Yahooveritas: Kindergarten Debate Club Champion! He learned a bad word and made his opponent cry! Careful everyone, someone treating mental disability as an insult to throw around is in the place! I am positively trembling in my underwear.
I have never asked for thumbs up before, but Al Franken supports SOPA. Please email him and call him. Tell him to stop this madness. Please up this comment for free speech everywhere.
All official medical and scientific definitions of "nuclear family" involve man and women spouses who are biological parents of the children. Franken doesn't have his facts right or he was intentionally being deceptive. h t tp : // w w w (dot) nationalreview (dot) com / home-front/288002/nasty-politics-parenting-research/glenn-t-stanton
@funk7000 Although such couples are most often a man and a woman, the definition of the nuclear family has expanded with the advent of same-sex marriage. -Encyclopedia Britannic. Now get back to your trailer park.
@funk7000 What else would you expect from a high level member of the hateful "Focus on the Family"? Please Mr. Stanton, could you offer some peer-reviewed studies of your own? Thank you.
@funk7000 the self-same source in question doesn't define "nuclear family" in that way, so your point is moot.
regardless of common definitions, whether by medical or scientific authorities or by the general public, the data within the study must be read in light of the definition used in the study. otherwise you're still misreading data (and for the sake of semantics), whether or not the authors of the study got the definition right.
@Glinkaism1 Define "family values"? Does it mean only giving parental rights to straight people, who make up the vast majority of pedophiles and rapists?
Calling out someone for lying to the senate is not pandering. It's focusing on the truth. And as much as you hetero bible belt bullies want to lie and cheat and rape to get what you want, there will always be someone out there to call you out.
@Glinkaism1 Define what constitutes a "family." From what I have seen over 50 years is that families define themselves. And they don't need a government to decide for them. What the hell? Are you one of those people who want "government off our backs" and yet in the same two-faced breath WANT government to decide for EVERYONE how to define a family???
These "Family" groups are not really interested in the welfare of families or children which are but sacrificial pawns in their campaign to ram their religion down the throats of everyone else. A despicable, lying bunch of charlatans.
Glinkaism1 can't argue anything, so he's pointing out that I had a typo. This shows you how truly desperate he is. People criticize the words he says, but never give him credit for how LOUD he says them. Awwww......
"Franken recieves compensation from anti-family sources"
Uh, ensuring that parents can be legally married like other families isn't "anti-family" As for sodomizing children, why don't you go after the many heterosexual priest pedophiles and folks like Ted Hagart and John Rekers, who preach against loving relationships during the day, and hire male prostitutes at night?
@bndkllr2 lern2spel, moron. The word is spelled "receives." Your lack of English places you in the idiot's row. No use even reading your fag talk reply.
Don't lie! Fags want to sodomize children. That is why they want to adopt them. It would be a HORRIBLE environment for a child. Go hide in the closet. And when you get a wee bit of common sense, get yourself de-fagged. There are outfits that do that.
@Glinkaism1 Dismissing an entire statement based on 1 spelling error is a cheap shot to say the least and frankly down right dishonest (intellectually); not to mention cowardly, because you are unwilling to discuss base on the merit of the argument, perhaps because you are afraid/aware that you are unable to defend your point of view intelligently.
@Glinkaism1 Do you realize that The American Academy of Pediatrics disagrees with you? And numerous studies prove that children raised by same-gender parents do just as well as children raised by straight couples. Furthermore, the vast majority of pedophiles are heterosexual men, even if the victims are boys. I know several adults who were raised in same-gender households who are happy, successful and well-adjusted.
@Glinkaism1 As for getting "de-fagged," I wouldn't dream of it. My husband and I have been happily married for 6 years and built a wonderful home together. We volunteer at our local church food pantry and love each other very much. Why don't you neanderthal (did I spell it right?) homophobes move to a country that makes your beliefs the law of the land? Maybe Iran?
It's what conservatives do the best! Try to appeal to the ethos by citing all these studies from reputable sources, then manipulate and twist the words. That's the limit of their so-called "intelligence."
It's what conservatives do the best! Try to appeal to the ethos by citing all these studies from reputable sources, then manipulate and twist the words. That's the limit of their so-called "intelligence."
@TheClassicalPolitico Can't take the truth, can you fag? You will NEVER gain any respect from the ruling straight world. So keep to yourselves. HOMOsexuals are responsible for the most AIDS cases and the largest group of whackos in mental health therapy.
Franken receives compensation from anti-family sources. Many homosexual voted him in. However the heterosexual family will not only survive, it will thrive and crush the atheistic sodomists.
What a lame troll! It doesn't even look like your making any effort here. Always parroting the same old rehashed stuff. C'mon, you can do better than that! Maybe you could link homosexuality to Nazism, Communism and Zionism (all at once!) or something? Claim it'll bring the Doom of Humanity? Warn us about the Great Evil Fag Plot To Conquer The World And Make Everyone Turn Gay (And Also Fabulous?) So They Can Have Buttsex (Even The Lesbians I Guess)? I mean, look at your comments! *yaaaawn*
@andrespereyda Put Franken's cock in your mouth. It's kosher.
And stop your pretentious talk from your 5th grade science class. You are a sick fuck. It was YOUR CHOICE to become queer. Nobody is born queer. Queers are made.
Franken simply can't read. He himself read that the study said "two parents who are married to one another, and are each BIOLOGICAL or adoptive parents to all the children in the family." What we can't trust is Franken's inability to read.
Respond to this video... Are you aware that the word or is used here, which means that either biological or adoptive parents can be the parents? You don't seem to grasp what or means.
@CRoadwarrior Yes, it's "two parents who are married to one another, and are each biological OR adoptive parents to all the children in the family." Notice the sentence uses OR -- not an AND. So both can be biological, like a mother and father; OR, both can simply have adopted the child, like two men or two women.
Aww man, all of you so fucking concerned about children needing both a mom and a dad. It's so touching. I bet you're all up in arms about the hundred thousand of orphans in the world, or monoparental families, or people being raised by grandparents/aunt&uncle/ etc. According to your logic, it's really friggin' terrible, right, and you sure are loudly campaigning for the good of THESE child, right? After all, gay families have a parent and an extra mom or dad. So it's actually better then these!
@CelebrenIthil Fags want to adopt children so they can sodomize them. "Look at you two daddies. See our pee-pees. We want you to play with ours. We will play with yours."
Actually, I think Franken may just be flat-out wrong on this.
That's a Federal study. Under DOMA a same-sex marriage isn't "married", and so the only "married" couples a Federal study would recognize (and thus the only married couples who would meet the definition of nuclear, for that study) is a Male/Female combo.
@dballing Not sure what you missed, but any sound scientific study defines it's terms. The study that Focus on the Family submitted defined the terms the way that Al Franken said. The definition of a nuclear family is spelled out in the study, which is what Al Franken reads from. Since DOMA is already on the books as of the completion of that study, the married same sex couples in the study probably came from states where same sex marriage or civil unions are legal.
@rwmusic "The study defines a nuclear family as two parents who are married to one another". Under existing Federal Law, that study would not recognize a same-sex marriage as "married", just as the IRS does not recognize a same-sex married couple as "married". DOMA *specifically forbids* it to do so. So that study would not consider those families to be "married" and thus they would not fall under the definition of "nuclear" for the purposes of that study.
@dballing "Franken’s indirectly stated point was that Minnery introduced the study–in a hearing on whether to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act–to demonstrate that opposite-sex families were better at raising children than same-sex families. The study showed no such thing; it didn’t look at that question at all."
More lying for Jesus at the DOMA hearing basically.
@dballing A study is a study. It doesn't have to conform to the law, it's simply an observation or analysis of a situation, unlike the IRS which has to go with the terms the law defines. But be all of that as it may, the head author of the study is a woman named Debra L. Blackwell, who confirmed that Franken was correct and that same sex couples were not excluded from either the study itself or the definition of "Nuclear Family" as defined in the study.
