[NullPointer]

Romney's logic core must be close to critical. Somebody explain this.

Mitt Romney: Gay Couples Should Be Able To Adopt Out Of Wedlock 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's appearance on Fox News wasn't the first time he made such a statement -- he has previously expressed his opposition to same-sex marriage and support for gay couples adopting -- but it held significance as his first national television interview after President Barack Obama thrust the issue into the campaign spotlight. The president said on Wednesday that he personally supports same-sex marriage. 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." ...

We are through the looking glass people.

[Devolution]

Outlaw divorce then.

[Pollux]

Fucking hell Mittens, at the very least be consistent with your idiocy.

Outlaw divorce then.

Outlaw no-fault divorce an you're onto something.

[Emitan]

So uh... what are they supposed to do with the adopted kid?

[RDreamer]

I literally facepalmed when I saw this.

[Speevy]

So uh... what are they supposed to do with the adopted kid?

Hope he or she is the opposite sex and marry. Then they can raise the other partner?

[Kinitari]

While that's baffling enough, it has a bunch of behind the scenes hidden logical quandaries as well.

What if the gay couple doesn't want to adopt kids, can they get married then?

[Devolution]

Outlaw no-fault divorce an you're onto something.

Why.

[Tobe]

this guy is so desperate, is he even trying?

[johnsmith]

The cognitive dissonance must be excruciating.

[East Lake]

This is Santorum levels of stupid. What happened?

[Dreams-Visions]

LOL

that's all I got.

[Nightshade1765]

[bishoptl]

Hope he or she is the opposite sex and marry. Then they can raise the other partner?

Thanks Speevy, I choked on my tea.

[Pollux]

Why.

Because marriage is about commitment. I don't care if it's gay marriage straight marriage or w/e. the foundation is commitment and it's just my opinion that no-fault willynilly divorce sends the wrong message. I'm not saying no divorce, just for reasons other then 'I don't feel like bein married anymore'.

[GillianSeed79]

You know, it would kind of be awesome to have two moms. Who doesn't love mom? Two of them? That's a sweet deal for any kid.

[bengraven]

Wait.

So children need a mother and father?

But it's okay for gays to adopt?

So they can adopt...but they can't get married, then adopt?

[Spider from Mars]

So gay couples can raise adopted kids, but can't get married because children need a mother and a father? Makes sense to me.

[ReturnOfTheRAT]

Did he get off a conference all with Bristol Palin?

[Devolution]

Because marriage is about commitment. I don't care if it's gay marriage straight marriage or w/e. the foundation is commitment and it's just my opinion that no-fault willynilly divorce sends the wrong message. I'm not saying no divorce, just for reasons other then 'I don't feel like bein married anymore'.

I think you should read up on why no-fault exists unless you think people have to be physically abused a bunch before they can just end the marriage.

[NullPointer]

Hope he or she is the opposite sex and marry. Then they can raise the other partner?

Makes sense. Romney is truly a maverick.

So they can adopt...but they can't get married, then adopt? I don't know...I don't know what's going on here...

Welcome to the party. Our special of the day is batshit fucking insanity.

We're actually watching the man divide by zero.

And my apologies to the rest of the world. We have no idea how this guy got this far into our political process.

[RBH]

Hope he or she is the opposite sex and marry. Then they can raise the other partner?

:lol

[thatbox]

Cognitive dissonance is a art.

[Ventrue]

Does he actually say "gay marriage isn't good because children need a mother and father"? I can't see a quote like that in there, but that implication is in the title of this thread and seems to be the main point of discussion. For example, maybe his argument against gay marriage is "Jesus says its wrong." Do I just suck at reading, or is this editorialising?

[Pollux]

I think you should read up on why no-fault exists unless you think people have to be physically abused a bunch before they can just end the marriage.

What the hell does abuse have to do with it? Nothing. Abuse of any kind would be a valid reason for a divorce. Still no need for a no fault divorce. If you don't want to be married don't get married. And if you want a divorce have a reason. Not just I woke up today and didn't want to be married anymore.

[HK-47]

Cognitive dissonance is a art.

We are in the presence of a master.

[speculawyer]

"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."

I keep reading that but I can't reconcile it.

Rombot is gonna core-dump eventually.

Edit: I guess he is trying to do a Clinton-esque triangulation. You can adopt but you can't marry because that is a religion thing and "God hates family

[Izick]

Going to be a



victory this Novemeber for Obama.

