Government

Al Franken Chides Focus on the Family Rep For Misreading Gov‘t Study on ’Nuclear Families’

Al Franken Focus on the Family Gay Marriage Children Nuclear Families Tom MinneryOn 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).

During the hearing, Franken made note of FOF’s testimony which listed the benefits associated with children “living with their biological and/or adopted mothers and fathers“ as being greater than those ”living in any other family form.” The data, the group claimed, showcased that children living with straight and married couples fared better than children living with same-sex parents. The group, as Franken noted, listed a Department of Health and Human Services study to back up their claims. TPM has more:

“I actually checked it out,” Franken said in reference to the study FOF’s Thomas Minnery has cited. He then observed it uses the term ‘nuclear families’ without specifically mentioning “opposite sex married families.”

“‘Isn’t it true, Mr. Minnery, that a married same-sex couple that has had or adopted kids would fall under the definition of a nuclear family in the study that you cite?’ Franken asked.

Minnery replied, saying, “I think that the study, when it cites nuclear families would mean a family headed by a husband and wife.” Franken then said, “It doesn’t.” The congressman and former Saturday Night Live cast member went on:

“The study defines a nuclear family as one or more children living with two parents who are married to one another and are each biological or adoptive parents to all the children in the family. And I frankly don’t really know how we can trust the rest of your testimony if you are reading studies these ways.”

Watch Franken chide Minnery, below:

Politico reached out to the author of the study and, alas, Franken’s assertion is correct. The study cited was published by HHS back in 2010. It found that there were healthier outcomes for children living in nuclear families. While Minnery used this data to indicate that kids are better off with straight, married parents, the definition of “nuclear” does not take gender into account. Essentially, there is no evidence to prove, utilizing this study, that same-sex couples’ children are any less healthy:

“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…

While FOF’s use of the study is certainly flawed, this does not validate or invalidate either side of the debate. The impact — or lack thereof — that same-sex parenthood has on children will likely continue to be discussed as gay rights issues stand at the forefront of many contemporary social and political debates.

Comments (248)

1 2 3 ... 6
  • indy1
    Posted on July 21, 2011 at 9:29am

    The Democrats have successfully deconstructed the meaning of the word “married” as well as what the meaning of the word “is” is.

    Report Post »  
    • Conservativeman
      Posted on July 21, 2011 at 10:13am

      When the study was conducted the preponderance of married couples were “man & woman” as states had not yet legalized disordered marriage. So FoF was correct in interpreting the data.

      Report Post » Conservativeman  
    • Blackhawk1
      Posted on July 21, 2011 at 10:14am

      If Franken had a brain he would be dangerous. How many states allowed same sex marriage when the study was done? How many same sex married couples are there and were interviewed for the study? Franken you idiot when the study was done the Nuclear Family is defined a man and a woman and to Assume anything else just makes you look like an idiot to us with a brain.

      Report Post » Blackhawk1  
    • Jaycen
      Posted on July 21, 2011 at 11:23am

      Oddly enough, the definition was “married”. In 2010, there were a whole lot of married homosexual couples?

      Huh, that’s news to me.

      Report Post » Jaycen  
    • Miguelito
      Posted on July 21, 2011 at 12:38pm

      Franken appears to be on the devil’s team in trying to destroy the family, these guys has no problem lying about anything….the ends justifies the means!

      Report Post »  
    • Mike N
      Posted on July 21, 2011 at 12:47pm

      Interesting as well, is the fact that no reference was made to a study that surely must exist . . . that being a study of the benefits of children raised in a family by both their biological parents as being greater than those ”living in any other family form.”

      If only the liberals were willing to fund such a study . . . but that would be discrimination, would it not?

      Report Post »  
    • thinkinghuman
      Posted on July 21, 2011 at 1:16pm

      When I speak of something “nuclear” the center of an ATOM, the very central thing to NATURE itself comes to mind, and in a family sense, that central natural thing IS man and woman, because that’s what makes babies! Two gay guys or girls can’t do that, so to me, to common sense, they are not what would be deemed as a “nuclear” family. The gays always trying to redefine everything with their own NEW SPIN.

      Franken is just another tool in this movement to destroy the family.

      Report Post » thinkinghuman  
    • jzs
      Posted on July 21, 2011 at 1:54pm

      You guys missed the point. The study showed that children raised in a “nuclear family” (however they defined that) as better environment that with single parents, raised by grandparents or whatever else. Makes sense to me.

      The study has nothing to do with homosexuality, same sex parents, nothing. That was in no way part of the study. I not taking a position on that issue, but the study simply didn’t address it.

      But this group pretended that it did. It didn’t.

      But please, go ahead and insult Franken and say he’s a fool. Whatever.

