So just for clarity’s sake, Focus on the Family has lost literally every big battle they’ve tried to win right? I mean, social conservatives have a pretty awful record on social issues. Defeated, if you will.

Think Progress, what else needs to be said?

Oh, Franken was elected by allowing Felons to vote illegally.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/07/12/felons-voting-illegally-franken-minnesota-study-finds/

the federal government recognized same sex marriage in 2010?

con are just stupid,they can not read.

and thier understanding of any subject is childish and stupid,they think they are right in thier own eyes whiles the rest of us laugh at them.

Stuart Smalley is a joke and embrassment to anyone wwho can see and hear.Also, Stuart owes KBR a apology .

Franken laid down the dynamite and it just went Boom.

It doesn’t. [Laughter.] The study defines a nuclear family as one or more children living with two parents who are married to one another and are each biological or adoptive parents to all the children in the family. And I frankly don’t really know how we can trust the rest of your testimony if you are reading studies these ways.

Argumentum ad ignorantiam or , argument from ignorance ,  asserts that a proposition is true because it has not been proven false .

Fitting , Senator Al Franken .

Well we could say the Focus on the Family has been caught more than once misrepresenting studies to dishonestly try and bolster their anti gay beliefs.

We could say that dismissing the sources without bothering to check the facts is a bad idea if facts matter to you. 

Of course the expression nuclear family means man, woman and children. Franken is just being what he always is–an ass.

Oh, Franken was elected by allowing Felons to vote illegally.

Oh, that’s not what your link says, but don’t let that bother you.

Haha, you’re too scared to listen to what the Senator had to say.

Yeah, I guess this part just skipped your gaze-

~which found that at least 341 convicted felons in largely Democratic
Minneapolis-St. Paul voted illegally in the 2008 Senate race between
Franken, a Democrat, and his Republican opponent, then-incumbent
Sen.
Norm Coleman. ~Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/07/12/felons-voting-illegally-franken-minnesota-study-finds/#ixzz1SgW2HTdf

Is it really anti gay or is it pro family. You are allowed your own opinion, not your own facts.

actually , that was the type of argument Minnery put forth , not Franken. Focus on the Family has done that kind of thing before.

if the study was done before interracial marriage was accepted, would it not be the same after it was?

it’s distorting the facts either way….

Okay, I will-

Blah, blah, blah repeating what is on record. HHS study to confirm points made. Nuclear, so he is stating that nuclear family. What Franken DOES NOT say is whether or not it includes gay couples!?

He created a fallacious argument. So THERE, I listened to his lies and raise you that FRANKEN is STILL an idiot.

Okay, I will-

Blah, blah, blah repeating what is on record. HHS study to confirm points made. Nuclear, so he is stating that nuclear family. What Franken DOES NOT say is whether or not it includes gay couples!?

He created a fallacious argument. So THERE, I listened to his lies and raise you that FRANKEN is STILL an idiot.

Really!?

Franken straight out LIED by obfuscation. He said that a nuclear family is not defined as being opposite sex, yet he does not say it isn’t! Just another lie by omission. He does not go into whether or not the study include same sex couples, did he?

It’s not just the expression as in conversation.  Minnery cited a specific study and the study itself defined nuclear family as a two parent household, not necessarily two opposite gender parents.

The only definition that matters in this case is the definition provided by the study. If you’re going to cite a study you ought to know that. I repeat , this is not the first time this organization has misrepresented studies to try and strengthen it’s anti gay agenda. Hardly and admirable pattern for a “Christian family” group. 

that’s not how the study defines it.

and yet so many offer much more substance than this.

Don’t you think Al Franken distorts facts whenever it is convenient to his argument?

Several online dictionaries define “nuclear family” as a father, mother, and children. It seems to me that Al Franken is trying to get that definition changed.

It is true that the nuclear family, which became the most popular kind of family in the 20th century, is now being challenged by other kinds of family organization. But I don’t think we need to change the definition of nuclear family; instead we ought to use that term for one kind of family, and other terms for other kinds of families.

Perhaps Senator Franken should discuss this with professional anthropologists, instead of his gay donors.

I didn’t miss that at all. Show me where it says how many voted for Franken.

Merriam Webster sides with Focus on Family (whom I dislike about as much as Franken):
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/nuclear%20family

If people want to change the term it is one thing- but I really do not think it is that big of a “gotcha” if a traditionalist group uses a traditional definition to define a traditional marriage.

Merriam Webster sides with Focus on Family (whom I dislike about as much as Franken):
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/nuclear%20family

If people want to change the term it is one thing- but I really do not think it is that big of a “gotcha” if a traditionalist group uses a traditional definition to define a traditional marriage.

As recent events have proven, Fox news isn’t a reliable or credible source for facts.

How does the study define nuclear family?

What recent events are those? Be specific!

Then the study is wrong.  Nuclear family has a set-in-stone definition.   ”A family group that consists only of father, mother, and children”.

The study should have used another term.  Maybe “Modern Nuclear Family”- You cannot fault anyone (either Dem or Repub) for using the proper definition of the word.

More dishonesty by FotF.

http://www.democracyforums.com/showthread.php?t=46986

No one will ever know with all the roadblocks the Democrats have put up in investigating voter fraud and corruption. It has been over two years now and only 28 charges filed.

~So far we have charged 28 people with felonies, have 17 more under
review and have 182 cases still open,” he said. “And there is a good
chance we may match or even exceed their numbers.”~
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/07/12/felons-voting-illegally-franken-minnesota-study-finds/#ixzz1SgdL0bsg

Several online dictionaries define “nuclear family” as a father, mother,
and children. It seems to me that Al Franken is trying to get that
definition changed.

It doesn’t matter how online dictionaries define it. Franken was saying how THE STUDY that Minnery cited had defined it. Terms are often defined in studies.
We don’t know without more research whether SS couples with kids were included in this study, but it doesn’t appear that Minnery is sure, and misrepresented what was actually said in the study. It’s not the first case for this group.

and do you know?  Minnery didn’t appear to know , and yet he still misrepresented what the study actually said. I believe that was the point Franken was making.

You have got to love how Franken schooled that ignorant bible thumper.

It’s anti gay and that’s a fact. Focus on the Family , as well as other conservative Christian groups, {Marcus Bachman}actively spread the lie that being gay is a perversion, a danger to society, and a choice that can be cured. They have, on more than one occasion, distorted the details of scientific studies to try and bolster their position, while ignoring mounting scientific evidence that shows they are wrong.

Notice, the leftist way of attempting to change the VERY MEANING of words.

George Orwell was absolutely correct with the tyrants. Neo linguistic manipulation of standard definitions.

Next thing they are going to do is call-

Tax increases- reduced spending in the tax code
War- overseas contingency operations

again, show me where it says who , or how many voted for Franken, or, you could just admit you were wrong.

No YOU be specific and back up your claim, or admit you can’t.

Franken 2016!

Franken 2016!

Yes you can. FotF has distorted scientific studies before and I suspect Franken knew their reputation. Anyone somewhat familiar with studies knows that the terms are defined by the study, not by your assumption.

Posters on a comments section might be expected to make that mistake. Not Minnery.

