Last night he said his views have changed a bit on gay rights. He still doesn't believe in same sex marriages, but he said he's okay with gay couples adopting children.

"I do believe that if there are children who are orphans who do not have a loving person or couple ... I think if a person wants to love and raise a child, they ought to be able to do that. Period. I would vote that way," was his quote when asked about it at a town hall meeting last night.

Not a huge deal I suppose but I seem to recall people getting on the President when he changed his views on same sex couples (although Obama's views were a little more widespread since it involved marriage).

Link: http://www.usatoday.com/story/onpolitics...n/2124877/

He'll no doubt continue evolving over the next few years so that he's a viable general election candidate and not sidelined by social conservative baggage.

Considering many social conservatives strongly believe in being married before having children, it's hard to reconcile supporting gay adoptions but still being against gay marriage and trying to make it look like it's for anything other than political expedience.

There really isn't a reason not to allow gays to adopt. No Brainer.

Positive rep me or I'll sell you to gypsies.

Funny. I could care less about gays marrying. I have much more a problem with the adoptions. WTF...As long as the principle of non aggression is not broken...I guess it is none of my business.

I could with civil unions before adoption. At least that is a contract between two adults.

(05-01-2013 10:17 AM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  Not a huge deal I suppose but I seem to recall people getting on the President when he changed his views on same sex couples (although Obama's views were a little more widespread since it involved marriage).

The problem with Obama was he was for gay marriage as a state senator, against it as a candidate the first time, then went back to being for it as president. So it was clearly less about a principled position and more about getting votes.

(05-01-2013 12:03 PM)Ninerfan1 Wrote:  

(05-01-2013 10:17 AM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  Not a huge deal I suppose but I seem to recall people getting on the President when he changed his views on same sex couples (although Obama's views were a little more widespread since it involved marriage).

The problem with Obama was he was for gay marriage as a state senator, against it as a candidate the first time, then went back to being for it as president. So it was clearly less about a principled position and more about getting votes.

So being for it is for votes? or against it? Or both?

(05-01-2013 12:14 PM)AtlanticLeague Wrote:  

(05-01-2013 12:03 PM)Ninerfan1 Wrote:  

(05-01-2013 10:17 AM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  Not a huge deal I suppose but I seem to recall people getting on the President when he changed his views on same sex couples (although Obama's views were a little more widespread since it involved marriage).

The problem with Obama was he was for gay marriage as a state senator, against it as a candidate the first time, then went back to being for it as president. So it was clearly less about a principled position and more about getting votes.

So being for it is for votes? or against it? Or both?

Both. It all depends on who you're wanting votes from.

His flip flops are well documented. If you want to delude yourself into believing they were all because he was just evolving, devolving, then evolving again, feel free.

(05-01-2013 12:14 PM)AtlanticLeague Wrote:  

(05-01-2013 12:03 PM)Ninerfan1 Wrote:  

(05-01-2013 10:17 AM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  Not a huge deal I suppose but I seem to recall people getting on the President when he changed his views on same sex couples (although Obama's views were a little more widespread since it involved marriage).

The problem with Obama was he was for gay marriage as a state senator, against it as a candidate the first time, then went back to being for it as president. So it was clearly less about a principled position and more about getting votes.

So being for it is for votes? or against it? Or both?

I'd say both. I think that deep down he's always supported it, but he came out against it during the 2008 campaign to appear more moderate, then flip-flopped had his views evolve again more to get his base fired up than for the principle.

(05-01-2013 12:19 PM)Ninerfan1 Wrote:  

(05-01-2013 12:14 PM)AtlanticLeague Wrote:  

(05-01-2013 12:03 PM)Ninerfan1 Wrote:  

(05-01-2013 10:17 AM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  Not a huge deal I suppose but I seem to recall people getting on the President when he changed his views on same sex couples (although Obama's views were a little more widespread since it involved marriage).

The problem with Obama was he was for gay marriage as a state senator, against it as a candidate the first time, then went back to being for it as president. So it was clearly less about a principled position and more about getting votes.

So being for it is for votes? or against it? Or both?

Both. It all depends on who you're wanting votes from.

His flip flops are well documented. If you want to delude yourself into believing they were all because he was just evolving, devolving, then evolving again, feel free.

Like everyone else, I have no clue what politicians of either side of the aisle actually think about various issues, only what stance they support. If the public support of one side or the other is what actually moves the needle, does it matter whether it's faked or not?

(05-01-2013 12:28 PM)AtlanticLeague Wrote:  If the public support of one side or the other is what actually moves the needle, does it matter whether it's faked or not?

Probably not. But when they go from support, to against, back to support, it matters a little.

(05-01-2013 12:48 PM)Ninerfan1 Wrote:  

(05-01-2013 12:28 PM)AtlanticLeague Wrote:  If the public support of one side or the other is what actually moves the needle, does it matter whether it's faked or not?

Probably not. But when they go from support, to against, back to support, it matters a little.

Might as well celebrate an agreement when it happens, right?

(05-01-2013 12:51 PM)AtlanticLeague Wrote:  

(05-01-2013 12:48 PM)Ninerfan1 Wrote:  

(05-01-2013 12:28 PM)AtlanticLeague Wrote:  If the public support of one side or the other is what actually moves the needle, does it matter whether it's faked or not?

Probably not. But when they go from support, to against, back to support, it matters a little.

Might as well celebrate an agreement when it happens, right?

(05-01-2013 12:51 PM)AtlanticLeague Wrote:  

(05-01-2013 12:48 PM)Ninerfan1 Wrote:  

(05-01-2013 12:28 PM)AtlanticLeague Wrote:  If the public support of one side or the other is what actually moves the needle, does it matter whether it's faked or not?

Probably not. But when they go from support, to against, back to support, it matters a little.

Might as well celebrate an agreement when it happens, right?

Yep. There we go!