      Report Post » jzs  
    • saranda
      Posted on July 21, 2011 at 1:58pm

      @Conservativeman – study was released in 2010. Definition of Nuclear Family has not changed in the past 12-18 months.

      Report Post »  
    • getalong
      Posted on July 21, 2011 at 2:05pm

      This proves that raunchy comedians who make jokes about Jesus raping someone do not make for smart thoughtful politicians. Duh!!! This guy belongs in a sleazy comedy club NOT sitting in our Capitol. Yuck…..he makes me sick. Plus, if the truth be told……Franken stole this seat from Coleman through voter fraud.

      Report Post »  
    • techengineer11
      Posted on July 21, 2011 at 2:57pm

      So once again another radical Jew leads the assault on the traditional American and Christian family?

      Maybe one day you people will see the forest but I warn you there are many trees!

      Report Post » techengineer11  
    • HisNameWasRobertPaulson
      Posted on July 21, 2011 at 3:15pm

      @JZS, Politico did not do their homework very well, failing to ask any serious or in depth follow up questions. Sure, the lead author of the study did not define any difference between man and woman or same sex couples in the study when referring to nuclear families, however, the study was very clear that it was two parent MARRIED households. The period of time that the study was done would have precluded same sex partners because at the outset of the study, which takes years by the way, gay marriage was not legal in most areas, if ANY areas.

      The study never took into account that any state would legalize gay marriage and since there were none to contend with, they did not specify in the study. Because studies such as this are done using double blind data (look it up), the researchers actually have NO WAY AT ALL of going back to find out if they used gay marriage or straight marriage couples, because that was never part of the study, because it wasn’t an issue when they began the study. They can’t go back and change the data collected.

      Just because Al Franken is stupid, doesn’t mean that Politico should be equally stupid and not follow up those statements on the study with better questions. Perhaps the Politico has never conducted a study such as this.

      I have. Back in 1986 I conducted a study on the effects of television on children. Interesting stuff. It started even better studies. But guess what, I didn’t take gay marriage into account either.

      Report Post »  
    • TrueAmericanConservativePatriot
      Posted on July 21, 2011 at 3:16pm

      @saranda
      The definition of Nuclear Family may not have changed as you say, BUT the definition of marriage has. It has been perverted and now includes gay marriages. Thus meaning, that the definition used in the study cannot be compared to a present interpetation. The study said “…one or more children living with two parents who are MARRIED to one another…” if gay marriage was not legal than tell me how the term MARRIED (as used in the study) could involve gays.

      Report Post »  
    • TrueAmericanConservativePatriot
      Posted on July 21, 2011 at 3:24pm

      @Indy1…or anyone who can tell me
      Forgive my lack of knowlegde but, what is everyone talking abotu when they say “Democrats have successfully deconstructed the meaning of the word is” Ive seen this a lot. Im not trolling I really would like to understand what everyone is talking about.

      P.S. I dont want any rediculous liberal/socialist/idiotic answer such as “its just another way for the right wring radicals to try and take cheap shots at the clearly superior and smarter party who is fighting for a better America” That is clearly a joke statement. I want a legitimate answer.

      Report Post »  
    • Orion the truth hunter
      Posted on July 21, 2011 at 3:32pm

      The problem is FOF used the common understanding of nuclear family and the study may not have. The SOLUTION is to go back to the raw data of the study, determine if any pseudo-nuclear families were in the study, and compare those results. The sentence: “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…” does not mean that any of those couples were actually in the study. I found it interesting that Dr. Black chose to state it that way as opposed to just saying that there were or were not gay couples included in the nuclear portion of the study.

      Report Post »  
    • sWampy
      Posted on July 21, 2011 at 3:37pm

      I just love how liberals want to repeat failed experiments of the past, it‘s really sad they couldn’t have just let the south live in freedom and have stayed up north and enslaved fellow the northerners.

      Report Post »  
    • jzs
      Posted on July 21, 2011 at 4:06pm

      HisNameWasRobertPaulson, I like your post, but it‘s not clear to me we’re in disagreement. There was no factor in the study connected to homosexuality or same sex parents. I think you’re suggesting there would have been no or very few same sex parents represented in the “nuclear” family category (I’ll accept that assumption), but nobody knows what percentage of the households in the “non-nuclear families had a gay couple as parents.

      You can do your own research and make your own guess (I goggled some quick numbers) but it appears that the percentage of families in the US with two gay parents is way, way below 1% of the population, maybe 0.1% or lower. So even by making assumptions, there is no way this experiment could be construed as a comparison of heterosexual families and gay families (as opposed to, say, single parent families). Funny, you say Franklin is stupid, but he was the only one in congress to figure this out.

