I like Obama just fine, but 4 years from now, Franken has my complete support as a Presidential Candidate. Except that if he were to win, that would mean he couldn't be in the Senate cleaning things up there....damn this is a conundrum
I love how Franken gets down into the guts of these things and pulls out exactly where the lie is hidden and then brings it into the light in a humorous fashion.
@stage9ine there are scores of different dictionaries that one may choose to follow. The fact of the matter is, as Franken clearly stated, the study in question does not define "nuclear family" within the parameters of a heterosexual relationship. There is no ONE English dictionary.
@ajusted123 It has nothing to do with how "nuclear family" is defined in a dictionary, the study itself by the Dept of Health and Human Services themselves defined "nuclear family" as a houshold of one or more children being raised by two biological or jointly adopted married people. What the study concludes is that it doesn't matter if the married people are same sex or opposite sex, what is important is that children do better being raised in a two parent home.
@stage9ine no Mr Minnery was not right at all, because he was citing the studies and he should have seen the definition of nuclear family as it was defined by the studies. Yet, he just wanted to twist the facts of the studies to fit his narrative and to lie.
We all realize who AL FRANKEN is, correct? For those of you who don't know, AL FRANKEN MADE HIS CAREER OUT OF IMITATING A GAY LIBERAL WITH LOW SELF ESTEEM, THAT IS HIS CROWN JEWEL PEOPLE.
@culturalhonesty Stuart Smalley's sexual orientation was never stated on Saturday Night Live, and the fact that you assumed he was gay says more about you than it does Al Franken.
@Elementsorcerer4 Almost. Freedom does mean you have the right to act as long as it doesn't encroach upon others. Just happens to be that encroaching upon others is EXACTLY what gay rights activists expect. They want everyone to be FORCED to view gay as being identical to straight, and they DEMAND that I see it as awesome and righteous. They want me to be paralyzed, silent, and live in a world where the raising of a child is irrelevant. If it hurt to be stupid, you'd be in pain every day.
@CuddlyBadger Do you realize the inherent flaw in that statement? Yes, there are those who do demand that, and yes, they are wrong to expect that of you. We live in a free country and therefore you deserve to say whatever you please, but if your beliefs expect others to live, to use your words, "paralyzed, silent," and live in a world where being different is wrong and certain freedoms are taken from you then that is encroaching on others far more than your complaint ever could be.
@Elementsorcerer4 Absolutely fictitious. People take freedoms away from others, like walking in the park, every day. All they have to do is point and laugh, or whisper behind your back every time you do something that doesn't fall in line with the cult of the day. Today the gay cult is getting a lot of play. Here's my question for you (you and the rest of the snarky pity partying gay scene)...
@CuddlyBadger Oh what an adolescent, high school, whine. People don't take way freedom when they point and laugh and whisper behind your back, you LET them take away your freedom. If your courage of your convictions are so weak that they cannot stand up to scrutiny, then you have lost already. So, as for your question, your fucking parade? If you have conviction in what you say, get off your ass and do it yourself. Free country.
@CuddlyBadger If neo nazis can march on washington with police protection like they did in 2008. No one will stop you from organizing a straight / bigot parade. It's a free country, no matter how much people like you try to make it otherwise. You can rave and rant about the gays in a public forum all you want, just know that freedom of speech does not equal freedom from criticism and judgment from your fellow citizens.
@CuddlyBadger You want a pride parade? Go get your rights taken away, go have your entire community who are heterosexual slaughtered in a holocaust, go have your community who are heterosexual who for thousands of years due to religious fundamentalists have you killed or exiled from society.
Why do you think you need a straight pride? Because you have to share the air-time in media? Because you have to share your rights with other people?
@CuddlyBadger Laws should not be made to dictate how people think, and anyone out there asking for that is wrong. AND that goes for EVERYONE on both sides of the issue, cause there are plenty of people who want gays to sit down and shut up too. AND playing a victim when what you are complaining about is not being able to hate others for being UNrighteous just makes you sound like an idiot. That's right, you would be in as much or more pain if it did really hurt to be stupid.
As much as I hate to defend this jackass, I suspect that he didn't lie or intentionally mischaracterize the government study. He probably just assumed that the study's definition of "nuclear family" couldn't possibly be anything other than his own. And, it still makes him a tool.
I disagree with al franken on many things but he is correct here... i don't believe in rights for "groups" i believe in rights for individuals regardless of their sexual preference, race, color etc
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
The Radical Homosexual organizers called it "Celebrating Gay Pride," as part of their party of perversion and it had two main goals:
1.) Ramming through the Homosexual Agenda (which now includes the Gay Bill of Special Rights, the Homosexual Classrooms Act and other family destroying bills), and;
2.) Forcing Americans, especially children, to become desensitized to sickening homosexual behavior.
This what this Toxic Piece of Shit is standing up for.. hope you are happy !!
-Sarah Palin, Tim Pawlenty or Michelle Bachmann may one day lead the US just makes me want to cry with tears of frustration, what a joke.
I live thousands & thousands of miles away from the US and it scares the shit out of me. When will the world learn that during times of economic, social, societal difficulty and existential trauma that veering violently to the right only makes life worse, history shows that. These people are not a million miles away from nazism. Aaah rant over...
@abbott790 I'm worried too and I don't live in the US either. :/ The people you mentioned aren't helped the commonly held stereotype that Americans are stupid and ignorant.
This video was a fantastic use of 2:25 of my time, it's nice to see spurious references thrown about by right wing repressed bigots expunged by common sense in this way.
Is anyone else terrified by the rise of right-wing extremism in the USA? This te-party movement to me seems to have no political experience or savvy and seem to be preying on ignorant peoples fears and bigotry to garner support they seem like real life death eaters to me, the idea that someone like.
well nuclear families are not dad + mom + chilldren? it seems to me Franken is wrong there. the usual definition when people talk about the nuclear family is the traditional family.
"the usual definition when people talk about the nuclear family is the traditional family."
True, but that's not how the PAPER defines it. Minnary uses the PAPER to back up using HIS defintion, when, becuase the paper defined the term differently, the paper doesn't say what Minnary says it does. That's what Franken was pointing out. Franken wasn't using his own definition. He was using the misrepresented paper's definition to show the paper was misrepresented.
@KemaTheAtheist actually the way Franken read it, it didn't seem to have ANY definition. So the guy is not necessary in the wrong to have thought it was the common definition of the term.
"actually the way Franken read it, it didn't seem to have ANY definition."
Franken read the definition straight out of the paper, and the author of said paper has stated publicly that Franken was correct.
"So the guy is not necessary in the wrong..."
Yes he was, because even if Minnery's definition was right, there's no data in the study to compare same-sex to opposite-sex marriage, so the paper can't support what Minnery said. Either way, Minnery lied.
I am sure the fact that gays are able to marry (at least in some states) qualifies those couples for the term "marriage" and hence "nuclear family" if there are children. At least to those researchers it did.
You realize of course, that your defining standards exclude pre-1967 interracial marriages from the term "nuclear families", don't you?
Even if you were right and the study didn't include gays, it still doesn't support Minnery's claim because the study doesn't compare straight parenting to gay parenting.
But here's what the lead author herself had to say: “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.
@mythicalname the one who is judging is you. Not God. How can you comprehend what god wants. you are nothing but a puny human and god will judge THE UNJUST not what a ignorant human like you wants.
"If you listened to Al Franken's definition of "nuclear family", and notice that it says MARRIED couples, that means THE STUDY DIDNT INCLUDE HOMOSEXUALS"
If the study didn't have data on homosexuals, then it still couldn't have been used by Minnary to make the claims against same-sex couples that he did, because there was no data for comparison.
This argument doesn't help you... All you're showing is that Minnery was still wrong.
continually, continually, when ever right wing "christian"republican conservatives are questioned or challenged on the veracity of their statements regarding anything concerning the gay community, whether it be by the average man on the street or a member of congress, they are proved to be either inaccurate, completely wrong or out and out liars!
these "christians" never deal in truth or fact. these "CHRISTIANS" deal in lies ONLY to get their bullshit across. they are truly disgusting people!
