"Marriage Protection Week" sponsors' lies exposed

[Otto]

The National Gay and Lesbian Task Force has done a website survey (http://www.ngltf.org/library/index.cfm) (available here in pdf) of the 29 organizations which are sponsoring the ridiculous "Marriage Protection Week" and has found that their obsession with homosexuality dwarfs their concern over issues which actually threaten marriages. The analysis looked at website content of nine of the sponsoring organizations with search engines and found that documents containing the word "homosexual" far exceeded those discussing topics such as divorce, health insurance, domestic violence, child abuse or poverty. The web sites of nine of the co-sponsoring organizations have a total of 2,369 documents containing the word "homosexual," but only 1,423 that contain the word "divorce", 952 with "health care," 832 with "poverty," 207 with "health insurance," 190 with "domestic violence," and 85 with "child support."

For example, Concerned Women for America (CWA), a $12 million-a-year "public policy women's organization," has 602 documents that contain the word homosexual, more than double the number of documents that have the word "divorce," "health care," "poverty," "domestic violence," " or "child support" combined. The only issue with a greater number of references is "abortion," which the organization believes to be the equivalent of murder and seeks to outlaw. In addition, the sponsors and equivalent groups frequently go on at length about the "well-funded homosexual lobby" with budgets that tower over those of anything the radical right can muster. The analysis also found that -- contrary to the repeated assertions of the sponsoring organizations -- their resources dwarf those of the nation's leading gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender advocacy organizations. The Task Force was able to obtain recent income information for 13 of the 29 organizations co-sponsoring "Marriage Protection Week." The combined income of just those 13 groups was $217 million, outstripping the combined income of the 13 largest national gay advocacy organizations - just $54 million -- by a margin of more than four to one....The analysis noted that income data was not available for 16 of the week's sponsors, including several with enormous resources and clout, such as Bott Broadcasting, which owns at least 28 radio stations, and the Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission, the public policy arm of the Southern Baptist Convention, the nation's second largest denomination. And for all the talk of building and strengthening marriages, none of the activities sponsored for the week are about strengthening marriages. Finally, the analysis found that contrary to President Bush's October 3, 2003 proclamation, there is no focus at all in the week's planned activities on building strong and healthy marriages. (President Bush's proclamation states that the week "provides an opportunity to focus our efforts on preserving the sanctity of marriage and on building strong and healthy marriages.") Instead, all of the publicly announced and suggested activities focus exclusively on the supposed threat that the effort to win equal civil marriage rights for gay couples poses to the institution of marriage. For example, participants are urged to contact their U.S. Senators and Members of Congress urging them to support amending the U.S. Constitution to prohibit the recognition of same-sex marriages, and to prohibit any court from interpreting any statute to extend benefits to unmarried couples. The week's sponsors also urge the use of two model sermons, both of which are replete with inflammatory anti-gay language but devoid of references to building strong marriages. Finally, elected officials are being asked to sign a pledge not to support even the most basic forms of partner recognition, such as hospital visitation rights or health insurance coverage.
Like it's some shock that the radical right lies through its collective teeth about homosexuality, but it's always good to see the lies exposed.

[Esprix]

Pathetic. Kudos to the NGLTF.

Esprix

[Conflict of Interest]

you used an obviously biased source to expose another obviously biased source. And this proves what? That both sides have an agenda?

[Opus1]

Conflict of Interest:

It proves that Defense of Marriage Week is more about homosexuals than marriage, and that the groups sponsoring it are lying through their teeth about their true intentions--something you haven't been able to rebut just by calling both sides "biased."

[Conflict of Interest]

I wasn't attempting to try to discredit either side. You were the one that tried to do that by using a biased source.

I have seen you point out the same thing on several occations. Do you think it's ok for you to do it but not others?

[Miller]

Originally posted by Conflict of Interest
you used an obviously biased source to expose another obviously biased source. And this proves what? That both sides have an agenda?

What it proves is that, of the two sides to this debate, one is upfront and honest about its bias and agenda, while the other lies and deceives. The fact that the organizations behind "Keep Down the Homos Week" have to crouch their campaign in terms of "protecting marriage" shows just how empty and disgusting their agenda is.