Most Americans, like most people on earth, reject gay marriage. Moreover, not a single world religion accepts this alternative lifestyle as being on a par with marriage, traditionally defined. And throughout history, in eastern as well as western civilization, the very idea that two men can get married would have been seen as bizarre, if not delirious.
It is so obvious that the gay rights movement and same sex "marriage" movements are driven by absolute hatred for religion particularly Roman Catholicism. There are no such things as gay rights.
@yahooveritas You are free to practice whatever religion you choose. You're protected by the first amendment. What about the children of same sex couples? What kind of message are you sending them by denigrating their parents' relationship? Do you think you're doing them a favour? You aren't.
@bryansipho Actually in States where SSM is legal, religious liberty has been narrowed. Catholic Charities can't be involved in adoptions because they refuse to give children to same sex couples. There are marriage clerks who had to resign because SSM goes against their religious beliefs. Same sex "marriage is a direct assault to religious freedom. Case closed.
@yahooveritas Religious liberty SHOULD be narrowed if it affects other people's lives adversely. These Catholic charities are preventing children from being adopted by people who would love them and provide for them. It's the charities themselves who are infringing on the well-being of these kids by keeping them in the system. These kids don't give a shit. They just want a place to call home and parents who will love them. You have no compassion whatsoever!
@bryansipho Wrong, buddy! Your statement is ludicrous and just stupid! Go to China or North Korea! The Communist governments in those two countries would love you, crack pot!
@bryansipho To the extent that the state has an obligation to contribute to the well-being of children (who are not themselves responsible for their situation), this can be done without ratifying the legitimacy of homosexual relationships as “marriage.”
@bryansipho For example, whatever state supports might be offered could be granted in the same way that they are offered to two maiden aunts taking care of a nephew or niece whose parents had died – the assistance would go to the child’s primary caregiver, and would not be predicated on any sexual relationship.
@bryansipho Moreover, the existence of de facto homosexual couples with children provides no more justification for legalizing same-sex marriage than the existence of de facto polygamous families provides justification for legalizing polygamy.
@yahooveritas I don't really think that you're opposed to same sex marriage. I think you just hate gay people. And you really know how to argue out of your ass. Red herrings all over the place! I'm tired and I'm done. Please dig down in your soul and find some compassion. Meet a gay person. Talk to them.
@bryansipho I've met and know men and women with same sex attractions. Some are nice people but that doesn't mean that their actions of having sex with people of the same sex is morally acceptable. As for red herrings in my argument, there are none. Thanks.
@yahooveritas If morality is the measure of capablity and compassion and acceptabilty then then there are millions of heterosexuals that should not be allowed children , maybe just for the lack of unqualified as well! Morallity is the slavery of the ignorant and believer in fiary tales!!
@bryansipho Children have a right to both a mother and a father. Neither is expendable. Both are vital to the life of a child. A woman can never be a dad. A man can never be a mom.
Nothing you people write will deter me from exposing advocates for same sex "marriage" as people who are clearly anti-religion and want to destroy religious liberty throughout the Republic. Same sex "marriage" must be outlawed in our land. Same sex "marriage" must be destroyed.
Are there people out there whose lives are so boring and unimportant that they actually put their entire being into caring about the sex of whom I chose to marry? What happened to stamp collecting or wood burning?
For those religious, to quote Rep. Steve Simon, "How many gay people must God create before we accept that He wants them around?" According to your scriptures, your god made me so calling me wrong is calling your god wrong. Hope you got a good excuse at those pearly gates for that.
@yahooveritas "It will also make the Roman Catholic Church's teaching on homosexuality and marriage a federal offense. In short, same sex marriage will unleash a persecution. Same sex marriage must be destroyed!"
You do realize what you are doing right now is PERSECUTING. You just don't like it when someone persecutes YOU; you don't seem to mind persecuting those that don't align with YOUR worldview (which is ignorant, incorrect, and hateful).
Same sex marriage is a threat to religious liberty in the United States. It will make anyone who disagrees with same sex marriage a bigot and a criminal. It will also make the Roman Catholic Church's teaching on homosexuality and marriage a federal offense. In short, same sex marriage will unleash a persecution. Same sex marriage must be destroyed!
Your entire argument here fails with today's Pentagon decision to allow military chaplains to perform gay marriages in states that allow it. This decision was made at the federal level despite your interpretation of DOMA's overreach at the fed level.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
It's unfortunate that the academic who produced the study did not adhere to the classic definition of the term 'nuclear family'. Shame on him / her and shame on Al Franken. Homosexuality is a learned behavior and it's debilitating effects are harmful to all it touches.
@naivetyenlivens You wrote, " Homosexuality is a learned behavior ..." Prove that outrageous and mendacious assertion.
Also include these facts:
A 2006 study by Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported that "38.2 percent of men between ages 20 and 39 and 32.6 percent of women ages 18 to 44 engage in heterosexual anal sex".
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
ATTENTION HOMOSEXUALS: Your days of conducting perverted social experiments on the family and society are coming to an end. The people will rise up against this wicked dictatorship of yours. The gay rights movement and same sex marriage movement must be destroyed.
@seahorse05 Most Americans, like most people on earth, reject gay marriage. Moreover, not a single world religion accepts this alternative lifestyle as being on a par with marriage, traditionally defined. And throughout history, in eastern as well as western civilization, the very idea that two men can get married would have been seen as bizarre, if not delirious.
Franken is a fag freedom fighter. He failed in show biz and so slithered his way into politics. Got to get rid of him. Another slithery snake fat cat political vermin.
OK I'm a big Franken fan, but I'm going to question his conclusion on this point. When we talk about single-parent vs. mom/dad families, we are not talking merely about the quantity of parents, but the different qualities/aptitudes that they bring to the task of child-rearing, right? If you have two dads (or dad "types") or two moms (or mom "types") you are no closer to a "nuclear" family than you are with one mom or one dad.
@UnclePutin And if you're under the assumption that he interpreted it wrong, the author of the study actually confirmed a few days after this hearing that Franken was correct about their definition of the nuclear family -- two parents who are either the biological or adoptive parents to all the children -- regardless if they are same or opposite sex.
@branram The vagina has lubricants and is supported by a network of muscles. It is composed of a mucus membrane with a multi-layered stratified squamous epithelium that allows it to endure friction without damage and to resist the immunological actions caused by semen and sperm. In comparison, the anus is a delicate mechanism of small muscles that comprise an "exit-only" passage. With repeated trauma, the anal sphincter lose its tone and ability to maintain a tight seal leading to leakage.
@yahooveritas The intricacies of hetero and homosexual sex are of no business to anyone outside the two engaging in their consensual acts. Nor are they a viable argument for the pro or anti homosexual argument. They are personal acts, not inflicted onto another person, and no business of religion, the state, or you.
Further, I'm sure there are many homosexual partners who do not engage in these acts you deem wrong. So, what, are they ok then?
@MaryWaterton What exactly is he distorting? The author of this study herself agreed with his interpretation of what they deemed "the nuclear family" -- two adults in a marriage or civil union who either one or both are the parents (biologically or adoption) to their children. Now, call me crazy, but there is no distortion there -- especially when the author of the study states the same thing. You know who is distorting? Tom Minnery of FOF who tried to claim otherwise!
@branram - Oh I gathered that much from watching the video. Regardless of what the author says, Franken knows what a family is, and so do you. It isn't a pair of fags. He is a political jackass who distorts definitions for his own wicked purposes. God knows their hearts and He knows that they know this is a lie. Consequently, God will send his rebellious butt to Hell one day and God will smile as Franken roasts like a marshmellow because he HATES people who abuse children.
