Gotta love Al Franken outing DOMA lies

[Cerpin Taxt]

LOL, you haven't given out any "pummelings", bwahahaha

Coming from Mr. "I'm rubber, you're glue," your claims are more than just slightly impotent.

The words "including homosexuals", or "including same-sex families" isn't anywhere in the study.

There doesn't need to be. That's the nature of definitions, you moron. All X such that X features A, B and C. Note the "all" portion? Any and all families which were married and had biological and/or adopted children were "nuclear familes." Do you know what "all" means, you collossally ignorant jackass?

Please feel free to site how many same-sex families participated in the study.

I made no claims about the number of same sex families that were subjects in the study.

 

[xj0hnx]

Coming from Mr. "I'm rubber, you're glue," your claims are more than just slightly impotent.

Um yea, that was your dumb comment, not mine.

There doesn't need to be. That's the nature of definitions, you moron. All X such that X features A, B and C. Note the "all" portion? Any and all families which were married and had biological and/or adopted children were "nuclear familes." Do you know what "all" means, you collossally ignorant jackass?

Have you read the study? They sure do specify a whole lot of different criteria for different areas of the study, seems they would have mentioned same-sex families somewhere in the entirety of the study, either to include, or exclude them. But since they didn't the normal rational mind, something you are probably not familiar with, would fall back on the normal accepted meaning of the phrase.

I made no claims about the number of same sex families that were subjects in the study.

Didn't say you did, I just want to know if any were included in the study, if so then there maybe some validity to your argument, if there weren't then not so much.

 

[Moonbeam]

The words "including homosexuals", or "including same-sex families" isn't anywhere in the study. Please feel free to site how many same-sex families participated in the study.

Why would it be included. The study was done with nuclear families and non nuclear families as defined by the study. This would maybe be like comparing the opinions of adults with those of children and you asking but how many of the adults were women. The study wasn't about the opinions of women. Now you are a misogynist and want to make an issue on now many women did or did not prejudice the opinion.

We would also want to know the ages of the nuclear family parents because younger nuclear family folk are probably have more problems with parenting due to economic pressures of being younger. We should therefore want to be more bigoted against younger gay couples than older ones.

What we have here is the example of a hideously sick religiously propagandized mind that believes that homosexuality is an evil, attempting to destroy the lives of certain families to maintain the rectitude of that false religious belief by quoting a study from his bigoted point of view, when in fact that bigoted point of view was specifically precluded by the studies actual definitions.

 

[dawp]

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.

Definitions change over time, just like the definition for, say, computer. Years ago that meant someone who computes, now it's a device. same thing with nuclear family, and the study stated '2 parents' not '1 man 1 woman'. the authors of the study stated which which definition they used and it wasn't the one you are. face it, Just like any active language, english isn't static, it changes over time as do the definitions and words we use. The definition is shifting, get over it.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Um yea, that was your dumb comment, not mine.

It was a parody of your dumb comment, and quite an accurate one, if I do say so myself. How's about you try to elevate your arguments above a 4th grade level, hmm?

Have you read the study? They sure do specify a whole lot of different criteria for different areas of the study, seems they would have mentioned same-sex families somewhere in the entirety of the study, either to include, or exclude them.

Why's that? Because you think they should? It is a fact that their definition does include homosexuals. The only problem here is that people like you and classy don't have the mental acuity to realize the fact that it does because you have no sense whatsoever about the meaning of scientific rigor.

But since they didn't the normal rational mind, something you are probably not familiar with, would fall back on the normal accepted meaning of the phrase.

No, an intelligent person would simply refer to the definition explicitly stipulated in the research. Apparently you are not among the class of "intelligent persons."

Didn't say you did, I just want to know if any were included in the study, if so then there maybe some validity to your argument, if there weren't then not so much.

If you think my argument depends on whether or not any homosexuals were actually subjects of the research, then you have failed utterly to apprehend my argument. This comes as absolutely no surprise to any of us.