@TwoShedsMcGillicuddy I agree Franken is an idiot. I think Limbaugh called him a buck toothed moron in the 1990s. It should have been idiot. He wouldn't have been a senator hadn't it been for 2008 and the anti-war backlash. He'll last until 2014.
@montichan so franken who tells the truth is an idiot huh & you hold limbaugh, a lying buffoon, as one anyone of intelligence should listen to right?
well then you must be another "christian"republican conservative, who in order to make a point never refers to fact or data, rather you cite biased opinion & out & out lies.
so far none of the allegations any "christian" person or organization has said about the gay community has any relation to fact & are always based on ignorance & hate!
OMFG, Franken is so witty...he can read a definition from a study, but the reality is that the study was saying what Mr. Minnery said it said. So, Franken is really the ignorant one committing the error of "false charge of fallacy." However, it is a non sequitor; the best argument against "gay marriage" if it even exists is the religious one. All of the propaganda churned out isn't going to change it.
@pyrespirit How do you get bigotry out of my comment? I just pointed out that Franken committed the error of false charge of fallacy. You can check Dr. Kahane's Logic and Contemporary Rhetoric for a definition. "Gay marriage" can't be just created out of thin air. Marriage was a religious rite millenniums old. You can't call something "marriage" and expect it to have the attributes of marriage.
@montichan most anthropologist and historians agrees that marriage arised out of the need to to transfer property and share resources. the idea that marrige is an religious rite is shaky at best...
@powereater With all due respect, there is no doubt that marriage is cultural and a religious rite, but it isn't just a nice to have or something that will be revered just because it is "legalized." The respect of it is definitely much less than before and so the rite is dying...perhaps even the debate on DOMA is a symptom of it. Those conservatives fighting for it perhaps represent a rear-guard fighting a delaying action...or maybe they are advance guard for a revival of belief.
@montichan marriage means diffrent things to diffrent religion and cultures. our culture has changed significantly due to progressive movements advocating tolerance and acceptance, our laws will soon reflect these changes.
respecting this idea would perhaps would make more sense if marriage no longer served it's intended function: the merge and exchange of resources, but visitation rights, inharitance of property and other benefits should be fairly and equally provided to all.
@montichan one correction to your statement, marriage isn't, as a religious rite, recognized in this country unless & until it's registered by the local municipality. if i isn't registered, no amount of religious pontificating can make it legal in the eyes of the law.
if a couple wants to enjoy the state & federal benefits of marriage, the government must verify & make it legal, no religious rite can do that.
hence in the eyes of U.S. law, marriage is a civil right, not a religious rite!
Two wrongs? Two? Whereas adultery hurts someone, homosexuality per se does not.
You may call it an ad hominem argument, but someone judging others for their perceived immorality, while at the same time verifiably committing immoral acts has zero credibility and is the epitome of bigotry. Gingrich's self-unmasking elegantly proves that many people simply and arrogantly confuse their personal likes and dislikes with morality.
@montichan "The best argument against gay marriage is the religious one"... And marriage has never been a 'religious rite', it's a SOCIAL contract and always has been just that. It has had connections to religion, whatever the local religion was, but that doesn't change the fact that it's first and foremost a social contract - the fact that it exists in pretty much every culture regardless of their particular local religion attests to that. Sorry; your bigotry is unfounded.
@montichan bigotry because, dispute this instance where a citation was found out to be incorrect and deceiving you still hold on to the lie with not credible or adequate counter.
That's funny considering you have your support on such videos as condemning child exploitation and the "innocence project" when you seem to call guilty to people who would adopt a child and raise it better than hypocritical Christians.
Even if Franken's definition was wrong — and Debra L. Blackwell, the lead author herself, said he was right —, the study simply doesn't compare gay parenting to straight parenting, so Minnery's claim about the inferiority of gay parenting is not supported by it. Meaning: either way Minnery was wrong.
Nice one Al!!! I see we have a bunch of weasels in here trying to defend Minnary. This video shows he convolutes facts to suit his agenda. He got caught doing so. Why should I believe he didn't lie in the rest of his statements to suit his world view. He knew what nuclear families were because he read the study and as Franken pointed the definition was in the study which Minnary used to defend his point of view. I think it's also known as getting caught with your hand in the cookie jar.
Hmm... I wouldn't call it equal rights for homosexuals. They have the same rights as heterosexuals do and anyone else. Men have a right to marry women. Women have a right to marry men. The way I see it, this is sexism. Men should have the right to marry men, like women do. Women should have the right to marry women, like men do. Homosexuality is what influences their decision to marry someone of the same sex as them.
@glockchem: While true that the study was conducted when gay marriage was mostly prohibited by law, unless the study subdivided same-sex couples into a separate group, then the data is useless to support any theories about the effectiveness of gay marriage, which is Franken's point.
But taking it one step further, since the study said that marriage is better for families, then the conclusion should be made that we MUST allow same-sex marriage, so that their family situation is stronger!
Franken is being disingenuous. The report doesn't support Minnery's assertion but, the study was from 2001-2007. Only Massachusetts had gay marriage prior to 2008 having legalized it in 2003. So the Nuclear families cited had to be overwhelmingly heterosexual. But the study was only about stable nuclear families vs single parent, cohabiting or other types. The report is on line. More reading and less name calling and characterization might be better.
Why? He's not doing anything more than saying Minnery's assertion was wrong. You said "the Nuclear families cited had to be overwhelmingly heterosexual" which means there wasn't data from homosexual couples to compare against, which is exactly why Minnery can't make the claims he did.
All you've done is back up how *Minnary* is being disingenuous.
Lee Strobel also makes a compelling case for the accuracy of the Bible in his book: "The Case For Christ." As an aetheist Lee subjected Jesus to 8 credibility tests:
Intention, Ability, Character, Consistency, Bias, Cover Up, Corroboration, and Adverse Witness tests. At end of his work Lee found that the stories held up under scrutiny and decided to give his life to Christ. Lee is the former editor for the Chicago Tribune and educated by Yale before becoming a Christian. Very compelling..
Is a lawyer speaking about things WAY out of his field, and makes claims the universe is only 6000 years old. I'm sure he knows law, but he sucks at science and history. The fact you just tried to use him to make your case (no pun intended) is the worst argument you've made yet.
Discrimination is the prejudicial treatment of an individual based on their membership in a certain group or category. Discrimination is the actaul behavior towards members of another group. ie. - The wingnuts at Westboro Baptist who hold pickets signs that say "God hates ______" That is discrimination. I don't know everything about God, but I do know that is NOT God. I'm a Christian and I condemn that kind of behavior. There's no excuse for it.
I've observed that of all the original definitions of nuclear families, not one suggested that it was also included a same sex marriage. Franken took the CDC's definition at face value. Sorry, that's not correct. My theory is that the CDC did not want to touch this hot button issue and left the nuclear family definition intentionally vague.
@DoctorMeh Then the authors of the study would be incorrect. Once again, I have yet to find any definition that supports the assertion that the nuclear family includes sames sex marriage. Is everyone just completely ignoring this fact? Really? Clarification: I do not not believe the authors of the study have the correct definition of "Nuclear Family". They have, according to the original definition, an incorrect understanding of "Nuclear Family".
@seanblockleyandTGS dude your sitting here arguing semantics the person who wrote the said franken was right. I am going to use a simple analogy to make your point invalid. Pro wrestling is fake so from your pov that would mean the the people who do it never get hurt right
@seanblockleyandTGS It doesn't matter how you define the phrase, Sean. The study showed that a kid with a stable family was more likely to be happy and successful. Thomas Minnery used the study to make the case that gay families are more likely to not raise a happy and successful kid. He was wrong or he lied, it doesn't matter. It's been debunked.
in 20 years the opponents of same sex marriage will be looked on in pretty much the same as the opponents of interracial marriage during the civil rights era. The bigots will be reduced to a tiny irrelevant minority, like the KKK. It's called progress.