@MaryWaterton There are many forms a family can take; you are no one to define it. You illustrate what I find so laughable about supposed Christians who seek to impose their ideas on others. You can't win the argument about same-sex marriage on legal/constitutional grounds, nor on scientific grounds -- so you resort to what you think the Bible states; which is both inapplicable as a legal or consitutional argument and mistranslated at its core! You have nothing but biblical ignorance.
@branram Yes, we can win the argument on legal and constitutional grounds and even scientific grounds since no one has demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt that homosexual inclinations are inborn. Remember me, friend? :-)
@yahooveritas If the inept people on your side of the argument were able to win on scientific grounds, they would have used those facts in the hearing that takes place on this video. They did not. Instead, they attempted to deceive Congress by making a reference that this study says something it does not. You have not and will not ever be able to "wipe the floor" with my scientific or constitutional facts. Instead, you resort to name calling and throwing out God as a viable argument.
@yahooveritas And the debate is not about "homosexual inclinations being inborn" -- you like to change the subject to one which neither side can answer 100%. The facts of this instance are that there is no indication two heterosexual parents (or a single parent) are better or more able to raise a well-adjusted, capable child than a same-sex couple. Those are the facts which you are unable to refute. Nothing to do with where homosexuality comes from, God, or your personal bias.
@branram You can't even make the definitive conclusion that kids raised by homosexuals are better off or just as well adjusted as children living in a home with a mother and a father because legal same sex adoptions is a new phenomenon. It will take another 20 or 30 years to know whether you are right, and as I told you before many of the "scientific research" on this topic in the past 30 years were of dubious scientific value. You don't have a case, dude!
@yahooveritas Yes, yes we can make the conclusion that kids raised by homosexuals are just as well adjusted -- THIS STUDY which Franken is citing, which Minnery and FOF tried to use through lying about what it actually states, PROVES THAT! Same-sex couples have been adopting and raising children since the 70s -- that is more than long enough to gather data from birth well into adulthood on NUMEROUS cases.
@yahooveritas Further, the "dubious" statement you keep clinging to was from 2001 -- when the first children adopted or raised by same-sex couples were just entering adulthood. Of course, at that time, any study would have been a bit premature as we'd need to know how these children cope in society and perform as adults -- education, careers, relationships, etc. Now that we have this, there is irrefutable evidence pointing in our favor.
@branram We DON't have irrefutable evidence. This is not an open and shut case. Legalization of homosexual adoptions and the redefinition of marriage are new! We still don't know the consequences of these actions. It will take decades! Seriously, you need your head examined.
@yahooveritas Um, yes, we do have irrefutable evidence. As of today, we have proof that a same-sex couple is just as qualified to raise children as heterosexual couples. We have a cadre of studies to support this. And yes, we'll continue to study this -- and if science ultimately indicates otherwise, we'll of course have to reassess this. But as of today, we have proof of the qualifications of same-sex couples as parents.
@branram Your argument that the Sumerians and Egyptians approved of same sex "marriage" is ludicrous and cannot be seriously entertained by any reputable historian. You selected certain incidents and writings out of context to make your main point: that at one time Egyptians and Sumerians had a ceremony blessing for homosexual relationships that was equivalent to traditional marriage. You are not being a sincere historian, psychologist or scientist. You are merely a homosexual advocate.
@yahooveritas Blah blah blah, you know more than science, blah blah blah, you know more than historical fact. You offer no evidence or proof of your position again.
Yes, the Sumerians did, in fact, treat same-sex relationships the same as any heterosexual relationship within their society. They offered the same marriage-like bond/ceremony for these couples. You simply call anything you do not like "ludicrous" or classify it as disreputable.
@yahooveritas Let's not forget, its FOF which pulled this study & tried to present it in their case against same-sex marriage by redefining what the author called a "nuclear family" clearly. If this evidence is SO DUBIOUS, then why would FOF have attempted to use it? Your assertion is just silly. The fact that FOF sought out and presented this study indicates its validity and scientific value. You can't use it one day, then turn around and say its wrong when people note you read it incorrectly.
@branram You love twisting people's words around. I am talking about studies which claim that children raised in homosexual relationships are better off than children in traditional/natural families. Regarding this study, I still question the honesty of the author of this study since she never explicitly stated in her study that homosexual couples were involved. She identifies race, gender, age, but not orientation. I find her statement backing up Franken's comprehension suspicious.
@yahooveritas Twisting words? I have not twisted anything -- and I never stated children are "better off" with homosexual couples -- I said they are just as well cared for, and well-adjusted. Not better -- the same. The quality of the parenting is NO different.
As for the author, what, now its a pro-same-sex conspiracy? The author isn't going to lie about how the study was conducted. Of course it involved same-sex couples -- that was one of the study's focuses!
@yahooveritas Its not about where homosexuality comes from -- LGBT people are here now, they aren't going anywhere. This is about the rights of LGBT people to have equal rights under the law of our land which already guarantees said rights. Try staying on a focused topic and leave your anti-gay rhetoric out of it.
@branram I knew that my last response would make you come out of your hole in the ground. No one has the right to redefine the institution of marriage and redefine the nature of family. Your side will lose this war in the end.
@yahooveritas You say no one has the right to redefine marriage -- it was redefined already! The concept of marriage dates back o the Sumerians who did not define it as between a man and woman. Their society treated same-sex couples as no different. I'm not hiding in a hole, you just quit responding when you had no leg to stand on.
@branram You are a such a basket case! Since time immemorial, cultures throughout history have understood marriage as a relationship between one man and one woman. It is not a difficult concept to understand. You are impossible!
@yahooveritas Actually, no -- I just stated the Sumerians -- the FIRST PEOPLE, allowed for same-sex couples in their society -- even celebrating them. You can also look to the Egyptian people as another example. You are simply wrong about the historical facts surrounding same-sex couples. Ignorance, unlike homosexuality, is a choice -- I suggest educating yourself.
@branram You remind me of the historian John Boswell, who wrote the book, "Same-sex Unions in Premodern Europe." He too had a tendency to select certain incidents and writings out of context in order to prove his point that there was a liturgical ceremony that was used to bless homosexual relationships and that they were equivalent to traditional marriage. He made gross generalizations about marriage in Roman antiquity. His arguments have been refuted by reputable historians.
@yahooveritas I don't know anything about John Boswell's book, but in all my reading I haven't found anything that would indicate European societies ever allowed for a same-sex marriage or treated them equally -- on that you are probably correct.
But, no, the Sumerian people are an entirely different case. Their society's view on homosexuality, relationships, and family have been one of my long standing areas of research and study. You're blatantly wrong on the subject of these people.
@yahooveritas Gilgamesh is a good first stab for you, try reading the translated version from the Sin-Leqi Unninni version, its a bit easier to start with.
Another good read is "The Sumerians: Their History, Culture, and Character" by Samuel Noah Kramer.
A great example: "The Origins and Role of Same-Sex relations in Human Societies" by James Neill.
These are just the few I have here in my library, on top of a few papers which were published on the subject but not in book form.
@yahooveritas Another really good book that examines many aspects of homosexuality, including an examination of a few ancient culture's views on the subject, is "The Construction of Homosexuality" by David Greenberg... keep in mind the book was published in the 80s, so some of the later chapters that examine what was the "current" views can seem a bit outdated. But his examination of historical accounts is on point.
@yahooveritas I just blew my mind; I actually have "Same Sex Unions in Premodern Europe" which you spoke about in my library, but it appears I never finished. I only saw a few notes in the early chapters and I have no memory of the book. What is interesting is the examination of Biblical content through the literal translation of the Greek.. As I look at it, this appears to be the basis of much of his argument on the topic. While its interesting, I agree its not factual history like the others.
@branram Multiple twin studies have already demonstrated that only about a third of the identical twins of those with same sex attractions also experience same sex attractions; whereas if sexual attractions were determined strictly by genes, those with identical genes would be expected to have identical attractions. Even if we have genes that predispose us towards certain behaviors, we still have a space of freedom within ourselves, and don't have to engage in those behaviors.
