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

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 06:51:36 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Election Archive
  Election Archive
  2012 Elections
  Mitt: No to gay marriage; children need a mother and father. Gay adoption? Fine.
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2
Author Topic: Mitt: No to gay marriage; children need a mother and father. Gay adoption? Fine.  (Read 4384 times)
Joe Republic
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 40,043
Ukraine


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: May 11, 2012, 02:39:12 AM »
« edited: May 11, 2012, 03:00:28 AM by Joe Republic »

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

Quote from: Restricted
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Could somebody please explain to me how the fabulous f[inks] that makes any sense.  Thanks.
Logged
Sbane
sbane
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,303


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: May 11, 2012, 02:42:01 AM »

He thinks it will get him elected?
Logged
wildfood
Rookie
**
Posts: 202
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: May 11, 2012, 04:36:53 AM »

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.
Logged
Vermin Supreme
Henry Clay
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 464


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: May 11, 2012, 04:57:11 AM »
« Edited: May 11, 2012, 04:59:15 AM by 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.
Logged
Franzl
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 22,254
Germany


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: May 11, 2012, 04:59:34 AM »


What percentage of voters do you think even recognize the contradiction?
Logged
H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY
Alfred F. Jones
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,075
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: May 11, 2012, 05:30:36 AM »

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.
Logged
Frozen Sky Ever Why
ShadowOfTheWave
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,611
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: May 11, 2012, 06:45:53 AM »

I really don't understand why it's "fine" but whatever.
Logged
Averroës Nix
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,289
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: May 11, 2012, 07:21:02 AM »

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.
Logged
muon2
Moderators
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,788


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: May 11, 2012, 08:01:37 AM »

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.
Logged
So rightwing that I broke the Political Compass!
Rockingham
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 547


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: May 11, 2012, 08:21:05 AM »

Good. Gay adoption rights are far more substantive and important then the symbolic label of marriage.
Logged
BaldEagle1991
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,660
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: May 11, 2012, 08:31:52 AM »

If a kid needs both a dad and a mom, what about single parents? I wonder how he will react to that.
Logged
muon2
Moderators
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,788


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: May 11, 2012, 08:45:45 AM »

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.

Quote from: Restricted
You must be logged in to read this quote.
Logged
BaldEagle1991
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,660
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: May 11, 2012, 08:53:45 AM »

I find it more odd that he'd be in favor of gay adoptions, but be against gay marriage.
Logged
MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!
Kalwejt
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 57,380


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: May 11, 2012, 08:56:53 AM »

What a nice logical fallacy.
Logged
Keystone Phil
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 52,611


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: May 11, 2012, 09:07:17 AM »

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).
Logged
cavalcade
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 739


Political Matrix
E: 2.71, S: -3.13

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: May 11, 2012, 09:43:13 AM »

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.
Logged
Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.
jmfcst
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,212
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: May 11, 2012, 09:56:41 AM »

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

it doesn't
Logged
Simfan34
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,744
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.90, S: 4.17

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: May 11, 2012, 10:33:10 AM »

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.
Logged
Torie
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 46,057
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -3.48, S: -4.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: May 11, 2012, 10:45:55 AM »

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.
Logged
Bull Moose Base
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,488


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #19 on: May 11, 2012, 11:06:53 AM »

That family is fine provided the child's parents are not married.
Logged
memphis
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,959


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #20 on: May 11, 2012, 12:19:48 PM »

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.
Logged
Joe Republic
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 40,043
Ukraine


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #21 on: May 11, 2012, 12:52:14 PM »

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.
Logged
John Dibble
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,733
Japan


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #22 on: May 11, 2012, 02:29:54 PM »

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.
Logged
Politico
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,862
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #23 on: May 11, 2012, 06:30:34 PM »

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.
Logged
Politico
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,862
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #24 on: May 11, 2012, 06:32:49 PM »
« Edited: May 11, 2012, 06:40:02 PM by 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.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.058 seconds with 13 queries.