@Sybsop Yes! I've been making this analogy for a long time--so true. Also, all of their arguments seem to have the subtext, "I'm not comfortable with this." If that's a basis for legislation, we're in trouble.
@FloraWest Anti-gay bigots always seem to focus mostly on male homosexuality as well. The entire anti-gay movement is based on one sentiment: "eeeew the thought of two men having sex grosses me out" That's it, that's all there is to it. Every other "argument" they come up with is just to disguise and legitimize that sentiment.
@OrbitalBurn1 The issue at hand here is equality. There are no justifiable reasons to limit the freedom of homosexuals to marry. Just as there were no justifiable reasons to limit the freedom of people who wished to marry someone of a different race. Other than short sighted narrow minded and religiously fueled prejudice and hatred. We've had same sex marriage in my country for over 10 years, there are NO ill effects. No one will force you to marry someone of your own gender either.
@Drgamedood Btw, a phobia is a "morbid fear" that causes anxiety for the sufferer. I don't fear people who practice homosexuality. I disagree with the lifestyle, but I don't fear and I certainly don't hate people who do. Me disagreeing with a lifestyle doesn't make me a "homophobe". I have also bred 3 great kid's who are learning not to take any claims by others at face value...
@seanblockleyandTGS Your disagreement with the homosexual lifestyle is completely subjective. Can you give a logical categorical universal reason to disagree with it which lies outside of your subjective feelings?
@afeeder The disproportionate life expectancy is caused by societies hostility toward it. The STD issue deals with promiscuity, not homosexuality. It is true that promiscuous gay men are more likely to get STD's than prom. str8 men. It is also true that promiscous str8 women are more likely to get STD's than prom. gay women. Based on your logic, men should be str8 and women should be gay. How does that work? Your argument is illogical and gives reasons to promote equality.
"The STD issue deals with promiscuity, not homosexuality."
While obviously the higher promiscuity doesn't help, the type of sexual practices, not the frequency is the biggest variable. To quote sciencedaily, "to end the HIV epidemic, gay men would need to have rates of unprotected sex several times lower than those currently evident among the straight population. This is because transmission rates are higher for anal sex than they are for vaginal sex, say the authors."
"The disproportionate life expectancy is caused by societies hostility toward it."
Source? The primary difference is STD, esp. HIV death. Are you saying society made men want to have sex with men? And why would gay women be immune, they live in the anti-gay society as well?
"Based on your logic, men should be str8 and women should be gay. How does that work?"
I don't know, I didn't play a part in causing health risks. I'm just telling it like it is.
@afeeder Ok. Well you are just proving my point by continually addressing gay men and leaving gay woman out of the equation. If a woman should base her sexuality on the prevalence of STDS then all women should be lesbians. Is that what you are trying to promote? Bringing up STDS only gives evidence to promote monogamy for all people with the idea of marriage. Thanks for bring up good evidence for society to endorse monogomany for gay people.
@Fishqueen1972 I believe God exists. I believe that God reflected his heart for us in the Bible. I believe the Bible to be one of the most accurate, widely distributed, and reliable historical documents in existence. The bible condemns homosexuality as well as other sins like fornication, adultery, etc.. I believe God when he says that sin seperates us from Him. I believe God loves us all, even though we have sinned. I believe in the sacrifice that Jesus gave to us. I believe in God.
@seanblockleyandTGS OK. So now you have resorted to your personal subjective feelings and beliefs which is not a universal categorical reason to discriminate against people. I guess you can't give a provable universal reason. You have to resort to the ancient writings of ignorant people who thought it was ok to stone their disobient children to death. The Bible is open to interpretation and many bibilographers would disagree with your interpretation of it.
@Fishqueen1972 Some of what you say is true. The Bible didn't pull punches or cover the up the fact that bad things happened. Perhaps you can unpack for me what you mean by a universal, categorical reason? And, Isn't your understanding of the Bible subjective as well? Also, I don't think disagreeing is the same a discrimination. I once worked for a company that perpetuated a profound support of the homsexual community. I do not discriminate. I disagree. There is a big difference.
@seanblockleyandTGS "I believe the Bible to be one of the most accurate...and reliable historical documents in existence. The bible condemns homosexuality as well as other sins like fornication, adultery, etc.."
So how is the bible relevant regarding ANY U.S. law? That's right, It is not.
Do you really believe the earth is 6,000 years old, there was a talking snake, there was an Ark with 5 million species aboard, that God demanded that men who work on Sunday be put to death?
@TheSnoopy1750 Hey Snoopy. Let's get this healthy debate above the junior high level. I'm not into name calling and I won't respond that way either. Express your view and keep it mature. To your point: The basic foundations of the govermental law has its foundations in biblical principles and moral code. Check your history. Its there. And yes, I believe what the Bible says. Every word from start to finish.
@seanblockleyandTGS "The basic foundations of the govermental law has its foundations in biblical principles and moral code."
Sorry, but saying something does not make it true.
Show me any SCOTUS opinion asserting that the Constitution is based on biblical principles. Thou shall not steal is not a unique biblical view.
If you believe in a talking snake, an Ark that fit 5 million species and that the earth is 6,000 years old, I can't help you. You need to seek out a psychiatrist.
@TheSnoopy1750 I grow tired of Christians making blanket statements about what the Bible does or does not condemn without offering any substantive evidence of it. I am a Christian. I do believe the Bible is the word of God. I can not find much evidence supporting many claims that Christians espouse loudly - even from the pulpit. Yes, I've looked. It really drives me crazy.
Jesus said love ALL men. Yet many evangelical Christians hate gays and have to go back to the O.T. Leviticus to support their views. If gays were so bad, surely Jesus would have mentioned it at least once. Furthermore, the O.T. was obviously written by man, unless one actually is dumb enough to believe the earth is 6,000 years old.
I hate arguing with religious nut jobs - you can't reason with an illogical person.
@TheSnoopy1750 Leviticus says I should be punishing professional football players for touching a pig's skin on the Sabbath. I should be executing people who work on Sundays and I'm sanctioned to sell my daughter into slavery. (Amongst other craziness.) Just sayin' --- FWIW, there are loving/sane Christians out there. Sadly, we're just not always as vocal.
@TheSnoopy1750 Sure. Simple answer. The Bible is split up into two "Testaments." Testament is another word for 'covenant.' Leviticus is in the Old Testament. It's symbolic of the Old Covenant God had with His people. It used to be about trying to follow rules - or being punished. The whole point to Jesus is that he gave us the New Covenant (found in the New Testament.) Now it's about transformation from within...but mainly about LOVE and GRACE.
@lionel4237 OK, I get it. I agree, but I think the O.T. was written by man who made God vengeful to keep people in line.
As you know, Jesus never said anything about gays being bad or evil. Yet Christians refer to the Jewish book (O.T.) to justify their obvious bigotry.
Many Evangelical Christians like Michelle Bachmann etc. believe in O.T. ideas like the rapture, the earth is 6,000 years old etc. These people are often pretty crazy (and bigoted) so I try to avoid them.
@TheSnoopy1750 The biggest problem with the "radicals" or "crazies" of any faith (the Muslim community has the same problem as Christians in this regard!) is that that very vocal minority so darkly shades legitimate scriptural analysis in the public eye. & to answer your flagged post very briefly...(I don't get into super-deep debates online.) I see no reason why science and faith can't co-exist. That's about all I'm willing to say about it in this forum.
@seanblockleyandTGS Me too! On most accounts...I am a Christian. I believe in the Bible. However, I can find no proof - like you can - that it clearly condemns homosexuality or even fornication. The disparity between what Churches tell us the Bible says and what it seems to actually say is sometimes significant. I won't get too into it online. Just saying your sweeping generalizations drive Christians like me crazy. Christians who actually love everyone and think God does too
@Drgamedood For you morans (yeah, I spelled it like that on purpose) who drink the liberal wacko koolaid, please kill yourselves. The world could do with fewer immoral liberals. As history shows time and time again.