[bengraven]

Welcome to the party. Our special of the day is batshit fucking insanity. We're actually watching the man divide by zero. And my apologies to the rest of the world. We have no idea how this guy got this far into our political process.

Non-Americans: I'm sorry, but in order to be fair we need the less intelligent party to occasionally get into power. They're bug fuck insane and only do what their corporate bosses tell them to do, but if we didn't let them take part then the Munchkins in Munchkinland would rise up against us.

Just pretend nothing is happening and run from the drones. It will be over in 4-8 years.

[GhaleonEB]

Hope he or she is the opposite sex and marry. Then they can raise the other partner?

Brilliant.

[Devolution]

What the hell does abuse have to do with it? Nothing. Abuse of any kind would be a valid reason for a divorce. Still no need for a no fault divorce. If you don't want to be married don't get married. And if you want a divorce have a reason. Not just I woke up today and didn't want to be married anymore.

Yeah we should really limit people's abilities to disengage from contracts with each other. Sounds like a great idea that won't be abused or used as leverage.

[Chichikov]

Because marriage is about commitment. I don't care if it's gay marriage straight marriage or w/e. the foundation is commitment and it's just my opinion that no-fault willynilly divorce sends the wrong message. I'm not saying no divorce, just for reasons other then 'I don't feel like bein married anymore'.

That's a nice and honorable ideal*, but why do you think it's a good idea for the government to enforce it?

I really think you should keep the government out of these issues as much as possible.

Do you think it's a good idea to criminal adultery?

And again, this is not about the value of said ideals, it's about the prospect of improving things through such measures, which in my mind is non existent.

* I actually have some reservations about that sentiment, but that's a separate discussion. For what it's worth, I am most certainly respect your position.

[ReturnOfTheRAT]

Going to be a victory this Novemeber for Obama.

Sadly it won't be that easy.

[SmokeMaxX]

Delicious.

Romney: Same sex marriage? No. Children need multiple mothers and a father.

I don't think Romney can abuse the sanctity of marriage argument or else he'll come under attack for Mormons' acceptance of polygamy (though I'm not exactly sure what the modern Mormon stance on polygamy is).

[hey_it's_that_dog]

"Although it is an empirical claim for which there is currently no evidence, it is my OPINION that a child needs a mother and a father instead of two parents of the same sex."

- a complete moron

[NullPointer]

I don't think it'll work this time.

[Izick]

Sadly it won't be that easy.

If America has any common sense then it should be.

We can either put in a guy that has been actively helping out country out and trying to get it back on track, or we can hire an elitist, rich, homophobe. Hmm, sounds like a really tough choice to me!

I don't disagree with you though, but it really should be. It's to bad he can use the veil of a "war" as an auto-reelect button like Bush did.

[quadriplegicjon]

Because marriage is about commitment. I don't care if it's gay marriage straight marriage or w/e. the foundation is commitment and it's just my opinion that no-fault willynilly divorce sends the wrong message. I'm not saying no divorce, just for reasons other then 'I don't feel like bein married anymore'.

How old are you? And why do you care about people's reasons for divorce? It does not affect you in any way.

[bengraven]

Well, I posted this story on my Facebook.

Have I mentioned that 75% of my Facebook are complete morons who have zero political intelligence and are allllll voting for Romney because "he's gonna fix the shit in Washington" and "he respects the troops" and "he will make things less PC"? And the 24% are also voting for him, but because they want a racist and homophobe in office because he respects their religion. So me and the 1% are going to have a lot to talk about tomorrow...

[Pollux]

Yeah we should really limit people's abilities to disengage from contracts with each other. Sounds like a great idea that won't be abused or used as leverage.

And that's our fundamental difference. I view marriage as more than just a contract. It doesn't matter since no-fault isnt going anywhere but that's my opinion. Sorry it's not exactly in line with your world view.

That's a nice and honorable ideal, but why do you think it's a good idea for the government to enforce it? I really think you should keep the government out of these issues as much as possible. Do you think it's a good idea to criminal adultery? And again, this is not about the value of said ideals, it's about the prospect of improving things through such measures, which in my mind is non existent.

I think adultery should be punished with public ridicule. It's cheating and I have no tolerance for cheaters.

But in the real world? No fault divorce should be allowed, and there should be no laws that regulate private morality: i.e. adultery, mastierbation, contraceptive use, etc. but as I said, my opinion really doesn't matter, it's just that my opinion.

[onemic]

This makes no sense.

