Did you know - Paul Ryan Now Supports Gay Adoption?

[allingeneral]

Paul Ryan - The Vice Presidential candidate for the Republican Party in 2012 - has flip-flopped his view on adoption and said:

"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," [Video here]

Mitt Romney voiced his support for gay adoptions in 2012.

Oh that silly old slippery slope...

Ryan did go on to say that he believes a marriage is defined as being between a man and a woman - but how long before he changes his mind on that one as well?

It makes me sad that someone who I thought was a staunch Conservative is not the person I believed him to be. Unfortunately, this seems to be the norm these days for both parties. The Democrats are flat-out lying to us, and the Republicans are quietly going along with it.

My position - for the record, is this.

- Homosexuality is an abomination (perverse, not acceptable)
- I do not hate those who live in this manner, but I refuse to ever condone their actions
- I would never subject a child to be raised in such an unhealthy, perverse environment

We can talk about "Nature vs. Nurture" all day long - but at the end of the day, we have enough messed up kids and young adults out there without adding another angle for a child's psyche and set of moral values to be changed (perverted).

[WBlacklidge]

To the main question, it is hard to find any politician that doesn't flip-flop because of political deal making. I do think it is a good thing to change ones mind based on new information or evidence, so ideally you want leaders taking in information and processing it into their policy change. It is the people that are unwilling to change what they believe regardless of new evidence that I worry about.

I am against (speaking in generalities here) the government telling consenting adults what they can and can not do unless it 'picks my pocket or breaks my leg'. So I support more freedom and less government in many cases.

I have also seen enough evidence to form the opinion that children adopted or in guardianship of gay couples actually have a higher rate of success. The adoption process and decision making that results in a getting a child makes it so there is zero chance of unwanted children (heterosexual couples having unplanned pregnancy) being a huge contributing factor to successfully raising a child.

I understand that a lot of the negative feelings toward gay marriage and the discussion of gay folk adopting is rooted in fundamental religious beliefs. I think if you are Baptist, Catholic, Muslim, etc and you are against it that is fine and those are your 'club' rules. You can't be a sinless Catholic if you are having gay sex, the Bible is very clear on that. Enforcing those rules in your private communities through expulsion of membership is the best way to handle it, not through government decree. I don't want the government having a say in my sex life or granting privileges to anyone based on sex/sexual orientation/religious beliefs. I am actually against gay marriage law in that I refuse to vote in any more legislation that seeks to define what consenting adults can do.

I am not religious but I respect fundamentalist views in that they don't hand pick what they want out of their religious texts and own the entire thing. I also respect evangelical religious folk in that they are all always coming from the heart. If you truly believed in sin and wanted salvation for your fellow man how could not want to preach that?

My position:
-Libertarian
-I love gay folk and I feel very positive about them adopting.

[Kreutz]

Methinks someone is trying to be more electable. I fully expect the GOP to start dropping "social issues" like this in the future, it really hasn't done them much good anyway I guess.

[SHMIV]

I suspect that, for the most part, none of us here are suffering from a pack mentality. In other words, we are capable of basing votes (or a non-vote) on multiple issues, instead of just one.

So, while my position is much like Ricks, and I am disappointed that Paul Ryan caved, i'd still have to reveiw his positions on other things before deciding to vote for him.

Of course, I do wonder, now, what else he may cave on.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[ShotgunBlast]

Well, you're definitely entitled to your position. Just don't be surprised that there are less and less representatives that'll go along with that position because there are less and less overall voters that have that position.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[OakRidgeStars]

The GOP will welcome anyone (or anything) into the party in a desperate attempt to win back the White House. If pollsters tell them that gay bisexual lesbian transsexual gender-neutral Hispanic janitors could possible be swayed to vote Republican, they'd be courting their vote in a heartbeat.

Not that there's anything wrong with that.

[dorminWS]

Works for me. Better a gay bisexual lesbian transsexual gender-neutral Hispanic janitor than a straight WASP stockbroker that would vote for BHO.

[mamabearCali]

Shrug....another politician being a politician. Really as long as they have the same qualifications that other couples have.......kids need parents. I don't think it is ideal......but what in life is?

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[ShotgunBlast]

I guess the big question is "do you want someone that has principles or someone that has a shot of winning the election?"

Of course based on Mitt Romney's nomination I think the GOP has already answered that question.

[Mindflayer]

Disagree with you on this one, Rick. I'd rather a kid grow up in a loving home, where they are taught love of family, love of country, and be the child of gay parents then the crap kids row up with today. Every day, the materialistic, self-centered, self-absorbed bullshit that passes as parenting pisses me off more and more. People are raising a second - third? - generation of kids that think that kind of attitude is the just fine.

