# Franken pwns Focus on the Family. **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [July 20, 2011, 10:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/franken-pwns-focus-on-the-family/589772 "2011-07-20T22:59:30Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2011, 9:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/franken-pwns-focus-on-the-family/589772/101 "2011-07-22T21:52:29Z")
> [@MeanOldLady](#): > > Not that Minnery isn’t close-minded, but that may have been his assumption because nuclear was defined as a married couple. Marriage is not legal between same-sex partners for the most part, and this was even truer in 2001-2007 when the data was collected. FotF has a history of distorting studies to support their anti gay agenda. IMO there is no “Oops I misunderstood” excuse. They took a study that said, “This study concludes that apples are good for kids” and tried to pass it off as concluding “Apples are much better for kids than oranges” I’m tired of the religious excuse for embracing ignorance that results in serious harm to others. It needs to be called out at every opportunity. So thank you Al. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2011, 9:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/franken-pwns-focus-on-the-family/589772/102 "2011-07-22T21:56:06Z")
> [@Argent\_Towers](#): > > Not that I’m surprised that there would be a bunch of Franken groupies here, but I think the guy is a prick. If you’re going to be a comedian, be a comedian. If you’re going to be a politician, just be a politician. Don’t try to also be a comedian. You can see Franken at 1:09, after he says “And it actually doesn’t say what you said it says,” take a long pause for laughter (which he assumed would happen, but didn’t.) Then he mugs for the camera after saying “it doesn’t” in an infuriatingly smug tone that would make Office Space’s Lumbergh envious. He may be right, politically, but I do not like the way he conducts himself. Then again, If Minnery and that fine Christian group FotF had been honest to begin with we wouldn’t be having this discussion. IMO, there’s no comparison. Franken is allowed to enjoy busting their lies about gays. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2011, 10:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/franken-pwns-focus-on-the-family/589772/103 "2011-07-22T22:02:56Z")
> [@Stanislaus](#): > > I hate to be a naysayer, but did Franken really pwn him? > > Yes, the _definition_ of “nuclear family” in the report included families with two married gay parents. But what about the sample? Given that the definition includes the word “married” there simply can’t be that many gay-parent nuclear families in the US at this point in time. Did the researchers oversample families with same-sex parents to take account of this, or did they just take a random sample of married-parent families? If the latter, it’s entirely plausible that the surveys findings are based on a sample that is heavily biased towards straight-led nuclear families. In which case it would say very little about the outcomes for kids in gay-led families, and it would be misleading to claim that it does. > > I haven’t dug out the report, and the make up of the sample might well permit conclusions about the nuclear family regardless of parent’s sexual orientation. But just because the definition permitted the inclusion of gay-led families doesn’t mean that’s who the findings are based on. And by leaving that point unclear, Franken hasn’t pwned anyone. It doesn’t matter if there were any SS couples in the study or not. The study had nothing to do with hetero couples as compared to SS couples. For Minnery to claim it did is a distortion and IMO intentional, since they’ve done it before. The chief author of the study said Franken was right on. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2011, 10:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/franken-pwns-focus-on-the-family/589772/104 "2011-07-22T22:11:38Z")
> [@Baracus](#): > > No it isn’t. It says that married couples - opposite gender AND not - are better parents. If we want to know if married couples - opposite gender OR not - are better parents we need to compare each group individually, not as a whole. > > I agree that the report does not support FoF’s position, but it doesn’t really refute it either. No, but they are exposed as dishonest and completely lacking in evidence to support their position. That’s a victory. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2011, 10:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/franken-pwns-focus-on-the-family/589772/105 "2011-07-22T22:22:11Z")
Doggone it, you people don’t like him? > [@Stanislaus](#): > > I hate to be a naysayer, but did Franken really pwn him? > > Yes, the _definition_ of “nuclear family” in the report included families with two married gay parents. But what about the sample? Given that the definition includes the word “married” there simply can’t be that many gay-parent nuclear families in the US at this point in time. Did the researchers oversample families with same-sex parents to take account of this, or did they just take a random sample of married-parent families? If the latter, it’s entirely plausible that the surveys findings are based on a sample that is heavily biased towards straight-led nuclear families. In which case it would say very little about the outcomes for kids in gay-led families, and it would be misleading to claim that it does. > > I haven’t dug out the report, and the make up of the sample might well permit conclusions about the nuclear family regardless of parent’s sexual orientation. But just because the definition permitted the inclusion of gay-led families doesn’t mean that’s who the findings are based on. And by leaving that point unclear, Franken hasn’t pwned anyone. I’m kinda curious about this myself - it may not even have _occurred_ to the author of the study to include same-sex couples while sampling “nuclear families”. I’d also want to see the study before calling pwnage. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2011, 10:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/franken-pwns-focus-on-the-family/589772/106 "2011-07-22T22:37:01Z")
