Franken opens a can

That is going to be an ugly discussion. I'm curious to see how the religious right takes Franken's definition of "Nuclear Family".

Its not Franken's definition; it is the study's.

Since you're going to nitpick, Franken's interpretation (which is correct IMHO).

Ok fine. The point I'm trying to make is that I'm curious to see how the religious right responds to that specific passage from the study which Franken read.

I love Al Franken.

I wonder if other weirdness on Focus on the Family's part is brought up. Several years ago a guy who needled me on the Internet signed me up to receive the newsletter. One issue that arrived had a review of a fellow Christian family counselor's book. The author talked about how fathers should do things with their sons like take them into the shower and show and discuss the difference between the sizes of their genitals.

Focus on the Family Jewels, MIRITE?!?!11

(ha cha cha cha chaaa...)

But seriously, anybody who pays attention to Dr. Dobson knows that he wields a ton of nearly-silent power over the Republican Religious Right. Just look at his flip-flop once Palin was announced.

Funny, but not necessarily good data. It's entirely possible that the DHHS used the same definition as Leahy, and simply didn't bother to clarify gender.

It's possible, but without reading the report or checking with the authors we can't assert anything. If the study was done in the past 10 years, the odds are good that the wording was intentional. I say that as someone who did this type of research on federally funded public health grants. I repeat though that we have to look at the methodology if it's detailed in the report and if not should clarify with the authors.

I threw up in my mouth a bit but... I agree with you.

If I can poison the well just a little bit -

It's Focus on the Family. We can pretty confidently assume they're lying. That's what they do. Liars for Jesus!

Testimony of Thomas Minnery (pdf)

The report - Family Structure and Children’s Health in the United States: Findings from the National Health Interview Survey, 2001-2007 (pdf)
Page 164 Appendix II. Definitions of Selected Terms

Of course they are lying. Its a wonder that all right-wing "Christians" heads don't all explode with all the mental juggling they have to constantly do.

Jesus was a tolerant, peaceful, inclusive kinda guy. His modern-day advocates are the opposite.

And where in the New Testament does it say anything about how gays should be shunned? All of that wrath of God garbage is in the Old Testament and then Jesus came along and said "no, just love each other".
Eye for an eye? Nope, wrong again. Turn the other cheek.

Basically there are a million things in the New Testament that are the complete opposite of what the teachings in the Old Testament said.
But then these Christians come along and say, "oh but the Old Testament was right about homosexuals!"

fuck off.

How unbelievably galling that these people would honestly use things like "lack of access to health care" or "financial instability" as support for their contention that same-sex couples are not qualified to raise healthy children and healthy families. You know why families headed by same-sex couples have a harder time achieving financial stability and getting health insurance and all that than do families headed by opposite-sex married couples? Because you won't let same-sex couples get married, and civil marriage is all about that very stability and protection.

There are just no words for how infuriating that is. I'm nearly shaking. That's like banning a kid from learning to read and then following him around the rest of his life using the fact that he can't read as proof that he's fundamentally incapable of succeeding in a written-word-based society. Just fucking infuriating.

The closest the Bible comes to telling Christians to shun LGBT people is Hebrews 13:4. Of course, even there it never calls Christians to action--it specifically places the responsibility for judgement on God.

Those were pretty much my thoughts as well, when I heard that part.

Indeed. Turns out, back in the day, it was among the graver sins (if not the gravest) to take it upon oneself to decide that someone or some other one ought to be cast out of God's grace for any period of time, much less for eternity. That's supposed to be God's call, and to presume to make such a call yourself was considered akin to presuming yourself to be on God's level.

Turns out, that's still supposed to be a grave sin, but maybe it's gone the way of the ban on eating pork for most Christians. I don't know; I stopped getting the newsletters a while ago now.

Also,

Meeeeee, too.

What happens at the State Fair? They let Franken loose and everyone runs after him?

Yeah, but only after they grease him up.

Franken has been such a blessing for the Senate, I wish there were more like him.

Mostly he makes balloon animals. Really fucking good balloon animals...

Earnest? Funny? Sentient? Literate?