[carrot]

Originally posted by Miller
What it proves is that, of the two sides to this debate, one is upfront and honest about its bias and agenda, while the other lies and deceives. The fact that the organizations behind "Keep Down the Homos Week" have to crouch their campaign in terms of "protecting marriage" shows just how empty and disgusting their agenda is. While you have a serious point, I just want to point out that "crouch their campaign" is a really hilarious description.

[Otto]

you used an obviously biased source to expose another obviously biased source. If the data are true and accurate the source is irrelevant. Shame on you for engaging in a logical fallacy. Falsify the data or shove off.

[Miller]

Originally posted by carrot
While you have a serious point, I just want to point out that "crouch their campaign" is a really hilarious description.

I blame the extra "R" in "couch" on the vast right-wing conspiracy.

[Conflict of Interest]

Otto, how can you claim the data is accurate? I'm not picking either side.. I just see this as another rant by you that the protection of marriage view is anti homosexual. It probably is but that doesn't mean the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force is not out there trying to discredit anything that is said negatively againt homosexuals.

Push your own agenda if you like. That is your right. But it isn't fair when you complain when others push theirs because it conflicts with yours.

And Opus1, I really don't have a definative answer to your question but in my own mind I think it is largely because the only group that is pushing for non-traditional marriage rights are the Gay and Lesbians.

I just think that if some conservative tried to prove to you how degenerate and evil homosexuals were and used a right-wing source to support their claim you would be all over them. Why should this be any different?

[SkipMagic]

Originally posted by Conflict of Interest
but in my own mind I think it is largely because the only group that is pushing for non-traditional marriage rights are the Gay and Lesbians.

How many other groups are denied the right to marry?

[Captain Amazing]

The difference is that the NGLTF, in that report, lays out their methodology for their study. Now, if you think they made factual errors, or you interpret the data differently, that's fine, but you can't dismiss it just because it comes from the NGLTF (even though, granted, the NGLTF is avowedly pro-gay).

Likewise, you can't criticize the conservative's right wing "Degenerate homos" study just because it's right wing. You can question their methodology, facts, or interpretation, which is what a reasonable poster on here would do. I don't think Otto, or anybody else here would just dismiss the study saying, "Well, it's right wing, so of course it's wrong". They'd look at the study and say stuff like, "They should have interviewed gay people who weren't serial killers" and "But he never actually proves that the iceberg that sunk the Titanic was gay".

Besides, are the results of this study honestly a surprise to you?

You know, it's frustrating as hell, because I think there's something to be said for encouraging couples to get married and fostering strong families, and in general, building a sense of family and community. But the damn anti-gay, anti-everyone who isn't like them bigots have stolen the family values issue and perverted it into a weapon against gay people, single parents, and liberals.

[Esprix]

Originally posted by Conflict of Interest

Otto, how can you claim the data is accurate?

Um, because it is?

I just think that if some conservative tried to prove to you how degenerate and evil homosexuals were and used a right-wing source to support their claim you would be all over them. Why should this be any different?

Um, because their information is correct?

Not sure why you're debunking the source when the source doesn't need debunking.

Esprix

[Denis]

As a happily married straight man (15 years next month!), I see absolutely no threat to marriage by allowing gays to be married and given all the rights and responsibilities of marriage.

How on earth could allowing Esprix, and millions of others, to enjoy the same rights I have as a citizen damage the rights of my family? How does it hurt the sanctity?*

Fuck marriage protection week! My wife and I protect marriage every time we make a decision together, when we take care of our two children, deal with crises, etc. We do it married. As a legally recognized couple. We don't need Bush and his fundaloonie friends to know that we have a solid relationship.

I think it is shameful that this great country has a hateful and fearful element that prevents this basic birthright to many of its citizens.

BTW: Yes, as others have said, the NGLTF is biased. Hugely. They want to be recognised as full citizens, just like every mouth-breathing bigot who "defends" marriage against the EEVUL HOMASEXSHULS. They have much the same struggle as other minorities have had, and won. They have my moral support, and, more importantly, my vote.




