Mitt: No to gay marriage; children need a mother and father. Gay adoption? Fine.

[5280/East California]

Objection!

Folks, I believe that what we are seeing right now is a very rare specimen: I think this is a living, breathing Politicus romneyi, commonly known as the Michigan-New Hampshire-Massachusetts-Utah Etch-a-Sketch.

I told you guys that Romney would triangulate like nobody's business. Social issues are off the table even though Romney is going to please his base with conservative judges after he becomes POTUS. In the meantime, Romney is gonna find a way to keep this about the economy, and the base has every reason to come out for Romney without being vocal about social issues to such an extent it turns off independents from Mitt. The last thing the base wants is four more years of Obama. Romney is a heck of a lot more conservative than Obama, which pleases Republicans, but Romney's also a heck of a lot safer and toned down in rhetoric than most conservatives, which pleases independents. It's a winning combination.

You said it perfectly.

[Torie]

All other things being equal, which of course is never the case, isn't a kid living with two parents, one male, and one female, probably the most ideal for the kid - you know gender role models and so forth?  As others have stated, just because something is best, does not mean that some law should mandate it (among other things, as I said, all other things are really never equal).  The elusive theoretical perfect can be the enemy of the practical good.

Not really. My parents had a very ugly marriage. My quality of life improved immensly when they got divorced. And I don't think I'm alone in saying I'm tired of santimonious Republican politicians telling me what my family is supposed to look like. For a party that claims to be for "small gov't" they're strangely obsessive about what people do in their own homes on their own time.

The phrase "all other things being equal" is just so highly useful isn't it?

[IDS Speaker Ben Kenobi]

No, he's being attacked on this for holding a blatantly contradictory stance, something not uncommon among Republican politicians.

God, Romney is being an even larger douche then I even thought possible.

[Is JCL in mushy sappy love]

It's stuff like this that makes me NOT support him.

[President Marokai]

Ahh, so now we're attacking Mitt for not being progressive enough. Do we forget he's a Republican? I applaud this move, and I think what muon2 said about not seeing things in just black and white is a good sign that Romney will be a competent president.

This stupid argument is still kicking around this place? Romney holds contradictory and flip-floppy positions on all sorts of things, so this means he's some sort of technocratic moderate who sees things in nuanced and enlightened ways? Get real. I cannot believe that smart people would actually think something that just sounds like denial. He's being attacked in this thread because it's a completely contradictory position to hold.

There is no amount of spin and moderate hero wishing that can turn "I don't support gay marriage because the traditional family setting is that of the mother and father, but gay adoption is totally fine" into the wise words of some sort enlightened philosopher that only sees a world of grey. They're just the conflicting words of a man with literally no principles.

And while we're at it, how about making holding the right position the honorable and enlightened thing to do, in all things? Instead of just immediately trying to split the difference?

[Old Europe]

Strange. I know a lot of people who are supportive of gay marriage, but not gay adoption. But the other way around it's kind of rare. Mitt Romney is really something.

[I left.]

Strange. I know a lot of people who are supportive of gay marriage, but not gay adoption. But the other way around it's kind of rare. Mitt Romney is really something.

I think I find opposition to gay adoption, in principle, even more hateful and disagreeable than opposition to marriage.

[Ѕenator Αverroës]

Strange. I know a lot of people who are supportive of gay marriage, but not gay adoption. But the other way around it's kind of rare. Mitt Romney is really something.

I think I find opposition to gay adoption, in principle, even more hateful and disagreeable than opposition to marriage.

Americans tend to take as granted that anyone who isn't physically abusive is entitled to raise their children however they prefer.

EDIT: Adding the weaselly qualifier "within reason," before someone calls me out with a counter-example.

[Gravis Marketing]

"Common sense" says a mother and father is best, but the studies show that having two loving parents is what matters, with no difference in outcome depending on gender.

[Is JCL in mushy sappy love]

"Common sense" says a mother and father is best, but the studies show that having two loving parents is what matters, with no difference in outcome depending on gender.

God would be to differ. Mom/Dad not dad/dad or mom/mom.
No marriage or adoptions for the GLBT period end of story.

[Gass3268]

"Common sense" says a mother and father is best, but the studies show that having two loving parents is what matters, with no difference in outcome depending on gender.

God would be to differ. Mom/Dad not dad/dad or mom/mom.
No marriage or adoptions for the GLBT period end of story.

Says the bigot

[memphis]

"Common sense" says a mother and father is best, but the studies show that having two loving parents is what matters, with no difference in outcome depending on gender.

God would be to differ. Mom/Dad not dad/dad or mom/mom.
No marriage or adoptions for the GLBT period end of story.

If you want government based on "God" move to Saudi Arabia. We don't have Shariah law in the United States.

[President Marokai]

"Common sense" says a mother and father is best, but the studies show that having two loving parents is what matters, with no difference in outcome depending on gender.

God would be to differ. Mom/Dad not dad/dad or mom/mom.
No marriage or adoptions for the GLBT period end of story.

Every psychological study in the history of ever trumps your religious beliefs.

[Gass3268]

"Common sense" says a mother and father is best, but the studies show that having two loving parents is what matters, with no difference in outcome depending on gender.

