Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

Current Events & Hot Topics Current Events & Hot Topics

Paul Ryan SUPPORTS adoption by gay couples, BUT...

He doesn't support gay marriage.

wait, what?


Paul Ryan Reverses Stance On Gay Adoption

link and video

The Huffington Post  |  By Posted:   |  Updated: 05/01/2013 9:29 am EDT

Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) said Monday during a town hall event in Janesville, Wis., that he has changed his position on gay couples adopting children, WKOW reports.

An audience member at the event asked Ryan why he doesn't support same-sex marriage. Ryan said that while he continues to believe marriage should only be between a man and a woman, he now regrets voting in 1999 to ban same-sex couples in the District of Columbia from adopting children.

"Adoption, I’d vote differently these days. That was I think a vote I took in my first term, 1999 or 2000," Ryan 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."

Ryan, who served as 2012 Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney's running mate, added that he had changed his position on same-sex adoptions years ago.

Click over to ThinkProgress to watch the video of Ryan's answer.

Romney's stance on the issue has come under scrutiny as well. In an interview with Fox News last May, Romney said he believed it was "fine" for gay couples to adopt children, an opinion he also held while serving as governor of Massachusetts. However, he later appeared to walk back his support, saying that he would only "acknowledge the fact that gay adoption is legal in all states but one."

by on May. 1, 2013 at 11:04 AM
Replies (51-53):
Veni.Vidi.Vici.
by on May. 3, 2013 at 12:17 AM


Quoting Momniscient:

I think the point is that to some... marriage is better and a legal contract is 'less than'

Meaning the adopted children of gay parents are less than the children of married parents.

BLECH

tonijustine
by on May. 3, 2013 at 1:36 PM

Two things as a preface...

1. I believe that the best place for kids is on a family with married parents.

2. I support same sex marriage because what my neighbors do I. The privacy of their own home doesn't affect DH, DS or me.

I agree with yours isn't that it would be better if the parents, homosexual or heterosexual, were married, but for people who can and do separate these issues I think it comes down to the fact that there are kids who need loving homes and people who can provide that on the one hand, and changing the societal definition of marriage.

if you think about it, the definition of parent has always been looser then that of spouse. People can think of many people as their parents. They can have more than two parents. Half, step, adoptive, biological, that friend or family member who was "like a mother to me"....

Spouses (and the institution that creates them...marriage) is pretty much only describing one thing. Domestic partnerships as a definition are relatively new to the vocabulary when compared to the concept of spouse which has been around for eons and eons. So is "common law" spouse as a definition. Yes we have ex-spouses, but only one spouse  ( generally) at a time. 

So I can understand why some people would be alright with expanding an already broader definition to include two people of the same sex who can provide financially and emotionally for a child than it would be to expend a historically narrow definition to same sex couples.

Incidentally, I think it is even more imperative for same sex couples to marry if they adopt because marriage provides safeguards in this country that people can't get in any other way (social security survivor benefits, inheritance benefits....).


Quoting Traci_Momof2:



Quoting tonijustine:

It must be hard for politicians. They are stuck with taking a stand and not allowed to change their minds. If they do, they are flip floppers, currying fair or speaking out of both sides of their mouth. If they grow up and change their opinions because of experience or new data or somebody making a convincing argument, they are stuck.

i mean, how many of us can say we have the same view of the world we did 14 years ago?

I don't find this problematic. If there are kids who need a family and the couple chosen is gay and will give thm a good home and love, that is good for the child. I don't have a problem with same sex Mrriage, but I can acknowledge that they are two separate issues and supporting one does not necessitate supporting the other.

I agree with everything you said.  I have a question though regarding your last statement.  I know that in this day and age, there are a lot of parents raising children together but the parents are not married.  However, couldn't it be argued that the ideal situation for the children is for their parents to be married to each other?  If so, shouldn't that ideal be supported by our laws?  Therefore it doesn't make sense for the law to support gay couples adopting but not support gay couples getting married.  See what I'm saying?  That's where the issue is in my mind.




Traci_Momof2
by Silver Member on May. 3, 2013 at 1:50 PM

 Very insightful.  It helps me to understand where others might be coming from on this.

I agree with the last paragraph because not only do these things benefit the spouse, they will in turn also benefit the children that the spouse has.  I think that is an important factor in all of this.


Quoting tonijustine:

Two things as a preface...

1. I believe that the best place for kids is on a family with married parents.

2. I support same sex marriage because what my neighbors do I. The privacy of their own home doesn't affect DH, DS or me.

I agree with yours isn't that it would be better if the parents, homosexual or heterosexual, were married, but for people who can and do separate these issues I think it comes down to the fact that there are kids who need loving homes and people who can provide that on the one hand, and changing the societal definition of marriage.

if you think about it, the definition of parent has always been looser then that of spouse. People can think of many people as their parents. They can have more than two parents. Half, step, adoptive, biological, that friend or family member who was "like a mother to me"....

Spouses (and the institution that creates them...marriage) is pretty much only describing one thing. Domestic partnerships as a definition are relatively new to the vocabulary when compared to the concept of spouse which has been around for eons and eons. So is "common law" spouse as a definition. Yes we have ex-spouses, but only one spouse  ( generally) at a time. 

So I can understand why some people would be alright with expanding an already broader definition to include two people of the same sex who can provide financially and emotionally for a child than it would be to expend a historically narrow definition to same sex couples.

Incidentally, I think it is even more imperative for same sex couples to marry if they adopt because marriage provides safeguards in this country that people can't get in any other way (social security survivor benefits, inheritance benefits....).

 

Quoting Traci_Momof2:

 

 

Quoting tonijustine:

It must be hard for politicians. They are stuck with taking a stand and not allowed to change their minds. If they do, they are flip floppers, currying fair or speaking out of both sides of their mouth. If they grow up and change their opinions because of experience or new data or somebody making a convincing argument, they are stuck.

i mean, how many of us can say we have the same view of the world we did 14 years ago?

I don't find this problematic. If there are kids who need a family and the couple chosen is gay and will give thm a good home and love, that is good for the child. I don't have a problem with same sex Mrriage, but I can acknowledge that they are two separate issues and supporting one does not necessitate supporting the other.

I agree with everything you said.  I have a question though regarding your last statement.  I know that in this day and age, there are a lot of parents raising children together but the parents are not married.  However, couldn't it be argued that the ideal situation for the children is for their parents to be married to each other?  If so, shouldn't that ideal be supported by our laws?  Therefore it doesn't make sense for the law to support gay couples adopting but not support gay couples getting married.  See what I'm saying?  That's where the issue is in my mind.

 

 

 


 

Add your quick reply below:
You must be a member to reply to this post.
Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

close Join now to connect to
other members!
Connect with Facebook or Sign Up Using Email

Already Joined? LOG IN