*Disclaimer: Yes, as I've stated before on the boards, I am an atheist. However, I do hold some things sacred. The supernatural has nothing to do with it. "Humanist" would be an apt description of my approach to life.

[Tyrrell McAllister]

I'm on the side of those who believe that the bias of National Gay and Lesbian Task Force does not invalidate their arguments. The numbers are the numbers. You need to argue either that they are false or that they do not imply the conclusions drawn. But if you rebuttal consists of just calling the source biased, you are committing the fallacy of poisoning the well (http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html#hominem). Really, if crying "bias" were a valid response to any argument, no one could argue for anything, since people who argue for some conclusion are generally biased in favor of that conclusion. Why else would they be arguing for it?

That said, my inner nitpicker is compelled to point out that this part at least from the quoted study is incorrect:
The combined income of just those 13 groups was $217 million, outstripping the combined income of the 13 largest national gay advocacy organizations - just $54 million -- by a margin of more than four to one....$217 million outstrips $54 million by a margin of three to one, not four to one.

[Tyrrell McAllister]

Damn. I'm so used to a common error that I see it even when it isn't there. The National Gay and Lesbian Task Force did not make the error I thought they did above. My apologies.

If anyone cares, I was thinking of mistakes like the following: "One fifth of the ping-pong balls in this urn are blue and the rest are red. Therefore, the red ping-pong balls out number the blue ones five to one."

[matt_mcl]

Push your own agenda if you like. That is your right. But it isn't fair when you complain when others push theirs because it conflicts with yours.

Is it fair to complain when others lie in the process of pushing their agenda?

[Typo Negative]

Originally posted by Opus1
It proves that Defense of Marriage Week is more about homosexuals than marriage, yeah, but......was anyone unclear on this point??

[matt_mcl]

And I'd like to congratulate our buddy Conflict on successfully elucidating the fact that the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force is biased in favour of gay rights.

I don't know how long we thought we could get away with that one.

Next up: Greenpeace in favour of environmentalism; matt_mcl in favour of public transit and hot British boys.

[Shade]

Originally posted by spooje
yeah, but......was anyone unclear on this point?? Whoever called it 'Defense of Marriage week'?

[Cerri]

Originally posted by matt_mcl
And I'd like to congratulate our buddy Conflict on successfully elucidating the fact that the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force is biased in favour of gay rights.

I don't know how long we thought we could get away with that one.

Next up: Greenpeace in favour of environmentalism; matt_mcl in favour of public transit and hot British boys.

(bolding mine)

WTF!!!

Godammit, no one tells me anything...next thing I suppose you'll be tryin to tell me PETA is against eating meat. :p

[MsRobyn]

Originally posted by matt_mcl

matt_mcl in favour of public transit and hot British boys.

No! I had no idea... :eek: ;)

Robin

[PunditLisa]

Despite your collective sarcasm, Conflict brought up a very valid point.

Is the data PETA cites on their articles denouncing research labs INCORRECT? Not necessarily. But it's important to know that PETA's agenda is to shut down all animal research labs before I read their articles. I need to realize that any data they came across that didn't support their position, or even discredited their position, was tossed out the window and that they are only reporting the data that supports their position.

In other words, I need to know the difference between information and propaganda. What Otto cited was the latter and Conflict respectfully pointed that out.

[Otto]

Is the data PETA cites on their articles denouncing research labs INCORRECT? Not necessarily. But it's important to know that PETA's agenda is to shut down all animal research labs before I read their articles. I need to realize that any data they came across that didn't support their position, or even discredited their position, was tossed out the window and that they are only reporting the data that supports their position. Cite that PeTA manipulates and/or discards data that don't support its claims? Reason why PeTA's allegedly doing this has any bearing on NGLTF's report? Shred of evidence that NGLTF's report is in any manner incorrect or the methodology defective?

Didn't think so.