Yes you can. FotF has distorted scientific studies before and I suspect Franken knew their reputation. Anyone somewhat familiar with studies knows that the terms are defined by the study, not by your assumption.

Posters on a comments section might be expected to make that mistake. Not Minnery.

Pffft, in reply to this-

No YOU be specific and back up your claim, or admit you can’t.

I did not make the claim that Fox News is not a reliable source for facts. So your comment makes no SENSE!

Pffft, in reply to this-

No YOU be specific and back up your claim, or admit you can’t.

I did not make the claim that Fox News is not a reliable source for facts. So your comment makes no SENSE!

In regards to this- again, show me where it says who , or how many voted for Franken, or, you could just admit you were wrong.

As soon as the investigations are over, I will provide them, if the Democrats allow the release of the information. I am sure the DNC has lawyers all over these cases and I would be surprised that they would allow the information out. I am sure the judge will probably seal the records to protect Franken.

By the way, I made an assertion and I stand by it. If you do not like it, you provide counter evidence to disprove my assertion. We are not in a court of law, by the way if it was a civil trial I would not have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt, I would only have to prove a preponderance of evidence.

But since we are in the court of public opinion, my proof that so far 28 charges have been filed and that the recount kept happening until Franken won, I think I have provided enough in that court. So pffft!

I’d guess that people laughed when Franken mentioned he read the study because they knew what was coming. This isn’t the first time Franken has exposed dishonesty on the hill.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZqmqYWrGYOY&feature=related

I disagree. If you’re going to cite a study in testimony before a Senate Committee you ought to know what that study actually says and how the terms are defined. If Franken can get a copy and read it, why can’t Minnery? He can. Probably did.

Good for Al.  Unlike Obama, he realizes he still has a lot to learn in his first term as Senator.  Obama was already running for president at this stage.

Are you going to back up your claim, admit you were wrong, or just ignore it and hope it goes away?

It doesn’t hurt that much to just say, oops , I was wrong.

Studies define terms used in the study and that SOP. It takes very little brains or effort to check that. “The left” isn’t trying to change anything.

I don’t recall any recent mistakes made by Fox News Channel, at least on any major news stories. 

On the other hand, other networks often ignore major news stories entirely. So that makes Fox more reliable than any of the others.

As for credibility, biased reporting by the New York Times is so common that it is noteworthy when the Times presents an important story fairly. 

There were many, many irregularities in the 2008 Senate race in Minnesota; but you never heard about them in the NYT and you did not get honest reporting from the Minneapolis Star-Tribune, which is equally biased.

what does that have to do with the study?

Which claim is that? The one that Franken was elected due to getting felony votes or the one that the left always changes the definitions of words or the one that stated Franken used a fallacy to obfuscate the meaning of Nuclear Family.

For ONE- I stand by my assertion and will wait til the cases of voter fraud are complete.

For TWO- Obama stated that tax increases are NOW CALLED reduced spending in the tax code and will provide more evidence of that if you want, ala overseas contingency operation.

For THREE- That Franken NEVER defined whether or not it meant a male and female normal family or not in the study.

Would YOU like to find the study and provide proof that Nuclear Family included same sex couples?

I will be waiting………………………………

He didn’t lie.  The author of the study backed up his analysis.

Dan, the term “nuclear family” has a clearly-accepted meaning. The term seems to have been invented by anthropologists nearly 100 years ago to describe a household with a father, mother, and their children.

If the authors of the study meant something else, or if Al Franken means something else, then they should use a different term. 

The definition cited by Franken woud allow for a nuclear family to include a family headed by two same-sex people that are married, but at the time the study was published (12/10) gay marriage was legal in only a handful of states.  Moreover, Franken never said if any same-sex couples were included in the study, or if they were, what percentage of the study they comprised.  Is Sen. Franken suggesting that a nationwide study of nuclear families that included only one or two same-sex families is representative of all same-sex households? 

He’s even less funny as a Senator than he was ridiculing Irish surnames with his O’Franken Factor radio show.  (And he didn’t need to go there.  The Al Franken Factor has the exact same cadence as the ethnic slur, O’Franken Factor.  He just didn’t think it was offensive to ridicule an Irish name.)

Dan, you know perfectly well that once a fraudulent ballot is mixed in with good ballots, there is no way to sort it out or determine which candidates were voted for.

But Hennepin County, where most of the ballot irregularities occurred, is very Democratic. Any additional and illegal ballots cast in Hennepin County were probably cast for Democrats. 

Dan, you know perfectly well that once a fraudulent ballot is mixed in with good ballots, there is no way to sort it out or determine which candidates were voted for.

But Hennepin County, where most of the ballot irregularities occurred, is very Democratic. Any additional and illegal ballots cast in Hennepin County were probably cast for Democrats. 

Franken, on stage in Las Vegas or Atlantic City in 2013, but probably in the Catskills.

For ONE- I stand by my assertion and will wait til the cases of voter fraud are complete.

LOL!! Speaking of obfuscation! 

So you can’t back up your statement with evidence then?  You just really really believe it’s true, based on…well just wanting to I guess.

I really don’t understand what’s so horrible about admitting a mistake and why adults {guessing} have such a hard time with it.

For THREE- That Franken NEVER defined whether or not it meant a male and female normal family or not in the study.

No but Minnery did, and misrepresented what the study said in doing so. Minnery said “I assumed” Nothing Franken said was dishonest or obfuscation. He merely pointed out that the study did not say what Minnery claimed it said. If Minnery actually knew the study he cited only included male female couples he had a perfect opportunity to say so, and didn’t.

I never mentioned number two.

Let me ask one question to all those against gay marriage.  How does it effect you?  If you reply by saying it cheapens marriage, I argue divorce does.  Nothing in the DOMA bans divorce. It should because divorce actually does destroy marriage.  So again I ask, how does it effect you?  If the true libertarian mantra is applied and government’s only role is to mediate civil disagreements and provide defense against those who wish to take rights or property away by using force or fraud, what rights or property of yours is being taken?  If you use the religious argument, the state sees marriage as nothing more than a contract between two individuals.  You can get married in a church, but unless the state recognizes it, you have no legal right to claim anything acquired during the marriage or any compensation if one is incapacitated or dead.  So again, how does this effect you? Churches will not be forced to marry who they don’t wish to marry. (I can’t get married to a non Catholic in a Catholic ceremony.  The state can’t do anything about that) If you say that people will marry children or horses or toaster ovens, I argue that none of those are protected as individuals under the constitution.  As it stands now, American citizens, over the age of 18, are the only ones that have rights under the US Constitution.  Granted that changed from male, white, land owners, but legally thats where it stands now.  So again I ask how does this effect you?

Speaking of “Focus on the Family”, Al, have you gotten your poor wife a dental plan yet?

You could make your argument mean the opposite of what you intended by removing Franken’s name and put a Republicans name in there.  Then replace the word gay with the word Christian.

Posts like this allow libs to voice their support of depravity and debauchery.

Al, did the report say sending crotch shots of yourself to unsuspecting people make for a healthier and happier family?

Scared? No too intelligent to listen to that splenetic fool.

It has no effect on me what gays or lesbians do in their homes.

