# 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:** 7
**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 28, 2011, 5:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/franken-pwns-focus-on-the-family/589772/121 "2011-07-28T05:50:21Z")
Moving on to the question of outcomes of being raised by same sex parents, and the possible influence of marriage of those parents, however - [This _Pediatrics_ report](http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/109/2/341.full) reviewed the data on same sex parents: > [@](#): > > A growing body of scientific literature demonstrates that children who grow up with 1 or 2 gay and/or lesbian parents fare as well in emotional, cognitive, social, and sexual functioning as do children whose parents are heterosexual. Children’s optimal development seems to be influenced more by the nature of the relationships and interactions within the family unit than by the particular structural form it takes. … There is also [this](http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/118/1/349.full?sid=df7e9e5a-457a-4fe3-856d-ecc0ec4a8605) from the same journal: > [@](#): > > The adjustment of children who have 2 mothers seems to be related to their parents’ satisfaction with their relationship and specifically with the division of responsibility they have worked out with regard to child care and household chores.43 Children with lesbian parents who reported greater relationship satisfaction, more egalitarian division of household and paid labor,44 and more regular contact with grandparents and other relatives45 were rated by parents and teachers to be better adjusted and to have fewer behavioral problems. These findings are consistent with general knowledge among students of child development, namely that greater stability and nurturance within a family system predicts greater security and fewer behavioral problems among children. > > Recent publications from 2 population-based samples lend additional strength to earlier evidence demonstrating that children’s well-being is not threatened as a result of growing up with lesbian parents.46,47 The importance of these studies is that the research was planned and conducted by people who had no particular interest or investment in research regarding same-gender parents. In both cases the investigations regarding lesbian parents and their children were posthoc analyses; thus, neither the sample nor the methods were influenced by a bias in support of gay parents. … parents who raised children alone reported greater stress, increased severity of parent-child conflicts, and less warmth, enjoyment of parenting, and imaginative play than did parents in a couple relationship, whether lesbian or heterosexual. Teachers reported more behavioral problems among children in single-parent families than among children who had 2 parents in the home irrespective of their sexual orientation.46 … the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health, a randomly selected, nationally representative sample of 12105 US adolescents in grades 7 through 12. The authors demonstrated that 12- to 18-year-olds living with 2 women in a “marriage-like” family arrangement (n = 44) were similar to peers whose parents were heterosexual in measures of self-esteem, depression, anxiety, school “connectedness,” and school success. Overall, adolescents reported positive family relationships, including parental warmth, care from others, personal autonomy, and neighborhood integration, and there were no systematic differences between the same-gender and opposite-gender parent families.47 … Civil marriage is a legal status that promotes healthy families by conferring a powerful set of rights, benefits, and protections that cannot be obtained by other means. Civil marriage can help foster financial and legal security, psychosocial stability, and an augmented sense of societal acceptance and support. Legal recognition of a spouse can increase the ability of adult couples to provide and care for one another and fosters a nurturing and secure environment for their children. Children who are raised by civilly married parents benefit from the legal status granted to their parents. > > Gay and lesbian people have been raising children for many years and will continue to do so in the future; the issue is whether these children will be raised by parents who have the rights, benefits, and protections of civil marriage. … There is ample evidence to show that children raised by same-gender parents fare as well as those raised by heterosexual parents. More than 25 years of research have documented that there is no relationship between parents’ sexual orientation and any measure of a child’s emotional, psychosocial, and behavioral adjustment. These data have demonstrated no risk to children as a result of growing up in a family with 1 or more gay parents. Conscientious and nurturing adults, whether they are men or women, heterosexual or homosexual, can be excellent parents. The rights, benefits, and protections of civil marriage can further strengthen these families. Given those previous findings it is reasonable to conclude that if the stability of marriage is associated with better child outcomes in general then it is extremely likely to have the same beneficial association in the case of same sex gay parents. The study cited by Minnery is silent on any direct comparison of gay to heterosexual parenting, but by documenting that marriage is good for child outcomes it is _suggests_ that gay parents married should result in better outcomes than gay parents unmarried consistent with available past data. ---
**Author:** ![BDBoop](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/5e9695/32.png) [@BDBoop](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BDBoop)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2011, 6:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/franken-pwns-focus-on-the-family/589772/122 "2011-07-28T06:00:18Z")
> [@stpauler](#): > > I hate using “pwns”, but it’s so perfect here. > > [Youtube link.](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=318DYr_K8J4&feature=player_embedded) Seriously St. Paul, as in I used to live on Central off Lexington, St. Paul? ---
