"Marriage Protection Week" sponsors' lies exposed

The National Gay and Lesbian Task Force has done a website survey (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.

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.

And for all the talk of building and strengthening marriages, none of the activities sponsored for the week are about strengthening marriages.

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.

Pathetic. Kudos to the NGLTF.


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

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.”

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?

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.

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.

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

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?

How many other groups are denied the right to marry?

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.

Um, because it is?

Um, because their information is correct?

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


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.

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. 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:

$217 million outstrips $54 million by a margin of three to one, not four to one.

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.”

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

yeah, but…was anyone unclear on this point??

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.

Whoever called it ‘Defense of Marriage week’?