      Since you know about experimental design, you realize this study simply in no way at all supports what the group was claiming.

      Report Post » jzs  
    • agameofthrones
      Posted on July 21, 2011 at 4:29pm

      And he seemed so proud when he said, “I actually read it.”
      How do these clowns get elected? Are there that many stupid people out there? You should have to pass a common sense test in order to vote.

      Report Post » agameofthrones  
    • Orion the truth hunter
      Posted on July 21, 2011 at 4:50pm

      From Wikipedia: “In a double-blind experiment, neither the individuals nor the researchers know who belongs to the control group and the experimental group. Only after all the data have been recorded (and in some cases, analyzed) do the researchers learn which individuals are which.” It would not be very reasonable to blind yourself permanently to the raw information. for example, Census data is initially released as group information without naming the individuals, but after a long period of time, the raw information is also released, the raw data exists but was kept blind for a period of time.
      As I stated above, they should go back to the raw data and re-evaluate it. Since I suspect that virtually all of the gay couples would not have been legally married, that group should have been in one of the non-nuclear groups, perhaps the cohabitation group. If that assumption is correct, then FOF would be correct in their statement, even though they might have to do some homework to prove it.

      Report Post »  
    • DrFrost
      Posted on July 21, 2011 at 4:54pm

      @JZS

      I agree that this study doesn’t apply to the straight/homosexual debate. In order to compare between these two groups you’d need a lot of sample points (i.e. a lot of married gay couples with children to compare with married straight couples with children). The study doesn’t apply.

      This doesn‘t make FOTF wrong in it’s assertion that children are better off with straight married parents, it just means they were wrong in using this study to support that claim. To be honest, I’d be leary of any study of this nature for several reasons. The most obvious is that such a study hinges on how you define and measure “better off.” My experience is that all too often these social research papers come to the conclusion desired by those funding the project or by the author himself.

      Franken used this mistake on FOTF’s part to attack thier entire testimony. Had he found a similar mistake committed by a group testifying in support of his goals do you think he would have done the same? Of course not. Regardless, researchers make mistakes. It’s entirely irresponsible to throw out all their results because of one mistake.

      Franken is a political animal. If the truth happens to support his political goals he’ll use it, but in my experience he‘s had no trouble ignoring it when the facts aren’t on his side. Too bad he’s not alone in this….

      Report Post »  
    • chazman
      Posted on July 21, 2011 at 4:55pm

      … and common sense flies right out the window.

      The Federal Government and the State Controlled Media are the true enemies of the American people …

      Report Post »  
    • jzs
      Posted on July 21, 2011 at 10:28pm

      DrFrost, are you the same person as HisNameWasRobertPaulson? You responded as if you were.

      In any case, we agree. This group was making the case against gay marriage in front on the Congress of the United States of America (this wasn’t a high school debate) with a study that was irrelevant to the point they were trying to make. You and I might disagree however, on how and why that could happen. I believe that a spokesman for a group speaking on an important issue before a governing body of this country ought to have their facts straight. You dismiss as a “mistake” taking a study that had absolutely nothing to do with same sex parents and trying to turn it into one, I‘d suggest to you that’s not what happened. Maybe, like Politico, they should have spoken to the author’s of the study.

      You say Franken ignores facts that don’t support his view. You didn’t give an example but okay. Should I assume that the party you support is less guilty of that that the party you oppose?

      Report Post » jzs  
  • YesNdeedie
    Posted on July 21, 2011 at 9:27am

    “Can’t trust the rest of your testimony”
    That definitely does sum up my thoughts on anything spoken or implied by any of the progressives in this administration

    Report Post »  
    • NC1
      Posted on July 21, 2011 at 9:36am

      …or anyone who’s prior career before politics was a comedian.

      Report Post » NC1  
    • Anonymous T. Irrelevant
      Posted on July 21, 2011 at 10:01am

      You’d have to be funny to be considered a comedian. The description of his previous career was failed comic writer and hanger-on. This guy depended on his friends in show biz to give him jobs, because he couldn’t make it on his own. He is an arrogant SOB.

      Report Post » Anonymous T. Irrelevant  
    • Randi Trollop
      Posted on July 21, 2011 at 10:45am

      Lacking any credible evidence, one again you lean on the old crutch of personal attack. Very intelligent and persuasive attack.

      Report Post » Randi Trollop  
    • jdare
      Posted on July 21, 2011 at 10:53am

      And still a comedian. Just the jokes aren’t funny!

      TEA!

      Report Post » jdare  
    • Viet Vet
      Posted on July 21, 2011 at 11:52pm

      If Focus on the Family has an agenda, it‘s definitely in America’s best interest.

