Franken Exposes Anti-Gay Group For Lying In Their Report

[Grassy Knoll]

Run time: 02:26 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=318DYr_K8J4   Posted on YouTube: July 20, 2011 By YouTube Member: tpmtv Views on YouTube: 301   Posted on DU: July 21, 2011 By DU Member: Grassy Knoll Views on DU: 4022

 

[yardwork]

1. I love this guy.

2. Wish I could like this a dozen times more.

ONe of the best things to happen for the Democratic party was Franken's election. I love the guy.

[mucifer]

3. I loved the way Al stared him down and at the end the

guy was a bowl of jello. When Al said he couldn't trust any of his testimony because he lied in that one part all the guy could do was nod his head.

Brilliant!

[orockwell]

9. Al was wrong-- unfortunately. He's the one who screwed up, not the other guy

He didn't lie. It was Franken who was wrong. The definition that Franken read to the guy clearly DID restrict the report's "nuclear" families to straight married couples.

The key word in that definition of nuclear family is "married." Think about it. If that word wasn't in there then Franken would have been correct. But as it was, he wasn't thinking.

Legalizing gay marriage is what the Hearing was all about today. So how come Al couldn't remember this?

[mucifer]

10. Many gays and lesbians have had marriage ceremonies for years.

I think that's what Al meant.

[orockwell]

20. But that's not what the Report meant

Al might have meant one thing, as most of us do, but the Report defined nuclear families as being under "married" couples.

So Al reads this defintion aloud and then asks the guy if there's anything that restricts it to straights, as if there is not. But there is: the restrictive term "married."

Since gay marriage is illegal in most places-- certainly when the report was compiled-- by necessity married means straight right now. Gay couples may get married of sorts, but they're not really married-- that's what the whole Judiciary Hearing was about !

Al totally screwed up on this one. He didn't realize that a defining term proved the Focus guy correct in his reference-- as far as it goes.

It was a HUGE gaffe that no one seems to have caught. Certainly no moment for gloating.

[ScottLand]

11. I didn't hear them use the word "straight".

And where would straight common law couples fall into this equation? Would they be considered the same if they were same sex or opposite sex?

[SemperEadem]

14. the definition which the study used was not father/mother

it said "two parents". Period.

Scroll your little way to 1:56 on this clip and LISTEN to what Sen. Franken says. He reads the DEFINITION which the study used in their report.

so, Franken was NOT wrong.

[orockwell]

24. The definition said "married" couple. That's the problem for Franken

Franken read the definition which restricted nuclear families to married couples. Then he forgot that "married" couples in this day and age are restricted to straights.

The answer to his big question then-- the one that he thought he nailed the guy on-- is "YES-- if the couples are restricted to 'married' by definition then by necessity they are straight-- still."

That's the big problem he was there to address at the Hearing!

So technically the Focus guy was correct to cite this study as backing the benefits of straight married couples and kids-- to that end only.

[jberryhill]

17. "Legalizing gay marriage is what the Hearing was all about today"

No, that is not what the hearings were about.

The federal government cannot render same sex marriage legal or illegal. Only states can do that.

The hearing was about DOMA which purports to affect the interstate recognition of marriages, and which relates to whether the federal government recognizes various state sanctioned marriages for federal purposes.

That is not about "legalizing gay marriage" which is, quite obviously, legal in a number of states, and has been for some time.

[orockwell]

25. Legalizing it federally was the big issue-- it's the same thing

Look, the whole issue was DOMA and gay marriage. So why Franken forgot that "married" couples still have to be straight in most places-- especially during that Report's tenure-- is very baffling.

[jberryhill]

28. No it is not the same thing

And I will wait for your explanation of how the report in question, assuming that its two-parent families were all straight, has relevance to the issue under debate.

Thank you.

[DeSwiss]

4. Way to go Al!

- K&R

[Blue Owl]

5. The Right Wing & Facts -- mutually exclusive

Thanks Al, on behalf of those of us who don't live in fundy fantasy land.

[Auggie]

6. Beautiful smackdown

[Prana69]

7. That was beautiful. "It doesn't". Just left it hanging there. n/t

[orockwell]

8. Sorry guys, but Al screwed up bigtime

I posted this elsewhere, but it bears repeating. It was actually Franken who screwed up, not the Focus guy. Progressives need to get a brain, and I hate the DOMA too.

