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 don’t 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, that’s 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 ...
Those professing an 4 years of Obamao gloom and doom scenario if we don’t vote for Willard fail to understand that the deeper threat is moving the [R] party light years to the left and marginalizing Conservatives. We can survive 4 years of gridlock while resisting socialism tooth and nail, not 4 years of redefining the party to a point where its socialist itself. If Willard is elected, the GOP-e will have the “mandate” its always wanted: telling Conservatives to sit down, shut up, and “evolve”.
Awesome insightful comments by both of you.
Thanks
Very well stated. Thank you.
And you base your “information” based on what evidence? Have you spent any time in the foster care system? Or are you basing your “information” solely on your own bias? I can tell how you feel about things based on the disrespectful way you portray homosexuals. I’m not on any “gay bandwagon”. I just recognize that these people are children of God and deserve to be treated with respect just as any other person. Add to that, I’m all about assessing individual people on a case by case basis - not lumping them into one group. I’ve been working with the Foster Care system for over a decade. Believe me when I tell you that hetereosexuals are just as capable (and by far in my area are the most culpable)of hurting a child in the most savage and unimaginable ways. I made it quite clear that same sex couples may not be the optimal arrangement for a child, but it sure beats the alternative.
Only wildcard is SCOTUS appointments, were teetering on the edge now.
Of course there’s no guarantee of a sane choice with Mittens either.
I am in agreement with you in making sure that no government agency mandates gay adoption to the inclusion of religious organizations and makes it so that they need to go belly up. What I was specifically referencing is the fact that gay couples can make good parents. Not optimal, but certainly stable and loving. And in the absence of more straight couples making the effort to become foster/adoptive parents, we will see more non-traditional families filling the vacuum. You make take my post as a call to action - talk the talk, then walk the walk. The foster care system needs good families like yours.
I am in agreement with you in making sure that no government agency mandates gay adoption to the inclusion of religious organizations and makes it so that they need to go belly up. What I was specifically referencing is the fact that gay couples can make good parents. Not optimal, but certainly stable and loving. And in the absence of more straight couples making the effort to become foster/adoptive parents, we will see more non-traditional families filling the vacuum. You make take my post as a call to action - talk the talk, then walk the walk. The foster care system needs good families like yours.
I agree (and am also frustrated) with liberal activist judges and social workers who put thier own agendas ahead of the best interests of the children they are supposed to protect. I have cried many tears over some of the children I had to turn over to thier straight parents, who within months returned to the system even more worse for wear because of the savagery inflicted upon them (I mean this in the physical assault and sexual assault context, btw). But this is a result of the system as a whole - it has nothing to do with the ability of homosexual couples being able to lovingly raise kids nobody else wants (btw, it breaks my heart as I write this, because it’s true). I have yet to see, in my 15 years, EVEN ONE case of abuse by homosexual parents. Does it happen? I’m sure it does. But I haven’t seen one case of it in my area. I have, however, seen plenty of abuse by straight parents. You’re right,there are straight couples waiting to adopt - but there aren’t enough. If more were to step up to the plate, we wouldn’t be having this conversation. Be the change you want to be in the world and ask your wonderful family to support you in signing up to be a foster parent.
TOL - please take care of this person. He’s pushing the homosexual agenda. He wants “gay people” to adopt children. In fact normal people are worse foster parents according to him. One page of his comments goes to 2008, second page takes you to 2002 and he was supporting Romney in half or a third of this comments.
But the slamming those who object to the homosexual agenda and pushing it are way over the line. Way, way over the line.
Are you a homosexual yourself? Is that why you a pushing their agenda? Or are you just stupid? Or a liberal?
” Believe me when I tell you that hetereosexuals are just as capable (and by far in my area are the most culpable)of hurting a child in the most savage and unimaginable ways. I made it quite clear that same sex couples may not be the optimal arrangement for a child, but it sure beats the alternative.”
No, it does NOT. Thou art a fool, or a troll!!
The Catholic agencies that folded did so because the government said they would cut off funding. The Baptist agencies I mentioned in earlier posts do not adopt to homosexuals, neither do they accept tax payer money.
Whew! Thank you.
I miss the FR feature that allowed holding the cursor over a person’s screen name and you could see how many comments they had total. An older date and hardly any comments were always a clue.
Guess Romney doesn’t read the Gospel of St. Matthew often ~ if at all ~
That's an intolerable attitude.
It is the right thing to do to distinguish between people.
A parting gift for the pro-pervert zottee:
You’re welcome.
Yes, I wouldn't want to send my sons on an overnight trip with either of them. Romney wouldn't use a compass, but would take an opinion poll of the boys as to which way they should go. Barry would start the trip by searching the bags to make sure no unauthorized items were being brought on the trip including matches or weapons. Then he would conduct a pre-trip anti-bullying, pro-gay re-education seminar.
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.