      Report Post »  
  • focusonhistory
    Posted on July 21, 2011 at 9:27am

    Doesn’t Franken look like the Batman villian The Joker.” It would be funny if it weren’t so serious of times.

    Report Post » focusonhistory  
  • Snowleopard {gallery of cat folks}
    Posted on July 21, 2011 at 9:27am

    Al Franklin = another radical, self seeking, self glorifying, and self centered person who seeks to be the center of attention no matter how much he has to whine and grumble across the screens of the nation.

    Report Post » Snowleopard {gallery of cat folks}  
    • 8jrts
      Posted on July 21, 2011 at 12:52pm

      All you have to do is remember Stuart Smally character. His alter ego. Explains a lot.

      Report Post » 8jrts  
  • mooredist
    Posted on July 21, 2011 at 9:25am

    The fact is that in anthropology and sociology, a nuclear (nucleus) family has always been a father and a mother and there children . its common knowledge. Noted anthropologist professor George Mudock s definition is.The family is a social group characterized by common residence, economic cooperation and reproduction. It contains adults of both sexes, at least two of whom maintain a socially approved sexual relationship, and one or more children, own or adopted, of the sexually cohabiting adults. AL shows his continuing ignorance an desire to bend the truth.

    Report Post »  
    • Baberaham Lincoln
      Posted on July 21, 2011 at 10:11am

      I‘m baffled as to how you can use this case to assert Franken’s ignorance. In this instance he was actually CORRECT, while Minnery was the one guilty of ignorance. Maybe if Franken was having an academic discussion about Murdock’s work — which, it should be noted, has little to no relevance to modern American families — then he would have been wrong. But that’s not at all the case.

      Report Post »  
    • joe1234
      Posted on July 21, 2011 at 10:22am

      its rather simple…

      Definition of NUCLEAR FAMILY

      : a family group that consists only of father, mother, and children

      http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/nuclear%20family

      father and mother…female and male…a woman in a flannel shirt doesn’t make her a father…and a man in a dress doesn’t make her a mother…

      there is only one definitiion of nuclear family…same for marriage…..geta clue.

      Report Post » joe1234  
    • Godfather.1
      Posted on July 21, 2011 at 11:16am

      MOOREDIST and JOE1234

      Apparently you two either did no read the article or are willfully ignoring it. The study provided its own definition for a nuclear family and it included same sex marriages. Thus, Franken was correct and you are wrong.

      I know reading is difficult for tea partiers and Beck fans, but the article is really not that long and pretty easy to understand, even the author concedes that Franken was correct.

      Report Post »  
    • joe1234
      Posted on July 21, 2011 at 11:42am

      godfather..I know that…it means the study is meaningless…they include that which is NOT a family with what is a REAL family.

      Report Post » joe1234  
    • kaijue
      Posted on July 21, 2011 at 11:50am

      If the study used Nuclear Family and applied it in areas that are not considered to be Nuclear Family in the traditional sense of the phrase than the report is at fault, not FOF’s commentary on it. In their own definition they used the term married which would not apply to the vast majority of gays. If they meant to include married gays, the report should have clearly stated that.

      Married gays is relatively new and there has not been enough time to compile long term effects of gay marriages on children. There is an agenda here, and that‘s not to say that Focus on the Family doesn’t have an agenda. It is simply to state that the report including gay married couples is disingenuous at best.

      The fact that the group who compiled the study had to be contacted for clarification should tell us all that the report wasn’t clear in its definition. A more appropriate questions should have been how many married gays with children were a part of this study that led to the study’s conclusion that gay married couples with children have the same results as hetero married couples with children.

      Report Post »  
  • His_story_buff
    Posted on July 21, 2011 at 9:24am

    FOF’s Minnery should have responded that legal same sex marriage is a recent aberration; for a study to have children old enough to have outcome data the nuclear families would have to have been traditional husband- wife.

    Report Post »  
  • Jenny Lind
    Posted on July 21, 2011 at 9:24am

    Well, when you can re-define anything you want , to mean anything you want it to, anything can mean anything, right? Not in my book , but the progressives keep trying and they are making progress, so we really need to push back. Our votes really count and we need to convince those around us to use their vote for the “force for good”. We can do this, be cheerfull and happy, and spread the truth!

    Report Post »  
  • jessieH
    Posted on July 21, 2011 at 9:23am

    The only thing worse than electing a lawyer to office is electing a bad comic to office.

    Report Post »  
  • inexiletill2012
    Posted on July 21, 2011 at 9:23am

    Who cares about this joker…..Really how did a “comedian” get to Washington anyway ?

    Oh ya…..ALOT of stupid voters in Minnesota fell for this JOKE !