In fact, my only point here was that Franken was an extremely bad choice for Senator and the study he cited likely did not include same-sex marriages because there were so few from 2001-2007 (if any).

Of course the update just destroyed you.

Just as posts like yours allow you to voice your bigotry.

Just recently has the term “nuclear family” included a same sex parentage. It was always a mother, father and children either biological or adopted.

Technically the report said nothing of the nuclear family being married.  For example, if the mother of the child dies and they live with father and a live in girlfriend.  Or say a child’s parents dies and they live with two older siblings. 

Blow, I’m not really interested in making any argument — and I’m not interested in defending Focus on the Family. I’m just saddened whenever someone I like becomes someone I cannot stand anymore.

The definition cited by Franken woud allow for a nuclear family to
include a family headed by two same-sex people that are married, but at
the time the study was published (12/10) gay marriage was legal in only a
handful of states.  Moreover, Franken never said if any same-sex
couples were included in the study, or if they were, what percentage of
the study they comprised.  Is Sen. Franken suggesting that a nationwide
study of nuclear families that included only one or two same-sex
families is representative of all same-sex households?

All he said was that the study did not say what Minnery claimed it said. No need to put words in his mouth.

  Minnery and FotF are trying to use it as scientific evidence that kids with hetero present parents do better than than kids with SS present parents, to support their false assertion that SSM is harmful to society. Let’s say the study had no SS familes with kids in it, which some posters are implying.

If that’s the case the study still doesn’t support what Minnery claims it supports because it hasn’t even addressed that specific issue. It says kids with two present married parents do better in certain areas than kids without that. There is no conclusion that kids with two married present parents of the same gender do worse unless that was a specific part of the study.
One step further ; even if a separate study showed that kids with hetero parents did somewhat better than kids with gay parents it still isn’t a valid or reasonable argument against SSM.
That’s the dishonesty of Minnery and FotF.

And your depravity.

and, according to the update added to the article, it appears I’m correct and so was Franken.

Politico reached out to the author of the study discussed by Minnery and Franken, who said Franken was correct in his interpretation of the study’s definition of what, exactly, constitutes as a nuclear family:
Sen. Franken is right,” the lead author of the study told
POLITICO. The survey did not exclude same-sex couples, said Debra L.
Blackwell, Ph.D., nor did it exclude them from the “nuclear family”
category provided their family met the study’s definition.
The study’s definition of nuclear family is: “one or more children
living with two parents who are married to one another and are each
biological or adoptive parents of all the children in the family.”
That means the study does not provide evidence that straight couples’
children necessarily fare better than same-sex couples’ kids, as
Minnery claimed.

anybody want to just admit an error? It only hurts for a second.

Which was not his point. I hope that’s clear now.

Technically, the author of the report was no more qualified to change the meaning of “nuclear family” than was Al Franken. It is an anthropological term, and if a non-scientist uses it instead of a more precise term, then he would be in error.

Apparently Debra L Blackwell, author of the report, is a statistician and demographer at the National Center for Health Statistics — not an anthropologist. So she was not qualified to change the definition of a term which had a clear meaning for at least 60 years. She should have been more precise.

BTW; thanks for finding the study. I hadn’t been able to.

Good choice Al,

Keep to the fringe issues, and let the adults take care of the country.

Good choice Al,

Keep to the fringe issues, and let the adults take care of the country.

Technically we’re both arguing semantics and making us both look like total nerds. But I enjoyed the back n forth. :)

Technically we’re both arguing semantics and making us both look like total nerds. But I enjoyed the back n forth. :)

This may seem like a inflammatory question, but I want to see the answers and I need to be entertained.  So here goes…

Did Jesus grow up in a nuclear family? Granted Joesph was the surragate father, but no where in the bible does it ever say that Mary and Joesph were married.

again, the point is that the study does not show what Minnery claimed it showed, even if you go with the most common definition of the term.

You are giving us a Fox “news” feed to read from? Hilarious!

I believe it does. Mat 1
18 This is how the birth of Jesus the Messiah came about
His mother Mary was pledged to be married to Joseph, but before they
came together, she was found to be pregnant through the Holy Spirit. 19 Because Joseph her husband was faithful to the law, and yet did not want to expose her to public disgrace, he had in mind to divorce her quietly.

but oddly enough Luke 2
4 So Joseph also went up
from the town of Nazareth in Galilee to Judea, to Bethlehem the town of
David, because he belonged to the house and line of David. 5 He went there to register with Mary, who was pledged to be married to him and was expecting a child. 6 While they were there, the time came for the baby to be born, 7 and she gave birth to her firstborn, a son.

Kinda looks like Jesus was born before they were married.

I believe it does. Mat 1
18 This is how the birth of Jesus the Messiah came about
His mother Mary was pledged to be married to Joseph, but before they
came together, she was found to be pregnant through the Holy Spirit. 19 Because Joseph her husband was faithful to the law, and yet did not want to expose her to public disgrace, he had in mind to divorce her quietly.

but oddly enough Luke 2
4 So Joseph also went up
from the town of Nazareth in Galilee to Judea, to Bethlehem the town of
David, because he belonged to the house and line of David. 5 He went there to register with Mary, who was pledged to be married to him and was expecting a child. 6 While they were there, the time came for the baby to be born, 7 and she gave birth to her firstborn, a son.

Kinda looks like Jesus was born before they were married.

I stand corrected. I yeild to the comments. Though I do think this brings up an interesting point. A lot of our heroes or saviors are from broken homes. Moses didn’t grow up knowing his true mother and father. I used Jesus’ example. King Aurthur was raised by Merlin. Batman, Superman, Spiderman, even Cpt America were either not raised by their parents or raised by one. It is just something to chew on.

I thought it was interesting in the last Superman film how they played it as an updated version of the Jesus myth.

and just cause I’m a nit picker I don’t believe we ever heard anything about Steve Rodgers parents. Other than that, it’s an interesting observation.

Buddha was a sheltered rich boy who left on his own to find meaning after observing the suffering of others.

Rodgers’ dad died and his mother raised him. I also forgot Harry Potter, Indiana Jones, Zorro, Oliver Twist, David Copperfield (not the magician), Scout from To Kill a Mockingbird, Tom Sawyer, Huck Finn, I could go on and on.

Thats great, but what does that have to do with DOMA?

Well, when I say BLUE, do you assume it means BLUE or do you have to find the definition in some twisted dictionary in some far away leftist college somewhere? This is what I am getting at with changing the meanings or using different words to represent things that have always had the SAME meaning.

Why did the author of the study decide to change the definition of the anthropological meaning?

FROM OSU Oregon State University- http://oregonstate.edu/instruct/anth370/gloss.html

nuclear family – a woman and/or husband and dependent children.So stick it! Ohhhhhhhhh, here we FIND the source of the PROBLEM!

the definition of the nuclear family has expanded with the advent of same-sex marriage.

From- http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/421619/nuclear-family

Now I understand, the leftists DID AGAIN change the definition of something for their own purposes.

Jerry Baustin;

But Hennepin County, where most of the ballot irregularities occurred,
is very Democratic. Any additional and illegal ballots cast in Hennepin
County were probably cast for Democrats.