**Author:** ![BDBoop](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/5e9695/32.png) [@BDBoop](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BDBoop)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2011, 6:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/franken-pwns-focus-on-the-family/589772/123 "2011-07-28T06:02:02Z")
> [@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. Man, he is who he is. Reagan was an actor, as was Arnold. Cher was a singer, then an actress, then singer, then actress. JT was an singer, then actor who is also crazy funny on SNL - and who knows. Maybe someday he’ll be a politician. Why would you want to put people in a box? ---
**Author:** ![BDBoop](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/5e9695/32.png) [@BDBoop](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BDBoop)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2011, 6:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/franken-pwns-focus-on-the-family/589772/124 "2011-07-28T06:04:35Z")
> [@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. Maybe not, but he definitely pwned Ann Coulter. [![](https://img.youtube.com/vi/susZ2ceEHwk/hqdefault.jpg "Ann Coulter, Al Franken: Who in History Would You Be? FDR & Hitler!") ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=susZ2ceEHwk) ---
**Author:** ![BDBoop](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/5e9695/32.png) [@BDBoop](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BDBoop)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2011, 6:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/franken-pwns-focus-on-the-family/589772/125 "2011-07-28T06:11:30Z")
> [@Sitnam](#): > > If you’re going to be an action hero or cowboy, be those, don’t become governor of California. Franken paused to increase the effect of his statement, calling out bullshit, not because he thought he’d get a laugh. > > It could be that you’ll find fault with him no mater how he conducts himself. I’ve watched many of his speeches. The pauses are part of his speech pattern. ---
**Author:** ![user\_hostile](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/user_hostile/32/474_2.png) [@user\_hostile](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/user_hostile)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2011, 7:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/franken-pwns-focus-on-the-family/589772/126 "2011-07-28T07:49:05Z")
> [@BDBoop](#): > > Maybe not, but he definitely pwned Ann Coulter. > > [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=susZ2ceEHwk](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=susZ2ceEHwk) Another video caught my eye. [![](https://img.youtube.com/vi/ZHx0oLrGjKY/hqdefault.jpg "Al Franken Challenges Ann Coulter on Slanting the Truth") ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZHx0oLrGjKY) Full disclosure: I like Senator Al Franken. Don’t know much about Ann Coulter. I once picked up book she wrote and after skimming through it for about five minutes figured she didn’t like liberals. Whatever. But people told me that she could be witty. Not in this video–she got caught in a lie and stumbled around like a kid who’s been called to the principle’s office was for stealing lunch money from other kids. Didn’t acknowledge she lied and punted the discussion to terrorist. Pathetic. And if this is her shtick, it is a wasted life, indeed. ---
**Author:** ![Beware\_of\_Doug](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/278dde/32.png) [@Beware\_of\_Doug](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Beware_of_Doug)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2011, 9:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/franken-pwns-focus-on-the-family/589772/127 "2011-07-28T09:33:46Z")
I suspect Franken, with his gift for exposing and vividly skewering people’s reasoning, is unwittingly playing into the hands of that sector in the right wing that’s convinced that logic is basically a Jewish parlor game they want no part of. Sort of like mah-jongg with higher stakes. Anyway, you go, Al. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2011, 12:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/franken-pwns-focus-on-the-family/589772/128 "2011-07-28T12:35:29Z")
> [@DSeid](#): > > Moving on to the question of outcomes of being raised by same sex parents, and the possible influence of marriage of those parents, however - > > [This _Pediatrics_ report](http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/109/2/341.full) reviewed the data on same sex parents: > > There is also [this](http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/118/1/349.full?sid=df7e9e5a-457a-4fe3-856d-ecc0ec4a8605) from the same journal: > Given those previous findings it is reasonable to conclude that if the stability of marriage is associated with better child outcomes in general then it is extremely likely to have the same beneficial association in the case of same sex gay parents. The study cited by Minnery is silent on any direct comparison of gay to heterosexual parenting, but by documenting that marriage is good for child outcomes it is _suggests_ that gay parents married should result in better outcomes than gay parents unmarried consistent with available past data. Without reviewing that study and its methods, I’d say I’m unsurprised, since that is the outcome I’d intuitively expect. ---
**Author:** ![MeanOldLady](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/meanoldlady/32/10737_2.png) [@MeanOldLady](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MeanOldLady)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2011, 1:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/franken-pwns-focus-on-the-family/589772/129 "2011-07-28T13:17:27Z")
> [@user\_hostile](#): > > Another video caught my eye. > > [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZHx0oLrGjKY&feature=relmfu](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZHx0oLrGjKY&feature=relmfu) Ha. Nice. \ ---
