Gotta love Al Franken outing DOMA lies

[a777pilot]

Holy fucking shit.

are you people allowed to operate heavy machinery when not medicated?

:hmm:

Well I use to fly B-777 aircraft.

Bottom line the comedian was and remains wrong.

Good, Lord! I'm trying to explain reality to a person that thinks this comedian is a good thing being in the Senate. What was I thinking? I would do better talking to the trees in my front yard and except them to understand.

Never mind.

 

[Dr. Zaus]

Nuclear Family

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_family
"A nuclear family is a family group consisting of a father and mother and their children, who share living quarters."

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/nuclear+family
http://www.answers.com/topic/nuclear-family
"a social unit composed of father, mother, and children."

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/nuclear family
"a family group that consists only of father, mother, and children"


Oh, no, nobody could *possibly* think the term "Nuclear Family" is a heterosexual family! That is why you go seek further clarification, not just hurl insults at each other. Franken is wrong in what he did there.

The question isn't what you or franken think; but what the academic's intention was in its use. Often words are redefined and understood in much greater scope by those interested in a subject.

In grammatology for a long while the Chinese have been said to have not a series of dialects, but actually a series of different languages altogether in their country.

Growing up we still refered to Cantonese and Mandarin as dialects if only because popular culture and the M-W dictionary hadn't caught up with the definition used in academic circles.

This is a similar situation.

Please feel free to point out the line in the study that defines Nuclear Family as including same-sex families. Just a short link will do.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=318DYr_K8J4#t=1m53s

Two married parents... been a long time since gays where able to marry and may well have been included in the study.

The character assassination, though, is overboard.

 

[sandorski]

I dunno, what I've always thought of as a "nuclear family" was a married man and woman with a child/children. Maybe that definition has changed recently, but I think that if you ask most people that's what they'd define as a "nuclear family." Honestly, I think you guys are nitpicking a little bit.

Edit - As was previously pointed out, at the time of the study there was only one state that allowed same sex marriages. I don't think it's really that big of a deal if someone assumed "nuclear family" was referring to a heterosexual married couple in that context.

/facepalm

Obviously a lot of assuming went on here, but it was just that, assuming. It was an incorrect assumption. What part of this is so difficult to grasp?

 

[Perknose]

Good, Lord! I'm trying to explain reality to a person that thinks this comedian is a good thing being in the Senate. What was I thinking? I would do better talking to the trees in my front yard and except them to understand.

How'd you feel about a faded B-move actor becoming President?

 

[Dr. Zaus]

How'd you feel about a faded B-move actor becoming President?

How well does he deliver his lines while playing president?

 

[zinfamous]

Good, Lord! I'm trying to explain reality to a person that thinks this comedian is a good thing being in the Senate. What was I thinking? I would do better talking to the trees in my front yard and except them to understand.

Never mind.

what about a yankee carpet-bagger that pretended to be a Texan?

the fact that you continue to deny the statements as published int he paper, and that of the investigators as false, when the facts are there in front of you, is mind-boggling.

 

[zinfamous]

How well does he remember his lines while playing president?

ftfy

 

[xj0hnx]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=318DYr_K8J4#t=1m53s

Two married parents... been a long time since gays where able to marry and may well have been included in the study.

The character assassination, though, is overboard.

People keep referring to that but that does NOT specify same-sex families, and since the definition of, and traditional, common understanding of Nuclear Family is a married father and mother continued repeating of the same thing isn't going to magically make the report specify that they meant to include same-sex families.

 

[xj0hnx]

what about a yankee carpet-bagger that pretended to be a Texan?

the fact that you continue to deny the statements as published int he paper, and that of the investigators as false, when the facts are there in front of you, is mind-boggling.

There is no statement published in the paper that leads one to believe that they are including same-sex families which are not in the traditional, commonly understood definition of Nuclear Family, if there was, this thread wouldn't exist.

 

[Dr. Zaus]

NOT specify same-sex families

but it does not not refer to it either.

did you read the bit about Chinese I posted? Academic discourse is similar.

 

[First]

Simply repeating yourself over and over isn't going to magically make the definition, as per even the study, specify same-sex families. There is nothing in the study that mentions that same-sex families were included in the definition of nuclear family which typical, and historically means a mother, and a father.

Why don't you "stop fronting", lol

You bringing up whether the study included same-sex families isn't really relevant in a discussion about how a study defined a term, in this case nuclear family. I'm sorry you're still confused, but at some point you're going to have to accept you were wrong.

