# "Marriage Protection Week" sponsors' lies exposed **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [October 17, 2003, 7:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/marriage-protection-week-sponsors-lies-exposed/208079 "2003-10-17T19:26:08Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Otto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Otto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Otto)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2003, 7:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/marriage-protection-week-sponsors-lies-exposed/208079/1 "2003-10-17T19:26:08Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![Esprix](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/esprix/32/7899_2.png) [@Esprix](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Esprix)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2003, 8:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/marriage-protection-week-sponsors-lies-exposed/208079/2 "2003-10-17T20:48:28Z")
Pathetic. Kudos to the NGLTF. Esprix ---
**Author:** ![Conflict\_of\_Interest](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/57b2e6/32.png) [@Conflict\_of\_Interest](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Conflict_of_Interest)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2003, 8:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/marriage-protection-week-sponsors-lies-exposed/208079/3 "2003-10-17T20:51:47Z")
you used an obviously biased source to expose another obviously biased source. And this proves what? That both sides have an agenda? ---
**Author:** ![Opus1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/858c86/32.png) [@Opus1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Opus1)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2003, 9:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/marriage-protection-week-sponsors-lies-exposed/208079/4 "2003-10-17T21:04:08Z")
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.” ---
**Author:** ![Conflict\_of\_Interest](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/57b2e6/32.png) [@Conflict\_of\_Interest](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Conflict_of_Interest)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2003, 9:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/marriage-protection-week-sponsors-lies-exposed/208079/5 "2003-10-17T21:31:42Z")
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? ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2003, 9:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/marriage-protection-week-sponsors-lies-exposed/208079/6 "2003-10-17T21:36:07Z")
> [@](#): > > \*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. ---
**Author:** ![carrot](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/9de0a6/32.png) [@carrot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/carrot)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2003, 9:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/marriage-protection-week-sponsors-lies-exposed/208079/7 "2003-10-17T21:41:33Z")
> [@](#): > > \*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. ---
**Author:** ![Otto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Otto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Otto)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2003, 9:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/marriage-protection-week-sponsors-lies-exposed/208079/8 "2003-10-17T21:45:18Z")
> [@](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2003, 10:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/marriage-protection-week-sponsors-lies-exposed/208079/9 "2003-10-17T22:20:38Z")
> [@](#): > > \*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 **r** ight-wing conspiracy. ---
**Author:** ![Conflict\_of\_Interest](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/57b2e6/32.png) [@Conflict\_of\_Interest](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Conflict_of_Interest)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2003, 11:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/marriage-protection-week-sponsors-lies-exposed/208079/10 "2003-10-17T23:09:14Z")
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? ---
**Author:** ![SkipMagic](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/skipmagic/32/20706_2.png) [@SkipMagic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SkipMagic)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2003, 11:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/marriage-protection-week-sponsors-lies-exposed/208079/11 "2003-10-17T23:38:37Z")
> [@](#): > > \*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? ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2003, 11:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/marriage-protection-week-sponsors-lies-exposed/208079/12 "2003-10-17T23:39:41Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![Esprix](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/esprix/32/7899_2.png) [@Esprix](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Esprix)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2003, 11:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/marriage-protection-week-sponsors-lies-exposed/208079/13 "2003-10-17T23:50:19Z")
> [@](#): > > _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 ---
**Author:** ![Denis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/5e9695/32.png) [@Denis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Denis)\ **Post date:** [October 18, 2003, 4:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/marriage-protection-week-sponsors-lies-exposed/208079/14 "2003-10-18T04:15:54Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![Tyrrell\_McAllister](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tyrrell_mcallister/32/16772_2.png) [@Tyrrell\_McAllister](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tyrrell_McAllister)\ **Post date:** [October 18, 2003, 4:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/marriage-protection-week-sponsors-lies-exposed/208079/15 "2003-10-18T04:20:12Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![Tyrrell\_McAllister](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tyrrell_mcallister/32/16772_2.png) [@Tyrrell\_McAllister](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tyrrell_McAllister)\ **Post date:** [October 18, 2003, 4:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/marriage-protection-week-sponsors-lies-exposed/208079/16 "2003-10-18T04:58:52Z")
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.” ---
**Author:** ![matt\_mcl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/7ab992/32.png) [@matt\_mcl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/matt_mcl)\ **Post date:** [October 18, 2003, 7:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/marriage-protection-week-sponsors-lies-exposed/208079/17 "2003-10-18T07:36:07Z")
> [@](#): > > 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? ---
**Author:** ![Typo\_Negative](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/typo_negative/32/484_2.png) [@Typo\_Negative](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Typo_Negative)\ **Post date:** [October 18, 2003, 7:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/marriage-protection-week-sponsors-lies-exposed/208079/18 "2003-10-18T07:47:20Z")
> [@](#): > > \*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?? ---
**Author:** ![matt\_mcl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/7ab992/32.png) [@matt\_mcl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/matt_mcl)\ **Post date:** [October 18, 2003, 7:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/marriage-protection-week-sponsors-lies-exposed/208079/19 "2003-10-18T07:50:30Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![Shade](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/2bfe46/32.png) [@Shade](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shade)\ **Post date:** [October 18, 2003, 7:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/marriage-protection-week-sponsors-lies-exposed/208079/20 "2003-10-18T07:53:47Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by spooje \* > \*\*yeah, but…was _anyone_ unclear on this point?? \*\* Whoever called it ‘Defense of Marriage week’? [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/marriage-protection-week-sponsors-lies-exposed/208079.md?page=2)