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

[Joe Republic]

I hate how truncated the title of this thread is.  Oh well.

Mitt Romney said Thursday that same-sex couples should be allowed to adopt children, but they should not be married because children should be raised by a mother and a father.

[...]

Romney told Fox News' Neil Cavuto that his views on same-sex marriage are unchanged. He explained some of the rights he believes should be extended to gay couples. He said the issue is about what is best for the nation, referring specifically to children. He said his "preference" is that marriage continue to be defined as between a man and a woman.

"I happen to believe that the best setting for raising a child is where this is the opportunity to a mom and a dad to be in the home," Romney said. "I know there are many circumstances where that is not possible, through death or divorce. I also know many gay couples are able to adopt children. That's fine."

Could somebody please explain to me how the fabulous f[inks] that makes any sense.  Thanks.

[Senator Sbane]

He thinks it will get him elected?

[wildfood]

Mitt is rattled and rambling due to the latest developments.

If a handler doesn't come out an "clairify" what the candidate actually meant I will be surprised.

Obviously what he said makes no sense.

[Vermin Supreme]

Mitt Romney is such a dissimulator. I'm sure he doesn't care that much about gay rights in his personal life but in reality he seems like the type that wouldn't mind  hiring a gay employer. It's just Mitt Romney to win the GOP nomination is to start 180 on some social issues such as abortion and gay rights.

No to gay marriage  but yes for gay adoption? How about both yes to gay marriage and gay adoption Mitt Romney.

[I left.]

He thinks it will get him elected?

What percentage of voters do you think even recognize the contradiction?

[IDS Legislator Alfred F. Jones]

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.

[ShadowOfTheWave]

I really don't understand why it's "fine" but whatever.

[Ѕenator Αverroës]

It's not as complicated (or as contradictory) as most here are making it out to be:

1. A married, heterosexual, two-parent family is the best setting for raising a child.
2. Marriage should be used to encourage the best possible kind of setting for raising children.
3. (1) is not always possible, and it's OK to allow other kinds of families to raise children, even though these arrangements are less than ideal.

The problem with the position is that empirical evidence demonstrates that a least the "heterosexual" part of point one is bunk, but that's not really the point being discussed here.

[muon2]

It's not as complicated (or as contradictory) as most here are making it out to be:

1. A married, heterosexual, two-parent family is the best setting for raising a child.
2. Marriage should be used to encourage the best possible kind of setting for raising children.
3. (1) is not always possible, and it's OK to allow other kinds of families to raise children, even though these arrangements are less than ideal.

The problem with the position is that empirical evidence demonstrates that a least the "heterosexual" part of point one is bunk, but that's not really the point being discussed here.

I think Nix pretty much has it right here. Best does not mean only, especially for a person like Mitt who often sees issues in shades of gray rather than black and white. His shading of the issues is exactly what gets him in trouble with the base, but it's generally a good quality for a top administrator. Top execs who treat all issues in a black and white fashion box themselves into positions that hurt their organizations. Mitt will struggle throughout the campaign as he tries to produce simple sound bites while recognizing internally the complexity of an issue.

[So rightwing that I broke the Political Compass!]

Good. Gay adoption rights are far more substantive and important then the symbolic label of marriage.

[BaldEagle1991]

If a kid needs both a dad and a mom, what about single parents? I wonder how he will react to that.

[muon2]

If a kid needs both a dad and a mom, what about single parents? I wonder how he will react to that.

I think he did, and in the same statement.

Mitt Romney said Thursday that same-sex couples should be allowed to adopt children, but they should not be married because children should be raised by a mother and a father.

[...]

Romney told Fox News' Neil Cavuto that his views on same-sex marriage are unchanged. He explained some of the rights he believes should be extended to gay couples. He said the issue is about what is best for the nation, referring specifically to children. He said his "preference" is that marriage continue to be defined as between a man and a woman.

"I happen to believe that the best setting for raising a child is where this is the opportunity to a mom and a dad to be in the home," Romney said. "I know there are many circumstances where that is not possible, through death or divorce. I also know many gay couples are able to adopt children. That's fine."

[BaldEagle1991]

I find it more odd that he'd be in favor of gay adoptions, but be against gay marriage.

[Proud Lieberal from Northeast]

What a nice logical fallacy.

[Keystone Phil]

There's nothing inconsistent with Mitt's position (now there's a genuine shocker!) but the way he worded it makes it another gaffe (not a shocker).

[cavalcade]

I, personally, believe that it's "best" for a child to have two parents (though it's possible that more is also fine) but I don't think single parenthood should be illegal.  Mitt's logic is similar, as others have pointed out.

I am sure gay couples are thrilled to be compared to widowed/divorced parents though.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Could somebody please explain to me how the fabulous f[inks] that makes any sense.  Thanks.

 

it doesn't

[Simfan34]

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. I don't see how any gay person could be offended by this any more than they've been already by Romney.

[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.

[A dog on every car, a car in every elevator]

That family is fine provided the child's parents are not married.

[memphis]

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.

[Joe Republic]

I really don't understand why it's "fine" but whatever.

Mainly because the vast majority of psychological studies have shown no difference in the quality of child-rearing between heterosexual and homosexual parents.

[IDS Judicial Overlord John Dibble]

Ahh, so now we're attacking Mitt for not being progressive enough. Do we forget he's a Republican?

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

[Politico]

It's not as complicated (or as contradictory) as most here are making it out to be:

1. A married, heterosexual, two-parent family is the best setting for raising a child.
2. Marriage should be used to encourage the best possible kind of setting for raising children.
3. (1) is not always possible, and it's OK to allow other kinds of families to raise children, even though these arrangements are less than ideal.

The problem with the position is that empirical evidence demonstrates that a least the "heterosexual" part of point one is bunk, but that's not really the point being discussed here.

I think Nix pretty much has it right here. Best does not mean only, especially for a person like Mitt who often sees issues in shades of gray rather than black and white. His shading of the issues is exactly what gets him in trouble with the base, but it's generally a good quality for a top administrator. Top execs who treat all issues in a black and white fashion box themselves into positions that hurt their organizations. Mitt will struggle throughout the campaign as he tries to produce simple sound bites while recognizing internally the complexity of an issue.

This.

[Politico]

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.