> [@Argent\_Towers](#): > > If you’re going to be a comedian, be a comedian. If you’re going to be a politician, just be a politician. Don’t try to also be a comedian. :dubious: Tell it to Abe Lincoln. ---
**Author:** ![Merneith](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/57b2e6/32.png) [@Merneith](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Merneith)\ **Post date:** [July 23, 2011, 12:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/franken-pwns-focus-on-the-family/589772/107 "2011-07-23T00:23:11Z")
> [@Stanislaus](#): > > “At least one” is meaningless. If you subtracted that one, you’d get the same results. If the study is effectively of straight married families, then that’s what you can draw conclusions about. The study effectively doesn’t include gay married families, so you can’t draw any conclusions about their parenting one way or another. > > So yeah, FotF were wrong to claim that this study proved something about straight married vs gay married. But Franken is wrong to claim that it’s a study of married couples regardless of sexual orientation, because regardless of the definition it simply didn’t investigate any meaningful number of gay married households. “At least one” was in reply to Bricker’s implication that, because gay marriage was not legal in many states during the period in which the study was conducted, it’s believable that no gay married couples were included in the data. In actuality, I would believe that there was more than that, although, obviously, not as many as straight married couples. > [@Bricker](#): > > Why? > > The suthor has said that the study didn’t exclude them, and that’s obviously true. > > But if you had to pick ~4,500 families from 2001-2007, from the population of the United States, how likely is it that you would find a same-sex marriage? > > Think of it this way: the study also did not exclude married couples where both spouses spoke Tamazight, a relatively rare Berber language. But how confident are you that at least one couple in the study spoke Tamazight at home? > > It’s also instructive to point out the the author does NOT say the study included a same-sex couple as a nuclear family… merely that they were not excluded. > > Also not excluded: double amputees, Nobel prize winners, and graduates of the University of New South Wales. > > I assume you are not also confident that the study did in fact include double amputees, Nobel prize winners, and graduates of the University of New South Wales? > > The study cannot be used to show that speaking Tamazight at home leads to better outcomes for children. And it can’t be used to show that speaking Tamazight at home leads to WORSE outcomes for children. It has no relevance to the question. For me, the determining factor is that the lead author spoke up publicly to support Franken’s position. She could have stayed quiet. She could have said, “Well, we didn’t define “nuclear family” as a married couple with one man and one women, but Fof is correct that every married couple we studied was straight.” The lead author came flat out and said, “Senator Franken is right”. Therefore, any suggestion that maybe Senator Franken is\* wrong\*, is clearly incorrect. This, in my opinion, excludes the possibility that Franken is being unreasonable in assuming that the study included gay married couples, due to the scarcity of said gay married couples. It also, imo, excludes the possibility that perhaps Focus on Family was correct in assuming that the married couples were all straight, in contradiction to Franken’s assertion. The author endorsed Franken’s take on the study. She flat out denied the FoF take on the study. She didn’t have to do so publicly, but she did. Therefore, I believe that Franken’s take on the story is correct. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 23, 2011, 2:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/franken-pwns-focus-on-the-family/589772/108 "2011-07-23T02:41:22Z")
> [@Merneith](#): > > The lead author came flat out and said, “Senator Franken is right”. > > Therefore, any suggestion that maybe Senator Franken is\* wrong\*, is clearly incorrect. > > This, in my opinion, excludes the possibility that Franken is being unreasonable in assuming that the study included gay married couples, due to the scarcity of said gay married couples. It also, imo, excludes the possibility that perhaps Focus on Family was correct in assuming that the married couples were all straight, in contradiction to Franken’s assertion. > > The author endorsed Franken’s take on the study. She flat out denied the FoF take on the study. She didn’t have to do so publicly, but she did. Therefore, I believe that Franken’s take on the story is correct. Bullcrap. Franken never said the study included same sex married couples. He merely said that the study did not exclude them, a point on which everyone agrees. The fanciful idea that it included a same-sex married couple is pure wishful thinking, unsupported by citation and unlikely in the extreme. This is GD, where cites to facts carry the day. ---