@yahooveritas Are you sure your twin studies were of identical twins? Most studies I have read puts 55%-65% monozygotic twins as having the same sexual attraction. Whereas dizygotic twins are around 25%. Shared sexuality among siblings is one area I've studied, not specific to twins, but more siblings raised apart from each other with the same sexual attractions. On determining 'where' sexual orientation comes from, we certainly need more research -- no one has this answer.
@branram Yes, I am sure. Are you citing as one of your sources Bailey's & Pillard's identical twin study where they claim that 52% of identical twins had same sex attractions and thus there must be a genetic component in the development of homosexuality? Many have questioned the validity of this study and even they admitted that their study was skewed.
@yahooveritas There have been several studies. Again, I'm not pointing to a purely genetic indication of homosexuality, rather my personal study on the issue leads me to believe there are genetic factors at play combined with chemical and hormone levels which help to develop several aspects of our personality -- including sexuality. I'm sure there could even be some environmental factors which play a part. The truth is we don't know HOW one's sexuality is determined, but once its set, its set.
@branram Nevertheless, there is still an element of freedom in that human person. A man or woman with homosexual tendencies does not have to act on it.
A man or woman who is homosexual though does not have heterosexual tendencies. To force oneself to not act upon it is restraining or hiding, and does not coincide with freedom. You are not for human freedom.
Nevertheless, there is still an element of freedom in that human person. A man or woman with homoloathing actions/tendencies and/or is harboring feelings of animus towards gay and lesbian people does not have to act on it.
@yahooveritas Sorry just saw your comment -- I agree. No one has to act on any of their tendencies. The same is true for a heterosexual not HAVING to engage in sex acts with the opposite sex. An alcoholic doesn't have to drink alcohol. All living creatures HAVE to do is die. You have not presented a valid reason WHY a homosexual should abstain from the pursuit of a loving, normal relationship with any person they desire. The difference of our statements are that -- ability vs. engaging ability.
@branram Dear Moron, I just told you that homosexual activities are unnatural acts. They go against the natural moral law. THAT IS WHY MEN AND WOMEN WITH SAME SEX ATTRACTIONS MUST NOT ENGAGE IN THIS TYPE OF ACTIVITY. ROME HAS SPOKEN. THE CASE IS CLOSED.
@branram Another twin study, conducted the following year and published in the Journal of British Psychiatry, showed a correlation of only 25%. I also find your argument problematic because your argument still insists of a "born this way" reason for homosexuality and works on the false and demeaning assumption that the behaviour of homosexuals is always and totally compulsive and therefore inculpable.
@yahooveritas Again, the twin studies are only applicable to your argument if they were done on identical twins -- as this is the only way to dispel your theory.
"I would think the study means a nuclear family is one headed by a husband and wife."
"It doesn't."
Lol. Owned. Owned completely and utterly.
thylacinegurl 1 week ago 2
Yahooveritas: Kindergarten Debate Club Champion! He learned a bad word and made his opponent cry! Careful everyone, someone treating mental disability as an insult to throw around is in the place! I am positively trembling in my underwear.
CelebrenIthil 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I have never asked for thumbs up before, but Al Franken supports SOPA. Please email him and call him. Tell him to stop this madness. Please up this comment for free speech everywhere.
Minn. Office (651) 221-1016
D.C. (202) 224-5641
VorconOSX 1 month ago
OWNED
spiffilyiffy 1 month ago
lol he lied
DeJay14 1 month ago
FOCUS ON YOUR OWN GODDAMN FAMILY. Bring freedom back to America.
billyboylb 1 month ago
All official medical and scientific definitions of "nuclear family" involve man and women spouses who are biological parents of the children. Franken doesn't have his facts right or he was intentionally being deceptive. h t tp : // w w w (dot) nationalreview (dot) com / home-front/288002/nasty-politics-parenting-research/glenn-t-stanton
funk7000 1 month ago
@funk7000 Although such couples are most often a man and a woman, the definition of the nuclear family has expanded with the advent of same-sex marriage. -Encyclopedia Britannic. Now get back to your trailer park.
usukatlifegodiekthx 1 month ago
@funk7000 What else would you expect from a high level member of the hateful "Focus on the Family"? Please Mr. Stanton, could you offer some peer-reviewed studies of your own? Thank you.
skyhunk 1 month ago
@funk7000 the self-same source in question doesn't define "nuclear family" in that way, so your point is moot.
regardless of common definitions, whether by medical or scientific authorities or by the general public, the data within the study must be read in light of the definition used in the study. otherwise you're still misreading data (and for the sake of semantics), whether or not the authors of the study got the definition right.
lolraptourz 1 month ago
homophobes hate children and get off to them suffering
ophios 1 month ago
I love how these political fundies claim want to keep government out of the peoples lives.
Unless of course you happen to be gay.
Or an immigrant.
Or you need an abortion.
In which case it suddenly becomes "more is better".
BTCforlife 1 month ago 5
When I hear Al Franken's "It doesn't" (in response to Minnery's warped definition of a nuclear family) all I can think of is
FOUR FOR YOU AL FRANKEN YOU GO AL FRANKEN
tomthecat94 1 month ago 3
@tomthecat94 And none for Gretchen err Mr Minnery, bye. XD
RobertLeabo 1 month ago
Franken is not a nice guy at all. He is a panderer.
What is needed in the USA is a return to family values. We need a FOCUS ON THE FAMILY.
Glinkaism1 1 month ago
@Glinkaism1
Horseshit!! What we need to focus on is MINDING OUR OWN GOD DAMNED BUSINESS.
What part of freedom do you people not understand??
rumours77 1 month ago
@Glinkaism1 Define "family values"? Does it mean only giving parental rights to straight people, who make up the vast majority of pedophiles and rapists?
Calling out someone for lying to the senate is not pandering. It's focusing on the truth. And as much as you hetero bible belt bullies want to lie and cheat and rape to get what you want, there will always be someone out there to call you out.
fram4153 1 month ago
@Glinkaism1 Define what constitutes a "family." From what I have seen over 50 years is that families define themselves. And they don't need a government to decide for them. What the hell? Are you one of those people who want "government off our backs" and yet in the same two-faced breath WANT government to decide for EVERYONE how to define a family???
1000Astron 1 month ago
These "Family" groups are not really interested in the welfare of families or children which are but sacrificial pawns in their campaign to ram their religion down the throats of everyone else. A despicable, lying bunch of charlatans.
whatever000whenever 1 month ago
@whatever000whenever Well, heavens to Mergetroid! Go thsthstamp your fairy feet. HA!
And go back to what you like shoved down your own throat. HEH!
Glinkaism1 1 month ago
Guys, stop responding to Glinkaism1. He's obviously a very repressed individual who has no friends or family.
TheClassicalPolitico 1 month ago 2
Ha, ha!
Glinkaism1 can't argue anything, so he's pointing out that I had a typo. This shows you how truly desperate he is. People criticize the words he says, but never give him credit for how LOUD he says them. Awwww......
bndkllr2 1 month ago
"It doesn't" LOL
Callie151515 1 month ago
homosexuality is equal to the extinction of the family and subsequent extinction of mankind (homosexuality does not create life).
delCIELOaTIERRA 1 month ago
LAL! Still cant get over "Franken recieves." HA! That says it all about the illiteracy and stupidity of HOMOsexuals.
Glinkaism1 1 month ago
"Franken recieves compensation from anti-family sources"
Uh, ensuring that parents can be legally married like other families isn't "anti-family" As for sodomizing children, why don't you go after the many heterosexual priest pedophiles and folks like Ted Hagart and John Rekers, who preach against loving relationships during the day, and hire male prostitutes at night?
bndkllr2 1 month ago 2
@bndkllr2 lern2spel, moron. The word is spelled "receives." Your lack of English places you in the idiot's row. No use even reading your fag talk reply.