On 311 the World woke up and decided NO NUKES and NO FLUKES.We ask for the END OF THE NUCLEAR NIGHTMARE ON EARTH. We DEMAND THE END OF TOXIC POWER SYSTEMS ON EARTH. Let us BAN HYDRO FRACKING IN AMERICA as this POISONS MILLIONS OF GALLONS OF WATER Let us DEMAND THE END OF THE MILITARY INDUSTRIAL CORPORATE COMPLEX NOW. Let us DEMAND THE END OF ENDLESS WARS ON HUMANKIND Let us DEVELOP IN UNITY the Energy of SOLAR, MAGNETIC, WIND TURBINE,GEO THERMAL& HYDRO KINETIC4ALL POWER
Now that I have read the study.....The study provides no real data that can define gay versus hetero compentency to raising children. It simply is a demonstration that two parents PROVIDE more resources than a single parent. DUH!!! Why did we spend any Federal Resources on this obvious conclusion. This study that Franken calls out to prop up gay adoption is nothing more than a study on HEALTH CARE PROVISIONS. Nothing more. I believe that is not the question we all have as parents.
Well then it doesn't support the point the witness was trying to make. Franken didn't bring this study up because it proves his point, he brought it up to show that the witness was making uncorroborated claims. Thanks for fact checking Al Franken and proving him right.
@mrtchadd Explain to me the importance of this post....Why are you posting responses? What impact do you think this exercise reveals? This video is being posted because the HOMOSEXUAL cause is being implemented. My point is the homosexual cause to have adopted children has nothing to do with this hearing. NOTHING. All this hearing concludes is that TWO PARENTS ARE BETTER THAN ONE when providing health care. Fraken is simply pandering to the GAY COMMUNITY here. LIBERAL exercise for votes.......
Brilliant :D
TwoTube2 3 weeks ago
I like Obama just fine, but 4 years from now, Franken has my complete support as a Presidential Candidate. Except that if he were to win, that would mean he couldn't be in the Senate cleaning things up there....damn this is a conundrum
Vamperlis 3 weeks ago
I love how Franken gets down into the guts of these things and pulls out exactly where the lie is hidden and then brings it into the light in a humorous fashion.
monokhem 2 months ago
I like how the guy nods like "yup, you got me.. lolz".
cobrompton 2 months ago
SCHOOLED!
pifase 3 months ago
GOTTEM
OpRedDawn 3 months ago
Comment removed
SierraSierraFoxtrot 3 months ago
my goddam hero!
peacesellsstevebuyin 3 months ago
al franken is the perfect definition of "PWNED"
HelloKellen 4 months ago in playlist More videos from tpmtv
Al Franken is not only funny, he is brilliant and a terrific senator. I will vote for him for any office he runs for...
orchman 4 months ago
I just love Al Franken! That was brilliant!
GaryE20904 4 months ago
So smart and so funny and so right.
richpatino 4 months ago
According to the dictionary, a "nuclear family" is defined as - A family unit consisting of a mother and father and their children.
HUH! I guess Mr Minnery WAS correct after all!
stage9ine 4 months ago
@stage9ine there are scores of different dictionaries that one may choose to follow. The fact of the matter is, as Franken clearly stated, the study in question does not define "nuclear family" within the parameters of a heterosexual relationship. There is no ONE English dictionary.
ajusted123 4 months ago 3
@ajusted123 It has nothing to do with how "nuclear family" is defined in a dictionary, the study itself by the Dept of Health and Human Services themselves defined "nuclear family" as a houshold of one or more children being raised by two biological or jointly adopted married people. What the study concludes is that it doesn't matter if the married people are same sex or opposite sex, what is important is that children do better being raised in a two parent home.
TomsFriendKake 3 months ago
@stage9ine That's the lexical definition, not the one used in the study.
SuperFantasticFox 3 months ago
@stage9ine no Mr Minnery was not right at all, because he was citing the studies and he should have seen the definition of nuclear family as it was defined by the studies. Yet, he just wanted to twist the facts of the studies to fit his narrative and to lie.
TheTruthbasedonfact 1 month ago
We all realize who AL FRANKEN is, correct? For those of you who don't know, AL FRANKEN MADE HIS CAREER OUT OF IMITATING A GAY LIBERAL WITH LOW SELF ESTEEM, THAT IS HIS CROWN JEWEL PEOPLE.
culturalhonesty 5 months ago
@culturalhonesty Stuart Smalley's sexual orientation was never stated on Saturday Night Live, and the fact that you assumed he was gay says more about you than it does Al Franken.
drslobulus 4 months ago 5
Comment removed
Elementsorcerer4 6 months ago
Al franken, baller as fuck.
poopmasterjenkins 6 months ago
@Elementsorcerer4 Almost. Freedom does mean you have the right to act as long as it doesn't encroach upon others. Just happens to be that encroaching upon others is EXACTLY what gay rights activists expect. They want everyone to be FORCED to view gay as being identical to straight, and they DEMAND that I see it as awesome and righteous. They want me to be paralyzed, silent, and live in a world where the raising of a child is irrelevant. If it hurt to be stupid, you'd be in pain every day.
CuddlyBadger 6 months ago
@CuddlyBadger Do you realize the inherent flaw in that statement? Yes, there are those who do demand that, and yes, they are wrong to expect that of you. We live in a free country and therefore you deserve to say whatever you please, but if your beliefs expect others to live, to use your words, "paralyzed, silent," and live in a world where being different is wrong and certain freedoms are taken from you then that is encroaching on others far more than your complaint ever could be.
Elementsorcerer4 6 months ago
@Elementsorcerer4 Absolutely fictitious. People take freedoms away from others, like walking in the park, every day. All they have to do is point and laugh, or whisper behind your back every time you do something that doesn't fall in line with the cult of the day. Today the gay cult is getting a lot of play. Here's my question for you (you and the rest of the snarky pity partying gay scene)...
Where's
MY
Fucking
Parade?
CuddlyBadger 6 months ago
Comment removed
Elementsorcerer4 6 months ago
@CuddlyBadger Oh what an adolescent, high school, whine. People don't take way freedom when they point and laugh and whisper behind your back, you LET them take away your freedom. If your courage of your convictions are so weak that they cannot stand up to scrutiny, then you have lost already. So, as for your question, your fucking parade? If you have conviction in what you say, get off your ass and do it yourself. Free country.
Elementsorcerer4 6 months ago
@CuddlyBadger If neo nazis can march on washington with police protection like they did in 2008. No one will stop you from organizing a straight / bigot parade. It's a free country, no matter how much people like you try to make it otherwise. You can rave and rant about the gays in a public forum all you want, just know that freedom of speech does not equal freedom from criticism and judgment from your fellow citizens.
Sybsop 6 months ago
@Sybsop Here here and bravo to that!!!
Elementsorcerer4 6 months ago
@CuddlyBadger You want a pride parade? Go get your rights taken away, go have your entire community who are heterosexual slaughtered in a holocaust, go have your community who are heterosexual who for thousands of years due to religious fundamentalists have you killed or exiled from society.
Why do you think you need a straight pride? Because you have to share the air-time in media? Because you have to share your rights with other people?
voidlam 5 months ago 7
@CuddlyBadger Laws should not be made to dictate how people think, and anyone out there asking for that is wrong. AND that goes for EVERYONE on both sides of the issue, cause there are plenty of people who want gays to sit down and shut up too. AND playing a victim when what you are complaining about is not being able to hate others for being UNrighteous just makes you sound like an idiot. That's right, you would be in as much or more pain if it did really hurt to be stupid.
Elementsorcerer4 6 months ago
@CuddlyBadger
Oh man you sure sounded like a real idiot when you last posted haha.
