Indiana...Religious Freedom eh? *sigh*

Hoss_sl said:

yeah sure. Or maybe, you know, I was just trying to figure out the source of the conclusions that article lept to. It didn't actually quote any part of the law IIRC.

Click to expand...

Actually it directly cites one part of the law, and references another part it partially cites.

Would you like me to cite directly from the article, since you have now demonstrated you never read it?

Indiana Religious Freedom Restoration Act Allows Private Businesses to Discriminate Against Employees Based on Sexual Orientation ??" The Atlantic

The problem with this statement is that, well, it's false. That becomes clear when you read and compare those tedious state statutes. If you do that, you will find that the Indiana statute has two features the federal RFRA-and most state RFRAs-do not.First, the Indiana law explicitly allows any for-profit business to assert a right to "the free exercise of religion."The federal RFRA doesn't contain such language, and neither does any of the state RFRAs except South Carolina's; in fact, Louisiana and Pennsylvania, explicitly exclude for-profit businesses from the protection of their RFRAs.

The new Indiana statute also contains this odd language:"A person whose exercise of religion has been substantially burdened, or is likely to be substantially burdened, by a violation of this chapter may assert the violation or impending violation as a claim or defense in a judicial or administrative proceeding, regardless of whether the state or any other governmental entity is a party to the proceeding."(My italics.) Neither the federal RFRA, nor 18 of the 19 state statutes cited by the Post, says anything like this; only the Texas RFRA, passed in 1999, contains similar language.

What these words mean is, first, that the Indiana statute explicitly recognizes that a for-profit corporation has "free exercise" rights matching those of individuals or churches. A lot of legal thinkers thought that idea was outlandish until last year's decision in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, in which the Court's five conservatives interpreted the federal RFRA to give some corporate employers a religious veto over their employees' statutory right to contraceptive coverage.

Click to expand...

I bolded the parts that are directly cited from the law proper.

lets just drop it.

Click to expand...

Yes, quite convenient that you want to make a baseless assertion that demonstrates you don't know what you're talking about and didn't read the article, and then drop the subject.

What percentage of people have those markers,

Click to expand...

Everyone with an X chromosome and a chromosome 8 (which is everyone, or you wouldn't be alive, the absence of an X chromosome or any other chromosome is a fatal condition that means the gametes will either not fertilize, or will abort very shortly after fertilization, it is a lethal condition to lack a chromosome of any type, in other words) have these allele clusters. The exact copies of alleles within those clusters vary in the population. And again, these clusters are correlated in the largest, most complete whole genome sequencing analysis project regarding human sexuality to date to pass peer review, with male sexuality across the board.

So yeah.

the only thing I saw say 'correlation' which, to me, means it's not 100%

Click to expand...

That's because you aren't a scientist, have no background in biology or genetics past, at best, the high school level, and are looking for problems with the research while having, at best, about a tenth of the information you'd need to really grasp what the study says. We don't do 100% anything in science. Ever. That's not how science works. This study backs up previous findings from other studies using smaller data sets. It confirms their correlation of these gene cluster locations to human sexual variation in males. The sample size was nearly 1000 individuals, from over 400 sets of brothers. Which is huge. The largest of its kind to date. The linkage analysis scores were within the proper parameters to exclude confounding factors and the null hypothesis that these gene clusters are not correlated with human sexuality. In other words, this is as close to 100% as you can get in science. The results are already confirming other studies with similar results. Multiple lines of evidence are converging on a similar result and conclusion, which increases the reliability and accuracy of the result.

That's how we confirm things in science. We always leave open the possibility for other evidence to cause us to re evaluate. There is epigenetic considerations, for instance. Issues like how methylated regions of a genome may cause alterations in gene expression and so forth in interactions with the environment, but that will not change the fact that the pericentromeric region of Chromosome 8 and the Xq28 region of the X chromosome have been linked heavily, through multiple large, rigorous studies, with male sexuality. Its as conclusive a find as you're likely to get anytime soon for something as complex as human behavioral patterns in relation to gene expression.

This study uses homosexual brothers in whole genome sequencing studies because they can then do comparative analysis and find regions that are similar in both, that differ from heterosexual males, to determine whether or not these variations in regions of the genome lead to differential outcomes. And that's what the study demonstrates, that these two allele clusters in particular are correlated, at a higher rate than any others, with male sexual variation in human beings.

I hope that helps you to gain a better grasp of the subject.

added: Just for clarities sake, everyone must have 1 X chromosome to be alive. Females have 2 X chromosomes, and one is randomly deactivated in each cell early in fetal development. Just in case someone mistakes my saying lacking an X chromosome to indicate that males, who only have 1 X chromosome, would not be viable.

In fact, in all but three chromosomes (the smallest, 13, 18 and 21) having 3 copies of a chromosome is also a fatal condition. Down syndrome, or trisomy 21, is one of the few instances where a human gamete can have 3 of 1 type of chromosome and make it through gestation to birth and live beyond that. Although the results of that are pretty obvious. There's also Turner Syndromes and the like.

Anyway, that's all besides the point. The point is lacking any copies of X chromosomes is a fatal condition.

http://www.psmag.com/health/the-soci...of-genes-64616

Good article on how genes alter expression in different environments, even within the same organism.

If you are on facebook, and won't shit it up with nonsense posts that will get you banned from the group, I highly suggest joining the Bioanthropology News group if you want to see lots of great science related stuff that correlates well with human genetics, biological variation, etc. But be forewarned, its an actual academic geared news group and will ban you for trolling.