Hanlon's Theatre: Al Franken destroys a Focus on the Family idiot over gay marriage

PROTIP: when citing a study, make sure you aren’t misrepresenting it, ’cause someone’s gonna catch you.

Advertisements

28 responses to “Hanlon's Theatre: Al Franken destroys a Focus on the Family idiot over gay marriage

  1. Assumptions make what again?  Gotta love Al.

  2. Unless they stacked the cards, any “study” of nuclear families under the given definition would necessarily be 99.99% heterosexual.

    To read that report and extrapolate that it extends to same-sex couples would be quite an assumption indeed.  I’d insist on an additional study before I’d accept that gay “marriage” produces the same results.

    Ninety-something percent of kids are going to end up in traditional heterosexual relationships.  I can’t see how the ones raised in homosexual households could possibly be as well prepared for their future gender roles as those raised by a mother and father.

    • Then you missed the point: that a child raised in a “nuclear family” is better than one who is not. Period. Only someone who is inherently against gay couples would attempt to say things like “I can’t see how”.

      Just because you can’t see how doesn’t mean it isn’t so. One’s lack of understanding does not equate to an impossibility. That’s a big problem in general: because people can’t “see how” something can be, they simply assume it isn’t. 

      • I didn’t miss the point: You did.  The report generalizes about “nuclear families” based on what certainly appears to be a study of traditional heterosexual couples. 

        Unless they studied a significant number of non-traditional families, it would be premature to conclude that the results are representative of alternate family arrangements.

      • You know, my only real question to this is why gay families WOULDN’T be included in a study like this?  Are they not… families?

        Wait, families HAVE to be a mom and a dad?

        All right, so what’s the difference between a “mom and dad” family to any other? 

        None… except the mom and dad family has one of each and gay families have… two moms or two dads.

        But in every other way they’re similar to any other family.  They love, they hate, they’re good together, they break up, they have good times, they have bad times…

        So really it is yet again the peeping tom types who can’t keep their heads out of the bedsheets of the bedroom, worrying about how people do it instead of the fact that those two adults LOVE their kids?

        Right; I get it.  Thanks Zach for showing where YOUR priorities are.

      • “You know, my only real question to this is why gay families WOULDN’T be included in a study like this?  Are they not… families?”

        Because the study’s definition of “nuclear family” apparently includes legal marriage, which means there would be very few such couples available for the study.  Therefore, unless the study was literally packed with gay marriages, it would have studied traditional families.

        The question is why everyone thinks a study of traditional nuclear families is representative of nontraditional families.

      • Because of how nuclear families are defined in the study, you gormless troll. You’re arguing about what you want nuclear families to be, what you think they should be, but you are completely ignoring that THAT IS NOT WHAT THE STUDY ITSELF DEFINES IT AS.

        A nuclear family, in the study: 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.

        You’re as bad as the asshole Franken burned. I mean, you are literally as bad, because your interpretation of the study and the discussion at hand runs counter to what the actual study says. You assume that nuclear families are “traditional” in that they involve a man and a woman. They do not. The study cited compares “nuclear families” as defined in the study with single-parent and structurally non-traditional families, not sexual orientationally non-traditional families. When the discussion at hand is whether gay people should be able to marry and raise families, you shouldn’t assume they shouldn’t when a study says thing consistently go better WHEN THEY MARRY AND RAISE FAMILIES.

      • Don’t be a shithead, Will. If the study used only hetero couples, then the study only applies to hetero couples.

        Unless they actually used gay marriages in the study, you can’t automatically assume that any gay marriage is the same as the hetero equivalent.

        As for the rest of your hate BS, I’m perfectly happy to change my mind if they have a study that included gay couples — or even if this study is later shown to have included a statistically significant sampling of gays.

      • It makes no distinction between them. Therefore no distinction can be made, and the study CANNOT BE OFFERED AS PROOF ONE WAY OR THE OTHER. It simply defines nuclear family in a way that both straight and gay couples with adoptive or born children count.

        You can’t pull any anti-gay bullshit from that study because there is none there. There is nothing to infer. There is nothing to extrapolate. The anti-gay garbage from this man and supported by you is OUTRIGHT MADE UP.

