I don’t agree with Franken on a lot of things – he is a politician, after all – but I can still appreciate it when he shoots down a wider-brimmed asshat.

Franken is indeed impressive.

That’s something that a trained, expert performer. And he did it gracefully, because he knew that pausing there would let it sink in that he’s about to call this guy out on something.

Minnery misrepresents, either through incompetence or by design, the content of the report in a way that serves to bolster his position. The rest of his testimonly must therefore be treated as untrustworthy.

Excerpted simply because it bears repeating.

@ TheViolentVicar: Seeing as how people of lower education and socio-economic status are out-breeding the more intelligent in our society, your ironic statement makes some sense. Please refer to the Mike Judge film “Idiocracy” which took data from C.M. Kornbluth’s stories “The Marching Morons” and to a lesser extent, “Shark Ship”. Intelligence is fated to be bred out of the human race.

No, I am not a homophobe, I just like to argue.

@jeligula, I continue to be astonished by the number of people who thought “Idiocracy” was a documentary and not a work of fiction.

Franken calmly pointing out Minnery’s (most likely deliberate) bad leap in logic is an example of something that needs to be seen more often in our political arena.

For far too long, there have been people using pulled quotes, referenced articles, and journals inappropriately, hoping that their short-term blow (providing them with a tasty sound bite or immediately stronger argument) will outweigh the long term effect of people discovering that the information used was unsound.

It will take a combination of responsible politics, reporting, and public behavior to change this trend, because they will only continue to use it as long as it works.

For example: Even now, if you do a Google search for “90 percent “, the seventh option is “90 percent planned parenthood”, the top response to that is (fortunately) an explanation debunking Sen. Jon Kyl’s claim about the way funds are used by the organization.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/apr/08/jon-kyl/jon-kyl-says-abortion-services-are-well-over-90-pe/

While I do agree with what Mr. Franken has to say, I have to point out, that specifically states that the “nuclear family” is defined in the study, as one where the parents are specifically “married”, without knowing which time period it was conducted, it is not unreasonable to assume that if it was conducted 3 or 4 years ago, the pool of married homosexuals was statistically smaller (Since few states recognized marriage at the time). Since it was a government study, I also think it is reasonable to assume that it did not include common law marriage (of any orientation), or marriages not recognized by the same government conducting the study.

Damian expressed my thoughts exactly.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/military-certifies-repeal-of-dont-ask-policy/2011/07/22/gIQAye15TI_story.html

It does seem that real progress is being made in favor of gay rights, and with the military now stating openly that discrimination based on sexual orientation is illegal, the fight on home front may finally be successful. While I would prefer another group to be the ones reviewing, SCOTUS may find it impossible to ignore the call of the public.

Nope. The gent is a homophobe and an imbecile. He is homophobic because he doesn’t want gay people to have the same rights as straight people. He is an imbecile because he doesn’t understand what this study is about.

Fortunately, your example has nicely illustrated the precise concept I sought unsuccessfully to convey: if one were to prohibit marriages – for the purpose of doing what is, empirically, most likely to protect the offspring – on the basis of some single criterion that defines the prospective couple, one might reasonably choose “violent”, “stupid”, “destitute”, “smacked around as a child”, or perhaps, “from a culture in which it is acceptable for the head of the household to abuse the other members of the family”. One would not choose “gay”.

Specifically to do with children. Her father’s point was that marriage was about procreation and the benefit of the children.

Her response was that she and I had no intention of procreating. Does that make our marriage any less valid?

He thought for a minute, and then decided that he needed to do more thinking on his position.

That is, if you wanted to base whether to legalize gay marriage on the basis of “What about the children?”. If that’s the case, why are none of these folks trying to pass laws preventing child abusers and people guilty of assault from marrying?

Actually, by not wanting gay couples to have the same rights, he’s a bigot. A homophobe is somebody with an irrational fear of homosexuals. Very different things.

An imbecile is an individual with some level of mental retardation. If one does not understand something, that merely makes them ignorant.

AL FRANKEN FOR PRESIDENT!

I’d rather have him than ANY of the current crop of lying scumbags who are getting ready to run, and that includes Obama (who I voted for).

If 2% of the U.S. population have or are actively serving, this is what they compare to:
Teachers = 2% (and that’s ALL teachers, all grades)
Doctors = .29%
Lawyers = .36%
(various sources, just google it)

So. I guess the military isn’t really such a “small” portion of our country. Just putting things in perspective.

Back to grandmom – While my grandfather was at sea serving as a navy doctor (I barely met him as a child, and cherish those memories) my grandmother raised eight children, the oldest born in 1941, and worked as a doctor herself (she was an early graduate of the USC College of Medicine). It was with the help of my great-grandmother and the neighborhood women that she was able to get through the rough spots.

She may be a special example, but it doesn’t take serving in the military to keep a family apart.

In today’s economic climate, a young couple may be forced to work opposite shifts in order to provide rent and childcare. (I’ve known several people who’ve done so.) During the week, they may see each other only in passing. To say they are “together at home” is a fallacy because the benefits of dual parenting (sit-down dinners, open communication, group play, cooperative discipline, etc.) are lost when both parents cannot both be at home. In California at least, commuters are often expected to work full days and then still have an hour or longer to drive or ride before they get home, and those commuters are not “a very small portion of the populace.”

Antinous wrote: “History is largely composed of men pining for home and families waiting for their husband and father’s return.” Want a fictional, but appropriate, example? Read Little Women, and rediscover the Christmas they spent waiting for their father, the chaplain during the Civil War.