When you make an assertion like the one Kramer made “probably” doesn’t cut it. If you accuse somebody of something and can’t back it up then be adult enough to just admit it. The vote was so close that if even 25% of those votes were republican Franken still would have won.

What kills me about some posters here is the amount of contortions they will go through to avoid saying ” “I overstated” or ” I stand corrected” or ” I was mistaken” or anything that simple.

It also annoys me when either side just regurgitates talking points without thinking it through.

By the way, I made an assertion and I stand by it. If you do not like
it, you provide counter evidence to disprove my assertion. We are not in
a court of law, by the way if it was a civil trial I would not have to
prove beyond a reasonable doubt, I would only have to prove a
preponderance of evidence.

But since we are in the court of
public opinion, my proof that so far 28 charges have been filed and that
the recount kept happening until Franken won, I think I have provided
enough in that court. So pffft!

  You made the assertion , so it’s up to you to provide the evidence or admit you can’t. You haven’t provided a preponderance of evidence that your assertion is correct, because we can’t tell who those bogus votes were cast for. Nearly all of them would have to be cast for Franken for him to lose the election and you can’t prove even one was.

It’s unfortunate you can’t just acknowledge the truth.

Really on Steve Rodgers? When did that revelation come out?

Now I understand, the leftists DID AGAIN change the definition of something for their own purposes.

  You are missing or intentionally avoiding the point. Even if none of the families in the study were SS couples , the study does not show what Minnery claims it does, because that’s not what they were studying.  Franken was correct that Minnery misrepresented the study.

Okay, I will give you a 50% win on this one.

Congratulations , now you’re only 50% wrong! ;-}

Nice comeback, I gave you that line for a reason. Wink.

If you could not tell, I love to debate, especially on topics I know nothing about. Once you are done learning, you are dead.

Later, see you in an economic discussion hopefully in the future. Or maybe my specialty, construction codes and land development. Seems I won’t be needing them in the near future.

Nice comeback, I gave you that line for a reason. Wink.

If you could not tell, I love to debate, especially on topics I know nothing about. Once you are done learning, you are dead.

Later, see you in an economic discussion hopefully in the future. Or maybe my specialty, construction codes and land development. Seems I won’t be needing them in the near future.

Cheers to Cosmos for holding this thread down!

Cheers to Cosmos for holding this thread down!

Cheers to Cosmos for holding this thread down!

Cheers to Cosmos for holding this thread down!

What else needs to be said? He called out an objective falsifiable lie and literally proved it right there! But you apparently are dumb enough to believe lies in order to think that human beings who happen to be gay are not equal. Idiots like you DavidKramer never really defend your view but merely insult people when they actually prove the truth. You are in fact a complete moron DavidKramer, yes I am calling you a small minded idiot because you are obviously incapable of understanding the truth, that is why i am insulting you, MORON

Nuclear family has a set-in-stone definition.   ”A family group that consists only of father, mother, and children”

You’d better inform the Encyclopedia Britannica, then:

“a group of people united by ties of partnership and parenthood and consisting of a pair of adults and their socially recognized children”

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/421619/nuclear-family

Technically, the author of the report was no more qualified to change
the meaning of “nuclear family” than was Al Franken. It is an
anthropological term, and if a non-scientist uses it instead of a more
precise term, then he would be in error.

Are you also mad at Encyclopedia Britannica?

“a group
of people united by ties of partnership and parenthood and consisting of
a pair of adults and their socially recognized children”

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/421619/nuclear-family

 
Minnery said:

“…Children living with their own married, biological, and/or adoptive mothers and fathers were generally healthier and happier; [etc.]…”

Franken said:

“…Isn’t it true, Mr. Minnery, that a married same sex couple that has had or adopted kids would fall under the definition of a nuclear family in the study that you cite?”

No, it is not true. 

The years of the study ranged from 2001-2007, when same-sex marriage was not legal in the United States.  Therefore, the only married couples in America were couples that included a man and a woman.

The report states:

“… children living in nuclear families consisting of two married adults… were generally healthier [etc.] than children living in non-nuclear families.”

Since same-sex marriage was not legal in the United State during the time of the study, a same-sex household fell into the non-nuclear category.

Franken owes Minnery an apology, because Minnery correctly cited the conclusions of the study and Franken did not.

Franken is wrong.

Minnery said:

“…Children living with their own married, biological, and/or adoptive mothers and fathers were generally healthier and happier; [etc.]…”

Franken said:

“…Isn’t it true, Mr. Minnery, that a married same sex couple that has had or adopted kids would fall under the definition of a nuclear family in the study that you cite?”

No, it is not true.

The years of the study ranged from 2001-2007, when same-sex marriage was not legal in the United States. Therefore, the only married couples in America were couples that included a man and a woman.

The report states:

“… children living in nuclear families consisting of two married adults… were generally healthier [etc.] than children living in non-nuclear families.”

Since same-sex marriage was not legal anywhere in the United States during the time of the study, a same-sex household fell into the non-nuclear category.

Minnery correctly cited the conclusions of the study.  Franken is wrong.

See for yourself…  “Family Structure and Children’s Health in the United States: Findings from the National Health Survey, 2001-2007″

See page 27 of the document (page 34 of the file)

http://www.scribd.com/doc/60463339/Family-Structure-and-Children%E2%80%99s-Health-in-the-United-States-Findings-From-the-National-Health-Interview-Survey-2001%E2%80%932007

Franken is actually dead wrong. There were in fact zero or close to zero same-sex married couples during the time of the study. The gay-friendly media is so gullible.

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/al-franken-distorts-cdc-study-to-claim-distortion-of-study/

The state should not be incentivizing what is reasonably considered deviant behavior. Everyone is being treated equally under the marriage laws vis a vis age, gender, marital status and familial relationship. This is yet another example of gays over-reaching.

Nope. You’re wrong. There were few or no same-sex married couples when the study was performed. Franken is an idiot. And the mainstream media is way too gullible.

The study defined it as “married parents” which at the time of the study could only have been man/woman. So…you’re wrong.

And it’s possible previous accusations of FoF distortions were wrong, too.

And now we know definitively that Franken distorts so we have to wonder how many times he’s distorted previously.

The gay agenda got this wrong. They got the Bachmann denial story wrong. And they got the barbarians quote wrong.

How are they incentivizing it?  What would they receive that heterosexual couples don’t? And how is everyone being treated fairly? If a member of a gay couple falls ill, the insurance won’t cover the partner like a heterosexual couple will. If a member of a gay couple dies, there is no legal right for the spouse to get any property or compensation.  Also the state incentivizes a lot worse deviant behavior than homosexuality. They use gambling and the selling of deadly, addictive substances to build tax revenue.  You also fail to answer the main question in my post, how does it effect you?  Why should the government have the right, ultimately by using force, to stop two men or women from getting legally married?  If you want government out of the lives of the citizens, how does this follow that mantra?

The study defined it as “married parents” which at the time of the study could only have been man/woman. So…you’re wrong.