    Report Post » inexiletill2012  
    • ZOMBIE JESUS LOVES ME
      Posted on July 21, 2011 at 10:22am

      How did an “actor” get to be governor of California … and then president?

      What a stupid question, INEXILETILL2012. Go back to watching your cartoons.

      Report Post » ZOMBIE JESUS LOVES ME  
    • vennoye
      Posted on July 21, 2011 at 10:50am

      I’m sure they are so PROUD of their elected official!!! But we must remember that the “official” that presided over the count and recount of that election was one of George Soro’s SOS successes!!

      Report Post » vennoye  
    • Gonzo
      Posted on July 21, 2011 at 11:09am

      ZOMBIE JESUS LOVES ME
      If you think there is ANY logical comparison between Reagn and Franken, you’re the one watching cartoons.

      Report Post » Gonzo  
  • Jefftalks
    Posted on July 21, 2011 at 9:22am

    What would you expect the author of the study to say? She’s a PhD who gets her funding from the government…she isn’t going cut off her cash…odd that the folks who author the Random House dictionary define Nuclear Family as…”a social unit composed of father, mother, and children.”

    Report Post »  
  • TRONINTHEMORNING
    Posted on July 21, 2011 at 9:22am

    Good grief; leave it to a failed comedian to start up with a group that helps families all over the world. It’s just horse sense that a Mom and a Dad raise a healthier family than a Mom and Mom/Dad and Dad deal. Focus on the Family is a great group and we love having them in Colorado Springs. Hey Al, you should visit them.

    Report Post »  
    • smithclar3nc3
      Posted on July 21, 2011 at 9:34am

      Actually sense the report didn‘t include same sex couples it isn’t relevent to a gay rights stance. Nuclear family is a husband and wife,not a husband and husband,wife and wife,or charles manson and 13 drug addicts. That being said I’m 90% sure that a child living with a same sex couple would be better off than growing up in a state child facility. I could also argue that children growing up in a same sex household could develope mental and psychological abnormalities just like children from abusive households.

      Report Post »  
  • thatoneguy
    Posted on July 21, 2011 at 9:22am

    How is it possible that this man could get elected to office. Excuse me cheat his way in.

    Report Post »  
    • RightUnite
      Posted on July 21, 2011 at 9:26am

      Ummmmmm… Minnesota…. Not the land of 10,000 lakes anymore, more like 10,000,000 Looney Libs….. Just sayin…..

      Report Post »  
    • Sola Scriptura
      Posted on July 21, 2011 at 11:50am

      According to the recount..he got in by 700 votes..Of course if MN had a voter ID law Coleman would probably be there instead.

      Report Post » Sola Scriptura  
  • BikerMickAG
    Posted on July 21, 2011 at 9:20am

    Were any of the families included in that particular study, same-sex couples? If not then the “classic” definition of nuclear family would be as Mr. Minnery meant in his explanation – the biological father and mother, along with their child(ren). Any opportunity to wedge a new definition into the picture to obfuscate away from traditional American family values. Perpetual destruction of anything & everything family.

    Report Post » BikerMickAG  
  • Islesfordian
    Posted on July 21, 2011 at 9:18am

    Another point:

    “The study defines a nuclear family as one or more children living with two parents who are married to one another and are each biological or adoptive parents to all the children in the family. And I frankly don’t really know how we can trust the rest of your testimony if you are reading studies these ways.”

    Given that it uses the term “married” and the definition of marriage is being contested it would be logical to assume that, unless otherwise specified, the meaning of marriage that is NOT contested would be the operative one. I.E., because there is debate as to whether same sex coupkes can in fact be married, the lack of specificity that they are included should mean that they aren’t.

    That is simple logic. I understand why it escapes Frankin.

    Report Post » Islesfordian  
  • poppinbeaners
    Posted on July 21, 2011 at 9:18am

    I’m embarrassed for them. I’m a Christian, pro-life, anti-gay, but sometimes we make mistakes defending our position.

    Report Post » poppinbeaners  
    • thought
      Posted on July 21, 2011 at 9:37am

      Well, HOW would you have done it?
      “poppinbeaners” says it all.

      Report Post »  
    • UBETHECHANGE
      Posted on July 21, 2011 at 10:32am

      Your just an ignorant person. May I remind you Glenn Beck has said recently that he has gay employees and gay friends. I think you on the wrong website, you need to go to PatRobertson.com. Your intolerance is as bad as progressive intolerance of Christians. WAKE UP!

