Gay wedding cakes and the bigots who won't bake them.

[Dr Kynes]

but you don't have the same set of fingerprints.

EDIT: you and your brother are identical? you can pin murders on each other..

he is a flaming liberal, i am a staunch conservative.

he likes borscht, i hate that revolting shit.

he is a metrosexual borderline queer rights activist who made out with a transvestite at least once, i am strictly for the ladies.

clearly we must be genetically very different.

 

[MuyLocoNC]

It is all in how you word it, so to speak.

Augusta National, for instance, is a private golf club where they hold The Masters every year. It wasn't long ago that they did not let minorities or females in.

Like twostroke says, they caved to public pressure, but were not subject to the civil rights act. Why? Because they were not open to the public. In other words, they retained a much stronger right to exclusion than Walmart, for example.

Walmart opens it's doors wide and does not place a limit upon entry. Augusta Nationals said to come in you have to join a private association.

Because of this, a place like Sams Club or Costco could stand a better chance of being able to exclude a specific group.

In your private residence and properties you have absolute right of exclusion. "Whites Only" is ok there, if that is what you want. But if you are "open to the public" you cannot exclude anyone but known thieves.

So, if a bakery wanted to indiscriminately discriminate (lol) against gays, all they have to do is charge a $1 membership fee that is refundable on the first purchase. Feel free to browse, but you must enroll to make a purchase. That's all it takes? What the fuck is all the debate about then?

Restaurants, hotels, gas stations, etc...can simply charge a buck for a meaningless membership and they get to turn the civil rights act on its ear?

I'm not judging, I'm just curious if it holds water.

 

[UncleBuck]

When a person refuses to associate with another they are "leaving them alone".

that's a gentle euphemism for denying service to blacks, which you fully and 100% support, which caused harm to others, and which is not a right anyone has since it does cause harm.

you are clownshoes.

 

[UncleBuck]

So, if a bakery wanted to indiscriminately discriminate (lol) against gays, all they have to do is charge a $1 membership fee that is refundable on the first purchase. Feel free to browse, but you must enroll to make a purchase. That's all it takes? What the fuck is all the debate about then?

Restaurants, hotels, gas stations, etc...can simply charge a buck for a meaningless membership and they get to turn the civil rights act on its ear?

I'm not judging, I'm just curious if it holds water.

they never did define "private club", so who knows.

 

[UncleBuck]

yes. they do.

you are an idiot.

the only differences between true identical twins is in their copy count number, which can only be determined with the most sophisticated genetic testing.

most of the time even the copy count number is identical, only SOME twins have variations.

you fail miserably.

genetic testing can not differentiate between identical twins but it can separate out siblings cousins, or other close relatives.

identical twins do not have identical DNA.

i'm married to an identical twin who is the daughter of an identical twin and i promise you my wife, holding a doctorate in psychology, has reviewed the literature.

whatever you do, don't dare google the subject and bother to inform yourself.

 

[Dr Kynes]

identical twins do not have identical DNA.

i'm married to an identical twin who is the daughter of an identical twin and i promise you my wife, holding a doctorate in psychology, has reviewed the literature.

whatever you do, don't dare google the subject and bother to inform yourself.

hmm... so being married to a broad who has a twin sister, and holds a degree in voodoo makes you an expert.

amazing.

you get stupider every day.

identical twins are the result of a split embryo.

they are 1 ovum, and 1 sperm, basically, CLONES.

perhaps you should check yourself before you riggety riggety wreck yo'self

 

[UncleBuck]

hmm... so being married to a broad who has a twin sister, and holds a degree in voodoo makes you an expert.

amazing.

you get stupider every day.

identical twins are the result of a split embryo.

they are 1 ovum, and 1 sperm, basically, CLONES.

perhaps you should check yourself before you riggety riggety wreck yo'self

like i said, don't you dare look into any recent findings on the issue.

identical twins do not have identical DNA.

 

[Beefbisquit]

It is a basic tenet of human biology, taught in grade schools everywhere: Identical twins come from the same fertilized egg and, thus, share identical genetic profiles.
But according to new research, though identical twins share very similar genes, identical they are not. The discovery opens a new understanding of why two people who hail from the same embryo can differ in phenotype, as biologists refer to a person’s physical manifestation.....

......The specific changes that Dr. Dumanski and his colleagues identified are known as copy number variations, in which a gene exists in multiple copies, or a set of coding letters in DNA is missing. Not known, however, is whether these changes in identical twins occur at the embryonic level, as the twins age or both.......



http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/11/health/11real.html?_r=0

For the record, I thought you were right Kynes.

 

[UncleBuck]

recent findings indicate that there CAN be minor variations in the "copy count" of a small segment of twin's dna, but their genetic code is IDENTICAL.

did you know that your genetic code today is ever so slightly different than it was yesterday?