      • Except for one thing, Will: Gay marriages are relatively uncommon.  Gay marriages with kids who can be studied for parental effectiveness are even less common.

        So unless they actually *studied* children in gay marriages, the definition of nuclear family is a married heterosexual couple — *even* if “heterosexual” wasn’t included in the study’s definition of family.

        What if they only studied straight couples, and omitted hetero strictly out of political correctness? I realize you’ll assume that whatever we learned about straight families applies equally to gays.  Well, some people might disagree, considering that nearly all of the kids are going to be heterosexual, and that there’s a chance they could benefit from growing up around the traditional relationship.

        Now, it’s all a “what-if.”  Like everyone else, I have no idea who they studied.  I just know that there aren’t very many gay marriage nuclear families out there to be basing studies on.  How many do you think were in this study? 

      • Wrong. You are wrong. You are completely fucking wrong. The definition of nuclear family AS USED BY THE STUDY in no way specifies the sexual orientation of the parents, only that there are two parents and that they hold custody by birth or adoption (not foster parents).

        Nothing else matters. You are extrapolating something from the study that does not exist. There is no anti-gay evidence here. None. Absolutely none. To assert that there is any, as the man in the video did, is to be completely disingenuous. Just as you are by trying to claim that a distinction is made by the study when NO DISTINCTION IS MADE BY THE STUDY.

        Oh, and an estimated 6 to 14 million gay parents live in this country. So yeah, it’s statistically very likely at least one gay nuclear family was involved in the study.
        http://adoption.about.com/od/gaylesbian/f/gayparents.htm

        Make some more excuses, you homophobic shithead.

      • No Will,

        “extrapolation” occurs when you do a study of nuclear families defined as something that’s almost exclusively heterosexual — married legal parents — and then pretend it applies equally to families which, while meeting all of the specified criteria, do not meet all of the same implied criteria.  Keep wishing though.

      • “Because the study’s definition of “nuclear family” apparently includes legal marriage…”

        Wait, whoa, stop right there.

        Are you actually saying that “nuclear family” can ONLY be defined by what is considered a LEGAL marriage?

        A family… but only as the law says is a family?

        I’m sorry, but that’s not all what makes up a family.  You’re not saying that the only way a family is worthy is if it’s “legal”?  Because – and I’m sure you’ll come back with “that’s not what I’m saying” – I’m sure that IS what you are saying.

        The only families that matter are legal ones and the only legal ones are those in which the law says “yes, they are a family”.  So what, now you’re going to expect Government to tell us what a family is and isn’t?  I thought you were all for LESS Government, not more?

      • No. I’m saying the definition of nuclear family used in the study included “married,” as read by Franken. 

        Therefore, unless they actively sought “gay marriage” couples, the only “nuclear family” baseline they could have is hetero couples.  What I’m saying is that the study which draws conculsions from hetero couples doesn’t necessarily extrapolate when the definition of “nuclear family” evolves to include gay unions.

      • You fail statistics forever and you can’t extrapolate for shit.

        Gay couple where the two are men and one fathered a child in a previous relationship, afterwards getting custody.

        Gay couple where the two are women and one gave birth to a child in a previous relationship, afterwards getting custody.

        Gay couple where the two are either gender and they adopt.

        All three scenarios apply under the definition not offered by Franken, but BY THE FUCKING STUDY THE ANTI-GAY SHITBIRD HE’S REFUTING USED TO “PROVE” HOW BAD GAY MARRIAGE IS.

      • Franken’s definition of nuclear family was taken from the report. It included “married.” 

        That doesn’t leave very many gay couples to be studied.

      • You know what? Let’s walk this back. Instead of going in circles about definitions, how about you tell me these things:

        Does the study state that, if married, gay couples would make worse parents or provide a worse family life?
        Does the study provide any proof that allowing gay marriage is detrimental to the upbringing of a child?
        Does the study offer any evidence or assertion that, all other factors being equal, a gay couple would make inferior parents to a child than a straight couple?
        Now, lastly, is there any reason at all you can pull from the study that says that allowing gay marriage and allowing the ensuing gay married couples to raise children is a bad thing?