 

[xj0hnx]

It was a parody of your dumb comment, and quite an accurate one, if I do say so myself. How's about you try to elevate your arguments above a 4th grade level, hmm?

Says the guy that can't make a comment without insulting someone

Why's that? Because you think they should? It is a fact that their definition does include homosexuals.

After the fact the author clarified that they didn't exclude same-sex couples, but yet they didn't confirm they used any in their study.

No, an intelligent person would simply refer to the definition explicitly stipulated in the research. Apparently you are not among the class of "intelligent persons."

There was nothing "explicit" about it, which is where the debate comes up. Just because you want their definition to mean something doesn't mean it does.

If you think my argument depends on whether or not any homosexuals were actually subjects of the research, then you have failed utterly to apprehend my argument. This comes as absolutely no surprise to any of us.

Seems as though you are failing since I in no way said that it depends on anything. I just think it would be funny that you're here whining and crying that the study's definition included same-sex couples, but didn't even use any in the study. Kind of dumb to claim it included them, but then not have any included in the study.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Says the guy that can't make a comment without insulting someone

You get the insults you deserve.

After the fact the author clarified that they didn't exclude same-sex couples, but yet they didn't confirm they used any in their study.

Cool story, bro, but that has fuck-all to do with my point.

There was nothing "explicit" about it, which is where the debate comes up.

Then how come it can be quoted directly from the study verbatim? Do you know what "explicit" means? WTF is it with you dumb-fuck conservatives and your ignorance of language?

Just because you want their definition to mean something doesn't mean it does.

It means precisely what it says. Nuclear families are those who have married parents and children related biologically or adoptively. If those criteria are met by a same-sex couple, then they have satisfied the definition. This isn't difficult except to morons like you.

Seems as though you are failing since I in no way said that it depends on anything.

Are you really this fucking stupid or are you just lying now?

You said "...if so then there maybe some validity to your argument, if there weren't then not so much. " Clearly you are suggesting that the validity of my argument depends on whether or not homosexuals were actually sampled for the study -- which is false. Do you not even remember your own words? Why should anyone take anything you say seriously after you've demonstrated such a reckless disregard for the truth?

As I said earlier, you earn your insults,.

I just think it would be funny that you're here whining and crying that the study's definition included same-sex couples, but didn't even use any in the study. Kind of dumb to claim it included them, but then not have any included in the study.

The point -- which has so spectacularly eluded to you -- is that Minnery cannot interpret the results of the study to support the claims he had made about same-sex couples. This is because he assumed that homosexuals were excluded from the definition of "nuclear family," which they weren't. Whether or not they were actually sampled in the study is wholly irrelevant, but you're too goddamn impervious to reason to see it.

 

[Moonbeam]

The point -- which has so spectacularly eluded to you -- is that Minnery cannot interpret the results of the study to support the claims he had made about same-sex couples. This is because he assumed that homosexuals were excluded from the definition of "nuclear family," which they weren't. Whether or not they were actually sampled in the study is wholly irrelevant, but you're too goddamn impervious to reason to see it.

I look at it this way:

A study is done to determine what environment best facilitates the wellbeing of children and it is discovered and shown that children in two parent nuclear families do the best. The agenda here is to find out what is best for children.

Then along comes a perverted sick-minded fundamentalist Christian with an anti gay-agenda who, either out of blind bigotry or malicious falsification takes the study to support the notion that male father female mother families are what is best for children, denying the fact that what the real reality is, that dual parent nuclear families are best for children and thereby working to keep the benefits accruing to gay parent families by working to keep them from being able to marry.

Scientific studies are designed to get to the truth. They are not for the use of bigots and evil people who want to distort what is said for some alternate agenda than the purpose of the study. The study defined the terms in which the study was valid and the asshole fundamentalist twisted the data to imply what was not the aim of the study. Now folk in this thread are trying to twist this reality again. In order to fight against gay marriage and deny gay marriage children will not get great benefit from their parents ability to marry you have to be a piece of shit, and to defend the position of the asshole involved in this case you also have to be a piece of shit and the sooner such people die off the better off the world will be.