In other words, I need to know the difference between information and propaganda. What Otto cited was the latter and Conflict respectfully pointed that out. Dismissing factual information as "propaganda" is fucking bizarre.

[PunditLisa]

Dismissing factual information as "propaganda" is fucking bizarre.

Otto, I'm a political scientist. I spent a year in college learning how spin doctors manipulate data to come up with "facts" that support their side.

Let me illustrate using your quote above:

"The analysis looked at website content of nine of the sponsoring organizations with search engines and found that documents containing the word "homosexual" far exceeded those discussing topics such as divorce, health insurance, domestic violence, child abuse or poverty. The web sites of nine of the co-sponsoring organizations have a total of 2,369 documents containing the word "homosexual," but only 1,423 that contain the word "divorce", 952 with "health care," 832 with "poverty," 207 with "health insurance," 190 with "domestic violence," and 85 with "child support.""

Sounds factual enough. But let's read it again.

1) "The analysis looked at the websites of nine of the sponsoring organizations." Hmm. Red flag. According to a later quote, there are TWENTY NINE sponsoring organizations. Why did they not analyze all 29 sponsoring sites? Did they run out of money? Did they just do a random sampling and if so, why did they decide that 31% was a good sampling? Is it possible that they DID indeed have data for all 29 organizations but only included the 9 websites that best supported their position? That would be important to know, wouldn't it? Because this COULD mean that 20 of the sponsoring organizations, or 69% of the sponsors, didn't mention "homosexual" AT ALL in their documents. And that's more an exoneration than an indictment.

2) "The web sites of nine of the co-sponsoring organizations have a total of 2,369 documents containing the word "homosexual," but only 1,423 that contain the word "divorce", 952 with "health care," 832 with "poverty," 207 with "health insurance," 190 with "domestic violence," and 85 with "child support.""

This is just bad science. First of all, it presumes to draw a conclusion based on the appearance of a WORD. Absolutely no context is given. For all we know, one sponsoring site used the word "homosexual" 1500 times in an endorsement of homosexual adoption!

And, once again, there are those missing 20 sponsoring sites! Why weren't they included? What if the keywords "divorce" and "child support" were mentioned 5 times more often than "homosexual" if you included all 29 sites? The analyst probably wouldn't report that if that were true, would he? Because that changes the flavor of the conclusion quite significantly, doesn't it? And his job is to persuade.

I'm not saying that every conclusion is flawed. I'm just saying we should ask questions when we read "facts." The first question when reading any analysis is this: Who sponsored the research and what is their agenda? Because the agenda will always flavor the result. We just need to figure out how much.

[Early Out]

Um, PunditLisa, the NGLTF's report clearly states, in footnote 4, that only these 9 websites had search functions that allowed them to perform their tallies. They would have no other way of doing the research, short of downloading every document available on each of the other websites. In fact, it's not even clear that all of the 29 organizations have websites at all (though I'd suspect that they do).

[Marley23]

And Opus1, I really don't have a definative answer to your question but in my own mind I think it is largely because the only group that is pushing for non-traditional marriage rights are the Gay and Lesbians.
This isn't "Traditional Marriage Week," it's "Marriage Protection Week." The implication is that is gays get to marry, it'll ruin it for everybody else. There goes the neighborhood!

It's not news to anybody that this is just an anti-gay event, but getting some data out there to back that up is a good thing.

[Marley23]

... Likewise with the ideqa that marriage has to be protected from homosexuals in the "Defense of Marriage" Act.

[cheddarsnax]

Originally posted by Early Out
Um, PunditLisa, the NGLTF's report clearly states, in footnote 4, that only these 9 websites had search functions that allowed them to perform their tallies. They would have no other way of doing the research, short of downloading every document available on each of the other websites.
So if it's hard to get the relevant data, it should just be left out?

[Early Out]

Originally posted by cheddarsnax
So if it's hard to get the relevant data, it should just be left out? Well, if your choice is between collecting only the data you can get without spending an inordinate amount of time and money doing so, and not collecting any data, I guess I'll take the former.