ZOMG you must be a pod person.

dumbasses caught dumbassing rarely admit their dumbassery, instead they try to parse their way out of it by torturing the language and the science.

unlike bubba clin ton, you suck at it.

what was i lying about?

you just weren't up to date. you got out-hipstered. sorry dude. go cry.

 

[Beefbisquit]

recent findings indicate that there CAN be minor variations in the "copy count" of a small segment of twin's dna, but their genetic code is IDENTICAL.

did you know that your genetic code today is ever so slightly different than it was yesterday?

ZOMG you must be a pod person.

dumbasses caught dumbassing rarely admit their dumbassery, instead they try to parse their way out of it by torturing the language and the science.

unlike bubba clin ton, you suck at it.

Dr. Dumanski pointed out, for example, that as his study was going to press, the following statement could be found on the Web site of the National Human Genome Research Institute, the group that financed the government project to decode the human genome: “Most of any one person’s DNA, some 99.9 percent, is exactly the same as any other person’s DNA. (Identical twins are the exception, with 100 percent similarity).”
That, we now know, no longer appears to be the case.

THE BOTTOM LINE

Identical twins apparently do not have identical DNA.

Thats's from the same site... hmm.

 

[schuylaar]

he is a flaming liberal, i am a staunch conservative.

he likes borscht, i hate that revolting shit.

he is a metrosexual borderline queer rights activist who made out with a transvestite at least once, i am strictly for the ladies.

clearly we must be genetically very different.

well, the egg split before anything was formed therefore, while your dna is the same, your brains are completely different being that you never shared the same brain.

 

[UncleBuck]

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/identical-twins-genes-are-not-identical/

[h=1]Identical Twins' Genes Are Not Identical[/h]

 

[Dr Kynes]

well, the egg split before anything was formed therefore, while your dna is the same, your brains are completely different being that you never shared the same brain.

but he is a metrosexual, are you suggesting he might not have been "Born That Way"?????

ZOMG!! HERESY!

 

[Beefbisquit]

i am right.

these changes are the result of aging, and environment, not genetic variation.

only the most sophisticated and thorough tests can find differentiation between true identical twins, and then only after they are well past adolescence

a sample size of 19 pairs is ridiculously small, and statistically insignificant.

once again bucky grabs a pop-science "study" conclusion in the press and rushes to judgement, and is once again WRONG!

organ transplants from one twin to another are rejection-proof.

my brother and i are not just "matches" but are interchangeable. fortunately since he doesnt smoke tobacco, or weed, doesnt drink or shoot dope, and does not work at a nuclear power plant i can harvest my spare organs when my own start to deteriorate.

he does however have the hsv1, cuz his ex old lady was a whore.

The specific changes that Dr. Dumanski and his colleagues identified are known as copy number variations, in which a gene exists in multiple copies, or a set of coding letters in DNA is missing. Not known, however, is whether these changes in identical twins occur at the embryonic level, as the twins age or both.

Apparently, they're not sure if it occurs throughout life, or at the embryonic level.

 

[Dr Kynes]

Apparently, they're not sure if it occurs throughout life, or at the embryonic level.

ohh yeah i forgot, if a scientist isnt sure of the cause of some effect, they must default to the Bucky Approved Opinion.

my bad.

it's right there in the bylaws of the National Academy for Troll Sciences and Bullshit Claims.

 

[UncleBuck]

internet PhDs are so much easier to obtain.

 

[Beefbisquit]

ohh yeah i forgot, if a scientist isnt sure of the cause of some effect, they must default to the Bucky Approved Opinion.

my bad.

it's right there in the bylaws of the National Academy for Troll Sciences and Bullshit Claims.

I'm just pointing out what the scientists in the article claim.

You can make your own claims, but I'm fairly certain you didn't participate in any of the studies. I don't care who's opinion it supports, it's what the article says that matters.

 

[BigNBushy]

I'm just pointing out what the scientists in the article claim.

You can make your own claims, but I'm fairly certain you didn't participate in any of the studies. I don't care who's opinion it supports, it's what the article says that matters.

drK made his claim and mentioned the variation by name before you posted it.

None of you understand the variation, the scientists who just found it don't understand it.

So for all intents and purposes DrK is correct. Only with the most cutting edge technology, in some cases, is there any hope of finding even the slightest variation in the DNA.

But the fact is, theDNA is the same, there is just more of it in one than the other. In other words. Examining the same gene from each twin you would see the same genetic information in each. But one twin would have more copies of the DNA in that gene. But theDNA there would be identical.

Note what they didn't say.

If you took my DNA and Buck 's DNA they could examine it and tell which of us it came from even if they had no idea from who the sample came from.

Here they can tell some difference, but it doesn't help in distinguishing one twin from the other.

Way to split hairs and argue about something completely irrelevant, and be wrong all at once buck!

 

[Padawanbater2]

No, it is the observation that most, vast majority, of certain folks in a certain class do a specific thing, and government deciding that thing is good, so it should be rewarded.