**Author:** ![BDBoop](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/5e9695/32.png) [@BDBoop](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BDBoop)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2011, 3:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/franken-pwns-focus-on-the-family/589772/130 "2011-07-28T15:00:05Z")
Yup. That second post would be one of my favorites. I can’t watch Ann Coulter. She’s /shiver … God. One angry woman. ---
**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 28, 2011, 8:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/franken-pwns-focus-on-the-family/589772/131 "2011-07-28T20:45:24Z")
Quoth **Bricker** : > [@](#): > > 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. I would not be at all surprised if there were zero same-sex couples in the sample-- That’s why I said “at best very few”. There certainly weren’t enough to be statistically significant. But there’s still at least some value in the extrapolation (which, again, I grant is an extrapolation) from the set of families in the sample to the set of same-sex-couple families. Now, ideally, you’d have studies which controlled for every variable imaginable. But when you lack that (i.e., always), you can’t do any better than assume, pending further data, that the results don’t change when you change any of the variables not controlled for. Or to rephrase in more lawyerly terms: It’s circumstantial evidence. It’s not as good as direct evidence, but even circumstantial evidence has some value, no? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2011, 10:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/franken-pwns-focus-on-the-family/589772/132 "2011-07-28T22:41:54Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > Quoth **Bricker** :I would not be at all surprised if there were zero same-sex couples in the sample-- That’s why I said “at best very few”. There certainly weren’t enough to be statistically significant. But there’s still at least some value in the extrapolation (which, again, I grant is an extrapolation) from the set of families in the sample to the set of same-sex-couple families. Now, ideally, you’d have studies which controlled for every variable imaginable. But when you lack that (i.e., always), you can’t do any better than assume, pending further data, that the results don’t change when you change any of the variables not controlled for. > > Or to rephrase in more lawyerly terms: It’s circumstantial evidence. It’s not as good as direct evidence, but even circumstantial evidence has some value, no? As a general principle? Sure. In this instance? No, because the FoF hypothesis is that same-sex couples are a poisonous influence on family stability. For you to test that hypothesis by beginning with the assumption that same-sex couples produce similar results to opposite-sex couples is fundamentally flawed. ---
**Author:** ![Cat\_Fight](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/90ced4/32.png) [@Cat\_Fight](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cat_Fight)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2011, 10:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/franken-pwns-focus-on-the-family/589772/133 "2011-07-28T22:53:21Z")
> [@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. Never watched anyone in British Parliament, I gather? It’s a fabulous show of laughter, tears and brawls. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2011, 11:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/franken-pwns-focus-on-the-family/589772/134 "2011-07-28T23:07:11Z")
> [@MeanOldLady](#): > > Yes. I was expecting some hard-core pwnage, and was ready to speak aloud with him when reading the defitinition of “nuclear family,” but was let down and emitted a disappointed “Oh.” The definition given does, largely, exclude same-sex couples just by limiting them to being married. Franken’s right that there’s nothing in the study that claims opposite-sex couples are inherently more beneficial to childrens’ well-being than same-sex couples, but it’s no zomg major pwnage like I was expecting (and wanted). This. It was more of a gotcha than a pwn. > [@](#): > > …the FoF hypothesis is that same-sex couples are a poisonous influence on family stability. For you to test that hypothesis by beginning with the assumption that same-sex couples produce similar results to opposite-sex couples is fundamentally flawed. However, the onus here is surely on FoF. They are the ones claiming the study supports their position. ---
**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 29, 2011, 12:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/franken-pwns-focus-on-the-family/589772/135 "2011-07-29T00:58:05Z")
> [@](#): > > As a general principle? Sure. > > In this instance? No, because the FoF hypothesis is that same-sex couples are a poisonous influence on family stability. For you to test that hypothesis by beginning with the assumption that same-sex couples produce similar results to opposite-sex couples is fundamentally flawed. It doesn’t address that hypothesis, but that hypothesis is relevant only because of the conclusion it leads to: That gay marriage ought to be prohibited. And the study _does_ address that conclusion. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2011, 2:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/franken-pwns-focus-on-the-family/589772/136 "2011-07-29T14:44:21Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > However, the onus here is surely on FoF. They are the ones claiming the study supports their position. Absolutely. And it does not. But neither does it refute that position. They may as well claim that stable isotopes of hydrogen prove their theory, and others may as well claim that stable istopes of carbon disprove their theory. They are simply silent on the matter, lending neither support nor rebuttal. As a more general proposition, though, it’s for the party advancing a proposition to support his own proposition. Generally, this allocates the burden of proof to the party seeking change. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2011, 2:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/franken-pwns-focus-on-the-family/589772/137 "2011-07-29T14:57:19Z")