And actually, getting data only from the websites that have a "search" function might very well produce a reasonable random sample. After all, the NGLTF didn't decide which sites would have a "search" function. When they set out to check up on the sponsors, I assume they didn't know in advance which ones would be searchable and which ones wouldn't. And I don't think there's any reason to think that anyone would have manipulated the sample ("Well, we don't want them looking at our documents, so let's remove our 'search' function!")

[Enderw24]

I have just completed a search of this thread. Here are my results:

19 instances of the word homosexual
7 instances of the word divorce
4 instances of the phrase health care
6 instances of the word poverty
6 instances of the phrase health insurance
6 instances of the phrase domestic violence
5 instances of the phrase child support

Conclusion: the straight dope message board has an agenda against homosexuals.

[Zenster]

There are very few things that could ever make me be ashamed of my country.

This is one of them.

Shrub's blatantly anti-gay agenda goes against everything this nation stands for. His profound and illimitless hypocrisy are probably the only thing that permits him to sleep peacefully at night.

I can only hope that Robertson's call to nuke the state department woke up a portion of our population to just how dangerous these fundamentalist zealots are.

I am disgusted.

[anya marie]

If and when i get married, I hereby invite all gay people to come to the ceremony and threaten the marriage. We'll have pizza and beer, and a pinata with the head of George the Younger.

[PunditLisa]

Um, PunditLisa, the NGLTF's report clearly states, in footnote 4, that only these 9 websites had search functions that allowed them to perform their tallies. They would have no other way of doing the research, short of downloading every document available on each of the other websites. In fact, it's not even clear that all of the 29 organizations have websites at all (though I'd suspect that they do).

Early Out, really good points. Doesn't really change the fact that 69% of the sponsoring sites were NOT included in the study.

(See how easy it is to spin data to support a position? Actually 31%, if truly a random sampling, is an excellent number.)

Of course, even though the sampling was good, I think you'd have to concede that the mere counting of keywords is a piss poor method of gleaning good information. Or that the website of a group's political adversary is a bad place to get unbiased information.

[Gadfly]

Well, PunditLisa, it would seem to me that the effectiveness of counting words depends on context. If we operate on the premise that one of Marriage Protection Week's major goals was to "protect the sanctity of marriage", then the inference that instances of the word homosexual would be at least neutral to homosexuality, if not hostile, is valid.

Marriage is a union between a man and a woman, and my Administration is working to support the institution of marriage by helping couples build successful marriages and be good parents.

I don't think that any groups friendly to homosexual marriage would sponsor an event so obviously targeting gay marriage. Also, there's the fun coincidence that Marriage Protection Week was announced not long after Canada legalized gay marriage.

[Gadfly]

Link to the previous article mentioned, on sour dough, with romano cheese:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/10/20031003-12.html

[matt_mcl]

Also, there's the fun coincidence that Marriage Protection Week was announced not long after Canada legalized gay marriage.

...to begin on the date of the anniversary of Matt Shepard's death.

[Gadfly]

Originally posted by matt_mcl
...to begin on the date of the anniversary of Matt Shepard's death.

Wow, that's sinister. Can't believe I missed that one. I don't think that was on purpose, but it's just a bit distasteful to begin what's essentially a "Gays Aren't Welcome" week on the anniversary of a brutal hate crime against the very same group.

[Marley23]

Conclusion: the straight dope message board has an agenda against homosexuals.
And if this thread was a purported sponsor of "Marriage Protection Week," that might mean something!

Like it's such a stretch to suggest that "Marriage Protection Week" is really "Stop Gay Marriage Week." As if nobody knew that, and it's a bizarre thing to even imply. I mean, who in their right minds would ever accuse the religious right of being biased against homosexuals?

I'm sure if we go and search these sites ourselves, we'll find that it's all been a big misunderstanding. The "Marriage Protection Week" sponsors have been writing and posting tons of documents about their support for gay marriage, gay rights, and so forth. The fact that they devote way more space to talking about homosexuality than to all kinds of threats and problems in marriages has no other meaning, and we're wrong to assume these people might have any kind of agenda beyond the stated one. Silly us!