        No more pedantry. Just answer me those questions, and let’s stay on topic.

      • Not much room here, but I’m saying the study appears to prove that heterosexual marriages are good for kids.  I haven’t made any further claims about it, except to dispute the (apparently unfounded) conclusion that gay marriage families are just as good for kids.

      • Except you have no evidence of that. There’s nothing to suggest this to be the case, only your absolute conjecture and a flimsy claim that the study doesn’t explicitly state the rates of the groups separately.

        Had there been a statistical difference between heterosexual and homosexual households, it would have appeared in the study. Simple as that. Your claims have no basis beyond objective opinion; there’s no grounding in the study.

      • You have to search pretty hard to find married gay couples where both parents
        are each biological or adoptive parents to all children in the family.  So how many of them do you think were in this study which proves how good such families are for the welfare of kids?  The evidence suggests this study, while not mentioning the sexual orientation of the subjects, was conducted on primarily hetero couples.

  3. “Ninety-something percent of kids are going to end up in traditional heterosexual relationships.  I can’t see how the ones raised in homosexual households could possibly be as well prepared for their future gender roles as those raised by a mother and father. ”

    Interesting, since virtually all LGBTI/Q folks come from heterosexual parents. It would seem the hets are grooming their children to be homosexual, if I’m reading you correctly.  
     
     
     

    • Gosh, kids come from heterosexual parents.  What a newsflash.  Figured that out all on your own, did you?

      Beyond that, I’d say it’s safe to say that you’re incapable of “reading me correctly.”

      • Okay sweetie, let me type slowly so you can understand.

        1) You claim kids raised in homosexual households can’t possibly be as well prepared for their future gender roles as those raised by a male and female.

        2) I pointed out that male/female parents are responsible for creating the LGBTI/Q children who don’t fit your view of “well prepared for their gender roles,” which I assume means straight little breeders like mom and dad.

        3) You had a hissy fit and responded like a 12 year old.

        4) Beyond that, it’s very safe to say that I don’t need to know any more about you than #3.

  4. “Had there been a statistical difference between heterosexual and homosexual households, it would have appeared in the study.”

    Only if they actually had both types of households in the study. How many same-sex marriages are there where both “spouses” are legal parents of all kids in the family?

    In fact, it hasn’t been established that this “nuclear family” study included anything *but* heterosexual couples.

  5. @Zach I read the study. It doesn’t say heterosexual. There is no specification whatsoever. The study goes out of its way NOT to separate heterosexual from homosexual couplings, even in the case of what they term “blended” or “cohabiting” families.

    The point is that Minnery attempted to use the study to say that households with heterosexual parents are best, when the study DOESN’T MAKE THAT CLAIM. That’s all. Period.

  6. @Zach That’s just it, the study doesn’t say anything about that. This guy attempted to use the study to claim that heterosexual couples are best for children, when the study he cites DOESN’T MAKE THAT CLAIM. That’s the point. That’s the WHOLE point. The study doesn’t specify heterosexual vs homosexual couples, so to refer to it and make the claim that he does is impossible because the study doesn’t say that.

  7. I can’t believe you’re this thick. NO ONE can be this thick. It’s not the study drawing conclusions, it’s YOU.

    .

    I just… wow.

    Okay, so here’s a question – married is what exactly, because if this is what you’re going to base your arguments on then I think we’d best know what YOUR definition of what married is.

  8. I’ll try this again since my comment got eaten in the changeover.

    Okay sweetie, let me type slowly so you can understand.

    1) You claim kids raised in homosexual households can’t possibly be as well prepared for their future gender roles as those raised by a male and female parent.

    2) I pointed out that virtually all LGBTI/Q kids come from these same male/female parents, which means that heterosexual couples are the ones producing these children who are obviously, by your criteria, not well prepared for their gender roles as future breeders.

    3) You had a hissy fit and responded like a 12 year old.

    4) Beyond that, I’d say it’s safe to say that I don’t need to strain anything trying to read you correctly. I think #3 pretty well sums you up.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s