Gotta love Al Franken outing DOMA lies

[Cerpin Taxt]

I do understand what it means.

You have given me no reason to believe that the above is true, and in fact many, many reasons that the above is false.

But it is not unambiguous for YOUR definition.

Yes it is unambiguous. If you think otherwise, then show me the ambiguity. Show me a family which we cannot easily decide meets or does not meet the definition used in the study.

Nuclear family has never included the context of homosexual couples. That is just a fact.

It included homosexual couples in this study, so no, it is not a fact.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

You are embarrassing yourself now. The fact alone that marriage has always meant between a man and woman, would disqualify your assumption.

I have not made an assumption. It doesn't matter one whit how other people define marriage. What matters is the definition that was used for the purposes of the study -- and that's it.

It's also worth noting that that marriage hasn't "always meant between a man and a woman." It used to mean that, but it doesn't any more.

 

[jhbball]

I do understand what it means. But it is not unambiguous for YOUR definition. Nuclear family has never included the context of homosexual couples. That is just a fact.

How are you able to tie your own shoes?

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

How are you able to tie your own shoes?

I'm guessing velcro.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Classy's argument is a bit like a guy playing Texas Hold 'Em, being dealt King/Ace for his hole cards, and promptly turning them over, shouting "Blackjack!" King and Ace have always meant Blackjack, right?

Oh, wait, you mean for the purposes of the game Texas Hold 'Em the definition of King/Ace is not Blackjack? How could this be?

 

[classy]

You have given me no reason to believe that the above is true, and in fact many, many reasons that the above is false.


Yes it is unambiguous. If you think otherwise, then show me the ambiguity. Show me a family which we cannot easily decide meets or does not meet the definition used in the study.


It included homosexual couples in this study, so no, it is not a fact.

The study used the word nuclear family. The man interpreted nuclear family to carry its social, historical, dictionary defined meaning to be that of a man marrying a woman having a family.

You want to try to use a word like unambiguous to say that nuclear family socially and historically included gay couples. That would be false.

I don't even think using unambiguous is even really good english here, because we are dealing with concrete objects.

 

[Riparian]

It included homosexual couples in this study, so no, it is not a fact.

To be clear, from the Politico article, it didn't say that it included homosexuals in the study. It merely stated that it doesn't exclude them and that's a significant difference. It can mean that the study actually included them in the study or that none were used but were not purposely excluded. I could be wrong if there's been a clarification on that.

Outside of that, I don't know why so many people are supportive of Minnery's point of view. Minnery relied on an article to prove his assumption that nuclear families consisting of a man and woman are the ideal family structure yet the study itself does not prove this. If no homosexual adoptive families were included in the study, the only natural conclusion from the study is that children do well in a man and woman nuclear family but one cannot conclude that they do better than a family structure not tested in the study.

To Summarize: Minnery is using the study to try to prove the point that DOMA is a valid law because of the substantial government interest in protecting children. Protecting children, in Minnery's eyes, is best achieved by prohibiting other types of family structures. Minnery relies on a study that does not exclude homosexual nuclear families (even if it doesn't include them, they are not excluded) to prove that "traditional" nuclear families are superior and better protect children than homosexual nuclear families. Do people not see a problem with a report that supports the maintenance of DOMA by arguing that there's a substantial need to protect children from a family structure that was at most not studied in a report relied upon by the proponent of this argument?

 

[classy]

How are you able to tie your own shoes?

Yes I can tie my shoes. And because of "some" people I always make sure I am seated rather than bending over. Don't wanna give them the wrong impression 😛 😉

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

The study used the word nuclear family.

And defined it.

The man interpreted nuclear family to carry its social, historical, dictionary defined meaning to be that of a man marrying a woman having a family.

Those meanings are irrelevant. The definition that the study used was given in the study. That's all that matters when talking about the conclusions of the study.

You want to try to use a word like unambiguous to say that nuclear family socially and historically included gay couples. That would be false.

I have not described any other definition but the one supplied in the study as unambiguous. Apparently we can add reading comprehension to your long list of deficiencies.

I don't even think using unambiguous is even really good english here, because we are dealing with concrete objects.

A definition is not a concrete object. As I have said, the definition used in the study is unambiguous. You continue to give me reasons to believe you do not understand what "unambiguous" means, despite your insistence that you do. Were you being dishonest about that?

 

[thraashman]

I have not made an assumption. It doesn't matter one whit how other people define marriage. What matters is the definition that was used for the purposes of the study -- and that's it.

It's also worth noting that that marriage hasn't "always meant between a man and a woman." It used to mean that, but it doesn't any more.