[WRW]

Are straight couples adopting to raise in the manner you detest, Mindflayer?

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[allingeneral]

Every day, the materialistic, self-centered, self-absorbed bullshit that passes as parenting pisses me off more and more.

And you think that adding a gay twist to it will fix it right up? I think this is just another way that the gay community is trying to get a stranglehold on our children...when little Jenny sees Bobby being dropped off at school by Dad and Dad, it just makes it that much more OK and acceptable to little Jenny's mind. You think that's ok? I threw up in my mouth a little bit when I typed "Dad and Dad". You don't think there's something inherently wrong with this?

[dorminWS]

I really don't care if people are gay or straight - as long as they keep their sexual lives to themselves. Truth is, even though I accept people for who they are and what they do in their dealings with me (which means that their sexual preferences are absolutely irrelevant), I am personally repulsed by the thought of 2 men having sex. I just can't help that. (Of course, I've also known a few male-female couples whose procreative activities I fervently preferred not to contemplate.) I can see the arguments in favor of allowing same-sex couples to adopt. But the bottom line for me is, that the message to the adopted kid AS WELL AS THAT KID'S CIRCLE OF FRIENDS is that homosexuality is normal. I don't think that is the right message for the adopted kid, and I particularly think the spillover message to the kid's friends is a disservice to their parents. For me, the rule is pretty simple: When you force your personal choices/requirements (be that sexual orientation, the language you speak, your religion, or chronic flatulence) onto others who are unwilling to embrace/accommodate/tolerate them, you cross the line.

[DryBones]

When you force your personal choices/requirements (be that sexual orientation, the language you speak, your religion, or chronic flatulence) onto others who are unwilling to embrace/accommodate/tolerate them, you cross the line.

this goes in either direction. You will never be able to legislate morality based on a groups religious convictions. Perhaps if the Republican party backed out of the Bible a bit and focused a little more on truly being a fiscally conservative party they would have a better chance at getting more of the moderate votes in the elections?

[dorminWS]

When you force your personal choices/requirements (be that sexual orientation, the language you speak, your religion, or chronic flatulence) onto others who are unwilling to embrace/accommodate/tolerate them, you cross the line.

this goes in either direction.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Does for a fact.

[WBlacklidge]

And you think that adding a gay twist to it will fix it right up? I think this is just another way that the gay community is trying to get a stranglehold on our children..

Stranglehold on our children? That seems a bit paranoid but I may be misinterpreting... it sounds like you are suggesting there is a conspiracy to assimilate straight kids into the gay community?

I just had a funny image of the Borg from Star Trek but dressed as flamboyant gay men.

I watched Lincoln the other day and it made me wonder what happened to the original Republicans that fought to remove legislation that oppressed their fellow humans, fought to suppress government power because they knew the power they gave government today could be used against them tomorrow.

Its funny how Republicans now are (I am speaking in generalities) screaming for big government to come in and save them from the gays and the attack on Christianity. The Republicans of old would have asked why you even gave the government that power in the first place.

[DiscipleofJMB]

Disagree with you on this one, Rick. I'd rather a kid grow up in a loving home, where they are taught love of family, love of country, and be the child of gay parents then the crap kids row up with today. Every day, the materialistic, self-centered, self-absorbed bullshit that passes as parenting pisses me off more and more. People are raising a second - third? - generation of kids that think that kind of attitude is the just fine.

I'm with you. I feel the same way about marriage. People have been ruining heterosexual marriages since they existed. Adultery, domestic or even sexual abuse, people who marry but are never happy.... I've seen too many people crap on the concept of marriage that I really don't care who gets married.

If two people are in love, and actually will work to maintain a healthy and happy relationship, it shouldn't matter what gender they are. They want to raise a child? And the child services people find them to be ok? Fine. It's harder to adopt a cat or dog from a shelter than to have a child naturally... if anyone wants to go through the hoops it's fine with me.



Si vis pacem para bellum

follow me @DiscipleofJMB - GO PENS!

[Reverenddel]

My thoughts? As long as you're not looking for a tax break, me to condone/support it financially, or change societial rules in a way to be disruptive.

Go for it. Leave me be, I'll leave you be.

Or as I told Dorm "Don't BRING none, there won't BE none!"

But in turn as to politicians? F'ck'the buncha lying pantywaisted backstabbing thieves, and murderers. That's for BOTH sides!

[SHMIV]

What was it that Franklin said about a government for religious people, and being wholly unfit fit for others?

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[WRW]

What goes on in the bedroom as a privacy issue is one thing. Sanctioning what goes on in the bedroom is another thing entirely. Bringing children into the fantasy of Gay procreation is a geometric magnification of that sanction.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]