That isn't why tax and marriage benefits are awarded to married individuals. What does "of a certain class" mean?

The government recognizes that having babies is a good thing for the economy because of the money spent raising them, gay people can't have babies (they can), so these benefits should not be awarded to them, yet sterile or elderly heterosexual couples can't either, but you don't think that makes up enough of a significant percentage to warrant denying them equal rights based on infertility, but even though gay couples make up about the same percentage, they should be denied equal rights? Serious lack of consistency imo

So it is cheaper to just give the benefit to them, knowing their lack of child production is something they are still capable of, and if it isn't, something they would likely do if they could.

Yeah, just like I said before, you think justifying these benefits to married heterosexual couples should be strictly based on the ability of potential production. It's cheaper to give heterosexual couples the benefit anyway because infertile/elderly couples make up a fraction of a percentage of married couples (homosexual couples don't?) and spending money finding out which ones they are would be more costly anyway (but it wouldn't be with homosexual couples?)

Again... serious lack of consistency. It's very clear you are not being truthful with your responses, you're trying to find ways to deny homosexual couples equal rights, I've found a loophole for each of your attempted justifications and you just reverted back to the first one I addressed, "function of ability"; gay people can't have babies naturally, so they're of no interest to the US government so they shouldn't be awarded equal benefits as heterosexual couples who can produce children naturally. Sterile couples can't either, but you say "well.. they should still get the same benefits because there's not enough of them to warrant spending any money to find them..", except the amount of homosexual couples is similar by comparison. Elderly couples? They can't, just like homosexual couples can't, what's your pseudo justification for why you believe they should have the same heterosexual rights? They could have...? See how silly this is getting...?

Besides, it has never been said that child production was the requirement of the benefit. Just marriage.

Then why are you arguing the opposite?

An infertile couple, and a homosexual couple stand at the same place functionally, cannot produce children. The difference being, very often the infertile couple didn't know until after marriage, where the homosexual couple always knew they couldn't have children.

Why do you feel this is significant?

Historically slavery was ok. One of the first things they teach you if you take a sociology class is that you can't judge other cultures (and naturally their customs) by our own. The same stands to reason that you cannot judge other times values by our own.

Slavery was fine in 1830, and find in 87bc when I think Spartacus revolted in Rome. It had always been done, and was a norm of society. Though by 1830 some were suggesting it end. So then it was probably where homosexuality is now.

So, in 1860, slavery was legal, and by the standards of the day, it was the right thing to do. Can't Jude days gone by by our standards today.

You can't judge yesterday by todays standards, but it's fine to use yesterdays standards as justification for todays issues?

The word of the day is definitely "consistency"

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/consistency?s=t

 

[Beefbisquit]

drK made his claim and mentioned the variation by name before you posted it.

None of you understand the variation, the scientists who just found it don't understand it.

The scientisits studying it don't know how it works but you and Kynes do? Are you seriously suggesting this?

So for all intents and purposes DrK is correct. Only with the most cutting edge technology, in some cases, is there any hope of finding even the slightest variation in the DNA.

It's not 'any hope' it's pretty straight forward now. It does take new technology, but anything new usually takes new technology.

But the fact is, theDNA is the same, there is just more of it in one than the other. In other words. Examining the same gene from each twin you would see the same genetic information in each. But one twin would have more copies of the DNA in that gene. But theDNA there would be identical.

Not true. Environmental changes over time make changes in the DNA accoriding to the scientists who actually know what they're talking about. See, I'm listing information that's been actually sourced by peopel doing the research, you're not. According to scientists the changes in the DNA could very well start at the embryonic level.

You're just stating your opinion on the matter. Which is that of a lamen.

Note what they didn't say.

If you took my DNA and Buck 's DNA they could examine it and tell which of us it came from even if they had no idea from who the sample came from.

Here they can tell some difference, but it doesn't help in distinguishing one twin from the other.

Way to split hairs and argue about something completely irrelevant, and be wrong all at once buck!

That's not true. The article specifically says they can tell the difference between twins.

According to Carl Bruder of Alabama University;

"If the twin issue comes up in a criminal investigation it's possible that if there are [copy number variants] that differ between the two twins that might help sort that out," Bieber says.

So, you are incorrect. There is most definitely a chance for the DNA to differ enough to distinguish twins via DNA.

Scientists have long used twins to study the roles of nature and nurture in human genetics and how each affects disease, behavior, and conditions, such as obesity. But Bruder's findings suggest a new way to study the genetic and environmental roots of disease.

For example, one twin in Bruder's study was missing some genes on particular chromosomes that indicated a risk of leukemia, which he indeed suffered. The other twin did not.

Bruder therefore believes that the differences in identical twins can be used to identify specific genetic regions that coincide with specific diseases. Next, he plans to examine blood samples from twin pairs in which only one suffers from asthma or psoriasis to see whether he can find gene copy number changes that relate to either of these illnesses.