You're so stupid haha I just read your post.
VeradoonKing 2 months ago
@CuddlyBadger ... WHAT!? So what you're saying is that you are being discriminated against because you can't discriminate against others?
Gay is identical to straight. It's two people who are sexually attracted to each other. That's all it is.
Kevster921 3 weeks ago
franken rocks
DDTphoenix 6 months ago
"It doesn't"
He got stomped.
tes4o 6 months ago 31
As much as I hate to defend this jackass, I suspect that he didn't lie or intentionally mischaracterize the government study. He probably just assumed that the study's definition of "nuclear family" couldn't possibly be anything other than his own. And, it still makes him a tool.
markvz 6 months ago 2
America needs to join the rest of the world to 2011, what are all you homophobes affraid of?
lordrazr 6 months ago
he slapped the shit outta that bigot!
cjm608 6 months ago
I disagree with al franken on many things but he is correct here... i don't believe in rights for "groups" i believe in rights for individuals regardless of their sexual preference, race, color etc
aaron19840904 6 months ago
Im happy :)
brundageta 6 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
The Radical Homosexual organizers called it "Celebrating Gay Pride," as part of their party of perversion and it had two main goals:
1.) Ramming through the Homosexual Agenda (which now includes the Gay Bill of Special Rights, the Homosexual Classrooms Act and other family destroying bills), and;
2.) Forcing Americans, especially children, to become desensitized to sickening homosexual behavior.
This what this Toxic Piece of Shit is standing up for.. hope you are happy !!
nickrambus 6 months ago
@nickrambus go fuck yourself
coglapse 6 months ago
Al Franken FTW good thing he took down that guy. why does religion have to discriminate against homosexuality?
utech211 6 months ago
Comment removed
utech211 6 months ago
gotta love that Al
brundageta 6 months ago
This is amazing. Al Franken FTW :-)
welaughindoors91 6 months ago
@Sybsop @DoctorMeh
Nambla.org :)
TomStraub 6 months ago
When was this? Where was this?
xwebb 7 months ago
Shot the fuck down, I love it.
SpadeHand 7 months ago 46
-Sarah Palin, Tim Pawlenty or Michelle Bachmann may one day lead the US just makes me want to cry with tears of frustration, what a joke.
I live thousands & thousands of miles away from the US and it scares the shit out of me. When will the world learn that during times of economic, social, societal difficulty and existential trauma that veering violently to the right only makes life worse, history shows that. These people are not a million miles away from nazism. Aaah rant over...
abbott790 7 months ago
@abbott790 I'm worried too and I don't live in the US either. :/ The people you mentioned aren't helped the commonly held stereotype that Americans are stupid and ignorant.
Magikalic 7 months ago
@Magikalic Thats a good point its not doing them any favours is it.
abbott790 7 months ago
This video was a fantastic use of 2:25 of my time, it's nice to see spurious references thrown about by right wing repressed bigots expunged by common sense in this way.
Is anyone else terrified by the rise of right-wing extremism in the USA? This te-party movement to me seems to have no political experience or savvy and seem to be preying on ignorant peoples fears and bigotry to garner support they seem like real life death eaters to me, the idea that someone like.
abbott790 7 months ago
"it doesn't" lololol
mki1230 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
well nuclear families are not dad + mom + chilldren? it seems to me Franken is wrong there. the usual definition when people talk about the nuclear family is the traditional family.
skinwalkerxxx 7 months ago
@skinwalkerxxx
"the usual definition when people talk about the nuclear family is the traditional family."
True, but that's not how the PAPER defines it. Minnary uses the PAPER to back up using HIS defintion, when, becuase the paper defined the term differently, the paper doesn't say what Minnary says it does. That's what Franken was pointing out. Franken wasn't using his own definition. He was using the misrepresented paper's definition to show the paper was misrepresented.
KemaTheAtheist 6 months ago
@KemaTheAtheist actually the way Franken read it, it didn't seem to have ANY definition. So the guy is not necessary in the wrong to have thought it was the common definition of the term.
skinwalkerxxx 6 months ago
@skinwalkerxxx
"actually the way Franken read it, it didn't seem to have ANY definition."
Franken read the definition straight out of the paper, and the author of said paper has stated publicly that Franken was correct.
"So the guy is not necessary in the wrong..."
Yes he was, because even if Minnery's definition was right, there's no data in the study to compare same-sex to opposite-sex marriage, so the paper can't support what Minnery said. Either way, Minnery lied.
KemaTheAtheist 6 months ago
@skenny513
I am sure the fact that gays are able to marry (at least in some states) qualifies those couples for the term "marriage" and hence "nuclear family" if there are children. At least to those researchers it did.
You realize of course, that your defining standards exclude pre-1967 interracial marriages from the term "nuclear families", don't you?
BjoernarEricSven 7 months ago
@skenny513
Even if you were right and the study didn't include gays, it still doesn't support Minnery's claim because the study doesn't compare straight parenting to gay parenting.
But here's what the lead author herself had to say: “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.
BjoernarEricSven 7 months ago 2
Never fuck with a satirist!
reichmarshall 7 months ago
If only the majority of Democrats in US Congress were as honest and smart as Sen. Franken.
alebertfama 7 months ago 2
Someone's homophobia argument just got DENIED.
Saiko47 7 months ago
God will judge and convict you for being gay so all this talk politics Is a waste
mythicalname 7 months ago
@mythicalname And I will judge you on being a bigot, so all this religious talk is a waste.
Mattprole 7 months ago
@mythicalname the one who is judging is you. Not God. How can you comprehend what god wants. you are nothing but a puny human and god will judge THE UNJUST not what a ignorant human like you wants.
usbeingawesome 7 months ago
God will judge and convict you for being gay or les
mythicalname 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@skenny513
"If you listened to Al Franken's definition of "nuclear family", and notice that it says MARRIED couples, that means THE STUDY DIDNT INCLUDE HOMOSEXUALS"
If the study didn't have data on homosexuals, then it still couldn't have been used by Minnary to make the claims against same-sex couples that he did, because there was no data for comparison.
This argument doesn't help you... All you're showing is that Minnery was still wrong.
KemaTheAtheist 7 months ago
But homosexual couples can get married so…
president433 7 months ago
14 people are homophobes
dana6617 7 months ago
BOOYA!
justrespect360 7 months ago
continually, continually, when ever right wing "christian"republican conservatives are questioned or challenged on the veracity of their statements regarding anything concerning the gay community, whether it be by the average man on the street or a member of congress, they are proved to be either inaccurate, completely wrong or out and out liars!
these "christians" never deal in truth or fact. these "CHRISTIANS" deal in lies ONLY to get their bullshit across. they are truly disgusting people!
wntoply6 7 months ago
@montichan No, it doesn't.
Idiot.
