Comments on: Franken on Focus on the Family’s Minnery on the Blackwell HHS Study

By: shcb

shcb — Fri, 22 Jul 2011 21:38:21 +0000

yup, happy fishing (beer drinking) this weekend

By: NorthernLite

NorthernLite — Fri, 22 Jul 2011 19:10:27 +0000

Well, it turns out that he is good enough, that he is smart enough and gosh darnit, people like him!

:-)

By: shcb

shcb — Fri, 22 Jul 2011 03:19:51 +0000

Both parties in this discussion could say the same thing. It doesn’t validate or invalidate either side, it’s just theater. The study wasn’t designed to study the fitness of same sex unions but both sides are using it for that purpose on opposite sides of the argument. I don’t have a problem with Franken crying foul but his intent is just as bad. Scratch that, almost as bad, Franken was more in the right, in fact I will give Franken the benefit of the doubt and say he was pretty darn close to correct, the folks that are editorializing about this are however as wrong as the Focus on the Family people.

I have been very surprised with Franken, and Hillary for that matter, I may not agree with their policies but as far as I can see they have taken their positions seriously and don’t seem to have just used them for a stepping stone to self promotion.

I absolutely despised Franken when he was on Air America but I have a generous amount of respect for him now.

By: Smith

Smith — Fri, 22 Jul 2011 01:57:35 +0000

cont. …the specific class that he has referenced does not invalidate his remark.

If someone claims that attribute X, by definition, applies to a group that includes red widgets, you cannot argue against this claim by saying that red widgets are only available in a limited area; whereas, green widgets are available everywhere. Your argument is representative of your typical ignorant dreck.

By: Smith

Smith — Fri, 22 Jul 2011 01:42:53 +0000

It looks like you are tap dancing just as much.

He asked if a married same-sex couple would fall under the definition used in the study. It is not an unqualified question about all same-sex couples; his question singles out specifically those that are married. The impossibility of marriage in 49 states does not negate his question about the status of married same-sex couples. Just because you have deliberately chosen to misrepresent his comment by broadening the scope of his remarks beyond

By: shcb

shcb — Thu, 21 Jul 2011 21:53:27 +0000

Franken isn’t exactly truthful either, The report is from 2001 to 2007, only Massachusetts allowed same sex marriage in 2007 the report defines a nuclear family as one being married so he is right about 1 state but wrong about 49. I’m no fan of Focus on the Family but Franken is about as wrong as they are on this one.

I liked this tap dance

Debra L. Blackwell, lead author of the CDC study, later told Politico.com that “Sen. Franken is right” — the study neither excluded same-sex couples, nor excluded them from the category of nuclear family so long as the couples otherwise fit the study’s definition of nuclear family:

But same sex couples wouldn’t fit that definition in 49 states