Here's why he's wrong.

Al correctly read the report's definition of nuclear family, which defined it as consisting of married couples with natural or adoptive children, etc. But think about it. Since gay marriage is illegal under the DOMA-- which is what they were meeting about today-- as well as most state laws, especially in 2010, that means by necessity all "married" couples must be straight so far. That is if they are "married" by definition.

There's no other way right now. So the 2010 study indeed was referring to nuclear families as conventional straight marriages. It had to by definition as long as the word "married" was in it. Which means the Focus on the Family guy was technically correct-- as far as it goes.

Think about it.

So next time don't get so giddy so quick. This stuff's not that easy.

[mac56]

12. Is there an echo in here?

Many gay and lesbian couples have had marriage ceremonies for years.

[orockwell]

21. But they're not really married-- that's the point of the Hearing

The Report defined nuclear families as being under "married" couples. Right now "married" means straight. This is the whole problem that Al forgot.

So technically the Focus guy was correct to derive that the report said straight couples are better than none, or whatever his point was.

[mac56]

13. Progressives need to "get a brain"?

Obviously you don't know the history of that phrase around here.

[SemperEadem]

15. DEFINITION WHICH THE STUDY USED DID NOT SAY 'MOTHER/FATHER'.

It said TWO PARENTS. Period. Scroll your little way to 1:56 on this clip and LISTEN to what Sen. Franken says. He reads the DEFINITION which the study used in their report.

the witness lied on a report which was submitted to Congress.

Franken was NOT wrong. Don't get it twisted.

[orockwell]

22. He ignored the report's definition

Check the transcript.

What Al did is read a definition of "nuclear familes" which restricted them to "married" couples, and then asked the guy if this meant straight only, as if it did NOT.

But it did-- implicitly-- because it's built into the restrictive term "married." That's the Report's definition, not mine.

It was really a huge gaffe for Franken-- he apparently forgot at a Hearing about illegal gay marriage that "married" by necessity STILL means straight almost everywhere, because gays can't generally get married under the law.

[jberryhill]

26. Did the report compare outcomes in gay and straight parent families? No.

It didn't.

The witness claims that it did.

Even if one agreed with the point you are trying to make, it remains that the report is at best irrelevant to the purpose for which it is used to support the position of the witness.

If the report compared:

1. Absent parent families, and

2. Straight two-parent families

Then how is the report relevant to the discussion of gay marriage?

[stlsaxman]

16. Wow! I found your picture on the interwebs- I"m series!! It's HUGH!!!1!

[Mark Baker]

18. Yes, but that still doesn't make the other guy right

The report shows that children brought up by married couples - who will almost all be straight, it's true, but that's not explicitly mentioned - do better than those brought up by non-married couples or single parents - most of whom will also be straight.

So it is logically incorrect to use it as a reason why gays shouldn't marry. If anything it's an argument for the other side - support gay marriage so that the children they do adopt get the benefit.

[orockwell]

23. Absolutely-- but Franken messed up, and progressives are gloating?

I agree. Just because straight couples are good doesn't mean gay couples cannot be.

But all this rejoicing about Franken's major, mindless screwup is baffling. Technically the Focus guy was correct as far as he goes about straights vis a vis the Report. He didn't "lie," and Franken is the one who made a fool of himself by not realizing that the Report restricted nuclear familes to married couples only.

Why is this important? It shows that liberals can be just as dumb and self-righteous as the Right.

[DeSwiss]

19. It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool......

...than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt. ~Abraham Lincoln

[jberryhill]

27. Please explain the relevance of the report to the issue of gay marriage

I will accept, for the purpose of argument, that the report implicitly assumes straight couples, which is the point you are trying to make.

Fine. Let's take that as a given.

Can you explain to me, then, what is the relevance of a report comparing outcomes of single parent families, and straight two-parent families, to the issue of whether gay people should be permitted by law to marry?

If the report assumed straight couples, then it is not relevant to the issue now is it?

So, what is your point?

[Wraith20878]

29. I was to late to recommend

but here's a kick instead. Franken rules.

[Poll_Blind]

30. I just saw this- excellent! Too late to rec, but here's a KICK!

:kick:

PB