      Report Post »  
    • smithclar3nc3
      Posted on July 21, 2011 at 11:51am

      UBETHECHANGE,
      Tolerance means to tolerate not to accept or embrace. It inferes a live and let live acceptance IT‘S DOESN’T IMPLY CONDONING. Christian don’t goes after gays for being gay, nor do they practice or teach the followers of Christ to bash gays. However gays go after Christian for being Christian and quoting text in their religion that point to homosexuality being a sin. Islamist both radical and non-radical preach the same sermons and Radicals do more than preach it they behead,hang and stone homosexuals But gay rights groups only feel safe attacking those who won’t lash out at them like ISLAM….WHY IS THAT? Could it be that most gay groups like most women groups are political first and all other second or is that these groups will only attack the religious groups that don’t have violence within them. I know it to be both Islamist support the liberal agenda as liberal to be their useful idiots so they vote for them and at the same time gay groups know islamist will kill them if they come out publicly against Islam.
      What a sad little corner you painted yourself into.

      Report Post »  
    • wfnc2377
      Posted on July 21, 2011 at 11:09pm

      UBETHECHANGE,
      Under your definition of tolerance, you are being just as intolerance of Christians as you claim Christians are to gays. Sounds like hypocrisy.

      Report Post »  
  • awizard
    Posted on July 21, 2011 at 9:17am

    Standard ploy, if you win an argument … muddy the water.

    I can’t see the issue here … if you have two daddies or two mommies raising you, you’re gonna be confused and probably harassed in “The Real World” … Not good for a child.

    Franken was a poor comedian … and now is a joke as a senator.

    Report Post » awizard  
    • awizard
      Posted on July 21, 2011 at 9:51am

      Eh, should of been “if you can’t win an argument”

      Report Post » awizard  
  • hightide
    Posted on July 21, 2011 at 9:13am

    America is doomed.

    Report Post »  
  • Secessionista
    Posted on July 21, 2011 at 9:13am

    I wonder how healthy children are when both their “parents” are dead of AIDS? Gays and Lesbians are notoriously sexually promiscuous, and hence the continuing scourge of disease in their ranks. I’m just saying…

    Report Post » Secessionista  
    • saranda
      Posted on July 21, 2011 at 2:08pm

      What you are “just saying” is wrong and unbelievably misinformed. Go read something that does not come from your church group or Fox news and learn a little.

      Report Post »  
  • jblovesAmerica
    Posted on July 21, 2011 at 9:11am

    Al Franken-his opinion/his questions-his thoughts-are as worthless as his comedy.

    Report Post »  
  • Carol Ingian
    Posted on July 21, 2011 at 9:10am

    Thomas Minnery, thank you for trying. He is right. Nuclear family has always been understood to mean Mom, Dad, and kids.
    Kids growing up in a 2 mom or 2 dad household are at a terrible disadvantage, to have the shame and embarrasment hang over their heads during the formative years.
    No matter what gays or the laws say, they can’t change the fact that what they are doing is wrong.

    Report Post »  
    • Islesfordian
      Posted on July 21, 2011 at 9:20am

      The old definition should always be assumed to be the operative one until specifically changed.

      Report Post » Islesfordian  
    • Anonymous T. Irrelevant
      Posted on July 21, 2011 at 9:22am

      Not to mention the teasing and harrassment they get from classmates and bullies at school. Having gay parents is also not the best role model for a kid to grow up “normally.”
      Al Franken is a moron who depended on dead people votes, hack lawyers, and a Democrat SOS shenanigans to get into office. He is no expert on families. I don’t care what some damn report says, whether it included or not, a NUCLEAR family is one with a female mother, a male father, and children of both sexes, that sometimes included grandma and/or grandpa.

      Report Post » Anonymous T. Irrelevant  
    • Chet Hempstead
      Posted on July 21, 2011 at 4:00pm

      Even if you don’t think a same-sex couple raising children qualifies as a nuclear family, if they are not included among the other family forms with which the nuclear family is contrasted unfavorably, the study is at best completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand. I’ve seen many people here on the Blaze who rely on FOF for their misinformation cite what they’ve been told this study says as an argument against same sex marriage.

      Report Post »  
  • Jim in Houston
    Posted on July 21, 2011 at 9:10am

    Once a clown always a clown! Thanks Minnesota for sending us this sick joke and calling him a senator.

    Report Post »  
  • spreadcommonsensenot pc
    Posted on July 21, 2011 at 9:10am

    Is this anything like POTUS Obama “mis-quoting” the Constitution—2x——–huh Albert huh??????

    Report Post »  
  • MONICNE
    Posted on July 21, 2011 at 9:09am

    Franken correctly read the source material FOTF used to make its case, and refudiated the case entirely.

    End of discussion. Take the demerit and come back later with more talking points, that have merit. Then Franken will have to eat your Crow.