 

[Dr. Zaus]

[he is] working to keep the benefits accruing to gay parent families by working to keep them from being able to marry.

That's the answer.

and to defend the position of the asshole involved in this case you also have to be a piece of shit and the sooner such people die off the better off the world will be.

So you think these people are being intentionally obtuse in their ignoring the point*?

*quibbling over the definition is not important but rather the fact that the guy distorted the findings in order to make an substantiated point.

 

[xj0hnx]

You get the insults you deserve.

Fine then, blew it out your ass douche bag.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Fine then, blew it out your ass douche bag.

Run along, then.

 

[fskimospy]

Fine then, blew it out your ass douche bag.

Just give up man, you lost this argument about 6 pages back.

 

[xj0hnx]

Just give up man, you lost this argument about 6 pages back.

It's hard to "win" when you're ganged up by morons that make up their own definitions to suit the views. There's been a few thinking people in this thread, you're not one, but there were a couple.

 

[fskimospy]

It's hard to "win" when you're ganged up by morons that make up their own definitions to suit the views. There's been a few thinking people in this thread, you're not one, but there were a couple.

This response shows a pretty baffling lack of self awareness. The people who you are opposed to have done the exact opposite, insisting that you use the definition the study used when talking about its results instead of making up your own.

In fact that's the entire basis for the whole argument. You can't win because your position is not just wrong in the factual sense, but it's completely illogical even if we grant your premise. It's a pretty epic failure in every way, which is probably why you should bail out.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

It's hard to "win" when you're ganged up by morons that make up their own definitions to suit the views.

NOBODY HAS MADE UP ANY DEFINITION! The definition in question is written right into the study and it has been quoted several times verbatim in this thread! Anybody who wants to know the definition can simply look it up. There is no debate about what the definition is.

Are you fucking delusional?

There's been a few thinking people in this thread, you're not one, but there were a couple.

Given your total inability to apprehend simple facts set plainly before you, you'll have to forgive us that we merely shake our heads and laugh at your impotent attempts at forum pugilism.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

This is why we can't have nice things.

 

[xj0hnx]

NOBODY HAS MADE UP ANY DEFINITION! The definition in question is written right into the study and it has been quoted several times verbatim in this thread! Anybody who wants to know the definition can simply look it up. There is no debate about what the definition is.

Nuclear family was not defined in the study as including, or excluding same-sex families, that's your interpretation of it moron, just like Minnery interpreted it by the actual definition that would exclude them.

That you are too stupid to see something so simple it's mind boggling.

 

[Moonbeam]

It's hard to "win" when you're ganged up by morons that make up their own definitions to suit the views. There's been a few thinking people in this thread, you're not one, but there were a couple.

On the contrary, you are the one making up the idea of made up definitions. Science is a process of hypothesis and testing, say that nuclear families are more nurturing for children that other situations.

In order to test and verify such an hypothesis and insure it's repeatable verisimilitude by other researchers, the definitions under which the data is collected must be carefully documented and exact. The data can then only be gathered by secondary researchers based on that definition when others seek to test the accuracy of the conclusions. In the example here, a bigot took the data and manipulated it using his own interpretation. This isn't science and is an example only of the bias introduced by preconceived notions, in this case those of fundamentalist Christian gay lunacy.

No definitions, in other words, were made up because one was required to be given, and the one offered was the definition of nuclear family familiar to all modern and scientifically educated people who have matured and abandoned right with Christian homophobia, that a nuclear family is a family of two adults and their children.

Try to evolve. It isn't good to lead a life where it would be better for others if you were dead. It just creates a tremendous amount of self hate.

 

[Moonbeam]

That's the answer.

So you think these people are being intentionally obtuse in their ignoring the point*?

