Comments on: NOM’s sad little dishonest “survey”

By: Richard Rush

Richard Rush — Mon, 06 Feb 2012 16:00:07 +0000

Civil unions, and domestic partnerships do offer one huge benefit: they allow straight people to maintain their illusion of superiority. While straights are encouraged to become married, gays are grudgingly allowed to become civilized or domesticated.

By: Lymis

Lymis — Mon, 06 Feb 2012 13:17:45 +0000

Steve touched on it above, but one of the big lies is that civil unions give all of the benefits of marriage. Not only don’t they, but they don’t by a wide margin – marriage gives far more, and more important benefits than civil unions.

While it may be true at this time that states don’t have the option of giving access to federal benefits, there are ever-increasing numbers of so-far successful challenges to DOMA on the federal level, and if DOMA falls or is repealed, same-sex married couples will immediately get those benefits while civilly unioned couples will not -because their state discriminated against them.

By: Theo

Theo — Sat, 04 Feb 2012 04:42:49 +0000

The smartest show ever to air on television was the UK’s “Yes, Minister” and its progeny “Yes, Prime Minister”. Here, Sir Nigel Hawthorne explains how to use leading questions to get the result you want. Obviously NOM saw this and considered it a how-to guide:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G0ZZJXw4MTA&feature=related

By: Steve

Steve — Fri, 03 Feb 2012 16:31:38 +0000

I think there is even more bias in the questions than you realize, esp. in #5, the one that gives NOM the 57% number they are touting. First, it says that civil unions gives gay couples “all the legal rights of married couples.” (not true). Then it says that “some people” want to allow gay marriage. The term “some people” is a negative one and implies people different from most of us. They also use the word “now”, trying to imply that there are other better priorities. Last, it couches the rest of the question in terms about “changing the definition of marriage,” again giving negative connotations.

Imagine if the question instead went like this:

5. As you probably know, since 2010 Washington has had a civil union law which intended to give gay couples all the legal rights of married couples. However, civil unions have been proven to never provide all the rights of marriage. Now, becauese of this, the legislature is considering passing a new law, which will permit gay couples to get married. Do you feel it is necessary or not necessary to pass a new law which will allow gay couples to get married in order to give their relationships more equity with opposite sex couples?

I’ll bet my question would get a vastly different answer, one far more in favor of marriage equality. And I’ll bet is the question were written in a more neutral way without added sentences about the goals of the law, such as: “Should the legislature allow gay couples to get married?,” that too would bring in different numbers.

By: Richard Rush

Richard Rush — Fri, 03 Feb 2012 01:03:01 +0000

Wouldn’t you think that God would give his most devoted followers more to work with than lies and deception? Is that really the best He has to offer? Or maybe God is just sitting back waiting for His followers to do better, and always being disappointed with their ineptitude. Either way, if their positions are correct, why aren’t they supportable with truthfulness and facts? Is that really too much to ask? Or does God only concern Himself with magic truth and magic facts? Perhaps logic and reason is only for the little people.

When God was younger He never hesitated to viciously smite people for the slightest infraction. It must have been an exciting time, and I’d like to see some of that youthful enthusiasm again so we could finally be rid of NOM.

By: JohnAGJ

JohnAGJ — Thu, 02 Feb 2012 22:51:24 +0000

They’re probably going to get their wish anyways with a referendum being held this November. You’d think they’d be happy at the chance to potentially add another “victory” to their column.

By: TN

TN — Thu, 02 Feb 2012 22:49:43 +0000

I think a lot more people can see through their lies than what we all think. I don’t consider myself to be a “smart” person, but I’m about 99% sure I would have came to the same conclusion as you have. I find is so hard to believe that they actually have a big following. The people who are voting against us aren’t doing it because of these fake polls. They are doing it because of animus.

By: andrew

andrew — Thu, 02 Feb 2012 22:48:55 +0000

The question is: who’s listening? Where else are these numbers being touted? We’ve seen nasty statistical “laundering” used for years (someone makes up a statistic, and then cites that publication going forward, which is then picked up by other like-minded pressure groups, and then is ultimately shorthanded into political talking points, speeches, etc., thus entering into the realm of established fact).

On the one hand, these results are so ludicrous, and obtained in such a blatantly unethical manner that we all know that it’s silly.

But we’ve also seen instances in which numbers made up out of whole cloth ended up being regarded as “fact”… and we need to safeguard against that eventuality WITHOUT sounding oversensitive, dramatic, or whacky ourselves (which we kind of do, just by engaging in the conversation — we are sullied by their stink).

By: andrew

andrew — Thu, 02 Feb 2012 22:48:40 +0000

Nearly everyone who presents statistics “handles” them in some way. Sometimes it’s to illustrate the thrust of the artile, sometimes it’s to present a highly charged argument. The question, obviously, is the integrity of the reporting organization.

All of that comes *after* the tweaking of the pollster — as correctly illustrated, how you ask the question can be done either to achieve an objective representation of likely opinion, or it can be done to get the response you want so you can issue a press release… or it can even be done explicitly to shape opinion (by asking a “question”)…

Obviously, in both regards, NOM is engaging in what goes beyond what any ethical pollster or journalist would argue is acceptable practice, and, yes, it borders on fraud (they are not fabricating results, just predetermining the outcome).

In short, the results are meaningless to anyone with detailed understanding of the issues here.

By: Tony P

Tony P — Thu, 02 Feb 2012 22:10:23 +0000

NOM simply cherry picks anything that isn’t within their range of acceptable. They play it fast an loose with numbers too.