No I’m not and neither is Franken. There was no distortion. Did you notice what was said by the person who headed the study. It doesn’t matter if none of the families in the study were SS or not.
Minnery , FotF, said the study showed that kids do better with married hetero parents as opposed to SS parents. He distorted the results. The study showed no such thing because that’s not what they were studying.  It’s like using a study about the positive effect of eating apples to claim apples are better than oranges. If oranges weren’t part of the study, it’s a dishonest claim.

And it’s possible previous accusations of FoF distortions were wrong, too.

They’re not. Look it up. If you’re interested in seeing another perspective on the issue watch a film called “The Bible Tells Me So”  It’s about the very real and damaging effect of religious teachings on homosexuality. It’
s not slamming religion. They include denominations that accept being gay as another part of God’s creation. People have been indoctrinated about something they really know very little about, clinging to a religious belief that has been disproved by modern studies, and it’s causing a lot of harm to real innocent people.

Jerry Baustian Said “On the other hand, other networks often ignore major news stories entirely. So that makes Fox more reliable than any of the others.”

I’m no apologist for any major news network but in current light this statement is patently ridiculous. Fox have only given the most cursory of self-serving lip service to the biggest media scandal for many, many years that has already engulfed the British Government & Scotland Yard and continues to snowball. They are ignoring a huge news story because it does not fit their political agenda – this makes them an unreliable news organisation by anyone reasonable persons standards. And please don’t respond by telling me how awful CNN or MSNBC are because (a) I don’t care, (b) I probably agree and (c) it’s not the point.

It doesn’t matter if there were no SS couples in the study. Franken was right. Read the update. 

I’m not mad at anyone Frequent. I am saddened whenever I run across instances where the English Language is being corrupted… when we have a perfectly good word that has a clearly defined meaning, and someone comes along to make the meaning unclear.

I am not referring to slang or lingo or loan words. I am referring to Newspeak. Words like liberal and progressive do not mean what you think they should mean, and now words like family and marriage; I am sure there are dozens or hundreds of others, but I’m no semantician or lexicographer.

It’s anti-gay and anti-family.  Focus on the Family supports the prevention of adoption by gay couples.  So, because they don’t like gay people, some children will have to grow up without a loving family.

It’s anti-gay and anti-family.  Focus on the Family supports the prevention of adoption by gay couples.  So, because they don’t like gay people, some children will have to grow up without a loving family.

The study covers 2001-2007.  During that time, only Massachussets had gay marriage beginning in 2004.  The number of same-sex marriage homes with children in Massachusssets is such a small fraction of all American homes that it is unlikely they would have been included if the study used any form of random selection.  Moreover, the very DOMA that they’re seeking to overturn stipulates that marriage in a federal context means one man and one woman.  And if by chance all these hurdles are overcome, the sample size of same sex homes would be too small to draw any conclusions about same sex homes nationally.

I’m curious. If you get into a discussion with someone and they cite FOX anything is it safe for you to rebut citing comics or Steven King or a blockbuster movie??

Irrelevant. If you need help in why it’s irrelevant I’m sure someone can help you. Hint: a taste test for soda does not lead to conclusions regarding beer. Hint 2: the conclusions being drawn have no bearing (from either side) on the debate because as you state, the study has not been performed. Since the study is irrelevant to same sex couples it is irrelevant to cite as a tool for or against.

I think that Focus disagrees with the beliefs of gay people, they don’t dislike gay people.

“I think that Focus disagrees with the beliefs of gay people,”

Wanting to marry, raise kids and start a family are not ‘beliefs’.  Being gay is not predicated on any ‘belief’. 

“they don’t dislike gay people.”

Well, then, if they liked gay people, they would have no problem with them marrying and raising children.  However, they don’t.  This is clearly evidenced by the fact that the only reason why FoF is determined in denying marriage and parenting rights to these people is because these people are gay.

It is okay to cite the National Enquirer, to rebut anything quoted from the New York Times?

Has the Times ever reported that John Edwards was arrested for election law violations? (The National Enquirer broke that story.)

Has it ever reported the contents of John Kerry’s Navy medical records? (Trick question – nobody else has either.)

Al Franken is about as irrelevant as it gets.

I agree with you – Franken is wrong – and that is 99.99 percent of the time. This is the result of widespread election fraud and a process which looks the other way because they are in the same party as the ones who perpetrated the fraud – Democrats and liberals.

Yes. It is well documented – even in the Roman Census.

Do you expect credibility when you bring legend, myth and comic book references into a question about Jesus being part of a nuclear family?

“King Aurthur was raised by Merlin. Batman, Superman, Spiderman, even Cpt
America were either not raised by their parents or raised by one. It is
just something to chew on”

That is utterly ridiculous.

Liberals – can’t tell the difference between reality and fiction. Go Figure. You guys make the liberal mind look like an example of how not to think.

It doesn’t EFFECT me, but it does affect the definition of the word marriage, and it legitimizes the GLBT life which is a fringe element of the population that seeks not only equal consideration but believes they are entitled to special status. This is just the beginning step in a long term plan and it is not congruent with society’s accepted norms. The eventual goal is to dominate the dialog regarding the politics of sexual preference and present the agenda as a better alternative to accepted world social views.

More to the point legislation that would allow same sex couples the same property, healthcare and financial benefits has been proposed before and rejected by gays because it does not address the marriage question directly. If you have all the same rights and privileges as a married heterosexual couple what is the difference.

Your point about divorce is incorrect, divorce corrects marriage mistakes. Divorce is a means of legally severing a married couple’s legal and financial ties, but it also provides for support of children and other things like provision of health care insurance for those children of divorce. In some cases it makes the parents more responsible for the welfare of their children because this support is court enforced, where in marriage the partners are free to do as they please with regard to this.

This from the guy that compared Jesus to a bunch of fictional characters. Well done! You have just managed to shoot down the person you were attempting to defend.

When was this updated? Where? The study in the link has no reference to what you have pasted in here. Creative but not a victory for you.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/60463339/Family-Structure-and-Children%E2%80%99s-Health-in-the-United-States-Findings-From-the-National-Health-Interview-Survey-2001%E2%80%932007

Show me where this was updated to reflect what you are attempting to say.

Franken was wrong like you. The update is not included in the study Franken referenced.

100% correct!

I agree he should run, FOR THE HILLS.

Or Branson, MO.

apparently not irrelevant enough for you to not comment on.

You are completely and utterly incorrect, Sir. You are not ever going to win this.

“I never mentioned number two.”  Why is that? Because you can’t defend it?

No I don’t. He abused the power of his office to intimidate him. Besides, I didn’t see where Minnery changed anything about his statements due to this “schooling”. Weak example.

I just cannot see Al Franken’s humor going over very well on stage in Branson, or anywhere else in fly-over country. I fear that busloads of tourists would hurl spoiled fruits and veggies at him.

After the fact updates are very easy to produce; person sits a computer and types what the hell they want to and calls it an update. This is editorialism, and not a credible update backed up by evidence or any outside sources.

Studies on the other hand require hundreds of hours of work by researchers who have to back up what they write with evidence and multiple citations.

The update is a weak argument and not credible. It was not authored by any social science doctorate or post graduate willing to sign it, therefore is not a valid example or defense of your point.