TwoShedsMcGillicuddy 7 months ago
@TwoShedsMcGillicuddy I agree Franken is an idiot. I think Limbaugh called him a buck toothed moron in the 1990s. It should have been idiot. He wouldn't have been a senator hadn't it been for 2008 and the anti-war backlash. He'll last until 2014.
montichan 7 months ago
@montichan so franken who tells the truth is an idiot huh & you hold limbaugh, a lying buffoon, as one anyone of intelligence should listen to right?
well then you must be another "christian"republican conservative, who in order to make a point never refers to fact or data, rather you cite biased opinion & out & out lies.
so far none of the allegations any "christian" person or organization has said about the gay community has any relation to fact & are always based on ignorance & hate!
wntoply6 7 months ago
@montichan derp derpderrrrrrrrp
VolkColopatrion 7 months ago
OMFG, Franken is so witty...he can read a definition from a study, but the reality is that the study was saying what Mr. Minnery said it said. So, Franken is really the ignorant one committing the error of "false charge of fallacy." However, it is a non sequitor; the best argument against "gay marriage" if it even exists is the religious one. All of the propaganda churned out isn't going to change it.
montichan 7 months ago
@montichan Except for the fact the author of the study confirmed Franken's words here. Sorry, your bigotry is ridiculous and unfounded.
pyrespirit 7 months ago
@pyrespirit How do you get bigotry out of my comment? I just pointed out that Franken committed the error of false charge of fallacy. You can check Dr. Kahane's Logic and Contemporary Rhetoric for a definition. "Gay marriage" can't be just created out of thin air. Marriage was a religious rite millenniums old. You can't call something "marriage" and expect it to have the attributes of marriage.
montichan 7 months ago
@montichan most anthropologist and historians agrees that marriage arised out of the need to to transfer property and share resources. the idea that marrige is an religious rite is shaky at best...
powereater 7 months ago
@powereater With all due respect, there is no doubt that marriage is cultural and a religious rite, but it isn't just a nice to have or something that will be revered just because it is "legalized." The respect of it is definitely much less than before and so the rite is dying...perhaps even the debate on DOMA is a symptom of it. Those conservatives fighting for it perhaps represent a rear-guard fighting a delaying action...or maybe they are advance guard for a revival of belief.
montichan 7 months ago
@montichan marriage means diffrent things to diffrent religion and cultures. our culture has changed significantly due to progressive movements advocating tolerance and acceptance, our laws will soon reflect these changes.
respecting this idea would perhaps would make more sense if marriage no longer served it's intended function: the merge and exchange of resources, but visitation rights, inharitance of property and other benefits should be fairly and equally provided to all.
powereater 7 months ago
@montichan one correction to your statement, marriage isn't, as a religious rite, recognized in this country unless & until it's registered by the local municipality. if i isn't registered, no amount of religious pontificating can make it legal in the eyes of the law.
if a couple wants to enjoy the state & federal benefits of marriage, the government must verify & make it legal, no religious rite can do that.
hence in the eyes of U.S. law, marriage is a civil right, not a religious rite!
wntoply6 7 months ago
Comment removed
BjoernarEricSven 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@montichan
Yeah, serial-adulterer Newt Gingrich fighting for the sanctitiy of marriage is a prime example.
BjoernarEricSven 7 months ago
Non-sequitor. You just made an ad hominem argument as well as saying by implication that "two wrongs make a right."
montichan 7 months ago
@montichan
Two wrongs? Two? Whereas adultery hurts someone, homosexuality per se does not.
You may call it an ad hominem argument, but someone judging others for their perceived immorality, while at the same time verifiably committing immoral acts has zero credibility and is the epitome of bigotry. Gingrich's self-unmasking elegantly proves that many people simply and arrogantly confuse their personal likes and dislikes with morality.
BjoernarEricSven 7 months ago
@montichan "The best argument against gay marriage is the religious one"... And marriage has never been a 'religious rite', it's a SOCIAL contract and always has been just that. It has had connections to religion, whatever the local religion was, but that doesn't change the fact that it's first and foremost a social contract - the fact that it exists in pretty much every culture regardless of their particular local religion attests to that. Sorry; your bigotry is unfounded.
pyrespirit 7 months ago
@montichan bigotry because, dispute this instance where a citation was found out to be incorrect and deceiving you still hold on to the lie with not credible or adequate counter.
That's funny considering you have your support on such videos as condemning child exploitation and the "innocence project" when you seem to call guilty to people who would adopt a child and raise it better than hypocritical Christians.
VolkColopatrion 7 months ago
@montichan
Even if Franken's definition was wrong — and Debra L. Blackwell, the lead author herself, said he was right —, the study simply doesn't compare gay parenting to straight parenting, so Minnery's claim about the inferiority of gay parenting is not supported by it. Meaning: either way Minnery was wrong.
BjoernarEricSven 7 months ago
Smaller gov't people. Marriage is a private matter that should not involve any level of gov't deciding who you can and cannot marry.
Einsteinbomb 7 months ago 2
Hate filled Christian mother fucking theofascists. They hate our country, these Christian dog fuckers should pack up and leave.
NotSoOldHippy 7 months ago
@mormonanswerman So when did you choose to be straight?
indifferent59 7 months ago
Nice one Al!!! I see we have a bunch of weasels in here trying to defend Minnary. This video shows he convolutes facts to suit his agenda. He got caught doing so. Why should I believe he didn't lie in the rest of his statements to suit his world view. He knew what nuclear families were because he read the study and as Franken pointed the definition was in the study which Minnary used to defend his point of view. I think it's also known as getting caught with your hand in the cookie jar.
rozzybaby1 7 months ago
I think Focus on the Family is a pretty cool guy. eh misinterprets research and doesn't afraid of anything
SuperThreeCheese 7 months ago
In your face !
simon1430 7 months ago
BOOM
DesolateGrunt 7 months ago
Hmm... I wouldn't call it equal rights for homosexuals. They have the same rights as heterosexuals do and anyone else. Men have a right to marry women. Women have a right to marry men. The way I see it, this is sexism. Men should have the right to marry men, like women do. Women should have the right to marry women, like men do. Homosexuality is what influences their decision to marry someone of the same sex as them.
Yetaxa 7 months ago
@glockchem: While true that the study was conducted when gay marriage was mostly prohibited by law, unless the study subdivided same-sex couples into a separate group, then the data is useless to support any theories about the effectiveness of gay marriage, which is Franken's point.
But taking it one step further, since the study said that marriage is better for families, then the conclusion should be made that we MUST allow same-sex marriage, so that their family situation is stronger!
DaveE
legodavee123 7 months ago
Comment removed
legodavee123 7 months ago
Comment removed
legodavee123 7 months ago
It should be referred to as "marriage equality" from now on not as "same sex marriage". Stop allowing the bigot frame the argument.
rudeybrown 7 months ago
Franken is being disingenuous. The report doesn't support Minnery's assertion but, the study was from 2001-2007. Only Massachusetts had gay marriage prior to 2008 having legalized it in 2003. So the Nuclear families cited had to be overwhelmingly heterosexual. But the study was only about stable nuclear families vs single parent, cohabiting or other types. The report is on line. More reading and less name calling and characterization might be better.
glockchem 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@glockchem
"Franken is being disingenuous."
Why? He's not doing anything more than saying Minnery's assertion was wrong. You said "the Nuclear families cited had to be overwhelmingly heterosexual" which means there wasn't data from homosexual couples to compare against, which is exactly why Minnery can't make the claims he did.
All you've done is back up how *Minnary* is being disingenuous.
KemaTheAtheist 7 months ago 4
Lee Strobel also makes a compelling case for the accuracy of the Bible in his book: "The Case For Christ." As an aetheist Lee subjected Jesus to 8 credibility tests:
Intention, Ability, Character, Consistency, Bias, Cover Up, Corroboration, and Adverse Witness tests. At end of his work Lee found that the stories held up under scrutiny and decided to give his life to Christ. Lee is the former editor for the Chicago Tribune and educated by Yale before becoming a Christian. Very compelling..
seanblockleyandTGS 7 months ago
@seanblockleyandTGS So what is the key piece of evidence that proves that Jesus thought gays were evil or bad people.
Please let me know. I can't wait to become a rabid bigot!!!
TheSnoopy1750 7 months ago
@seanblockleyandTGS
"Lee Strobel..."
Is a lawyer speaking about things WAY out of his field, and makes claims the universe is only 6000 years old. I'm sure he knows law, but he sucks at science and history. The fact you just tried to use him to make your case (no pun intended) is the worst argument you've made yet.