**Author:** ![gonzomax](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e8c25b/32.png) [@gonzomax](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gonzomax)\ **Post date:** [July 23, 2011, 2:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/franken-pwns-focus-on-the-family/589772/109 "2011-07-23T02:56:58Z")
[Franken spars with hearing witness - POLITICO](http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0711/59495.html) BRICKER bent the facts yet again. It neither excludes or includes. ---
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [July 23, 2011, 3:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/franken-pwns-focus-on-the-family/589772/110 "2011-07-23T03:10:15Z")
**Bricker** , Is it your contention that the study cited by Minnery in any way provides any evidence that straight married couples are superior to gay married couples in terms of the outcomes measured by the study? Do you in any way dispute that Minnery, either out of intention or negligence, presented that study as evidence for something that the study in no way provides evidence of? Do you in any way dispute that Franken called Minnery out on that and that doing such was appropriate? ---
**Author:** ![kaltkalt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/bb73d2/32.png) [@kaltkalt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kaltkalt)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2011, 4:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/franken-pwns-focus-on-the-family/589772/111 "2011-07-27T16:04:49Z")
The worst part is you just KNOW FOF will keep printing this lie, keep distributing this lie, and keep citing that same study to support the same lie. So will fox news. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2011, 5:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/franken-pwns-focus-on-the-family/589772/112 "2011-07-27T17:32:53Z")
> [@gonzomax](#): > > [http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0711/59495.html](http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0711/59495.html) BRICKER bent the facts yet again. It neither excludes or includes. The definition of nuclear family used in the study does include same-sex married couples. The study itself almost certainly did not include any same-sex married couples in the nuclear family category, due to the paucity of available same-sex married couples during the years 2001-2007. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2011, 5:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/franken-pwns-focus-on-the-family/589772/113 "2011-07-27T17:34:00Z")
> [@DSeid](#): > > **Bricker** , > > Is it your contention that the study cited by Minnery in any way provides any evidence that straight married couples are superior to gay married couples in terms of the outcomes measured by the study? No. > [@](#): > > Do you in any way dispute that Minnery, either out of intention or negligence, presented that study as evidence for something that the study in no way provides evidence of? No. > [@](#): > > Do you in any way dispute that Franken called Minnery out on that and that doing such was appropriate? No. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2011, 5:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/franken-pwns-focus-on-the-family/589772/114 "2011-07-27T17:43:22Z")
**DSeid** , Do you agree that the study is silent on the issue of the benefits of same-sex marriage? Do you dispute that **Dangerosa** said in post 47, “It certainly does refute FoFs position, which is that gay marriage harms children;” that **Knorf** said in post 44, “[The study is] a strong argument for allowing gays to marry (since the document presents that married couples–opposite gender or not–are better parents), and not at all an argument that gays shouldn’t marry, which is what FoF tried to say it was;” and that **sachertorte** said in post 62, “The conclusion is that gay families are hurt by not having access to marriage?” Do you agree that each of these statements makes a posiitve statement about the study that the study does not support? ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2011, 8:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/franken-pwns-focus-on-the-family/589772/115 "2011-07-27T20:37:30Z")
FoF claimed that the study provided an argument against same-sex marriage. The study certainly did not provide such an argument, so the claim which FoF made was incorrect. This alone would be enough to say that Franken proved FoF wrong. Further, to the extent that the study provides an argument either way concerning gay marriage, it actually provides an argument in favor, albeit a weak one. The study shows that, among the families studied, marriage of the parent-figures provided a better outcome for the children. This does not conclusively prove that this is the case for same-sex-couple families, since there were at best very few same-sex-couple families in the study. It would therefore be an extrapolation, and extrapolations are not always valid. However, absent any inclusive study to the contrary, an extrapolation is at least circumstantial evidence. This study does provide some positive and nonzero amount of support for the premise that marriage of the heads of family in a same-sex relationship would provide better outcomes for the family’s children, which in turn is a positive and nonzero argument in favor of recognizing same-sex marriage. ---