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.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

To be clear, from the Politico article, it didn't say that it included homosexuals in the study. It merely stated that it doesn't exclude them and that's a significant difference.

Whether or not homosexuals were actually sampled for the study does not change the fact that the definition supplied does include homosexuals, which is what has become the point of contention.

I can see how it may have seemed I was claiming to know that homosexuals were actually included as subjects of the study. My language was a bit sloppy. Let me be clear, and in agreement with what you went on to say below, we don't know if any subjects of the study were homosexuals, but the definition supplied does include them within its scope, at least.

It can mean that the study actually included them in the study or that none were used but were not purposely excluded. I could be wrong if there's been a clarification on that.

Outside of that, I don't know why so many people are supportive of Minnery's point of view. Minnery relied on an article to prove his assumption that nuclear families consisting of a man and woman are the ideal family structure yet the study itself does not prove this. If no homosexual adoptive families were included in the study, the only natural conclusion from the study is that children do well in a man and woman nuclear family but one cannot conclude that they do better than a family structure not tested in the study.

To Summarize: Minnery is using the study to try to prove the point that DOMA is a valid law because of the substantial government interest in protecting children. Protecting children, in Minnery's eyes, is best achieved by prohibiting other types of family structures. Minnery relies on a study that does not exclude homosexual nuclear families (even if it doesn't include them, they are not excluded) to prove that "traditional" nuclear families are superior and better protect children than homosexual nuclear families. Do people not see a problem with a report that supports the maintenance of DOMA by arguing that there's a substantial need to protect children from a family structure that was at most not studied in a report relied upon by the proponent of this argument?

I agree with all of the above.

 

[Riparian]

The study used the word nuclear family. The man interpreted nuclear family to carry its social, historical, dictionary defined meaning to be that of a man marrying a woman having a family.

You want to try to use a word like unambiguous to say that nuclear family socially and historically included gay couples. That would be false.

I don't even think using unambiguous is even really good english here, because we are dealing with concrete objects.

I am not sure what you are not getting here. I am going to link you to a case that is taught to lawyers that exemplifies the situation where there is a term in a contract that is defined a certain way in the contract (the parallel here is the study) but it may differ from the expectations of the parties involved in the contract due to industry standards or common understandings (the parallel here is the common understanding of nuclear families).

http://www.lawnix.com/cases/frigaliment-bns-international.html

The key points you need to pull from that case are:

(1) A party who seeks to interpret a contract’s ordinary terms in a narrower sense than is used in everyday trade has the burden of proof to establish that meaning.

In the context of what everyone is arguing about, it was up to Minnery to show that the study either excluded homosexual nuclear families or that his use of the study should be narrowed to only argue that children do well in "traditional" nuclear families. The latter does not prove or disprove that children can do as well, worse, or better in a homosexual nuclear family.

 

[classy]

And defined it.


Those meanings are irrelevant. The definition that the study used was given in the study. That's all that matters when talking about the conclusions of the study.


I have not described any other definition but the one supplied in the study as unambiguous. Apparently we can add reading comprehension to your long list of deficiencies.


A definition is not a concrete object. As I have said, the definition used in the study is unambiguous. You continue to give me reasons to believe you do not understand what "unambiguous" means, despite your insistence that you do. Were you being dishonest about that?

Ok after this I am done.

The study used the word nuclear family. It has a concrete definition that defines it as a man marrying a woman and having kids.

You are using unambiguous as saying that the definition included gay couples. That is not the unambiguous definition of nuclear family.

Ambiguity or more specially unambiguity is usually used in the argument of trying to determine the sole meaning of something that could have many different interpretations. Here we have the dictionary defined, social defined, and historical definition of nuclear family.

You are trying to use a word you looked up, that is hardly ever used in everyday conversation as way to create some kind of fairy tale umbrella to put gay couples in a definition where they have never ever been included.

Further more you quote the clarity of the criteria in the study. For one gays didn't then and still aren't for the most part adoptive parents. Also the criteria specifically states married, but at the time this study was made, only one state allowed gay marriage. These are facts, not opinions. So any data obtained or if any at all, study doesn't say, would be questionable as to the conclusion if kids in a gay married gay household would be well adjusted in comparison to a hetero home.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

Also how can gays really be included in such a study considering they can't make their own babies and in many states adoption for gays was and still is all but non existent. So its not like we can look at the true impact of kids being raised in gay homes, because it has not really been existent. Massachusetts has only been what 6-7 years for legal gay marriage.