KemaTheAtheist 7 months ago 2
Discrimination is the prejudicial treatment of an individual based on their membership in a certain group or category. Discrimination is the actaul behavior towards members of another group. ie. - The wingnuts at Westboro Baptist who hold pickets signs that say "God hates ______" That is discrimination. I don't know everything about God, but I do know that is NOT God. I'm a Christian and I condemn that kind of behavior. There's no excuse for it.
seanblockleyandTGS 7 months ago
@Namesure1 the person who wrote the study said franken was right do your research before you post jackass
bigkon420 7 months ago
I've observed that of all the original definitions of nuclear families, not one suggested that it was also included a same sex marriage. Franken took the CDC's definition at face value. Sorry, that's not correct. My theory is that the CDC did not want to touch this hot button issue and left the nuclear family definition intentionally vague.
seanblockleyandTGS 7 months ago
@seanblockleyandTGS You would be incorrect. The authors of the study cited have said as much.
DoctorMeh 7 months ago
@DoctorMeh Then the authors of the study would be incorrect. Once again, I have yet to find any definition that supports the assertion that the nuclear family includes sames sex marriage. Is everyone just completely ignoring this fact? Really? Clarification: I do not not believe the authors of the study have the correct definition of "Nuclear Family". They have, according to the original definition, an incorrect understanding of "Nuclear Family".
seanblockleyandTGS 7 months ago
@seanblockleyandTGS dude your sitting here arguing semantics the person who wrote the said franken was right. I am going to use a simple analogy to make your point invalid. Pro wrestling is fake so from your pov that would mean the the people who do it never get hurt right
bigkon420 7 months ago
@seanblockleyandTGS It doesn't matter how you define the phrase, Sean. The study showed that a kid with a stable family was more likely to be happy and successful. Thomas Minnery used the study to make the case that gay families are more likely to not raise a happy and successful kid. He was wrong or he lied, it doesn't matter. It's been debunked.
DoctorMeh 7 months ago 37
@DoctorMeh Okay Doctor Meh. You win.
seanblockleyandTGS 7 months ago
@seanblockleyandTGS Don't worry about it and you're a stand up guy for being able
DoctorMeh 7 months ago
Don't you hate it when things are taken out of context? Whether its a Christian or Atheist?
seanblockleyandTGS 7 months ago
FANTASTIC. I'd vote Franken for President in a second! I love this guy. He's brilliant, thorough, poised and a ruthless champion of the facts.
desertcafe 7 months ago
2>1 parent....duh
2(SSP)=2(OSP)
2(SSPorOSP)>1(SSPorOSP)
That's all it says; but I love how facts just get lost along the way.
willdrake1 7 months ago
in 20 years the opponents of same sex marriage will be looked on in pretty much the same as the opponents of interracial marriage during the civil rights era. The bigots will be reduced to a tiny irrelevant minority, like the KKK. It's called progress.
Sybsop 7 months ago 42
@Sybsop Yes! I've been making this analogy for a long time--so true. Also, all of their arguments seem to have the subtext, "I'm not comfortable with this." If that's a basis for legislation, we're in trouble.
FloraWest 7 months ago
@FloraWest Anti-gay bigots always seem to focus mostly on male homosexuality as well. The entire anti-gay movement is based on one sentiment: "eeeew the thought of two men having sex grosses me out" That's it, that's all there is to it. Every other "argument" they come up with is just to disguise and legitimize that sentiment.
Sybsop 7 months ago 23
@Sybsop Congrats on being the first pro-gay bigot to use the word "bigot," correctly. Most on your side don't understand the meaning of the word.
OrbitalBurn1 7 months ago
@Sybsop
you forgot the bible.,
ssmadan 7 months ago
@Sybsop Bullcrap. Homosexuality is not a race, no matter how many times you racists wish to categorize it as such.
OrbitalBurn1 7 months ago
@OrbitalBurn1 The issue at hand here is equality. There are no justifiable reasons to limit the freedom of homosexuals to marry. Just as there were no justifiable reasons to limit the freedom of people who wished to marry someone of a different race. Other than short sighted narrow minded and religiously fueled prejudice and hatred. We've had same sex marriage in my country for over 10 years, there are NO ill effects. No one will force you to marry someone of your own gender either.
Sybsop 7 months ago 70
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@Sybsop LOL @ you've had same sex marriage in your country for over 10 years and there are "NO ill effects." Your country is a cesspool.
OrbitalBurn1 6 months ago
Homophobia is a disease surpassed only by homosexuality.
octopibingo 7 months ago
@octopibingo Better get yourself to the clinic, then.
NaturalGrace 7 months ago
@NaturalGrace Which would you like eradicated?
octopibingo 7 months ago
@octopibingo Except that "homophobia" isn't a disease, unlike homosexuality.
OrbitalBurn1 7 months ago
Comment removed
TheSnoopy1750 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@OrbitalBurn1 Homosexuality is a disease?
What prestigious medical journal did you read this in? Does the AMA agree?
Surely you make this claim based on the conclusions of some credible independent medical organization. Please let me know the source.
Otherwise I will just assume you are a right wing nut job that makes crap up to fit your delusional beliefs.
TheSnoopy1750 7 months ago 5
@OrbitalBurn1 true dat
octopibingo 7 months ago
For people disputing what Franken said. Please don't breed. The world could use ALOT less homophobes.
Drgamedood 7 months ago 17
@Drgamedood I'm sorry. When did this get personal?
seanblockleyandTGS 7 months ago
@Drgamedood Btw, a phobia is a "morbid fear" that causes anxiety for the sufferer. I don't fear people who practice homosexuality. I disagree with the lifestyle, but I don't fear and I certainly don't hate people who do. Me disagreeing with a lifestyle doesn't make me a "homophobe". I have also bred 3 great kid's who are learning not to take any claims by others at face value...
seanblockleyandTGS 7 months ago
@seanblockleyandTGS Your disagreement with the homosexual lifestyle is completely subjective. Can you give a logical categorical universal reason to disagree with it which lies outside of your subjective feelings?
Fishqueen1972 7 months ago
@Fishqueen1972
It's associated with a much lower life expectancy, and is a very disproportionally large vector for the spread of sexually transmitted diseases.
afeeder 7 months ago
@afeeder The disproportionate life expectancy is caused by societies hostility toward it. The STD issue deals with promiscuity, not homosexuality. It is true that promiscuous gay men are more likely to get STD's than prom. str8 men. It is also true that promiscous str8 women are more likely to get STD's than prom. gay women. Based on your logic, men should be str8 and women should be gay. How does that work? Your argument is illogical and gives reasons to promote equality.
Fishqueen1972 7 months ago
@Fishqueen1972
"The STD issue deals with promiscuity, not homosexuality."
While obviously the higher promiscuity doesn't help, the type of sexual practices, not the frequency is the biggest variable. To quote sciencedaily, "to end the HIV epidemic, gay men would need to have rates of unprotected sex several times lower than those currently evident among the straight population. This is because transmission rates are higher for anal sex than they are for vaginal sex, say the authors."
afeeder 7 months ago
@Fishqueen1972
continued:
"The disproportionate life expectancy is caused by societies hostility toward it."
Source? The primary difference is STD, esp. HIV death. Are you saying society made men want to have sex with men? And why would gay women be immune, they live in the anti-gay society as well?
"Based on your logic, men should be str8 and women should be gay. How does that work?"
I don't know, I didn't play a part in causing health risks. I'm just telling it like it is.
afeeder 7 months ago
@afeeder Ok. Well you are just proving my point by continually addressing gay men and leaving gay woman out of the equation. If a woman should base her sexuality on the prevalence of STDS then all women should be lesbians. Is that what you are trying to promote? Bringing up STDS only gives evidence to promote monogamy for all people with the idea of marriage. Thanks for bring up good evidence for society to endorse monogomany for gay people.
Fishqueen1972 7 months ago
@Fishqueen1972 I believe God exists. I believe that God reflected his heart for us in the Bible. I believe the Bible to be one of the most accurate, widely distributed, and reliable historical documents in existence. The bible condemns homosexuality as well as other sins like fornication, adultery, etc.. I believe God when he says that sin seperates us from Him. I believe God loves us all, even though we have sinned. I believe in the sacrifice that Jesus gave to us. I believe in God.
seanblockleyandTGS 7 months ago
@seanblockleyandTGS OK. So now you have resorted to your personal subjective feelings and beliefs which is not a universal categorical reason to discriminate against people. I guess you can't give a provable universal reason. You have to resort to the ancient writings of ignorant people who thought it was ok to stone their disobient children to death. The Bible is open to interpretation and many bibilographers would disagree with your interpretation of it.