*quibbling over the definition is not important but rather the fact that the guy distorted the findings in order to make an substantiated point.

Bigotry is by definition holding irrational opinions usually based on a religious text that has been defined as absolutely true. A bigot believes in some evil and knows it to be evil, even though is knowledge is sick. But once you know you are right you can never see why you are not. A bigot can only be identified by those who do not have the same bigotry. It is obvious to the non bigot who is a bigot and completely invisible to the bigot. But what bigots do is congregate into groups like the Republican party and hoot at non bigots to drown the truth out. If they get hooted at back, well what can you say. There's a lot of bigotry against bigots. They are, after all, assholes even if they can't be otherwise, being totally blind. Life runs in cycles. The bigots hated and put down blacks for hundreds of years and not they get mugged by them or have to pay taxes for welfare. All bigots will get theirs eventually.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Nuclear family was not defined in the study as including, or excluding same-sex families...

False and amply demonstrated when I went over this same nonsense with classy. I'll repeat myself:

Definition: "All animals that lactate to feed their young are mammals."

Does this definition include whales? Yes it does. Does this definition include frogs? No, it doesn't. "But it doesn't say 'frogs' or 'whales' in the definition," you're wont to say. It doesn't have to. That's the way definitions work. They include anything which meets the stipulated criteria, and in the case of the study, homosexual couples met definition's stipulated criteria, therefore they were included by it.

...that's your interpretation of it moron.

It's the only interpretation warranted by the definition given.

... just like Minnery interpreted it by the actual definition that would exclude them.

The "actual" definition was given in the study, and that is the only definition that matters when discussing the conclusions derived from it.

That you are too stupid to see something so simple it's mind boggling.

What is there to see? That you have absolutely no idea how academic research proceeds? That is clear to just about everyone.

In total seriousness, you are an embarrassment.

 

[zinfamous]

the simple fact remains, xjohnx, et al. that the witness used this study to defend his asinine argument that only straight couples provide adequate homes with which to rear children, to the absolute exclusion of same-sex couples.

In fact, the study, as stated, in no way excludes same sex couples, per the definition.

the language of the study is quite plain towards this lack of exclusion. This really isn't an argument over the definition of nuclear family in webster's vs the study, it is not an argument over whether or not they were actually included in the study (yes, that remains vague--still, plenty of other studies have done the same research, showing quite convincingly that same-sex couples couples are indeed more than qualified to raise children as hetero couples. again--besides the point).

the issue here is that the witness based his entire argument on an improper assumption that he made, his careless to actually read the methods, much less understand how such studies are made.

the fact remains--the witness made an ass of himself based on an assumption. He used it for his own argument, when it was clearly improper for him to do so.

Further, when he takes "parents" to exclusively mean "mad and woman," then it seems to be that he is completely contradicting the need for a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage, right? ..assuming (accurately, I think), that this is where he stands....

I mean, if people were thinking that such needed to be clearly stated--state wide bans, with language that clearly states "man and woman," then he would not be making these assumptions when the language is clearly so plain, no? I certainly hope he is not advocating such legislation, as he clearly seems to think that open and inclusive descriptions are already completely adequate in defining a marriage, or the sex of parents. I mean, his assumptions represent a historical understanding, no? therefore, no reason to advocate for legislation specifically defining these terms. It is an "honest mistake," after all?

that is all.

 

[DisgruntledVirus]

Actually before meaning between a man and a woman it has meant other things such a property exchange where the woman was owned. Or between multiple women and a man. And the concept of marriage itself has existed since before English existed and before any religion decided to incorporate marriage into the religious doctrine.

People with narrow minds will pick and choose information that fits their agenda. That is what this witness did when he read nuclear family. He knew what HE believed it meant and either ignored or didn't bother to check the definition the study used. And the definition the study used was not in line with what he wanted it to be. So he cited something and hoped no one checked.

