Skip to comments.AL FRANKEN CHIDES FOCUS ON THE FAMILY REP FOR MISREADING GOV‘T STUDY ON ’NUCLEAR FAMILIES’
Posted on 07/21/2011 2:49:13 PM PDT by antidemoncrat
On Wednesday, Sen. Al Franken (D-MN) went head-to-head with Thomas Minnery, vice-president for public policy at the popular Christian group Focus on the Family (FOF). The exchange occurred during a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing for a bill that would repeal the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA).
(Excerpt) Read more at theblaze.com ...
We favor nuclear families. They favor unclear families.
I hope Franken was a fluke like Ventura.
The insufferable AL Franken and his drawling whine are basically arguing a technicality here. At issue was whether the HHS study used by FOF defined ‘nuclear family’ as a man and a woman or possibly included same-sex parents. That definition was never made in the referenced study and that is what Franken is muttering about. He’s a bore and a leftist loon (not necessarily in that order) and his absurd attempt to undercut a perfectly legitimate HHS study that (surprise!) showed - Stop the presses! - that children did better, overall, when raised in a ‘nuclear family’ environment was lame. That Franken tried to use the lack of a precise definition of ‘nuclear family’ simply proves the speciousness of the argument to repeal DOMA. Well, that and the fact that Al Franken is the worst kind of fool, smug and self-satisfied, making him doubly annoying.
Here's the problem. This study, while published in December 2010, was conducted during the years 2001 - 2007. The trouble with this is that during the survey period, only in Massachusetts were homos permitted to marry, and only from 2003 onward.
So the potential number of married homosexual parents is likely very small. I wonder if any at all had been included in the survey.
I agree. Al was lying. But, MSNBC ran the propaganda.
Franken was wrong: the CDC paper specifically mentions “’traditional” nuclear families” and further notes that “spouse” is defined as “husband/wife.” The data came from 2001 to 2007, and Massachusetts became the first State to legalize homosexual marriage in 2004. There were evidently not enough same sex married parents to cause a bump in their years-long process. http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/series/sr_10/sr10_246.pdf page 12
Regardless of anyone’s personal political leanings, there simply is not enough empirical or historical evidence to justify changing the basic unit of society. First same sex legal marriage in the States was less than 10 years ago. There have always been legal interracial marriages throughout history, with evidence that the marriages produce stable families. There’s more historic evidence that polygamous families are stable forces in society than there is for same-sex couples.
The social eugenics are bad enough, but in the litigious United States, the problem then becomes, if you don’t want a church that preaches homosexual acts are a sin and won’t bless their marriages, don’t go to one. Or, if you don’t want an Inn that refuses to host same-sex weddings, don’t own one. Sure —— The problem becomes lawsuit here a lawsuit there, etc.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.