OK, lets not look at fictional then.  Alexander the Great, Octavian Caesar, Queen Elizabeth, Abraham Lincoln, .. my point (which you have seem to missed) is that for a culture that supposedly values and is built on a two parent/mother – father household, we write myth, legends, religions, and yes comic books whose heroes did not come from that foundation.  I am sorry if I offended you by equating Superman and Jesus (many other people have too btw) but I have no wish to debate the merits of faith with the faithful.  I have no dog in that fight.

How far back does that definition go?

In his face.

In his face.

prog are just stupid, they can not write.

prog are just stupid, they can not write.

No, it would not.

And your remarks elevate you above the status you accused David of in what way?

So let me see if i understand your argument.  It is the governments job to enforce socially accepted definitions, even so far as to create separate yet equal laws to make sure that those socially accepted definitions and institutions are not sullied or changed? (sounds a lot like Jim Crow to me, how did that work out?)  The government then has the right to protect these definitions and institutions by force against those who wish to change these norms that you err.. society currently have?  It is governments job, funded by tax payer money, to intervene in social contracts between two able minded adults (which is what marriage is by law) and dictate the terms and conditions of said contract?  The government then has the right to nullify said contract if society deems it unacceptable (as long as it doesn’t not infringe on the rights or property of others by fraud or force)? It is also governments jobs to stand in the way of shifting social beliefs, using force mind you, to make sure that those social norms of the past are protected?  (I think that was a belief of the Confederacy, how did that work out for them?) The government then has a right to amend the Constitution ( a document saying what the government can or cannot do. It doesn’t give citizens rights, it/we gave the government ground rules) so that the government can tell able bodied adults how to live their lives? (Sounds like the 18th amendment to me. Boy I could use a cold beer right now) That is your argument?

Last couple of things.  What special rights are the GLBT asking for?  Special right meaning one that is not available to heterosexuals?  Are they asking for a right to a free car?  It seems to me, and granted I am just some blow hard, but only allowing heterosexual to marry is giving them a special right. 

Also, do you realize that with your last paragraph, you basically negated your argument?  You said (and I quote) “In some cases it makes the parents more responsible for the welfare of
their children because this support is court enforced, where in marriage
the partners are free to do as they please with regard to this.”  Therefor, in some cases, the destruction of a nuclear family is beneficial to the child.  I just wanted to point that out to you.

I did, how so?

“I thought it was interesting in the last Superman film how they played it as an updated version of the Jesus myth.”

You got into a discussion based on Blow Hard’s post:

“Though I do think this brings up an interesting point. A lot of our
heroes or saviors are from broken homes. Moses didn’t grow up knowing
his true mother and father. I used Jesus’ example. King Aurthur was
raised by Merlin. Batman, Superman, Spiderman, even Cpt America were
either not raised by their parents or raised by one…”

Seems you engaged in a bit of this yourself and now when I point it out you take issue with me?

So be it.

Are you impugning the heritage of Jesus Christ? I don’t think that would be advisable.

“Kinda looks like Jesus was born before they were married. “

I can’t tell what you see on your screen but on mine there’s a bold UPDATE,in the mediaite article and then a quote from the lead author of study saying that Franken is right. The rest is a basic understand of how these studies work. I’ve explained it as simply as I know how, but I’ll try again.

The study concluded that children tend to do better in two married parents families, as compared to single parent homes, etc.

Minnery claimed that means hetero marred couples have a positive effect on kids and  married SS couples don’t.

No, the study doesn’t say that or indicate that AT ALL, because that’s not what they were studying.

It’s like a reading a study that says “apples are good for kids” and concluding that oranges must not be. If you want to know about oranges you have to study them.

Get it now?

No because I like to discuss one thing at a time and stay on topic

yes so stupid that they can’t spell progressive.

I already did, even if you don’t understand or acknowledge it. Minnery distorted , they have before, and Franken was right.

in a bit of what? What “this” are you referring to? If you’re making a point I’m missing it.

It’s all entertainment.  That’s what it all boils down too.  All news is more concerned with ratings and selling ad space then facts, ethics, or journalistic integrity.  It has always been like that. It wont change anytime soon.  As for your argument about using fiction, do you realize that our economic system right now is more influenced by Atlas Shrugged than any economic theory?  I am not saying it is right or wrong, just stating a fact.

I’m using a little reading comprehension. I didn’t make those quotes up.
But, since we’re here, technically we don’t know for sure if Jesus was a real person who walked the earth or not. Some believe he probably did while others are more skeptical. But let’s say he was a real individual who lived and taught 2000+ years ago.

Who says the New Testament was ever intended to be an historically accurate account of the life of Jesus? Nobody? Hence the term “Jesus myth”  Check mythology and see how many virgin births and divine conceptions there are. Quite a few.   Now check documented science.

Dan, you won’t win.  Classic troll.  There is a great joke a priest once told me, “There are four books detailing the life of Jesus Christ.  All four are different.  Such is journalism.”

Boy this doodaddio will sure be pissed when he hears my theory that “E.T.” is basically the retelling of the gospel of John.  He is discovered in a shack, he perform miracles, he flys (walking on water) he raises the dead (the flower) oh and yeah HE DIES, COMES BACK TO LIFE, & ASCENDS INTO HEAVEN.  Dude you are looking for a fight and I pity you.

To add to the trolling that goes on here I would like to remind the readers that the term “Nuclear Family” would be mispronounced (many times) by President George W. Bush.

Where does it say in this federal report that the federal, DOMA standard for the definition of marriage will not be used in lieu of the California and Massachusetts defintions of marriage?

I’ve looked at the Intro, page 7, page 27, and Appendix 2, and I cannot find it.

Perhaps, Franken could criticize “Head Start,” the tax payer funded, minority targeted failure as a social program?   (Hmm, “failure and social program, now that is NOT an oxymoron!)

Head Start was, theoretically, supposed to last one generation, thus allowing for subsequent generations to be caught up in education and parenting skills.  

Head Start has been an abject failure, however, is still alive and spending tax dollars.  Trimming the fat to balance the budget, can’t be that difficult.  There are hundreds, thousands of useless programs just like Head Start.

PURVEYOR

“In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word ‘marriage’ means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word ‘spouse’ refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.”

Franken is wrong.

Good analogy. I don’t really expect to “win” It just cracks me up when posters refuse to acknowledge what’s right in front of them.

Good analogy. I don’t really expect to “win” It just cracks me up when posters refuse to acknowledge what’s right in front of them.

I have Posted and said this any number of times before:  ”Equal protection” demands both substantive and procedural rights for Gays.  Such is satisfied by Legally Codified, “Civil Unions.”  Once the couple leaves the Courthouse where a “Civil Union” document was acquired, the couple can refer to their union in any way they choose…

However, Gays do not get to change a social, historical and dictionary definition.  As you say NEWGATE, Marriage, by definition, is a heterosexual endeavor.

Purveyor

Just emulating the Guest, (who wrote “con” for conservative), that I was replying to. You want to challenge me to a spelling test? How about English grammar and usage while you are game? Bring it on.

I’ll bet you do.

Consider the source.

Your misinterpretations are good if we are doing the twist but that isn’t the deal here.

For instance: “do you realize that with your last paragraph, you basically negated your argument?” No I didn’t – you made that assumption on your own.

