rant that should be terrifying to anyone who understands that the Constitution protects the rights of minorities: "Then, the courts invoke these judicially created rights to invalidate laws passed by our elected representatives and by the people themselves (e.g., Initiated Act 1 in Arkansas)." It is the JOB of the court to protect minority rights from majoritanism. It is the JOB of the court to interpret the Constitution. Emerson's suggestion that bullies get to bully because they are in the majority is evil.

He says, "In Iowa and elsewhere, the courts consistently ignore public opinion in enacting same-sex marriage, which has been rejected every time it has been put to a vote." That is because when public opinion wants to discriminate against American citizens, it is the JOB of the court to insure equal treatment under the law as in "all men are created equal". Emerson is the kind of person who whines because publicly approved misogyny laws and Jim Crow laws were abolished as unconstitutional, despite public opinion.

"Activist judges" is a catchphrase for the judges who do not vote your preferred ideology.

Posted by Cal Twentythree on 12/04/2011 at 7:48 AM
  • Re: Jan Morgan and Rep. Dan Sullivan slapped with ethics complaint

    • I haven't seen a lot of personal or career information about candidate Jan Morgan either…

    • on April 22, 2018
  • Re: Earth Day open line

    • Netanyahu blasts fake news on police interrogation in corruption case The Israeli prime minister slams…

    • on April 22, 2018
  • Re: Earth Day open line

    • Natalie Portman says to skip Israeli ceremony due to Netanyahu speech. Let me speak for…

    • on April 22, 2018


© 2018 Arkansas Times | 201 East Markham, Suite 200, Little Rock, AR 72201
Powered by Foundation