Don't lie! Fags want to sodomize children. That is why they want to adopt them. It would be a HORRIBLE environment for a child. Go hide in the closet. And when you get a wee bit of common sense, get yourself de-fagged. There are outfits that do that.
Glinkaism1 1 month ago
Comment removed
wildreams 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Glinkaism1 Dismissing an entire statement based on 1 spelling error is a cheap shot to say the least and frankly down right dishonest (intellectually); not to mention cowardly, because you are unwilling to discuss base on the merit of the argument, perhaps because you are afraid/aware that you are unable to defend your point of view intelligently.
wildreams 1 month ago
@Glinkaism1 Do you realize that The American Academy of Pediatrics disagrees with you? And numerous studies prove that children raised by same-gender parents do just as well as children raised by straight couples. Furthermore, the vast majority of pedophiles are heterosexual men, even if the victims are boys. I know several adults who were raised in same-gender households who are happy, successful and well-adjusted.
Oh, and I'm sure you've NEVER had a typo, right?
bndkllr2 1 month ago
@Glinkaism1 As for getting "de-fagged," I wouldn't dream of it. My husband and I have been happily married for 6 years and built a wonderful home together. We volunteer at our local church food pantry and love each other very much. Why don't you neanderthal (did I spell it right?) homophobes move to a country that makes your beliefs the law of the land? Maybe Iran?
bndkllr2 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
It's what conservatives do the best! Try to appeal to the ethos by citing all these studies from reputable sources, then manipulate and twist the words. That's the limit of their so-called "intelligence."
TheClassicalPolitico 2 months ago
It's what conservatives do the best! Try to appeal to the ethos by citing all these studies from reputable sources, then manipulate and twist the words. That's the limit of their so-called "intelligence."
TheClassicalPolitico 2 months ago 12
@TheClassicalPolitico Can't take the truth, can you fag? You will NEVER gain any respect from the ruling straight world. So keep to yourselves. HOMOsexuals are responsible for the most AIDS cases and the largest group of whackos in mental health therapy.
Glinkaism1 1 month ago
Franken receives compensation from anti-family sources. Many homosexual voted him in. However the heterosexual family will not only survive, it will thrive and crush the atheistic sodomists.
Glinkaism1 2 months ago
@Glinkaism1 Both homosexuals and atheists have families. It's people like you who want to deny them basic human rights who are "anti-family."
iruparatso 1 month ago
@Glinkaism1 Yes! Vote not for any pro-HOMOsexual senator who was a failed comedian.
And that ain't funny, honey.
Glinkaism1 1 month ago
What a lame troll! It doesn't even look like your making any effort here. Always parroting the same old rehashed stuff. C'mon, you can do better than that! Maybe you could link homosexuality to Nazism, Communism and Zionism (all at once!) or something? Claim it'll bring the Doom of Humanity? Warn us about the Great Evil Fag Plot To Conquer The World And Make Everyone Turn Gay (And Also Fabulous?) So They Can Have Buttsex (Even The Lesbians I Guess)? I mean, look at your comments! *yaaaawn*
CelebrenIthil 2 months ago
Franken looks like a bloated toad.
Glinkaism1 2 months ago
Al sure is patient when dealing with such uneducated superstitious folk!
andrespereyda 2 months ago
Pro-fag-family Franken twists things to serve his homosexual big bucks supporters.
Glinkaism1 2 months ago
@Glinkaism1 can i have gay sex with you?
andrespereyda 2 months ago
@andrespereyda Try Franken.
Glinkaism1 2 months ago
@Glinkaism1 quantum physics... your atoms and mine are made of one energy. only information separates us
andrespereyda 2 months ago
@andrespereyda Put Franken's cock in your mouth. It's kosher.
And stop your pretentious talk from your 5th grade science class. You are a sick fuck. It was YOUR CHOICE to become queer. Nobody is born queer. Queers are made.
Glinkaism1 2 months ago
@Glinkaism1 oh wow :) thank you for educating me wise one. evolution must be happy for you. have a good death
andrespereyda 2 months ago
@andrespereyda Quite Frankly, fa tumen ur hacken. Jag ar surgen. Hor du du! Vad haller du pa med aufenkreuter.
Glinkaism1 2 months ago
@Glinkaism1 so you're TRYING to communicate to me or trying to not communicate? go find a hobby
andrespereyda 2 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
In other words, Franken destroyed himself, not the Focus on the Family representative...that is, if you can listen carefully.
CRoadwarrior 3 months ago
Franken simply can't read. He himself read that the study said "two parents who are married to one another, and are each BIOLOGICAL or adoptive parents to all the children in the family." What we can't trust is Franken's inability to read.
CRoadwarrior 3 months ago
@CRoadwarrior
gay couples ADOPT children and / or are the biological parent of their children. Why don't you understand that?
ceciliaFX 3 months ago
Comment removed
aaron31967 3 months ago
@CRoadwarrior What do you think or means?
03baddogs 3 months ago
Respond to this video... Are you aware that the word or is used here, which means that either biological or adoptive parents can be the parents? You don't seem to grasp what or means.
03baddogs 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@CRoadwarrior Yes, it's "two parents who are married to one another, and are each biological OR adoptive parents to all the children in the family." Notice the sentence uses OR -- not an AND. So both can be biological, like a mother and father; OR, both can simply have adopted the child, like two men or two women.
shadowmatter 3 months ago
Aww man, all of you so fucking concerned about children needing both a mom and a dad. It's so touching. I bet you're all up in arms about the hundred thousand of orphans in the world, or monoparental families, or people being raised by grandparents/aunt&uncle/ etc. According to your logic, it's really friggin' terrible, right, and you sure are loudly campaigning for the good of THESE child, right? After all, gay families have a parent and an extra mom or dad. So it's actually better then these!
CelebrenIthil 3 months ago 21
@CelebrenIthil S
Glinkaism1 2 months ago
@CelebrenIthil Fags want to adopt children so they can sodomize them. "Look at you two daddies. See our pee-pees. We want you to play with ours. We will play with yours."
Evil fags.
Glinkaism1 2 months ago
@CelebrenIthil You are a retard!
yahooveritas 1 month ago
Actually, I think Franken may just be flat-out wrong on this.
That's a Federal study. Under DOMA a same-sex marriage isn't "married", and so the only "married" couples a Federal study would recognize (and thus the only married couples who would meet the definition of nuclear, for that study) is a Male/Female combo.
dballing 3 months ago
@dballing Not sure what you missed, but any sound scientific study defines it's terms. The study that Focus on the Family submitted defined the terms the way that Al Franken said. The definition of a nuclear family is spelled out in the study, which is what Al Franken reads from. Since DOMA is already on the books as of the completion of that study, the married same sex couples in the study probably came from states where same sex marriage or civil unions are legal.
rwmusic 3 months ago
@rwmusic "The study defines a nuclear family as two parents who are married to one another". Under existing Federal Law, that study would not recognize a same-sex marriage as "married", just as the IRS does not recognize a same-sex married couple as "married". DOMA *specifically forbids* it to do so. So that study would not consider those families to be "married" and thus they would not fall under the definition of "nuclear" for the purposes of that study.
dballing 3 months ago
@dballing "Franken’s indirectly stated point was that Minnery introduced the study–in a hearing on whether to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act–to demonstrate that opposite-sex families were better at raising children than same-sex families. The study showed no such thing; it didn’t look at that question at all."
More lying for Jesus at the DOMA hearing basically.
permypoo 2 months ago
@dballing A study is a study. It doesn't have to conform to the law, it's simply an observation or analysis of a situation, unlike the IRS which has to go with the terms the law defines. But be all of that as it may, the head author of the study is a woman named Debra L. Blackwell, who confirmed that Franken was correct and that same sex couples were not excluded from either the study itself or the definition of "Nuclear Family" as defined in the study.
rwmusic 3 weeks ago
@dballing I can't post a link but you could google it if you wanted.
rwmusic 3 weeks ago
Jesus had two fathers
kaduisaui 4 months ago
Pro-war Franken.