“You said (and I quote) “In some cases it makes the parents more responsible for the welfare of their children because this support is court enforced, where in marriage the partners are free to do as they please with regard to this.” What part of this can you not understand? You see this everyday. Parents that choose to do other things with their money other than support their children, People who choose to gamble or do drugs rather than keep their kids in decent clothes, keep them supplied with school needs, feed them adequate food and provide decent shelter for them. All of this is controlled when there is a divorce and they are held financially responsible for the welfare of the children by the court of jurisdiction. Fine if you choose to ignore that but it is a fact of life. Ask a social worker sometime.

The GLBT protest and legislating via the courts in the case of the State of California is one example of how they want special rights or status. The people of the State of California voted against gay marriage and then the GLBT filed suit in order to trump the will of the people. That is not the way it is supposed to go. Some judge sympathetic to their agenda ruled in their favor and lo and behold it is now law. You get defeated at the polls and the system allows you to try again at the next election. You don’t overrule the will of the voters this way. That is what I mean by special status. Not playing by the rules is a liberal mainstay, but this is too far of a reach to be acceptable by the vast majority of the American people.

So I retort.

I apologize for my misinterpretations, so hopefully you will apologize for yours. I am not saying I disagree or think that your point about divorce and the welfare of children is wrong. I actually agree with it quite a bit. I assumed you were arguing against gay marriage because a gay couple cannot be a proper family and only proper families may raise children. If that was your intent (as was Focus on The Family) then that statement does negate that argument.

As for your second argument, yes the state of California did outlaw gay marriage and yes they did challenge it in court. However, you are wrong by saying that’s not how it is supposed to be. It could be just me, and I am just some blow hard, but I was taught in civics class that, that is how the founding fathers designed the system. Granted I didn’t go to a public school, but the school I did go to has a pretty good record of students going to high profile colleges. One of which, I attended.

You see there are three branches of government. Legislative, Executive, and Judicial. The Legislative write the laws, Executive signs the laws, then the Judicial interpret the law if challenged. This is called a check and balance system for a representative republic. The founding fathers had no intention of having law determined by popular vote. That is mob rule, and history shows that is almost never a good thing. The only thing determined by popular vote is who represents you. If there is a law you disagree with (say abortion) you challenge it up to the supreme court of the state, then to the supreme court of the nation. Who then can see if the law violates the Nation’s Constitution, which trumps the states. We kind of fought a war over that. But I am sure you know you history and civics so none of this should surprise you.

I will take issue with two points you made. You say that gay marriage is to far out of reach with the vast majority(your words)of the American people. Which data are you looking at? I ask because the data collected by Gallup in May of 2011 show that a majority of Americans (58-45) approve of gay marriage. Even when broken down by ideologies, the yay beats the nay. So by those numbers, your fact is wrong. I also take issue with you saying that using the courts is a liberal phenomenon. Look at the issue of abortion or legalizing marijuana. (not saying I agree or disagree with either, I am just saying the opponents are not what one would call liberal) There you have either an existing law (abortion) or a proposition (marijuana) that was approved by a majority of voters, challenged in court by the opposition. Which again is their right. I could also point to various regulatory legislation (signed into law by Richard M Nixon no less) that have been challenged and litigated for years. So you’re idea that only liberals play these games is also wrong.

It is another question whether the nuclear family itself, even when “complete”,
is still the best available option. Many people today are convinced that small,
single households are uneconomical and wasteful, that they are still emotionally
unhealthy, that they perpetuate outmoded sterotypical sex roles, and that they
produce competitive, egotistical children in an age when universal cooperation
seems the only hope of mankind. It is also argued that the modern family no
longer has any other function than to provide love and intimacy, and that this
is by no means enough to justify its existence. Indeed, since families have been
largely relieved of their economic, educational, and protective functions by the
state, sexual attachment has become the nearly exclusive basis of marriage, and
this basis is notoriously weak. Frequent divorce and remarriage, however, while
perhaps practical for the adults, hardly seem in the best interest of the
children. Under the circumstances, it is only fitting that a number of
thoughtful men and women should continue to search for more stable, “new and
improved” family models.

Sure, but just don’t disregard the facts, science, and logic while you’re doing it.

It doesn’t EFFECT me, but it does affect the definition of the word marriage

the definition of the word marriage has always been subject to change. Look at the history of the issue of interracial marriage and you’ll see the same foolish arguments that were rejected then, are being repackaged and made all over again concerning SSM. They were wrong then and are still wrong.

and it legitimizes the GLBT life which is a fringe element of the
population that seeks not only equal consideration but believes they are
entitled to special status

They are a minority struggling to gain equality. Shame on them huh?

The eventual goal is to dominate the dialog regarding the politics of
sexual preference and present the agenda as a better alternative to
accepted world social views.

Hogwash! Baseless propaganda.

More to the point legislation that would allow same sex couples the same
property, healthcare and financial benefits has been proposed before
and rejected by gays because it does not address the marriage question
directly. If you have all the same rights and privileges as a married
heterosexual couple what is the difference.

If you were talking about race would you be able to see the difference? The only reason those laws are proposed is to try and maintain some false sense of non existent superiority, or  to placate irrational fears and ignorance. It’s a way of branding SSM as “not real”

The GLBT protest and legislating via the courts in the case of the State
of California is one example of how they want special rights or status.
The people of the State of California voted against gay marriage and
then the GLBT filed suit in order to trump the will of the people. That
is not the way it is supposed to go.

read the Constitution. It’s very essence is to protect the minority from being oppressed by the majority. Fighting against the will of the people when the majority is wrong  is ingrained in our history of struggling for civil rights. Ideally the will of the people would be to grant equality quickly and eagerly, but that’s not how it goes in reality. Injustice has to be pointed out over and over until it’s undeniable.
JSBH has already explained our judicial system to you. Hopefully you learned something.

Marriage is traditionally one man and one woman, but some states are changing their definitions.  The supporters of DOMA saw that change coming, and acted to assure there would be minimal confusion.  Yet the harmful scene depicted in the video clip still happened.  Why?  Because the author of the study used a state definition of marriage instead of the federal, DOMA definition.

Franken is wrong.  Minnery is right.  The study data will need to be repaired and made DOMA-compliant.

Yes. I guess that was/is my point. The Constitutional guarantee of “equal protection” is satisfied with a Civil Union. The only part of the puzzle Gays will not receive, is the capacity to change an ancient human definition, i.e., the meaning of the word Marriage. A “Civil Union” will afford every right, privilege and immunity afforded to Heterosexual couples, Gays just don’t get the Legal codification and definitional change. Ergo, equal protection!

The Law, most times, needs specificity and the definition of Marriage should remain, unchanged. Effectively this analysis accords Gays 99% of what they desire. The other 1% is not a substantive or procedural deprivation of a right. Hence, Marriage means between a Man and a Woman.

Like I mentioned previously, The Gay couples can refer to their co-habitation in any way they choose, however, in the eyes of the Law and County Records, Gay Unions are “Civil Unions,” not Marriages!

In conclusion, what could possibly be the problem, except that minorities no longer want equal protection, rather, they demand extra-protection!