As someone who was raised by lesbian mothers, I have to disagree with some of what you said here. First, you contend that gays "can't make their own babies." My brother would disagree with you on that point, given that he is my mother's biological son. Second, you contend that kids aren't raised in gay homes. I guess that's technically true, in that our home was never gay (unlike some of the people who lived in it). But it seems as though you're actually saying that gay couples don't raise children. Given that I personally know dozens of gay and lesbian couples with children, and have read studies done on other gay and lesbian couples with children, I must arrive at the conclusion that you are wrong here as well.

It turns out that gay people can have children of their own and/or adopt them (my own household had examples of both situations), and studies can be done on children who grow up in these households (in fact, studies already have been done on them). You seem to think that just because you don't know any gay couples with kids, they must not exist. I don't know anyone from Latvia, but that doesn't mean it's not a real place. Your experience is not a universal truth. Don't post ignorant nonsense masquerading as fact.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

The study used the word nuclear family. It has a concrete definition that defines it as a man marrying a woman and having kids.

The study used the term "nuclear family." But it also defined it: "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." That definition is the "concrete definition" for the purpose of the study, as it is the specific criteria that the people conducting the study have chosen to look at. At no point does it say anything about homosexual or heterosexual; all it says is "two parents." Those two parents could be one man and one woman, two women or two men. Those three options are all valid combinations that make up "two parents" as defined by the study given that the study placed no restriction on the sex or sexuality of the parents, merely on the number (two).

I do think it is unlikely that the study actually included gay couples. Considering the definition also includes the term "married" and very few states had legal gay marriage during the course of the study (in addition to Massachusetts, Oregon and San Francisco had brief instances of legal gay marriage), it is unlikely that married gay couples were used. But you're arguing semantics in saying that a nuclear family HAS to be a heterosexual couple; according to the study's definition, a nuclear family could be a homosexual couple (provided they were married).

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Ok after this I am done.

You should've quit while you were less behind.

The study used the word nuclear family. It has a concrete definition that defines it as a man marrying a woman and having kids.

Wrong. False. Incorrectomundo. Definitions are anything but "concrete." Meanings change all the time. I've already given the example of "google" but additional examples abound: "access" (noun used as a verb), "run" (verb used as a noun), "text" (noun used as a verb), etc, etc, etc....

Your error here is in thinking that definitions are decided once and for all and never change. This is a falsehood, and precisely why studies make a point of stating their definitions explicitly at the outset of their research.

You are using unambiguous as saying that the definition included gay couples. That is not the unambiguous definition of nuclear family.

It is unambiguous which definition the study used (they stated it directly) and that definition unambiguously includes homosexuals.

Ambiguity or more specially unambiguity is usually used in the argument of trying to determine the sole meaning of something that could have many different interpretations. Here we have the dictionary defined, social defined, and historical definition of nuclear family.

As I have said repeatedly, ad nauseum, the only definition that matters is the one the study itself explicitly defined.

You are trying to use a word you looked up, that is hardly ever used in everyday conversation as way to create some kind of fairy tale umbrella to put gay couples in a definition where they have never ever been included.

Please do not project your own ignorance of the meaning of "unambiguous" on to me. I am intimately familiar with its meaning, and I have used it very deliberately and correctly from the outset of this debate.

Further more you quote the clarity of the criteria in the study. For one gays didn't then and still aren't for the most part adoptive parents. Also the criteria specifically states married, but at the time this study was made, only one state allowed gay marriage. These are facts, not opinions.

They are irrelevant facts. Whether or not any homosexuals were subjects in the study does not change the fact that the definition would include them if they were selected.

So any data obtained or if any at all, study doesn't say, would be questionable as to the conclusion if kids in a gay married gay household would be well adjusted in comparison to a hetero home.

We're not debating the merits of the study's conclusions. We're debating whether or not it can be interpreted to say the things that Minney claimed it said, which it cannot.

 

[classy]

I am not sure what you are not getting here. I am going to link you to a case that is taught to lawyers that exemplifies the situation where there is a term in a contract that is defined a certain way in the contract (the parallel here is the study) but it may differ from the expectations of the parties involved in the contract due to industry standards or common understandings (the parallel here is the common understanding of nuclear families).

http://www.lawnix.com/cases/frigaliment-bns-international.html

The key points you need to pull from that case are:

(1) A party who seeks to interpret a contract’s ordinary terms in a narrower sense than is used in everyday trade has the burden of proof to establish that meaning.