The simple truth is that making same-sex marriage illegal violates the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution so long as there are ANY benefits within the law of this country provided to married couples. And allowing "civil unions" with the same benefits would also not fix it because of Brown v. The Board of Education where it was ruled that "separate but equal" is inherently not equal.

Which is why I'm an advocate of getting rid of "marriage" entirely in the legal system (I don't care if it is used in religious arenas as that is their choice/right), and replacing it with "civil union" for anything that involves 2 legally consenting human adults who sign a contract that is recognized by the government to grant certain rights and priviledges to the couple. Note that this does not mean that polygamy/polyamory is legal. It doesn't mean children will be forced into marriage with 60 year olds. It doesn't mean that there will be rampant beastiality. It is simply a drop in change that removes all the religious connotations from the arrangement and then doesn't infringe upon the rights of some because others, whose rights are not infringed, are afraid of something they are irrationally afraid of.

the simple fact remains, xjohnx, et al. that the witness used this study to defend his asinine argument that only straight couples provide adequate homes with which to rear children, to the absolute exclusion of same-sex couples.

In fact, the study, as stated, in no way excludes same sex couples, per the definition.

the language of the study is quite plain towards this lack of exclusion. This really isn't an argument over the definition of nuclear family in webster's vs the study, it is not an argument over whether or not they were actually included in the study (yes, that remains vague--still, plenty of other studies have done the same research, showing quite convincingly that same-sex couples couples are indeed more than qualified to raise children as hetero couples. again--besides the point).

the issue here is that the witness based his entire argument on an improper assumption that he made, his careless to actually read the methods, much less understand how such studies are made.

the fact remains--the witness made an ass of himself based on an assumption. He used it for his own argument, when it was clearly improper for him to do so.

Further, when he takes "parents" to exclusively mean "mad and woman," then it seems to be that he is completely contradicting the need for a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage, right? ..assuming (accurately, I think), that this is where he stands....

I mean, if people were thinking that such needed to be clearly stated--state wide bans, with language that clearly states "man and woman," then he would not be making these assumptions when the language is clearly so plain, no? I certainly hope he is not advocating such legislation, as he clearly seems to think that open and inclusive descriptions are already completely adequate in defining a marriage, or the sex of parents. I mean, his assumptions represent a historical understanding, no? therefore, no reason to advocate for legislation specifically defining these terms. It is an "honest mistake," after all?

that is all.

Also, the witness in using this study to show how marriage is between 1 man and 1 woman is intellectually dishonest to say the least. The study didn't give a fuck about the sexual orientation of the couple, period. The study was looking at how one type of family (in this case a family consisting of 2 married parents and 1+ kids who was adopted by or biologically related to one/both parents) kids do compared to another type of family (in this case one where the parents are unmarried, not biologically related or adoptive parents to the kids, etc). So this study would actually go to supporting same sex marriages, as the children raised in a household where the parents are married and the kids are theirs (biologically or adopted) is better than the one where that is not the case.

So to the witness who cited the case, xjohnx, classy, and the others... do you want to be right about your definition, and in so doing be supporting the legalization of homosexual marriages because it's truly better for the kids; OR do you want to be wrong about the definition as it pertains to this study and in so doing say that Franken was correct and make the rest of his testimony suspect and questionable (and still have the study support same sex marriage being legalized)?

 

[shadow9d9]

It is pathetic that people like xjohn can't admit to being wrong when it is so obvious... just goes to show that having any kind of meaningful debate is a waste when it comes to humanity.

 

[xj0hnx]

It is pathetic that people like xjohn can't admit to being wrong when it is so obvious... just goes to show that having any kind of meaningful debate is a waste when it comes to humanity.

No, I'm just done arguing with idiots in this thread, as they say they drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

 

[Stoneburner]

Wasn't Franken's point that there is no comparison between a heterosexual nuclear family and a homosexual nuclear family? There is no evidence that a homosexual nuclear family would not provide the same advantages to a child growing up.