God would be to differ. Mom/Dad not dad/dad or mom/mom.
No marriage or adoptions for the GLBT period end of story.

If you want government based on "God" move to Saudi Arabia. We don't have Shariah law in the United States.

Exactly

[For Oklahoma]

"Common sense" says a mother and father is best, but the studies show that having two loving parents is what matters, with no difference in outcome depending on gender.

God would be to differ. Mom/Dad not dad/dad or mom/mom.
No marriage or adoptions for the GLBT period end of story.

Every psychological study in the history of ever trumps your religious beliefs.

Yup.

[Grad Students are the Worst]

ROMNEY: Actually, I think all states but one allow gay adoption. So that’s a position which has been decided by most of the state legislatures, including the one in my state some time ago. So I simply acknowledge the fact that gay adoption is legal in all states but one.

Mitt Romney is getting pretty irritating.

[greenforest32]

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57433104-503544/romney-backs-away-from-same-sex-adoptions/

(CBS News) Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney on Friday backed away from his support of adoptions by same-sex couples, saying that he simply "acknowledges" the legality of such adoptions in many states.

A day earlier, Romney, in an interview with Fox News' Neil Cavuto, had indicated that while he does not support same-sex marriage, he considers the adoption of children by same-sex couples a "right."

He said on Thursday: "And if two people of the same gender want to live together, want to have a loving relationship, or even to adopt a child -- in my state individuals of the same sex were able to adopt children. In my view, that's something that people have a right to do. But to call that marriage is something that in my view is a departure from the real meaning of that word."

But then on Friday, he was asked, in an interview with CBS' WBTV in Charlotte, N.C., how his opposition to same-sex marriage "squared" with his support for gay adoptions. Romney told anchor Paul Cameron, "Well actually I think all states but one allow gay adoption, so that's a position which has been decided by most of the state legislators, including the one in my state some time ago. So I simply acknowledge the fact that gay adoption is legal in all states but one."

What, gay adoption is legal in 49 states? I haven't heard of this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_adoption#United_States

[ShadowOfTheWave]

ROMNEY: Actually, I think all states but one allow gay adoption. So that’s a position which has been decided by most of the state legislatures, including the one in my state some time ago. So I simply acknowledge the fact that gay adoption is legal in all states but one.

Mitt Romney is getting pretty irritating.

Why is he sucking up to the base now? The primary's over, he needs to focus on getting his favorables up with indepenents.

[ilikeverin]

Strange. I know a lot of people who are supportive of gay marriage, but not gay adoption. But the other way around it's kind of rare. Mitt Romney is really something.

That's one of the most striking differences between the US and Europe, actually... you will find a lot more people over here in favor of gay adoption than gay marriage.

Honestly, I can't fathom the reverse.  I'd even go further than Marokai: it doesn't matter who raises you, whether a single person or a boatload, as long as (1) the people raising you aren't abusive and (2) you can form a relatively stable social network with peers.

[milhouse24]

Strange. I know a lot of people who are supportive of gay marriage, but not gay adoption. But the other way around it's kind of rare. Mitt Romney is really something.

I think in America, most people don't want government intrusion.  Adopting a child is a personal choice based on things such as financial resources.  In some ways, it is better to adopt a child if you have the financial means to raise the child, instead of having six biological children and not being able to financially provide for their care and well being. 

When you consider government subsidizes, they are urgently needed for large biological families who cannot financially support their children, an example would be the Octomom, who is now living on welfare.  At least when gay couples adopt, they do so by choice and have children by choice, instead of being forced to have children. 

When there are biological children, both the biological father and the biological mother are legally compelled to provide child support for the child depending on where the child lives, even if the parents are divorced.  These are not based on new laws, but based on Common Law.  The basis for Common Law of co-habitating gay couples would be far more difficult to prove.  This progression of common law may even effect platonic roommates. 

In addition, when you legalize gay marriage, you bring the government into the lives of the gay couple that effects their finances and legal arrangements.  The numerous government programs will also be subsidizing gay couples along with heterosexual couples, and this will further drain the budget and increase government spending and waste.  A lot of libertarians see the government as evil and meddling in the lives of straight married couples, and don't want the government meddling in the lives of gay couples.  If it were up to libertarians, then no one would get legally married, even straight couples. 

In the long run, Common Law will essentially decide the legal responsibilities between male/female couples. 

People are in love with the idea of marriage and the romance of love it aspires; but a lot more men and some women are declaring that marriage is a good idea but not for me.  In the next few years, gay marriage will not prevent the decrease of couples marrying, so therefore Common Law will end up dictating the lives of the straight couples who co-habitate with children. 

[A cowboy always follows his beard]

"Common sense" says a mother and father is best, but the studies show that having two loving parents is what matters, with no difference in outcome depending on gender.

God would be to differ. Mom/Dad not dad/dad or mom/mom.
No marriage or adoptions for the GLBT period end of story.

Every psychological study in the history of ever trumps your religious beliefs.

Yup.

A lot of those studies may be biased. In fact I once found a study that basiclly said "kids are better off with two moms because women are more nurturing and men aren't"

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Some states don't have any legal recognition of gay couples, but are listed as allowing gay couples (as opposed to an individual member of a gay couple) to adopt. Does that mean that they'd allow two unrelated people to adopt too?