**Author:** ![Dangerosa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/22d042/32.png) [@Dangerosa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dangerosa)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2011, 9:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/franken-pwns-focus-on-the-family/589772/116 "2011-07-27T21:21:21Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > **DSeid** , > > Do you agree that the study is silent on the issue of the benefits of same-sex marriage? > > Do you dispute that **Dangerosa** said in post 47, “It certainly does refute FoFs position, which is that gay marriage harms children;” that **Knorf** said in post 44, “[The study is] a strong argument for allowing gays to marry (since the document presents that married couples–opposite gender or not–are better parents), and not at all an argument that gays shouldn’t marry, which is what FoF tried to say it was;” and that **sachertorte** said in post 62, “The conclusion is that gay families are hurt by not having access to marriage?” > > Do you agree that each of these statements makes a posiitve statement about the study that the study does not support? I’m sorry, I didn’t mean to say that the study supported the idea that gay marriage benefits children - although I don’t see why it wouldn’t if it benefits children of straight parents. But that the study does not say that gay marriage harms children. Refute was probably the wrong word. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2011, 10:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/franken-pwns-focus-on-the-family/589772/117 "2011-07-27T22:04:19Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > FoF claimed that the study provided an argument against same-sex marriage. The study certainly did not provide such an argument, so the claim which FoF made was incorrect. This alone would be enough to say that Franken proved FoF wrong. True. And I don’t dispute that statement. It’s when people go further and try to claim that the study shows benefits from same-sex marriage, and there I disagree. For what it’s worth, I’m confident that there ARE such benefits, undoubtedly virtually identical to the benefits conferred by more traditonal marriage. But the study doesn’t support that. > [@](#): > > Further, to the extent that the study provides an argument either way concerning gay marriage, it actually provides an argument in favor, albeit a weak one. The study shows that, among the families studied, marriage of the parent-figures provided a better outcome for the children. This does not conclusively prove that this is the case for same-sex-couple families, since there were at best very few same-sex-couple families in the study. It would therefore be an extrapolation, and extrapolations are not always valid. However, absent any inclusive study to the contrary, an extrapolation is at least circumstantial evidence. This study does provide some positive and nonzero amount of support for the premise that marriage of the heads of family in a same-sex relationship would provide better outcomes for the family’s children, which in turn is a positive and nonzero argument in favor of recognizing same-sex marriage. No. I contend that the reality is that NO same-sex couples actually were in the study as “nuclear families,” since there were less than 5,000 families in the study, drawn from across the country, and for three-sevenths of the 2001-2007 timeframe covered in the study, it would not have been possible to find even one same-sex married couple. So the extrapolation is even more severe than you note: it simply becomes a matter of reasoning that same-sex couples would provide a similar level of stability. I agree that this is a generally valid inference. But you cannot offer the study to prove this point, for reasons that should be obvious. ---
**Author:** ![iamthewalrus\_3](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/258eb7/32.png) [@iamthewalrus\_3](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iamthewalrus_3)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2011, 10:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/franken-pwns-focus-on-the-family/589772/118 "2011-07-27T22:09:31Z")
> [@Ferret\_Herder](#): > > Yup. Striking down DOMA would open the doors to more gay marriages. Per that study, kids generally do best in a family with married parents. FotF essentially want to deny some kids that by ensuring their parents cannot legally marry. I think you’re overreaching quite a bit there and assuming causality when all we have is correlation. I’m all in favor of getting rid of hateful law like DOMA, but is there any evidence that children raised by same-sex couples in committed relationships who are prohibited from marriage by state law are worse off than children raised by same-sex couples who are married? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2011, 11:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/franken-pwns-focus-on-the-family/589772/119 "2011-07-27T23:09:33Z")
> [@Dangerosa](#): > > I’m sorry, I didn’t mean to say that the study supported the idea that gay marriage benefits children - although I don’t see why it wouldn’t if it benefits children of straight parents. But that the study does not say that gay marriage harms children. Refute was probably the wrong word. I agree with everything you wrote here. ---
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2011, 11:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/franken-pwns-focus-on-the-family/589772/120 "2011-07-27T23:36:07Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > **DSeid** , > > Do you agree that the study is silent on the issue of the benefits of same-sex marriage? Yes. Silent on benefit or harm. > [@](#): > > Do you dispute that **Dangerosa** said … No. And her correction stands on its own. Glad we are all on the same page. 🙂 [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/franken-pwns-focus-on-the-family/589772.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/franken-pwns-focus-on-the-family/589772.md?page=7)