GimmeSomeTruth1971 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Most Americans, like most people on earth, reject gay marriage. Moreover, not a single world religion accepts this alternative lifestyle as being on a par with marriage, traditionally defined. And throughout history, in eastern as well as western civilization, the very idea that two men can get married would have been seen as bizarre, if not delirious.
yahooveritas 4 months ago
It is so obvious that the gay rights movement and same sex "marriage" movements are driven by absolute hatred for religion particularly Roman Catholicism. There are no such things as gay rights.
yahooveritas 4 months ago
@yahooveritas You are free to practice whatever religion you choose. You're protected by the first amendment. What about the children of same sex couples? What kind of message are you sending them by denigrating their parents' relationship? Do you think you're doing them a favour? You aren't.
bryansipho 4 months ago
@bryansipho Actually in States where SSM is legal, religious liberty has been narrowed. Catholic Charities can't be involved in adoptions because they refuse to give children to same sex couples. There are marriage clerks who had to resign because SSM goes against their religious beliefs. Same sex "marriage is a direct assault to religious freedom. Case closed.
yahooveritas 4 months ago
@yahooveritas Religious liberty SHOULD be narrowed if it affects other people's lives adversely. These Catholic charities are preventing children from being adopted by people who would love them and provide for them. It's the charities themselves who are infringing on the well-being of these kids by keeping them in the system. These kids don't give a shit. They just want a place to call home and parents who will love them. You have no compassion whatsoever!
bryansipho 4 months ago
@bryansipho Wrong, buddy! Your statement is ludicrous and just stupid! Go to China or North Korea! The Communist governments in those two countries would love you, crack pot!
yahooveritas 4 months ago
@yahooveritas You didn't even address my concerns about American children.
bryansipho 4 months ago
@bryansipho To the extent that the state has an obligation to contribute to the well-being of children (who are not themselves responsible for their situation), this can be done without ratifying the legitimacy of homosexual relationships as “marriage.”
yahooveritas 4 months ago
@bryansipho For example, whatever state supports might be offered could be granted in the same way that they are offered to two maiden aunts taking care of a nephew or niece whose parents had died – the assistance would go to the child’s primary caregiver, and would not be predicated on any sexual relationship.
yahooveritas 4 months ago
@bryansipho See, I just addressed your "issue." Silly.
yahooveritas 4 months ago
@bryansipho Moreover, the existence of de facto homosexual couples with children provides no more justification for legalizing same-sex marriage than the existence of de facto polygamous families provides justification for legalizing polygamy.
yahooveritas 4 months ago
@yahooveritas I don't really think that you're opposed to same sex marriage. I think you just hate gay people. And you really know how to argue out of your ass. Red herrings all over the place! I'm tired and I'm done. Please dig down in your soul and find some compassion. Meet a gay person. Talk to them.
bryansipho 4 months ago
@bryansipho I've met and know men and women with same sex attractions. Some are nice people but that doesn't mean that their actions of having sex with people of the same sex is morally acceptable. As for red herrings in my argument, there are none. Thanks.
yahooveritas 4 months ago
@yahooveritas If morality is the measure of capablity and compassion and acceptabilty then then there are millions of heterosexuals that should not be allowed children , maybe just for the lack of unqualified as well! Morallity is the slavery of the ignorant and believer in fiary tales!!
davidrlfield 3 months ago
@bryansipho Children have a right to both a mother and a father. Neither is expendable. Both are vital to the life of a child. A woman can never be a dad. A man can never be a mom.
yahooveritas 4 months ago
Nothing you people write will deter me from exposing advocates for same sex "marriage" as people who are clearly anti-religion and want to destroy religious liberty throughout the Republic. Same sex "marriage" must be outlawed in our land. Same sex "marriage" must be destroyed.
yahooveritas 4 months ago
Are there people out there whose lives are so boring and unimportant that they actually put their entire being into caring about the sex of whom I chose to marry? What happened to stamp collecting or wood burning?
For those religious, to quote Rep. Steve Simon, "How many gay people must God create before we accept that He wants them around?" According to your scriptures, your god made me so calling me wrong is calling your god wrong. Hope you got a good excuse at those pearly gates for that.
mattblack04 4 months ago
MINNERY - "I would THINK that the study when it cites nuclear families, would mean a family headed by a husband and wife"
FRANKEN - "It doesn't!" = WINNING!!
leemondo1 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@yahooveritas "It will also make the Roman Catholic Church's teaching on homosexuality and marriage a federal offense. In short, same sex marriage will unleash a persecution. Same sex marriage must be destroyed!"
You do realize what you are doing right now is PERSECUTING. You just don't like it when someone persecutes YOU; you don't seem to mind persecuting those that don't align with YOUR worldview (which is ignorant, incorrect, and hateful).
nickcangemi 4 months ago
Comment removed
nickcangemi 4 months ago
@yahooveritas lol at the oxymoron of "religious liberty."
nickcangemi 4 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
People who advocate same sex "marriage" are advocating for the destruction of religious liberty in our Republic.
yahooveritas 4 months ago
@yahooveritas How is that?
cvgsusfreak08 4 months ago
Same sex marriage is a threat to religious liberty in the United States. It will make anyone who disagrees with same sex marriage a bigot and a criminal. It will also make the Roman Catholic Church's teaching on homosexuality and marriage a federal offense. In short, same sex marriage will unleash a persecution. Same sex marriage must be destroyed!
yahooveritas 4 months ago
@yahooveritas
Go away. Your thoughts are antique and outdated.
dtek40k 4 months ago
@Matt605
Your entire argument here fails with today's Pentagon decision to allow military chaplains to perform gay marriages in states that allow it. This decision was made at the federal level despite your interpretation of DOMA's overreach at the fed level.
Jcuel2 5 months ago
SIT DOWN!!!!
DAN08234 5 months ago
" I checked the study out..."
Other guy:"Oh shit!"
warjikin 5 months ago 28
This comment has received too many negative votes show
It's unfortunate that the academic who produced the study did not adhere to the classic definition of the term 'nuclear family'. Shame on him / her and shame on Al Franken. Homosexuality is a learned behavior and it's debilitating effects are harmful to all it touches.
naivetyenlivens 5 months ago
@naivetyenlivens OK wise-ass, put ur mony where ur mouth is.
sancombru 5 months ago
@naivetyenlivens You wrote, " Homosexuality is a learned behavior ..." Prove that outrageous and mendacious assertion.
Also include these facts:
A 2006 study by Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported that "38.2 percent of men between ages 20 and 39 and 32.6 percent of women ages 18 to 44 engage in heterosexual anal sex".
seahorse05 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@naivetyenlivens
Go away. We don't want you on earth.
dtek40k 4 months ago
Yes!! Yay for love and truth!! :)
eksophia 5 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
ATTENTION HOMOSEXUALS: Your days of conducting perverted social experiments on the family and society are coming to an end. The people will rise up against this wicked dictatorship of yours. The gay rights movement and same sex marriage movement must be destroyed.
yahooveritas 5 months ago
@yahooveritas Prove your assertion.
seahorse05 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@seahorse05 Most Americans, like most people on earth, reject gay marriage. Moreover, not a single world religion accepts this alternative lifestyle as being on a par with marriage, traditionally defined. And throughout history, in eastern as well as western civilization, the very idea that two men can get married would have been seen as bizarre, if not delirious.
yahooveritas 4 months ago
My favorite response to these morons:
"FOCUS ON YOUR OWN DAMN FAMILY!"
amyx28 5 months ago 18
@amyx28 Straw man down....beyond meaningless.
mikesglider 4 months ago
Franken is a fag freedom fighter. He failed in show biz and so slithered his way into politics. Got to get rid of him. Another slithery snake fat cat political vermin.
