Congratulations! Your video, Al Franken shreds anti-gay witness, has reached the #1 spot in the current Top 15 New Videos listing. This is a very difficult thing to accomplish but you managed to pull it off. For your contribution you have been awarded 2 Power Points.

This achievement has earned you your "Golden One" Level 1 Badge!

Exactly. Which means that this study cannot be used to compare same-sex to opposite-sex couples, which is what the homophobe is attempting to do.
>> ^MilkmanDan:


So basically, the study has no comment about same-sex married couples with adopted children.

>> ^ChaosEngine:

Sorry, but I don't see it. Let me state from the start that I think it's complete bullshit that same-sex couples can't get married. But this study doesn't help.
The study defines a nuclear family as "2 parents, married to each other and kids". Given that same-sex marriage isn't recognised in the states, surely the study is actually talking about a heterosexual couple exactly as the homophobe says? Again that is not to say that same sex parents are any worse, merely that this particular study doesn't seem to back Franken up.
Does anyone know of or have a link to the study in question?


ChaosEngine has it right, I think. From the basis of this clip, we can figure that the study was done in 2010 in the USA. We know how they define "nuclear family" in the study, which doesn't explicitly exclude same-sex couples, but they would be de-facto excluded or at a minimum very under-represented since same-sex marriage isn't recognized in the US (yet).

So basically, the study has no comment about same-sex married couples with adopted children. I think that it is likely that kids in such a household would have many or most of the same benefits of a heterosexual marriage. To be fair, kids in such arrangement are likely to face some stigmas and possibly bullying, but similar things have historically been / are true for adopted kids of heterosexual couples.

I think that both sides are interpreting the study in ways that aren't actually supported by the data in it. I'd wager Franken is right, but he would need another study that includes familes of same-sex marriages to prove it.

Congratulations! Your comment has just received enough votes from the community to earn you 1 Power Point. Thank you for your quality contribution to VideoSift.

This achievement has earned you your "Silver Tongue" Level 1 Badge!

The study defined nuclear family. Why would you look elsewhere for a definition, when the study provided it?

>> ^J-Main:

Umm...What about this?
.
"In its most common usage, the term nuclear family refers to a household consisting of a father, a mother and their children all in one household dwelling."
Just asking.

Your video, Al Franken shreds anti-gay witness, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'rand paul, libertarian, al franken, point of absurdity, reached' to 'rand paul, libertarian, al franken, bernie sanders, point of absurdity, reached' - edited by NetRunner

Tags for this video have been changed from 'rand, paul, libertarian, barney, franken, point, of, absurdity' to 'rand paul, libertarian, al franken, point of absurdity, reached' - edited by NetRunner

That's definitely Al Franken doing the voiceover.

>> ^Stormsinger:

I don't see anything even slightly resembling Paul the Lunatic. This guy would appear to be one of those rare (I'm tempted to say mythical) Republicans that understand the concept of facts. He comes across as far more level-headed, reasonable, and knowledgeable than most. Ignoring his positions, his behavior and presentation has far more resemblance to Al Franken than to Ron Paul. And I for one, find it much easier to work with someone who at least knows facts about the subject he's discussing, than to work with someone like Boehner or Inhofe, who wouldn't know a fact if it bit them on the ass.
The real question is how much of this is for appearance, and how much of it is real.


Shuac wasn't referring to Christie.

>> ^Stormsinger:

I don't see anything even slightly resembling Paul the Lunatic. This guy would appear to be one of those rare (I'm tempted to say mythical) Republicans that understand the concept of facts. He comes across as far more level-headed, reasonable, and knowledgeable than most. Ignoring his positions, his behavior and presentation has far more resemblance to Al Franken than to Ron Paul. And I for one, find it much easier to work with someone who at least knows facts about the subject he's discussing, than to work with someone like Boehner or Inhofe, who wouldn't know a fact if it bit them on the ass.
The real question is how much of this is for appearance, and how much of it is real.


You're right. I redacted the description.

I don't see anything even slightly resembling Paul the Lunatic. This guy would appear to be one of those rare (I'm tempted to say mythical) Republicans that understand the concept of facts. He comes across as far more level-headed, reasonable, and knowledgeable than most. Ignoring his positions, his behavior and presentation has far more resemblance to Al Franken than to Ron Paul. And I for one, find it much easier to work with someone who at least knows facts about the subject he's discussing, than to work with someone like Boehner or Inhofe, who wouldn't know a fact if it bit them on the ass.

The real question is how much of this is for appearance, and how much of it is real.

Net neutrality only addresses the symptom of a much more insidious problem. All of the companies he named have their major revenue stream in some form of government protected monopoly industry. Cable and telco media giants are the creations of government entanglement in the market. They created the monster they now claim they need to subdue. While it wasn't Al Franken that created these government protected monopolies, he proposes a solution that has time and time again shown to worsen our plight rather that help it. Any short lived deregulation ability the FCC would impose would surely over time be twiddled down by people who have billions to spend on lobbies and the ear of regulators. His sentiments of protecting free speech are admirable, but the prescription is that of an even greater disaster. Open up cable, telco, and radio markets to ACTUAL competition and their strangle hold over media will start to dissipate.

In other words, trying to kill the beast with the same thing that made the beast is foolish. Just undue that which made the beast first, then clean up any loose ends that didn't solve. It is practical, fair, and not reactionary, and doesn't open Pandora's box like it did for radio and TV (which are now HIGHLY regulated mediums).

Your video, Al Franken on Nation's Budget, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

Thanks for the promote!

In reply to this comment by Ryjkyj:
*promote