Skip to comments.Romney: Gay couples should have right to adopt
Posted on 05/10/2012 6:38:57 PM PDT by Free ThinkerNY
Former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney (R) said Thursday that he believes gay couples should be allowed to adopt children, even as he reiterated his view that marriage is defined as a relationship between a man and a woman.
In an interview with Neil Cavuto of Fox Business Network, Romney was asked whether he believes the gay marriage debate is a new civil rights movement, as some Democrats have framed the issue.
I dont see it in that light, Romney responded. I believe my record as a person who has supported civil rights is strong and powerful. At the same time, I believe that marriage has been defined the same way for literally thousands of years by virtually every civilization in history and that marriage is by its definition a relationship between a man and woman.
He added that if two people of the same gender want to live together, want to have a loving relationship, even want to adopt a child in my state, individuals of the same sex are able to adopt children. In my view, thats something which people have the right to do, but to call that marriage is, in my view, a departure from the real meaning of the word.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
Actually I didn’t really think I’d be able to vote for him but you never know... There has to be a different candidate. Has to be. This is the ultimate middle finger to all of us. If he and the GOP elite really think that Rs or Independents will vote for a scumbag who wants fags to adopt children, they are even more in utter moral darkness than I thought possible.
Thank you, darlin’!
No. I am not trying to cajole you into "my" way of thinking.
I do not do "cajoling."
If anything, I am trying to encourage you into any kind of rational analysis at all.
It seems I am not having any luck with that plan.
Betty, if you were to do a "rational analysis" of your vote you would realize that casting your ballot in Massachusetts for Romney is as useless as casting your pearls before swine.
Romney will not win Massachusetts and he will not win California. Your vote and my vote mean nothing in the grand scheme of things. You and I really have nothing to lose by casting our votes for someone who is a reflection of our values. Nevertheless we can say a lot by refusing to cow tow to the GOP-E and giving Romney our vote of confidence. He does not deserve your vote of confidence. He has done nothing to earn it. Ever.
I sure do hope that there are enough "liberty loving American people" left to make a difference in Obama's removal from office, in whatever fashion he is to be successfully removed.
And he MUST be removed, soonest, before he gets a chance to destroy even more of our American system of liberty under just and equal laws. I've gotten to the point that I do not much care by what means that may happen.
Impeachment would do fine. But three-and-a-half years into his criminal conspiracy against the United Sates of America and the People thereof, it looks to me that he's getting away with his destructive plan with impunity.
Why has there been no challenge against him thus far? A man who gives Congress short shrift, and who is trying to intimidate and browbeat the Supreme Court into compliance?
He spits on the Constitution with every breath he draws....
To me, his removal from office is URGENT. If this cannot be done at the ballot box on November 6th next, then I do not know how it will be done.
But to preserve the America we know and love, his departure is absolutely necessary. And as soon as possible. By peaceful means if at all possible.
And then I have fellow twits who are arguing about the virtues of Virgil Goode....
Hullo!!! Are we all living on the same planet???
True-—but I was being secular (using science) since when religious terminology is brought into it, the leftist/marxists don’t even read it.
Geeesh-— I was doing some research on Asian societies-—China, Samurai and Japan practice pederasty up until Christian cultures had an impact on their nation. And even then after outlawing it in areas—they went back to the practice. They were mostly homosexual. Women were treated like dogs and ignored (as they were in all homosexual cultures. Women better wake up—the sickness of homosexuality is a fixation in the latency period—where they prefer boys-—they are too immature to relate to the opposite sex which takes getting rid of narcissism. Most of the boys were sodomized in boyhood and groomed into the worldview-—like what Jerry Brown is doing to California boys and girls. Child porn is legal in Japan-—figures. Sick minds and worldview.
I was listening to Michael Savage in the nineties and he was talking about how you could determine how sick societies were by looking at their porn. He said Japan was fixated on excrement. (very Satanic).
Such a sick culture the Atheists are trying to resurrect in Christian Western civilization. Europe is already down the tubes. I think there is a deep anger with men who prefer men and hate women-—and desire boys like Sandusky, like most homosexuals. Read their literature-—it is all about beautiful boys. VERY UGLY and EVIL and yes, the most abominable sin man can do-—uniting excrement with act of creation-—Satanic....like the Bohemian grove guys (Kissinger) admire. Evil..
Has it come to that Betty?
Is that what you think of us?
Romney believes in giving our children and grand children to “gay couples” for adoption. Then Romney also said, “I do not favor civil unions if they are identical to marriage other than by name.”
Romney says there that he supports Civil Unions being IDENTICAL in name to Marriage.
You say “civil union” and he hears “marriage”.
This is the “married” Gay Couple that he sees adopting children
You are beside yourself, Sister. Hit the sack; get some sleep.
We’re right here. Ain’t going nowhere and aren’t voting for another tyrant to replace the last one.
Sorry, but that is flat out wrong. My wife and I have been trying to adopt a newborn for years. We've had multiple birth mothers choose us, and then pull out. Once upon a time things were different, but nowadays the birth mother has all the power. She chooses the adoptive family from a multitude of profiles, and she can change her mind at the last minute. Believe me, it happens often in the modern system.
... might well reject the possibility of adoption--and perhaps even choose abortion instead.
Furthermore, babies are not saved from the abortion mill by adoption. Think about it. Women don't have abortions because there is a lack of couples willing to adopt their children. They have abortions because they don't feel they can give the child the life they would want it to have, and they don't want it known that they were pregnant and gave up a child. There is still a strong stigma in many circles against giving up one's child for adoption, and many women opt to avoid that issue. Otherwise, abortion would be far less common. Please understand that I'm not condemning women who abort, as awful as what I'm describing sounds.
I’m hoping that someone with more wits than I have can decide if this is accurate, because what I want is a Revolution at the Convention:
Reality Check: Why all RNC delegates are ‘Free Agents’ and unbound
It’s a video, 4 1/2 minutes.
Hey, Mitt -- Ever think about the welfare of the child before you snap off a one-liner like that?
Read a study sometime. Kids of gay "parents" have more problems, significant problems, than kids of heterosexual marriages, even children of divorced couples.
If it decreases the infanticide of abortion, I would rather the child have a choice of this start than no start at all.
How does that scenario arise? How many mothers-to-be can there possibly be, who, considering abortion, are dissuaded from aborting by the availability of a pair of gay men willing to play "catch" with her rejected child?
How is that good for the kid? Not only did Mommy want to abort him, but gave him away instead, and on top of that, she gave him to a pair of bodywaxed male models, who may or may not have Hep C and/or HIV -- how is that going to improve the kid's existential dilemma, that "Mother didn't want me"?
Of course you are!
I am sure that the way you've looked at things, what you've said makes the most sense - thus 'rational'.
I, however, am not willing to accept that as a Final or Only answer.
It's a LONG way to November!
Let your imagination roam!!!
"If my people..." (sorry Suzie ;^)
Don't fall into the Elijah trap; where he ended up moaning that he was the only one left...
1 Kings 18:22
She did include herself ;^)
They are between a rock and a hard place.
"I never thought it would come to this."
I 'condemn' our LEADERs who have made it 'legal' to kill another human being. But ONLY if you are wearing a white lab coat - if not, then FETICIDE suddenly appears!
I certainly hope you are right about the American people Jim. If you are, then I have nothing to worry about.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.