That is really the point being argued; however, if one believes he shouldn't have joined, yet it is a historical fact that this anti-porn defender of the family (sic, of course he was ardently pro-abortion at the time) decided to join the board of a company that distributes pornography, it is reasonable to ask why he did join, whether he thought selling porn was bad, and whether he made any effort to change the status quo with regard to porn distribution.
It's kind of a speculative chain of questions, since I'm sure the Romneys see it as an issue best ignored and thus there's little evidence of what Mitt was thinking (or, more likely, not thinking about the issue at all), but I do agree that it pales in comparison to Mitt's many other more serious anti-family stances.
> but I do agree that it pales in comparison to Mitt’s many other more serious anti-family stances.<
Lest there be an inference conveyed that I have spoken about “Mitt’s many other more serious anti-family stances”, I have not. I am not familiar enough with his entire record to make an assertion like that - though others may be.