[B-Dex]

From the CPA (Canadian Psychological Association)

The literature (including the literature on which opponents to marriage of same-sex couples appear to rely) indicates that parents' financial, psychological and physical well-being is enhanced by marriage and that children benefit from being raised by two parents within a legally-recognized union. As the CPA stated in 2003, the stressors encountered by gay and lesbian parents and their children are more likely the result of the way society treats them than because of any deficiencies in fitness to parent. The CPA recognizes and appreciates that persons and institutions are entitled to their opinions and positions on this issue. However, CPA is concerned that some are mis-interpreting the findings of psychological research to support their positions, when their positions are more accurately based on other systems of belief or values. CPA asserts that children stand to benefit from the well-being that results when their parents' relationship is recognized and supported by society's institutions.

[hey_it's_that_dog]

How old are you? And why do you care about people's reasons for divorce? It does not affect you in any way.

I believe he's concerned about the values that are communicated to future generations by allowing marriage to be dissolved on a whim. It's a reasonable concern if you believe that people need to be corralled in that way.

Personally, I think people will get together and split up when they want to and rationalize it however they can, so trying to regulate it is a waste of energy, even though it might have small effects on the divorce rate.

If individual happiness is your guiding principle, no-fault divorce makes sense. If you value institutions for the structure they provide, over and above the happiness they may bring to the individuals bound up in those institutions, then you will probably care about marriages that are not your own and wish to impose stricter rules for their dissolution.

[DR2K]

If your opponent is mentally incompatent, shouldn't Obama be able to announce his presidency for the next election now? No need to waste the time and tax payer money on it.

[Emitan]

You know, it would kind of be awesome to have two moms. Who doesn't love mom? Two of them? That's a sweet deal for any kid.

Sounds great to me!

[ReturnOfTheRAT]

If America has any common sense then it should be. We can either put in a guy that has been actively helping out country out and trying to get it back on track, or we can hire an elitist, rich, homophobe. Hmm, sounds like a really tough choice to me! I don't disagree with you though, but it really should be. It's to bad he can use the veil of a "war" as an auto-reelect button like Bush did.

We have proved this to be false time and time again. I can't trick myself into believing that people will come to their senses now.

[hey_it's_that_dog]

You know, it would kind of be awesome to have two moms. Who doesn't love mom? Two of them? That's a sweet deal for any kid.

Everyone knows women can't raise children.

[commedieu]

The cognitive dissonance must be excruciating.

At this point, at that, this, level. Do you think that he knows he is full of shit? And that he is just orchestrating design-by-committee statements and commentary? Or do you think that he honestly, and actually, believes this?

I understanding saying planned and precise comments to win an election. But this level of what the fuckettry must hit home with some sort of logic or morals within him.

If your opponent is mentally incompatent, shouldn't Obama be able to announce his presidency for the next election now? No need to waste the time and tax payer money on it.

You'd think so. But we still have to go through this charade. The republicans, for whatever reason, can't come up with any solid candidate. Also... lol @ the ass-vita pics.. saw that thread the other day. Fuck detective gaf for that one! Nice shape though

You know, it would kind of be awesome to have two moms. Who doesn't love mom? Two of them? That's a sweet deal for any kid.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yMLZO-sObzQ

Love this. As traditionally, I was someone who really believed that you do need a male, to help raise a boy. But I think those traits, and those male-values, can be taught by anyone.

[Pollux]

I believe he's concerned about the values that are communicated to future generations by allowing marriage to be dissolved on a whim. It's a reasonable concern if you believe that people need to be corralled in that way. Personally, I think people will get together and split up when they want to and rationalize it however they can, so trying to regulate it is a waste of energy, even though it might have small effects on the divorce rate. If individual happiness is your guiding principle, no-fault divorce makes sense. If you value institutions for the structure they provide, over and above the happiness they may bring to the individuals bound up in those institutions, then you will probably care about marriages that are not your own and wish to impose stricter rules for their dissolution.

This. There have been numerous studies that children who are raised in homes with married parents do better in school, get in less trouble, have fewer teen prevnencies than in single parent homes. On phone sorry my spelling is shit bc of that.

[hey_it's_that_dog]

At this point, at that, this, level. Do you think that he knows he is full of shit? And that he is just orchestrating design-by-committee statements and commentary? Or do you think that he honestly, and actually, believes this? I understanding saying planned and precise comments to win an election. But this level of what the fuckettry must hit home with some sort of logic or morals within him.

Romney is probably a psychopath of the snakes-in-suits variety.