Glinkaism1 6 months ago
truth hurt don't it bigots
julykid28 6 months ago
lol
dark7jedi 6 months ago
OK I'm a big Franken fan, but I'm going to question his conclusion on this point. When we talk about single-parent vs. mom/dad families, we are not talking merely about the quantity of parents, but the different qualities/aptitudes that they bring to the task of child-rearing, right? If you have two dads (or dad "types") or two moms (or mom "types") you are no closer to a "nuclear" family than you are with one mom or one dad.
UnclePutin 6 months ago
@UnclePutin Its the study itself that qualified what a "nuclear family" was -- not Franken. He only read it.
branram 6 months ago
@UnclePutin And if you're under the assumption that he interpreted it wrong, the author of the study actually confirmed a few days after this hearing that Franken was correct about their definition of the nuclear family -- two parents who are either the biological or adoptive parents to all the children -- regardless if they are same or opposite sex.
branram 6 months ago
@branram The vagina has lubricants and is supported by a network of muscles. It is composed of a mucus membrane with a multi-layered stratified squamous epithelium that allows it to endure friction without damage and to resist the immunological actions caused by semen and sperm. In comparison, the anus is a delicate mechanism of small muscles that comprise an "exit-only" passage. With repeated trauma, the anal sphincter lose its tone and ability to maintain a tight seal leading to leakage.
yahooveritas 6 months ago
@yahooveritas The intricacies of hetero and homosexual sex are of no business to anyone outside the two engaging in their consensual acts. Nor are they a viable argument for the pro or anti homosexual argument. They are personal acts, not inflicted onto another person, and no business of religion, the state, or you.
Further, I'm sure there are many homosexual partners who do not engage in these acts you deem wrong. So, what, are they ok then?
branram 6 months ago
Franken is the second biggest jackass in Congress, second only to Pelosi.
MaryWaterton 6 months ago
@MaryWaterton because he can read?
branram 6 months ago
@branram - Because he distorts.
MaryWaterton 6 months ago
@MaryWaterton What exactly is he distorting? The author of this study herself agreed with his interpretation of what they deemed "the nuclear family" -- two adults in a marriage or civil union who either one or both are the parents (biologically or adoption) to their children. Now, call me crazy, but there is no distortion there -- especially when the author of the study states the same thing. You know who is distorting? Tom Minnery of FOF who tried to claim otherwise!
branram 6 months ago
@branram - Oh I gathered that much from watching the video. Regardless of what the author says, Franken knows what a family is, and so do you. It isn't a pair of fags. He is a political jackass who distorts definitions for his own wicked purposes. God knows their hearts and He knows that they know this is a lie. Consequently, God will send his rebellious butt to Hell one day and God will smile as Franken roasts like a marshmellow because he HATES people who abuse children.
MaryWaterton 6 months ago
@MaryWaterton There are many forms a family can take; you are no one to define it. You illustrate what I find so laughable about supposed Christians who seek to impose their ideas on others. You can't win the argument about same-sex marriage on legal/constitutional grounds, nor on scientific grounds -- so you resort to what you think the Bible states; which is both inapplicable as a legal or consitutional argument and mistranslated at its core! You have nothing but biblical ignorance.
branram 6 months ago
@branram Yes, we can win the argument on legal and constitutional grounds and even scientific grounds since no one has demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt that homosexual inclinations are inborn. Remember me, friend? :-)
yahooveritas 6 months ago
@yahooveritas If the inept people on your side of the argument were able to win on scientific grounds, they would have used those facts in the hearing that takes place on this video. They did not. Instead, they attempted to deceive Congress by making a reference that this study says something it does not. You have not and will not ever be able to "wipe the floor" with my scientific or constitutional facts. Instead, you resort to name calling and throwing out God as a viable argument.
branram 6 months ago
@yahooveritas And the debate is not about "homosexual inclinations being inborn" -- you like to change the subject to one which neither side can answer 100%. The facts of this instance are that there is no indication two heterosexual parents (or a single parent) are better or more able to raise a well-adjusted, capable child than a same-sex couple. Those are the facts which you are unable to refute. Nothing to do with where homosexuality comes from, God, or your personal bias.
branram 6 months ago
@branram You can't even make the definitive conclusion that kids raised by homosexuals are better off or just as well adjusted as children living in a home with a mother and a father because legal same sex adoptions is a new phenomenon. It will take another 20 or 30 years to know whether you are right, and as I told you before many of the "scientific research" on this topic in the past 30 years were of dubious scientific value. You don't have a case, dude!
yahooveritas 6 months ago
@yahooveritas Yes, yes we can make the conclusion that kids raised by homosexuals are just as well adjusted -- THIS STUDY which Franken is citing, which Minnery and FOF tried to use through lying about what it actually states, PROVES THAT! Same-sex couples have been adopting and raising children since the 70s -- that is more than long enough to gather data from birth well into adulthood on NUMEROUS cases.
branram 6 months ago
@yahooveritas Further, the "dubious" statement you keep clinging to was from 2001 -- when the first children adopted or raised by same-sex couples were just entering adulthood. Of course, at that time, any study would have been a bit premature as we'd need to know how these children cope in society and perform as adults -- education, careers, relationships, etc. Now that we have this, there is irrefutable evidence pointing in our favor.
branram 6 months ago
@branram We DON't have irrefutable evidence. This is not an open and shut case. Legalization of homosexual adoptions and the redefinition of marriage are new! We still don't know the consequences of these actions. It will take decades! Seriously, you need your head examined.
yahooveritas 6 months ago
@yahooveritas Um, yes, we do have irrefutable evidence. As of today, we have proof that a same-sex couple is just as qualified to raise children as heterosexual couples. We have a cadre of studies to support this. And yes, we'll continue to study this -- and if science ultimately indicates otherwise, we'll of course have to reassess this. But as of today, we have proof of the qualifications of same-sex couples as parents.
branram 6 months ago
@branram YOU DON'T HAVE IRREFUTABLE PROOF!
yahooveritas 6 months ago
@branram Your argument that the Sumerians and Egyptians approved of same sex "marriage" is ludicrous and cannot be seriously entertained by any reputable historian. You selected certain incidents and writings out of context to make your main point: that at one time Egyptians and Sumerians had a ceremony blessing for homosexual relationships that was equivalent to traditional marriage. You are not being a sincere historian, psychologist or scientist. You are merely a homosexual advocate.
yahooveritas 6 months ago
@yahooveritas Blah blah blah, you know more than science, blah blah blah, you know more than historical fact. You offer no evidence or proof of your position again.
Yes, the Sumerians did, in fact, treat same-sex relationships the same as any heterosexual relationship within their society. They offered the same marriage-like bond/ceremony for these couples. You simply call anything you do not like "ludicrous" or classify it as disreputable.
branram 6 months ago
@yahooveritas Let's not forget, its FOF which pulled this study & tried to present it in their case against same-sex marriage by redefining what the author called a "nuclear family" clearly. If this evidence is SO DUBIOUS, then why would FOF have attempted to use it? Your assertion is just silly. The fact that FOF sought out and presented this study indicates its validity and scientific value. You can't use it one day, then turn around and say its wrong when people note you read it incorrectly.
branram 6 months ago
@branram You love twisting people's words around. I am talking about studies which claim that children raised in homosexual relationships are better off than children in traditional/natural families. Regarding this study, I still question the honesty of the author of this study since she never explicitly stated in her study that homosexual couples were involved. She identifies race, gender, age, but not orientation. I find her statement backing up Franken's comprehension suspicious.
yahooveritas 6 months ago
@yahooveritas Twisting words? I have not twisted anything -- and I never stated children are "better off" with homosexual couples -- I said they are just as well cared for, and well-adjusted. Not better -- the same. The quality of the parenting is NO different.