    TEA marches on

    Report Post » MONICNE  
    • Jenny Lind
      Posted on July 21, 2011 at 9:26am

      Promise? End of discussion with you would make this blogs day!

      Report Post »  
    • Islesfordian
      Posted on July 21, 2011 at 9:28am

      An unspecific definition does not validate a new proposed meaning. What Frankin read does not lay out language that makes clear that smae sex couples are INCLUDED. Given that THAT is precisely the issue being debated in our society today the lack of that precise inclusion must at least seem suspicious. If I wanted to unclude same sex couples in the definition, and knew that there was controversy over the issue I would have been specific, like this:
      “a nuclear family as one or more children living with two parents [REGARDLESS OF SEX] who are married to one another and are each biological or adoptive parents to all the children in the family.”

      Report Post » Islesfordian  
  • Islesfordian
    Posted on July 21, 2011 at 9:05am

    The pertinent point would be whether the data used in the study included enough, or any, same sex couples as parents in the sample to makes its conclusion applicable to them.

    As with almost all studies, you have to get into the specifics of its data to understand its relevance.

    Report Post » Islesfordian  
    • joe1234
      Posted on July 21, 2011 at 9:12am

      we don’t want to tell them what families really are…its like your evangelism…fool em, then lure the suckers in!!!

      Report Post » joe1234  
    • Islesfordian
      Posted on July 21, 2011 at 9:22am

      Nice try, but I’ve already demonstrated you are wrong on evangelism on every historical, and even biblical, example. Your refusal to deal with the facts in the argument I take as tacit admission that I am right.

      Report Post » Islesfordian  
    • joe1234
      Posted on July 21, 2011 at 9:41am

      your refusal to deal in honesty shows that you are more suited to sell used cars than preach Christ (oops can’t mention that name, according to you, don’t want to offend them…gotte keep em fooled, right) crucified.

      Report Post » joe1234  
    • joe1234
      Posted on July 21, 2011 at 9:43am

      oh and you’ve demonstrated nothing of the kind…so is there anything you don’t lie about?

      Report Post » joe1234  
    • joe1234
      Posted on July 21, 2011 at 9:47am

      oh and why bother to call yourself a christian when you are ashamed of the name of Christ?

      Report Post » joe1234  
    • Islesfordian
      Posted on July 21, 2011 at 9:53am

      Joe, you are the one who talks about dishonesty and fooling people. That just shows that you can‘t or won’t tell the difference between discretion and dishonesty.

      Answer me this, IF YOU CAN: Are missionaries who go into Communist or Muslim countries to “teach English” and other non-religious activities being deceitful and betraying the Lord by not proclaiming their true purpose?

      Report Post » Islesfordian  
    • joe1234
      Posted on July 21, 2011 at 10:03am

      yes they are….by definition…how hard is this? was Billy graham ever deceptive about what he was doing? was Paul?? please.

      Report Post » joe1234  
    • joe1234
      Posted on July 21, 2011 at 10:04am

      did Billy Graham ever go to a country to ‘teach english’???

      but what would he know, right, he’s only the greatest evangelist of our age….

      Report Post » joe1234  
    • joe1234
      Posted on July 21, 2011 at 10:05am

      and if your ‘discretion’ says you can’t name the Name of Christ…then what good are you?

      Report Post » joe1234  
    • Islesfordian
      Posted on July 21, 2011 at 10:27am

      Great, so you are better than missionaries. I expect you to demonstrate the integrity of your judgments by going into Muslim countries and proclaiming Christ in the public square. I will cheer you on.

      Until then chew on this.
      In John 7, Jesus misleads his brothers about whether he will go to the feast so he could go secretly:

      “6 Therefore Jesus told them, “My time is not yet here; for you any time will do. 7 The world cannot hate you, but it hates me because I testify that its works are evil. 8 You go to the festival. I am not going up to this festival, because my time has not yet fully come.” 9 After he had said this, he stayed in Galilee.
      10 However, after his brothers had left for the festival, he went also, not publicly, but in secret. ”

      In 1 Sam 16, God tells Samuel to mislead the elders of the city about his intention:

      “1 The LORD said to Samuel, “How long will you mourn for Saul, since I have rejected him as king over Israel? Fill your horn with oil and be on your way; I am sending you to Jesse of Bethlehem. I have chosen one of his sons to be king.”
       2 But Samuel said, “How can I go? If Saul hears about it, he will kill me.”
         The LORD said, “Take a heifer with you and say, ‘I have come to sacrifice to the LORD.’ 3 Invite Jesse to the sacrifice, and I will show you what to do. You are to anoint for me the one I indicate.” ”

      In 2 Kings 8, Elisha tells Hazael to lie to his king:

      Report Post » Islesfordian  
    • Islesfordian
      Posted on July 21, 2011 at 10:43am

      “was Billy graham ever deceptive about what he was doing? was Paul??”