In the context of what everyone is arguing about, it was up to Minnery to show that the study either excluded homosexual nuclear families or that his use of the study should be narrowed to only argue that children do well in "traditional" nuclear families. The latter does not prove or disprove that children can do as well, worse, or better in a homosexual nuclear family.

The point I am trying to make is very clear. The man made an assumption based on facts we have held for years. I stated very clearly, I believe the study should have stated that they inlcuded gay couples under the definition of nuclear family. Is it incumbent on the man to assume they also included gay couples or accept the factual definition of what nuclear family means.

It doesn't matter that some people support or dislike gays. The definition is clear what nuclear family means.

CT wants to pretend that a definition, despite being clearly defined, somehow includes something if it is not specifically excluded. Bullshit

If I use that kind of thinking I can rape the hell out a woman. All I gotta say is she was dressed like a slut even though she clearly said no. The idea something is included in a definition unless specifically excluded is a bunch of hooey.

 

[fskimospy]

Ok after this I am done.

The study used the word nuclear family. It has a concrete definition that defines it as a man marrying a woman and having kids.

You are using unambiguous as saying that the definition included gay couples. That is not the unambiguous definition of nuclear family.

Ambiguity or more specially unambiguity is usually used in the argument of trying to determine the sole meaning of something that could have many different interpretations. Here we have the dictionary defined, social defined, and historical definition of nuclear family.

You are trying to use a word you looked up, that is hardly ever used in everyday conversation as way to create some kind of fairy tale umbrella to put gay couples in a definition where they have never ever been included.

Further more you quote the clarity of the criteria in the study. For one gays didn't then and still aren't for the most part adoptive parents. Also the criteria specifically states married, but at the time this study was made, only one state allowed gay marriage. These are facts, not opinions. So any data obtained or if any at all, study doesn't say, would be questionable as to the conclusion if kids in a gay married gay household would be well adjusted in comparison to a hetero home.

Hey look, someone clearly didn't read the thread. The only definition of 'nuclear family' is the one that was explicitly stated in the study, because that's what the study was about. Under that definition gays are incontrovertibly included. The author of the study confirmed this.

I know this thread set off your homophobe radar, but you should at least understand the topic under discussion before crapping on it.

 

[classy]

The study used the term "nuclear family." But it also defined it: "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." That definition is the "concrete definition" for the purpose of the study, as it is the specific criteria that the people conducting the study have chosen to look at.

Yes you are correct. And that definition goes hand in hand with the dictionary defined by Merriam.

As I have stated based on the definition they used, how many gay couples could even be included and I believe honestly at the time this study was done, none at all. I think they are being politically correct to be honest.

As for them having babies, you full well blasted know what I mean. They can't make a child without someone from the opposite sex intervening in the relationship in some way. They will always need a three some.

 

[Moonbeam]

There is no end to which folk will go to defend and avoid seeing their own bigotry. The bottom line in this is that gay families without a right to marry suffer and the children especially. All the folk here who defend traditional marriage against the right of gays to marry are disgusting pieces of shit. The sooner you die the better off the world will be.

 

[fskimospy]

Yes you are correct. And that definition goes hand in hand with the dictionary defined by Merriam.

As I have stated based on the definition they used, how many gay couples could even be included and I believe honestly at the time this study was done, none at all. I think they are being politically correct to be honest.

As for them having babies, you full well blasted know what I mean. They can't make a child without someone from the opposite sex intervening in the relationship in some way. They will always need a three some.

Gay couples need a threesome the way an infertile couple needs a threesome, ie: not at all. It's a simple medical procedure.

I love how even the author of the study in question says your ideas on the definition are wrong, but instead of just admitting it, your insane homophobia requires you to believe in a conspiracy to be politically correct.

 

[classy]

There is no end to which folk will go to defend and avoid seeing their own bigotry. The bottom line in this is that gay families without a right to marry suffer and the children especially. All the folk here who defend traditional marriage against the right of gays to marry are disgusting pieces of shit. The sooner you die the better off the world will be.

That is some really f'ed up stuf to say. You wish death on detractors.

 

[zinfamous]

stay classy, classy.

 

[zinfamous]

That is some really f'ed up stuf to say. You wish death on detractors.

and how do you feel about homosexuals?

:hmm:

 

[classy]

Gay couples need a threesome the way an infertile couple needs a threesome, ie: not at all. It's a simple medical procedure.

I love how even the author of the study in question says your ideas on the definition are wrong, but instead of just admitting it, your insane homophobia requires you to believe in a conspiracy to be politically correct.

Look I ain't gonna turn this personal. I gave my 2 cents. Now yall go ahead and get your parade on........................................