Here's the study: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/series/sr_10/sr10_246.pdf
First off, the study uses the phrase "nuclear family," which has been defined **virtually in stone** for the last 60 years as a married mother and father and their children. But the study allegedly, but not explicitly, redefines the phrase.
Second, Page 15, figure 1: a pie chart that shows about 48% of the children in America being from "Nuclear" families. On the same page, the middle column of text at the bottom below figures 1 and 2, the study states that "[r]oughly 48% of all children were living in a ‘‘traditional’’ nuclear family[.]" When, pray tell, have families led by same sex married couples ever been described as "traditional?" Never! Families led by same sex couples are neither traditional nor nuclear. A more proper term would be "postmodern families."
Third, this study was conducted between 2001 and 2007 and published in 2010. How, pray tell, could their definition of "nuclear families" include those led by same sex married couples when gay marriage did not exist anywhere in the U.S. until 2004, halfway through the study? Did they go three years without including such families in their definition and data and then suddenly include them in the last three years of the study? You simply CANNOT do that and end up with a valid and viable study. No truly scientific study or experiment could ever get away with such methodology.
Fourth, and finally, only after all the fact -- after all this happened -- did the people behind the study come out and "clarify" that their dishonest definition of "nuclear family" included same sex married couples. Why would they have to clarify that 2 and a half years down the road? Shouldn't that information have been included and made obvious in the study?
It's all beginning to look like the researchers intended for this study to be deceptive. No one -- not Minnery, not Franken -- can be blamed for being duped by it (and they are both being duped by it).
Title: Re: About that study that Al Franken used against a DOMA witness
Post by: DefiantSix on July 22, 2011, 04:52:43 PM
Title: Re: About that study that Al Franken used against a DOMA witness
Post by: SSG Snuggle Bunny on July 22, 2011, 06:48:44 PM
Franken also wanted to retroactively invalidate contracts based on a KBR employee who claimed she was raped and Halliburton stuffed her in a metal shipping container and held her under armed guard to keep her silent but a court just dismissed her every claim.
Franken's credibility is shot.
Title: Re: About that study that Al Franken used against a DOMA witness
Post by: FreeBorn on July 22, 2011, 07:51:07 PM
But he's good enough, he's smart enough and doggone it, people like him! :lmao:
Title: Re: About that study that Al Franken used against a DOMA witness
Post by: thelaughingman on July 22, 2011, 11:35:51 PM