As for the author, what, now its a pro-same-sex conspiracy? The author isn't going to lie about how the study was conducted. Of course it involved same-sex couples -- that was one of the study's focuses!
branram 6 months ago
@yahooveritas Its not about where homosexuality comes from -- LGBT people are here now, they aren't going anywhere. This is about the rights of LGBT people to have equal rights under the law of our land which already guarantees said rights. Try staying on a focused topic and leave your anti-gay rhetoric out of it.
branram 6 months ago
@branram I knew that my last response would make you come out of your hole in the ground. No one has the right to redefine the institution of marriage and redefine the nature of family. Your side will lose this war in the end.
yahooveritas 6 months ago
@yahooveritas You say no one has the right to redefine marriage -- it was redefined already! The concept of marriage dates back o the Sumerians who did not define it as between a man and woman. Their society treated same-sex couples as no different. I'm not hiding in a hole, you just quit responding when you had no leg to stand on.
branram 6 months ago
@branram You are a such a basket case! Since time immemorial, cultures throughout history have understood marriage as a relationship between one man and one woman. It is not a difficult concept to understand. You are impossible!
yahooveritas 6 months ago
@yahooveritas Actually, no -- I just stated the Sumerians -- the FIRST PEOPLE, allowed for same-sex couples in their society -- even celebrating them. You can also look to the Egyptian people as another example. You are simply wrong about the historical facts surrounding same-sex couples. Ignorance, unlike homosexuality, is a choice -- I suggest educating yourself.
branram 6 months ago
@branram You are so full of crap! Your arguments are fallacious, illogical, incoherent and just stupid! I'm though with you as well! You are a fool!
yahooveritas 6 months ago
Comment removed
yahooveritas 6 months ago
@branram YOU SIMPLY HAVE SHIT FOR BRAINS!
yahooveritas 6 months ago
@yahooveritas Those without a sound argument resort to name calling. I rest my case.
branram 6 months ago
Comment removed
yahooveritas 6 months ago
@branram You remind me of the historian John Boswell, who wrote the book, "Same-sex Unions in Premodern Europe." He too had a tendency to select certain incidents and writings out of context in order to prove his point that there was a liturgical ceremony that was used to bless homosexual relationships and that they were equivalent to traditional marriage. He made gross generalizations about marriage in Roman antiquity. His arguments have been refuted by reputable historians.
yahooveritas 6 months ago
@yahooveritas I don't know anything about John Boswell's book, but in all my reading I haven't found anything that would indicate European societies ever allowed for a same-sex marriage or treated them equally -- on that you are probably correct.
But, no, the Sumerian people are an entirely different case. Their society's view on homosexuality, relationships, and family have been one of my long standing areas of research and study. You're blatantly wrong on the subject of these people.
branram 6 months ago
@branram I want you to cite your sources regarding the Sumerians. I want a bibliography.
yahooveritas 6 months ago
@yahooveritas Gilgamesh is a good first stab for you, try reading the translated version from the Sin-Leqi Unninni version, its a bit easier to start with.
Another good read is "The Sumerians: Their History, Culture, and Character" by Samuel Noah Kramer.
A great example: "The Origins and Role of Same-Sex relations in Human Societies" by James Neill.
These are just the few I have here in my library, on top of a few papers which were published on the subject but not in book form.
branram 6 months ago
@yahooveritas Another really good book that examines many aspects of homosexuality, including an examination of a few ancient culture's views on the subject, is "The Construction of Homosexuality" by David Greenberg... keep in mind the book was published in the 80s, so some of the later chapters that examine what was the "current" views can seem a bit outdated. But his examination of historical accounts is on point.
branram 6 months ago
@yahooveritas I just blew my mind; I actually have "Same Sex Unions in Premodern Europe" which you spoke about in my library, but it appears I never finished. I only saw a few notes in the early chapters and I have no memory of the book. What is interesting is the examination of Biblical content through the literal translation of the Greek.. As I look at it, this appears to be the basis of much of his argument on the topic. While its interesting, I agree its not factual history like the others.
branram 6 months ago
@branram Multiple twin studies have already demonstrated that only about a third of the identical twins of those with same sex attractions also experience same sex attractions; whereas if sexual attractions were determined strictly by genes, those with identical genes would be expected to have identical attractions. Even if we have genes that predispose us towards certain behaviors, we still have a space of freedom within ourselves, and don't have to engage in those behaviors.
yahooveritas 6 months ago
@yahooveritas Are you sure your twin studies were of identical twins? Most studies I have read puts 55%-65% monozygotic twins as having the same sexual attraction. Whereas dizygotic twins are around 25%. Shared sexuality among siblings is one area I've studied, not specific to twins, but more siblings raised apart from each other with the same sexual attractions. On determining 'where' sexual orientation comes from, we certainly need more research -- no one has this answer.
branram 6 months ago
@branram Yes, I am sure. Are you citing as one of your sources Bailey's & Pillard's identical twin study where they claim that 52% of identical twins had same sex attractions and thus there must be a genetic component in the development of homosexuality? Many have questioned the validity of this study and even they admitted that their study was skewed.
yahooveritas 6 months ago
@yahooveritas There have been several studies. Again, I'm not pointing to a purely genetic indication of homosexuality, rather my personal study on the issue leads me to believe there are genetic factors at play combined with chemical and hormone levels which help to develop several aspects of our personality -- including sexuality. I'm sure there could even be some environmental factors which play a part. The truth is we don't know HOW one's sexuality is determined, but once its set, its set.
branram 5 months ago
@branram Nevertheless, there is still an element of freedom in that human person. A man or woman with homosexual tendencies does not have to act on it.
yahooveritas 5 months ago
@yahooveritas in what way is that freedom? its a restraint.
BenJEMean 5 months ago in playlist BenJEMean's Favorited Videos
@yahooveritas
A man or woman who is homosexual though does not have heterosexual tendencies. To force oneself to not act upon it is restraining or hiding, and does not coincide with freedom. You are not for human freedom.
Jaydoggy531 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@yahooveritas
Nevertheless, there is still an element of freedom in that human person. A man or woman with homoloathing actions/tendencies and/or is harboring feelings of animus towards gay and lesbian people does not have to act on it.
seahorse05 5 months ago
@yahooveritas Sorry just saw your comment -- I agree. No one has to act on any of their tendencies. The same is true for a heterosexual not HAVING to engage in sex acts with the opposite sex. An alcoholic doesn't have to drink alcohol. All living creatures HAVE to do is die. You have not presented a valid reason WHY a homosexual should abstain from the pursuit of a loving, normal relationship with any person they desire. The difference of our statements are that -- ability vs. engaging ability.
branram 5 months ago
@branram Dear Moron, I just told you that homosexual activities are unnatural acts. They go against the natural moral law. THAT IS WHY MEN AND WOMEN WITH SAME SEX ATTRACTIONS MUST NOT ENGAGE IN THIS TYPE OF ACTIVITY. ROME HAS SPOKEN. THE CASE IS CLOSED.
yahooveritas 5 months ago
@yahooveritas homosexuality is natural
2xtreem4u 5 months ago
@yahooveritas Blow me. Case is closed. Look, asshat, there is not one sexual act that gay people do that straight people cannot do.
circlesky73 5 months ago
@yahooveritas UNNATURAL? Homosexuality occurs in more than 1,500 species. Homophobia occurs in only one species. What nature are you looking at?
Jcuel2 5 months ago
@branram Another twin study, conducted the following year and published in the Journal of British Psychiatry, showed a correlation of only 25%. I also find your argument problematic because your argument still insists of a "born this way" reason for homosexuality and works on the false and demeaning assumption that the behaviour of homosexuals is always and totally compulsive and therefore inculpable.
yahooveritas 6 months ago
@yahooveritas Again, the twin studies are only applicable to your argument if they were done on identical twins -- as this is the only way to dispel your theory.
branram 5 months ago