...Of course, if you actually just read the report, they quote a number of statements that are absolutely bigoted. Look at page six. The leader of the Traditional Values Coalition makes a comment that I think is almost comically honest: "We are not tolerant of behaviors that destroy individuals, families, and our culture. Individuals may be free to pursue such behaviors as sodomy, but we cannot and will not tolerate these behaviors. ... In short, we believe in intolerance to those things that are evil; and we believe that we should discriminate against those behaviors which are dangerous to individuals and to society."

Or Concerned Women for America, who refers to a legally married Candian couple who tried to enter America (perhaps you remember that story) as "terrorists." The first document I found on the CWFA site lists, among its reasons that marriage should only be between heterosexuals, that

"*As society rewards homosexual behavior, more young people will be encouraged to experiment and more will be discouraged from overcoming homosexual desires.

*Popular understanding of what marriage is and what it requires will undergo change. Homosexual relationships, which usually lack both permanence and fidelity, are unlikely to change to fit the traditional model of lifelong, faithful marriage. Instead, society's expectations of marriage will change in response to the homosexual model, thus leading to a further weakening of the institution of marriage. Some homosexual activists have acknowledged that they intend to use marriage mainly as a way to radically shift society's entire conception of sexual morality."

Call it a flawed methodology if you want, but I'd be more concerned about the methodology if it wasn't telling us something we already knew.

[Larry Mudd]

Have y'all heard about this Howard F. Ahmanson Jr (http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,1061442,00.html) fella and his deep pockets?

[Marley23]

By that last comment, I don't mean methodology is irrelevant if you agree with the conclusion. I mean that I'm not very worried about the methodology because the conclusion is one on the order of "rain is wet" as far as I'm concerned.

The argument isn't "the sites are biased against gays because they mention them a lot." It's "the fact that they talk about gays more than things that would actually strengthen marriages might indicate that Marriage Protection Week is less about strengthening and protecting existing marriages than it is about preventing certain people from getting married."

[Enderw24]

Marley23 , if this thread was about many peoples' intolerance towards gays, I'd agree. Many people are intolerant towards gays.

If this thread was about how many in the Religious Right have an almost vendetta against gay people for some bizzare reason, I'd agree.

Hell, if this thread was about the discovery that the word homosexual is used more often than other words in conjunction with marriage, I'd agree.

That's not what this thread is about. The title is "'Marriage Protection Week' sponsors' lies exposed" and the rant is about a study which, based upon the two quotes Otto provided, proves absolutely nothing whatsoever. No lies have been exposed. No proof has been ferretted out.

There are a number of people in this thread who are crying "how can you argue with facts?" We're not. Look at PunditLisa's post again. If those are the fact, those are the facts. We're merely asking what those facts mean. On a board designed to fight ignorance, I would sincerely hope that people could differentiate between the facts themselves and the conclusions that can be drawn from them.

[Gadfly]

Enderw24, care to respond to my post?

[Enderw24]

What post should I be responding to? You have four of them in this thread.
I guess I'll assume it to be your first one as you're responding to PunditLisa and I mentioned her in my entry.

If you were to bet me that the majority of the sponsors of the Marriage Protection Week do not support or condone homosexual marriages, I would not take that bet.
If you were to ask me whether I believed the sponsors' websites have a neutral or negative view of homosexual marriages, I would say I believed they did.

I don't mind admitting this because I never made any claim otherwise. If you guys want to rant about how bad these groups are, be my guest. As someone else said in this thread, it would be like proving rain is wet, but hey, more power to you for telling the world about it.

What I object to is the touting of this study as conclusive proof of, well, anything. It's a really stupid study. When it shows that nine out of the 29 websites have 2,369 documents with the word "homosexual" in it, the ONLY thing that fact proves is that nine out of the 29 websites have 2,369 documents with the word "homosexual" in it. When you choose to interpret that fact, it ceases to become a fact and instead becomes an interpretation.
I'm not suggesting that your interpretation is wrong. I'm saying that your interpretation could be wrong. I'm saying that, in the end, all you really have are the preconceived notions you had coming into this thread: those groups supporting Marriage Protection Week are bad.