      Let‘s look at Paul’s defense before the Council in Acts 23

      “6Now when Paul perceived that one part were Sadducees and the other Pharisees, he cried out in the council, “Brothers, I am a Pharisee, a son of Pharisees. It is with respect to the hope and the resurrection of the dead that I am on trial.” 7And when he had said this, a dissension arose between the Pharisees and the Sadducees, and the assembly was divided. 8For the Sadducees say that there is no resurrection, nor angel, nor spirit, but the Pharisees acknowledge them all.

      Now it wasn’t really because of his proclamation of the resurrection that he was on trial. He said that to divide the Council. Very crafty. Why was he on trial? Acts 22 shows him speaking before the crowd:

      “21And he [the Lord] said to me, ‘Go, for I will send you far away to the Gentiles.’”
      22Up to this word they listened to him. Then they raised their voices and said, “Away with such a fellow from the earth! For he should not be allowed to live.”

      Was Paul being completely honest before the Council in describing why he was on trial?

      Report Post » Islesfordian  
    • joe1234
      Posted on July 21, 2011 at 11:33am

      chew on this:

      romans 1:16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek.

      Luke 9: 26“For whoever is ashamed of Me and My words, the Son of Man will be ashamed of him when He comes in His glory, and the glory of the Father and of the holy angels.

      I’ve found honesty is the best policy…if you think you can deceive people into the kingdom…good luck wtih that.

      Report Post » joe1234  
    • joe1234
      Posted on July 21, 2011 at 11:37am

      and yes Paul was being completely honest. I mean seriously you’re advocating we lie for Jesus…its beyond laughable…you want us to deceive people in hopes that we can preach the gospel to them…totally insane.

      Report Post » joe1234  
    • Islesfordian
      Posted on July 21, 2011 at 11:48am

      Explain how Paul was being honest. Explain God telling Samuel to hide his intention.

      Explain. Don’t just assert against the evidence. Paul never mentioned the resurrection before the crowd in Jerusalem. How was he “completely honest” by saying he was on trial for believing the resurrection?

      If THAT is your definition of honesty then your have NO EXCUSE accusing CRU of being dishonest merely because they change their name.

      Report Post » Islesfordian  
    • joe1234
      Posted on July 21, 2011 at 12:38pm

      God told samuel to do that ONCE…not as a general principle…I mean seriously you take one verse and twist it to mean LIE FOR JESUS. your father was good at twisting scripture too.

      as far as Paul…what was he on trial for?? oh yeah believing in Jesus, who ROSE FROM THE DEAD…..I mean seriously are you for real?

      why don‘t you just admit you’re fine with lying for Jesus…what god do serve?

      Report Post » joe1234  
    • Islesfordian
      Posted on July 21, 2011 at 2:37pm

      How do you know that God didn’t tell CRU to do this? If God did it ONCE he obviously doesn‘t think it’s a sin.

      And where you you see what Paul was on trial for? You are assuming only so it will back up your argument. He never mentioned Jesus to the Council. Why was he afraid? Your eagernmess to judge other Christians shows your hypocrisy. You cut Paul slack giving him the benefit of the doubt Which is good), but not CRU. Who made you their judge discerning the intentions of their hearts you hypocrite?

      Report Post » Islesfordian  
    • joe1234
      Posted on July 21, 2011 at 3:16pm

      right God himself came down on the clouds of heaven and told CRU to do this…sure he did…yea just ignore that commandment about lying…sure go right ahead…uh huh

      why do you think Paul was on trial?? did you ever read chapter 22??

      30 The commander wanted to find out exactly why Paul was being accused by the Jews.

      what did they accuse him of?? jaywalking??? puhleaze…

      Report Post » joe1234  
    • joe1234
      Posted on July 21, 2011 at 3:17pm

      as far as being a hypocrite you holier-than-thou hypocrite…lying for Jesus. you’re an embarrasment to the Name.

      Report Post » joe1234  
    • Chet Hempstead
      Posted on July 21, 2011 at 3:59pm

      Mr. Franken is not the one who claimed that the study was relevant, Mr. Minnery is. He was wrong.

      Report Post »  
  • North_Star
    Posted on July 21, 2011 at 9:03am

    Heaven help us if Al is now defining what constitutes a family. Heaven is our only hope at this point.

    Report Post » North_Star  
1 2 3 ... 6

Sign In To Post Comments! Sign In

Sign Up For Our Newsletter!

Glenn Beck Radio

Listen to Glenn Beck 24/7 Listen Now
Restoring Love