Sure, but (with apologies for skipping the middle two pages of this thread) we are only discussing the limited issue of whether Focus on the Family is full of shit, rather than the broader subject of whether it’s okay for gay couples to adopt. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2011, 3:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/franken-pwns-focus-on-the-family/589772/138 "2011-07-29T15:11:30Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > Sure, but (with apologies for skipping the middle two pages of this thread) we are only discussing the limited issue of whether Focus on the Family is full of shit, rather than the broader subject of whether it’s okay for gay couples to adopt. That would be a short discussion: “Yes, Focus on the Family is full of shit.” But in what was presumably an excess of zeal, several posters went beyond saying that FoF was full of shit for claiming the study supported the no gay adoption position, and claimed further it actually refuted the no gay adoption position. This has been a further subject of discussion, although I think we have something close to general agreement now that the study neither supports or detracts from the FoF claim that same-sex couples are unfit adoptive (or natural) parents. ---
**Author:** ![sachertorte](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sachertorte/32/3727_2.png) [@sachertorte](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sachertorte)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2011, 3:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/franken-pwns-focus-on-the-family/589772/139 "2011-07-29T15:12:23Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > Or to rephrase in more lawyerly terms: It’s circumstantial evidence. It’s not as good as direct evidence, but even circumstantial evidence has some value, no? Calling it “circumstantial” overly undercuts the point of the study. If one wishes to exclude same sex couples from the meaning of the study then you would similarly have to exclude everyone not explicitly in the study. (That is, the study included X number of people and the results of the study apply to those X people and no one else). The whole point of such a study is to draw conclusions about people NOT IN THE STUDY. Otherwise, WTF do you think the point was? I’ll reiterate my point. The study was about marriage and the benefits of marriage to a family. To plug one’s ears and Shout “Nah nah nah nah nah, the study doesn’t actually say same-sex couples,” is incredibly short sighted. Perhaps in the legal world, that is how one operates, but this is _science_. Applying the study as evidence that marriage would benefit same sex couples and their families is entirely appropriate. Given the study, the onus would be on the nay-sayers to show that same-sex couples should be excluded from the meaning of the study. Saying “because God said so” doesn’t cut it. Saying that the study didn’t include same-sex couples doesn’t cut it either. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2011, 3:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/franken-pwns-focus-on-the-family/589772/140 "2011-07-29T15:48:30Z")
> [@sachertorte](#): > > Calling it “circumstantial” overly undercuts the point of the study. > If one wishes to exclude same sex couples from the meaning of the study then you would similarly have to exclude everyone not explicitly in the study. (That is, the study included X number of people and the results of the study apply to those X people and no one else). > The whole point of such a study is to draw conclusions about people NOT IN THE STUDY. Otherwise, WTF do you think the point was? > > I’ll reiterate my point. The study was about marriage and the benefits of marriage to a family. To plug one’s ears and Shout “Nah nah nah nah nah, the study doesn’t actually say same-sex couples,” is incredibly short sighted. Perhaps in the legal world, that is how one operates, but this is _science_. Applying the study as evidence that marriage would benefit same sex couples and their families is entirely appropriate. Given the study, the onus would be on the nay-sayers to show that same-sex couples should be excluded from the meaning of the study. Saying “because God said so” doesn’t cut it. Saying that the study didn’t include same-sex couples doesn’t cut it either. No. Science works by proposing a hypothesis, and then developing a test of that hypothesis. In this case, the hypothesis is: same-sex couples, married or not, are of less benefit to children as parents than opposite-sex couples are. No data from this particular study can be used to either confirm, or refute, that hypothesis. (I of course understand that there are likely other studies that do. But not this one). Your formulation reverses the process: you wish us to assume, without data (again, in our little world of Only-This-Study-Exists) that same-sex and copposite-sex couples provide identical benefits and then demand the opponents prove you wrong. This is called “begging the question.” You are assuming a proposition as true to begin with. It’s as if I claimed that parents who engaged in premartial sex provided worse outcomes for children than those who waited until marriage to have sex. Does the study support my claim? No. Does the study refute my claim? No. The study is utterly silent on the point. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/franken-pwns-focus-on-the-family/589772.md?page=6) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/franken-pwns-focus-on-the-family/589772.md?page=8)