No offense to anyone in particular, but I really cannot believe this point needs to be explained, much less by several different posters multiple times in the thread.

[Early Out]

Originally posted by PunditLisa
Of course, even though the sampling was good, I think you'd have to concede that the mere counting of keywords is a piss poor method of gleaning good information. Or that the website of a group's political adversary is a bad place to get unbiased information. I had pretty much the same thoughts. The sample is actually pretty large (hell, polling organizations routinely try to tell us what "the nation" is thinking based on the responses of a few hundred or thousand people, out of a population of tens of millions), but what the results tell us is murky, at best.

I'd be hesitant to go beyond concluding that the results might provide an indication that the sponsors' real concerns aren't well-expressed by their organizations' names or briefly-stated objectives, and that one should examine their published arguments and materials more closely.

[Esprix]

So PunditLisa, could you give us an example of a source you would consider valid and/or unbiased regarding this particular topic?

Esprix

[Sauron]

Why should PunditLisa do that? She's said she's a political scientist, not an expert on gay and lesbian rights or Marriage Protection Week.

Shoot. I should've written that in my Dr. McCoy voice.

[Esprix]

Well if she's making an argument that a source most people are regarding as reliable isn't so reliable, it seems reasonable to ask what her standards of reliable are, and an example of such would help us understand.

Esprix

[Sauron]

It seems to me (and PunditLisa, please tell me if I'm putting words in your mouth) that she's just saying the methods used by the NGLTF to gather data don't really prove a whole lot, one way or the other. And, of course, she's repeated the scientist's maxim about examining the source of raw data, much less conclusions based on the data. That's relevant whether you're talking about a bias against homosexuality or the process of cold fusion.

[Early Out]

What it reminds me of is someone saying that, if they Google for "George Bush liar" and get 200,000 hits, but Google for "George Bush honest" and get only 120,000 hits, that somehow proves that George Bush is a liar, or that more people think that he's a liar than think he's honest. The data are accurate, but they don't really tell you much.

[Esprix]

Early, if they were sampling 200,000 random websites I'd agree with you, but I think the criteria is sound because this was an extremely narrow, focused search on pertinent websites. Want to know if a group is focusing on homosexuality in the context of "protecting" the family? I don't think doing a comparison between instances of the word "homosexality" and instances of other relevant words ("divorce," "abortion", "adultery," etc.) is a very far stretch. Sure, since there were only a few websites it would have made more sense to take things in context (and evidently they do further in the report, as noted by Marley23), and it's a little kooky to do things that way, but I think it's a fair question to ask and get the answer to.

Again, even if we can say they did or didn't do anything that was wholly "scientific," are the results flawed? Do they paint an innaccurate picture of what's going on? I say no, they do not.

Esprix

[PunditLisa]

Esprix, I thought Marley's post (aside from his initial sarcasm) was very well done. (I'm assuming he's a stand up guy who doesn't make up quotes.)

"We are not tolerant of behaviors that destroy individuals, families, and our culture. Individuals may be free to pursue such behaviors as sodomy, but we cannot and will not tolerate these behaviors. ... In short, we believe in intolerance to those things that are evil; and we believe that we should discriminate against those behaviors which are dangerous to individuals and to society."

Seems pretty damning to me. He went directly to the websites of the sponsoring sites (not to their opponents) and researched what their position was on homosexuality. He gave page numbers and the name of the website for verification. He found actual quotes that are not ambiguous. Yes, they are out of context, but they are CLEARLY anti-gay. I found his post to be a much more convincing indictment against the "Marriage Protection Week" folks' "hidden" agenda than the study done by the NGLTF.

I mean, it's not a huge leap to conclude that anti-gay = anti-gay marriage. It IS a huge leap to say that mentioning the word "homosexual" = anti-gay marriage.

[Esprix]

PunditLisa, again, read the rest of the report. After doing a cursory search of keywords like "homosexuality," "divorce," etc., they did delve deeper into the websites, including quoting them directly, and went on to compare their stated purposes to the "goals" (amorphous as they are) of Marriage Protection Week. They didn't just say, "Hey, lots of homo talk - guess they hate us!" they did a decent analysis.