 

[dawp]

There is no statement published in the paper that leads one to believe that they are including same-sex families which are not in the traditional, commonly understood definition of Nuclear Family, if there was, this thread wouldn't exist.

is there a line that states they were excluded? Until they actually say one way or the other, it's mere speculation as to who was included in the study.

 

[badb0y]

Lets hear what the lead author of the study in question has to say on this topic:
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0711/59495.html

“Sen. Franken is right,” the lead author of the study told POLITICO. The survey did not exclude same-sex couples, said Debra L. Blackwell, Ph.D., nor did it exclude them from the “nuclear family” category provided their family met the study’s definition.

The study’s definition of nuclear family is: “one or more children living with two parents who are married to one another and are each biological or adoptive parents of all the children in the family.”

“Sen. Franken is right,”

" is right,”

“right,”

Apparently if you don't bang it into there heads they won't get it.

/thread

 

[Macamus Prime]

Al is awesome.

I can't link to youtube, but this should allow you to see him work his magic: http://www.freethinkersplayground.com/2009/10/al-franken-slap-down-on-socialized.html

 

[xj0hnx]

is there a line that states they were excluded? Until they actually say one way or the other, it's mere speculation as to who was included in the study.

Or you go by the common, known, traditional definition, if they want to include something else, then they need to make it known. It's amazing how willfully ignorant you "progressives" can be when it suits your agenda.

 

[fskimospy]

People keep referring to that but that does NOT specify same-sex families, and since the definition of, and traditional, common understanding of Nuclear Family is a married father and mother continued repeating of the same thing isn't going to magically make the report specify that they meant to include same-sex families.

Words have meaning, and in scientific studies they have very specific meaning. Franken was, and is indisputably correct that plenty of same sex couples and their children fit the definition as used by the study. Definitions are extraordinarily important in studies such as these, and a lot of thought is put into them. It doesn't matter what you guess it means, it matters what the study says.

Not only that, but even if the study wasn't counting same sex couples it wouldn't do anything to help that moron's point. He stated that children were better served by having two parents, a pretty uncontroversial assumption. (just incorrectly stated that it had to be two of opposite sexes) If the study didn't check on gay couples, there's no evidence to believe that gay couples would not provide these exact same benefits, so any point he could be making against same sex marriage using that study is completely worthless.

The idiot giving the testimony inferred something from the study that was not there, and thereby made a claim that could not be supported based on the evidence that he submitted. That's the beginning and end of it. Franken was right.

 

[Pens1566]

There is some powerful stupid going on in this thread.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Sorry, but it's still the definition. What "many" do doesn't change that.

Actually, it does change it, because definitions are not true or false. They are simply common or uncommon. "Google" was just a proper noun until so many people started using it as a verb, for example.

You cannot argue that the definition used in the study is wrong. The definition was given, and rigorously defined. Plain and simple, you are wrong.

In general, definitions are given a form akin to "All X such that X has characteristics A, B, C ... n." This was precisely the form given in the study, and according to that definition, same-sex families are included. There is no need to "specify" same-sex couples simply because you don't understand how definitions work.

 

[First]

Or you go by the common, known, traditional definition, if they want to include something else, then they need to make it known. It's amazing how willfully ignorant you "progressives" can be when it suits your agenda.

Now it's just getting sad.

 

[xj0hnx]

Now it's just getting sad.

Yes, you are.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Now it's just getting sad.

Yes, you are.

Apparently you've decided your ultimate recourse is the "I'm rubber, you're glue" defense, which I submit actually makes his point. Well done.

 

[xj0hnx]

Apparently you've decided your ultimate recourse is the "I'm rubber, you're glue" defense, which I submit actually makes his point. Well done.

🙄

 

[a777pilot]

There is some powerful stupid going on in this thread.

Not the least of which is your sentence structure.

 

[classy]

Fact is until the open closet age, when you said marriage it was assumed automatically a man and woman. Until the open closet age, when you said nuclear family or traditional family it was assumed a mother and father with kids. Gays and those who support gays would have people believe these defintions never existed. Despite the fact that in every culture and time frame since man has been in existence these were the definitions used to define family.

 

[fskimospy]

Fact is until the open closet age, when you said marriage it was assumed automatically a man and woman. Until the open closet age, when you said nuclear family or traditional family it was assumed a mother and father with kids. Gays and those who support gays would have people believe these defintions never existed. Despite the fact that in every culture and time frame since man has been in existence these were the definitions used to define family.

Right, and under this definition gay couples are included.

What was your point?