Yes. I guess that was/is my point. The Constitutional guarantee of “equal protection” is satisfied with a Civil Union. The only part of the puzzle Gays will not receive, is the capacity to change an ancient human definition, i.e., the meaning of the word Marriage. A “Civil Union” will afford every right, privilege and immunity afforded to Heterosexual couples, Gays just don’t get the Legal codification and definitional change. Ergo, equal protection!

The Law, most times, needs specificity and the definition of Marriage should remain, unchanged. Effectively this analysis accords Gays 99% of what they desire. The other 1% is not a substantive or procedural deprivation of a right. Hence, Marriage means between a Man and a Woman.

Like I mentioned previously, The Gay couples can refer to their co-habitation in any way they choose, however, in the eyes of the Law and County Records, Gay Unions are “Civil Unions,” not Marriages!

In conclusion, what could possibly be the problem, except that minorities no longer want equal protection, rather, they demand extra-protection!

Yes. I guess that was/is my point. The Constitutional guarantee of “equal protection” is satisfied with a Civil Union. The only part of the puzzle Gays will not receive, is the capacity to change an ancient human definition, i.e., the meaning of the word Marriage. A “Civil Union” will afford every right, privilege and immunity afforded to Heterosexual couples, Gays just don’t get the Legal codification and definitional change. Ergo, equal protection!

The Law, most times, needs specificity and the definition of Marriage should remain, unchanged. Effectively this analysis accords Gays 99% of what they desire. The other 1% is not a substantive or procedural deprivation of a right. Hence, Marriage means between a Man and a Woman.

Like I mentioned previously, The Gay couples can refer to their co-habitation in any way they choose, however, in the eyes of the Law and County Records, Gay Unions are “Civil Unions,” not Marriages!

In conclusion, what could possibly be the problem, except that minorities no longer want equal protection, rather, they demand extra-protection!

Well, marriage offers benefits that single people don’t have.  Same sex marriage permits LGBTs to access those benefits.  Some say it’s like civil rights, but it isn’t.  Civil Rights sought to end the White Only designation. 

When Rosa Parks refused to give up her seat, she refused on behalf of blacks, asians, hispanics, Indians (American and South Asian), and many others.  Gays just want permission to sit in the front of the bus.

This was/is a good discussion.  Your grasp of the facts, combined with my philosophical musings provided much to think about.

Moreover, your last statement about wanting to sit at the “front of the bus” is an excellent analogy.

BUT, like all minority groups that came before, there is a demand of reparations, or, more than basic equality.  I guess I can understand the petitioner’s antipathy toward the system.  Unfortunately, the reparations demanded must come from the like minded citizens that supported the appropriate interpretation of “equal protection” that made the changes and equality possible. 

Purveyor

When I was a kid, one of the big raps on homosexuals was their inability to form lasting relationships. These days, their lasting relationships are deemed threatening. In practical reality, you’ve got a segment of the population who will never give gays credit for anything, no matter what.

As for gays rejecting equal status, so-called “civil unions” aren’t equal. If the religious people were sincere on the point, they’d propose making marriage purely a private matter, and give every other couple, regardless of gender, a civil union if they want it.

Oh, and many states have banned even the second-class gay civil unions. Frankly, the average conservative Christian spouts a series of lies whenever discussing the issue. The real motive is hatred of gays. Always has been, always will be. Which, of course, it remarkable given that Christ said nothing about homosexuality, but was against divorce — which is highest among evangelicals.

Read your Bible. Want to know who Jesus scorned most? Hypocrites.

Read your Bible. It is clearly stated in the old testament; An explicit condemnation is found
in the book of Leviticus: “You shall not lie with a male as with a woman;
it is an abomination. . . . If a man lies with a male as with a woman,
both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death,
their blood is upon them” (Lev. 18:22, 20:13).

Because of the new covenant in the new testament between God and humans the death penalty part of the verse was done away with as Christ’s death on the cross was for the sins of mankind, but to receive that forgiveness you have to declare Christ your savior. God sees into the hearts of men and his judgment goes accordingly.

Christians are also taught to hate the sin, not the sinner. True Christians don’t hate, there are many who do but they are incomplete in their development in following Christ’s example. So too with your statement about divorce, although I have never seen any scripture supporting your premise that Christ was against divorce. Christ was against sin, and he was for keeping both the old and new covenants.

That not withstanding, the accounts of Leviticus and Genesis, (the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah),  regarding homosexuality have been there for 3,000 plus years and they are fairly easy to read and comprehend. I am not for the persecution that many gays have suffered due to ignorant people, but If you are going to claim that this is a conspiracy against gays you have a large number of people to convince. As much as you would like to mainstream your lifestyle there is irrefutable evidence in the Bible that the practice of homosexuality is not pleasing to God. Don’t blame me, I didn’t make this up – it is in every Bible ever printed.

To condemn others as hypocrites merely points out where your weakness lies. A true believer will help the unlearned to find the error in their ways. Are you a true believer or just a person who uses the scripture to attack those you disagree with?

You’ve confused political correctness with religion. The bible is quite clear on this matter. So you’re barking up the wrong tree….. try politicians their politically correct. God’s kingdom is not a democracy.. you are confused.

Nice. Trying to drag one Right Wing lie to distract from a discussion on Franken’s busting someone for ANOTHER Right Wing lie.
That’s pretty much the pattern of political discourse in this country today:
Right Wing promotes brazen lie.
Left shows up with studies, charts, graphs demonstrating clearly how the Right’s claim is a lie.
Right Wing shifts to a new lie.

Bottom line…Stuart Smalley should have read the study’s definition, proving his OWN ignorance. The study only included two parents THAT WERE MARRIED TO EACH OTHER in the nuclear family group. At the time of the study, how many of the 700,000+ homosexual couples in America were actually MARRIED TO EACH OTHER? Very few, as only a handful of states offer or perform legal marriages. So either (1) homosexual couples in the study lied about their marriage status – no evidence of this but if they did, how can we then rely on anything else in the study regarding their reporting? Or (2) the vast majority of homosexual couples self-recognized themselves as “not married” to each other, and were not included in the group “nuclear families.”

Admittedly, the homosexual couples were probably diluted inot the larger group of unmarried or single parent-families of the study. But how does that make Minnery wrong about his description of the advantages for children in “nuclear families” compared to “non-nuclear” families?

I stand self-corrected. According to the story, Stuart Smalley DID READ the definition into the record, but apparently he did not understand what he read. Very few homosexual couples, let alone homosexual couples with children, could be described as MARRIED TO EACH OTHER, since only a handful of states (and the District of Columbia) allow, let alone perform, single-sex MARRIAGES.

Stuart Smalley is, once again, over his head in the deep end of the pool. Makes me feel sorry for the Minnesotans he represents – they deserve better.

Again, why is the government trying to define marriage?  Marriage happens at a church.  The government should handle ‘partnerships’ of two persons only and let the marriage up to the church. 

A nuclear family is defined as a family group consisting of a father and mother and their children, all exclusively sharing living quarters.

Um, I guess Mr Minnery WAS correct after all!

Does this study specify the percentage of same-sex marriages (if any!) that were covered? It doesn’t!!