IMHO, at least.

Esprix

[iamthewalrus(:3=]

Originally posted by Early Out
They would have no other way of doing the research, short of downloading every document available on each of the other websites.[/B]

wget -r <sitename>

Downloading every document available just ain't that hard. You could even run a context based search on it and get some meaningful data.

[Sublight]

In response to this "Marriage Protection Week", I'd like to make an open-ended offer to everyone at the SDMB:

As an licensed and ordained (though irreverent) minister, I will perform a free marriage ceremony for any Dopers of any combination of sexes, who feel like getting hitched (or just having a ceremony) and are in the Tokyo area. You choose the location.

[Sublight]

My experience, btw, is in Christian-style weddings performed in Japanese, but I'm open to requests.

[Shortie]

As I read it what the NGLT are trying to prove with the word-counting thing is not that those organisations have a homophobic agenda, but that they are more concerned with homosexuality than other marriage-related subjects.

The direction of their concern is another issue, the point is that it is their concern, much more so than other factors which you might think are problems for the institution of marriage (I have to say that I don't quite get why health care\insurance should be expected to be a major issue, but hey).

It seems a fairly reasonable conclusion to me. Whether it's a big deal or not I don't know, because as a Brit I'm not being presented with the same images of those organisations.

[Priam]

It seems like people have been arguing over the first part and ignoring the most damning section: the recommended content posted by the sponsoring organizations to promote "Marriage Protection Week". It is easily verifiable, and ultimately the only important part. Screw the organizations behind the event... what are they promoting as activities to do during this Week? Workshops on how to work through issues in a marriage? How to build healthy relationships? Or a series of anti-gay sermons, petitions, and documents?

[Tyrrell McAllister]

They don't exactly beat around the bush at http://www.marriageprotectionweek.com/

Follow the "Learn More" link to see that the stated purpose, in its entirety, is the following.
Purpose of Marriage Protection Week

The sacred institution of marriage is under attack. There are those who want to redefine marriage to include two men, or two women, or a group of any size or mix of sexes: One man and four women, one woman and two men, etc. If they fail to secure legal protection classifying these arrangements as 'marriage,' they want to include all these mixtures under the definition of 'civil union,' giving them identical standing with the marriage of one man and one woman.

They have gained the support of the national media and many politicians. Their efforts are intended to force, by law, 97% of Americans to bow down to the desires of the approximately 3% who are homosexuals.

To call attention to this most critical issue, Oct. 12-18 has been declared MARRIAGE PROTECTION WEEK. You, your church or group is encouraged to help protect the sacred institution of marriage.

[Marley23]

Thanks, PunditLisa. Just to show you I'm not making stuff up:

This CWFA piece (http://www.cwfa.org/articles/4649/CFI/papers/index.htm) contains the quote I used earlier.

Bill Bennett railing about how homosexual relationships, which are against nature, would destroy marraige. (http://www.empoweramerica.org/stories/storyReader$872) This is from the Empower America site.

A nice Focus on the Family piece about the Gay Agenda (http://www.family.org/cforum/feature/a0027070.cfm)[sup]TM[/suo].
Actually, what they have said at conferences — including one international conference in London in 1999 — is that they really don't want marriage, they want the destruction of marriage.

First sentence: the President of CWFA (http://www.cwfa.org/articledisplay.asp?id=4671&department=CWA&categoryid=family)"'Gay' marriage is not the wave of the future but the end of society as we know it."

As Esprix and others have noted, the point of the study is not that the sites are anti-gay because they use the word "homosexuals" a lot. It's that these sites, which are sponsoring Marriage Protection Week, are primarily concerned with blocking gays from marrying. That's not the stated purpose of the event, but it's clear that's the real purpose, and this is just their way of backing that up.

[Gadfly]

Against nature?

Are those monkeys in Asia who exhibit lesbian behaviors against nature?

I'm just sayin'.