Fishqueen1972 7 months ago
@Fishqueen1972 Some of what you say is true. The Bible didn't pull punches or cover the up the fact that bad things happened. Perhaps you can unpack for me what you mean by a universal, categorical reason? And, Isn't your understanding of the Bible subjective as well? Also, I don't think disagreeing is the same a discrimination. I once worked for a company that perpetuated a profound support of the homsexual community. I do not discriminate. I disagree. There is a big difference.
seanblockleyandTGS 7 months ago
@seanblockleyandTGS
"I believe God exists. I believe that God reflected his heart for us in the Bible."
Has absolutely no bearing on an issue of civil rights, civil laws, and secular government.
"I believe the Bible to be one of the most accurate, widely distributed, and reliable historical documents in existence."
ROFL.
KemaTheAtheist 7 months ago
@seanblockleyandTGS "I believe the Bible to be one of the most accurate...and reliable historical documents in existence. The bible condemns homosexuality as well as other sins like fornication, adultery, etc.."
So how is the bible relevant regarding ANY U.S. law? That's right, It is not.
Do you really believe the earth is 6,000 years old, there was a talking snake, there was an Ark with 5 million species aboard, that God demanded that men who work on Sunday be put to death?
You're a tool.
TheSnoopy1750 7 months ago
@TheSnoopy1750 Hey Snoopy. Let's get this healthy debate above the junior high level. I'm not into name calling and I won't respond that way either. Express your view and keep it mature. To your point: The basic foundations of the govermental law has its foundations in biblical principles and moral code. Check your history. Its there. And yes, I believe what the Bible says. Every word from start to finish.
seanblockleyandTGS 7 months ago
@seanblockleyandTGS "The basic foundations of the govermental law has its foundations in biblical principles and moral code."
Sorry, but saying something does not make it true.
Show me any SCOTUS opinion asserting that the Constitution is based on biblical principles. Thou shall not steal is not a unique biblical view.
If you believe in a talking snake, an Ark that fit 5 million species and that the earth is 6,000 years old, I can't help you. You need to seek out a psychiatrist.
TheSnoopy1750 7 months ago
@TheSnoopy1750 I grow tired of Christians making blanket statements about what the Bible does or does not condemn without offering any substantive evidence of it. I am a Christian. I do believe the Bible is the word of God. I can not find much evidence supporting many claims that Christians espouse loudly - even from the pulpit. Yes, I've looked. It really drives me crazy.
lionel4237 7 months ago
@lionel4237 You and me both.
Jesus said love ALL men. Yet many evangelical Christians hate gays and have to go back to the O.T. Leviticus to support their views. If gays were so bad, surely Jesus would have mentioned it at least once. Furthermore, the O.T. was obviously written by man, unless one actually is dumb enough to believe the earth is 6,000 years old.
I hate arguing with religious nut jobs - you can't reason with an illogical person.
TheSnoopy1750 7 months ago 2
@TheSnoopy1750 Leviticus says I should be punishing professional football players for touching a pig's skin on the Sabbath. I should be executing people who work on Sundays and I'm sanctioned to sell my daughter into slavery. (Amongst other craziness.) Just sayin' --- FWIW, there are loving/sane Christians out there. Sadly, we're just not always as vocal.
lionel4237 7 months ago
@lionel4237 I noticed that you said that you believe the bible is the word of God.
Yet you don't believe the ideas of selling daughters into slavery etc. etc.
Can you explain?
TheSnoopy1750 7 months ago
@TheSnoopy1750 Sure. Simple answer. The Bible is split up into two "Testaments." Testament is another word for 'covenant.' Leviticus is in the Old Testament. It's symbolic of the Old Covenant God had with His people. It used to be about trying to follow rules - or being punished. The whole point to Jesus is that he gave us the New Covenant (found in the New Testament.) Now it's about transformation from within...but mainly about LOVE and GRACE.
lionel4237 7 months ago
@lionel4237 OK, I get it. I agree, but I think the O.T. was written by man who made God vengeful to keep people in line.
As you know, Jesus never said anything about gays being bad or evil. Yet Christians refer to the Jewish book (O.T.) to justify their obvious bigotry.
Many Evangelical Christians like Michelle Bachmann etc. believe in O.T. ideas like the rapture, the earth is 6,000 years old etc. These people are often pretty crazy (and bigoted) so I try to avoid them.
TheSnoopy1750 7 months ago
@TheSnoopy1750 The biggest problem with the "radicals" or "crazies" of any faith (the Muslim community has the same problem as Christians in this regard!) is that that very vocal minority so darkly shades legitimate scriptural analysis in the public eye. & to answer your flagged post very briefly...(I don't get into super-deep debates online.) I see no reason why science and faith can't co-exist. That's about all I'm willing to say about it in this forum.
lionel4237 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@lionel4237 Do you believe that the earth is 6,000 years old and that evolution is not true?
TheSnoopy1750 7 months ago
@seanblockleyandTGS Me too! On most accounts...I am a Christian. I believe in the Bible. However, I can find no proof - like you can - that it clearly condemns homosexuality or even fornication. The disparity between what Churches tell us the Bible says and what it seems to actually say is sometimes significant. I won't get too into it online. Just saying your sweeping generalizations drive Christians like me crazy. Christians who actually love everyone and think God does too
lionel4237 7 months ago
@Drgamedood For you morans (yeah, I spelled it like that on purpose) who drink the liberal wacko koolaid, please kill yourselves. The world could do with fewer immoral liberals. As history shows time and time again.
OrbitalBurn1 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
On 311 the World woke up and decided NO NUKES and NO FLUKES.We ask for the END OF THE NUCLEAR NIGHTMARE ON EARTH. We DEMAND THE END OF TOXIC POWER SYSTEMS ON EARTH. Let us BAN HYDRO FRACKING IN AMERICA as this POISONS MILLIONS OF GALLONS OF WATER Let us DEMAND THE END OF THE MILITARY INDUSTRIAL CORPORATE COMPLEX NOW. Let us DEMAND THE END OF ENDLESS WARS ON HUMANKIND Let us DEVELOP IN UNITY the Energy of SOLAR, MAGNETIC, WIND TURBINE,GEO THERMAL& HYDRO KINETIC4ALL POWER
OnenessNow 7 months ago
Now that I have read the study.....The study provides no real data that can define gay versus hetero compentency to raising children. It simply is a demonstration that two parents PROVIDE more resources than a single parent. DUH!!! Why did we spend any Federal Resources on this obvious conclusion. This study that Franken calls out to prop up gay adoption is nothing more than a study on HEALTH CARE PROVISIONS. Nothing more. I believe that is not the question we all have as parents.
Crucible0Patriot 7 months ago
@Crucible0Patriot
Well then it doesn't support the point the witness was trying to make. Franken didn't bring this study up because it proves his point, he brought it up to show that the witness was making uncorroborated claims. Thanks for fact checking Al Franken and proving him right.
mrtchadd 7 months ago
@mrtchadd Explain to me the importance of this post....Why are you posting responses? What impact do you think this exercise reveals? This video is being posted because the HOMOSEXUAL cause is being implemented. My point is the homosexual cause to have adopted children has nothing to do with this hearing. NOTHING. All this hearing concludes is that TWO PARENTS ARE BETTER THAN ONE when providing health care. Fraken is simply pandering to the GAY COMMUNITY here. LIBERAL exercise for votes.......
Crucible0Patriot 7 months ago
@Crucible0Patriot capital LETTERS-- imply CREDIBILITY.... when LOGIC.... is LACKING.
anonytonomous 7 months ago