Rep. Paul Ryan now supports gay adoption

[triumphguy]

Sure. But, your point is irrelevant.

The Church still teaches against “gay marriage,” civil unions and gay adoption…in addition to sodomy. The sin of sodomy is something committed by both heterosexuals and homosexuals, but heterosexual couples don’t do “gay marriage” or gay adoption.

Pointing out the sin of sodomy among heterosexuals and making a crazy claim that there are “many” gay men who don’t engage in sodomy but seek civil unions, “gay marriage” and gay adoption cheapens your point.

Nope - apparently 30% of people with SSA do not engage in “sodomy.” So… it doesn’t cheapen my point.

When we fight the sinner and not the sin we lose ground.
When we demean the sinner but not the sin we lose ground.
We are fighting “same sex unions” not “sodomites.”
We need to use mature language, not nasty, ignorant and spiteful language.

 

[rlg94086]

Nope - apparently 30% of people with SSA do not engage in “sodomy.” So… it doesn’t cheapen my point.

A) No way to prove that %
B) What percentage of those supposed 30% are seeking civil unions, “gay marriage” and gay adoption?

 

[ProVobis]

Tell me it’s not so. Unless we expand adoptions, the babies will be put down like dogs?

I’m hoping it would give pregnant women who wish not to become mothers another option. Why are we so uptight with adoptions? Uncles, aunts, grandparents, etc. adopt or share parental responsibilities all the time. You can’t tell me that’s against Church teachings. Listen, I’m not Paul Ryan’s favorite fan but here I’m giving him the benefit of the doubt.

 

[rlg94086]

When we fight the sinner and not the sin we lose ground.
When we demean the sinner but not the sin we lose ground.
We are fighting “same sex unions” not “sodomites.”
We need to use mature language, not nasty, ignorant and spiteful language.

BTW…I agree with you on the use of the term. I think it is sufficient to argue against the term by just stating the above, rather than faking incredulity. You knew what the poster meant.

My point is only that your point is cheapened by poorly formed argument.

The chaste 30% probably includes people with SSA who are currently not with anyone. If you are not in a relationship, remaining chaste with regards to sodomy isn’t too difficult. I’m sure the numbers of heterosexual men and women who are chaste with regards to sodomy and fornication are similarly skewed by single people who have no relationships.

 

[LisaA]

I don’t think the article is well written but I wasn’t looking for Shakespeare, it is an opinion piece, I searched earlier for stories on this. It is what it is. It is like some people’s opinions here I am widely divergent on but so it goes.

And for the record, one has to comb the records very closely, Ryan said as has Ron Paul as well, that they believe “life begins at conception”, so indeed, I believe Paul Ryan’s view is totally in accordance with Catholic Teaching, I never heard him put in any “ifs and or buts” as they say.

The article simply states similar objections to those of individuals here, I don’t agree with the view but it serves to get one up to speed. Next time, I suppose I will spend 5 minutes on a google search and find an article from the American Thinker to please you.

Heavens, sorry I wasn’t inferring anything but that so many of these articles are more focused on pushing an agenda than actually revealing any information. Appreciate your thoughtful posts on the subject.

Ryan seems pretty squeaky clean and it appears that many both on CAF and those on the outside are looking for the “gotcha” moment. Even the title of the thread…Ryan now supports gay adoptions is a bit of a stretch. But this is typical of headlines everywhere, knowing most people won’t bother to read the first paragraph, much less the ending where a fact or two might make an appearance.

I don’t expect Ryan to run for national office in the future. Maybe we’ll see him in a Cabinet post in finance or budget. I’m still sorry it’s not President Romney and VP Ryan. Our country would be so much the better if that #%&(#%&(%#(&%#%N and his #$&(%(%&% VP had not slithered into office, helped by the apathetic and the would be purists who would rather a pro abort nincompoop be President than sully their oh so highfalutin standards

Lisa

 

[Stylteralmaldo]

I just watched the video…that had to be the most incoherent response I have ever seen him give. Why exactly is he against gay marriage again? Why would he prefer two unmarried gay people to be able to adopt but not a committed married gay couple? It just doesn’t make sense.

Imagine that the concept of “gay” was omitted for just a moment. Imagine now him arguing for two unmarried people to be able to adopt and then make the statement that he is against marriage.

Isn’t one of the goals of marriage to rear children in a stable environment?

 

[LisaA]

I’m hoping it would give pregnant women who wish not to become mothers another option. Why are we so uptight with adoptions? Uncles, aunts, grandparents, etc. adopt or share parental responsibilities all the time. You can’t tell me that’s against Church teachings. Listen, I’m not Paul Ryan’s favorite fan but here I’m giving him the benefit of the doubt.

Aside from that, here is the reality, there are probably dozens of wonderful potential parents for every child given up by a birth mother. Either they are aborted or kept by the sometimes ill equipped and often young mothers. Thus in reality we CAN and should be picky about adoptions. But that means looking at all of the elements of the potential parents and weighing what is best for that child.

As I said earlier when there is a special needs child who would remain institutionalized otherwise, holding out for the perfect couple with a four bedroom home in the burbs might not be realistic. That’s where I think Paul Ryan might be going, not prohibiting any consideration of alternatives.

That being said, when states push organizations such as Catholic Charities out of the adoption realm because religious restrictions would not allow gay couples to adopt, that is even more egregious. The best for the child should be the focus, not what serves an agenda or a social services procedure manual.

I hope that between Gosnell and increased awareness of the hideous practice of abortion, we will see an increase in mothers choosing to have their babies and if for the child’s best interest placing him or her with loving parents. Even keeping the child and struggling as a single mother beats being sucked into a recepticle and carried out with the trash

Lisa

 

[LisaA]

I just watched the video…that had to be the most incoherent response I have ever seen him give. Why exactly is he against gay marriage again? Why would he prefer two unmarried gay people to be able to adopt but not a committed married gay couple? It just doesn’t make sense.

Imagine that the concept of “gay” was omitted for just a moment. Imagine now him arguing for two unmarried people to be able to adopt and then make the statement that he is against marriage.

Isn’t one of the goals of marriage to rear children in a stable environment?

He is against the redefinition of marriage and all of its baggage and all of the unintended consequences that inevitably result from our attempts at social experiments. Apparently he is also willing to not prohibit adoptions to other than married heterosexual couples. It is a HUGE stretch to claim these two issues are related, other than tangentially.

Lisa

 

[triumphguy]

BTW…I agree with you on the use of the term. I think it is sufficient to argue against the term by just stating the above, rather than faking incredulity. You knew what the poster meant.

My point is only that your point is cheapened by poorly formed argument.

The chaste 30% probably includes people with SSA who are currently not with anyone. If you are not in a relationship, remaining chaste with regards to sodomy isn’t too difficult. I’m sure the numbers of heterosexual men and women who are chaste with regards to sodomy and fornication are similarly skewed by single people who have no relationships.

I knew what the poster meant, but found his language inaccurate, spiteful and ignorant.

I was reading an article in the Guardian - not my favourite paper, but one known for its left leaning and pro-homosexual views. There were over 500 comments on this article about a gay man not wanting to indulge in sodomy and most of the commentators, who were themselves gay, were citing the 30% stat that not all gay relationships indulge in sodomy. So straight (no pun intended) from the horses mouth. They may indulge in other sexual sins, but again, in that they are not alone.

My was to make a point about the inaccuracy of the “sodomite” label.

If 3% of people have SSA and 100% indulge in sodomy, and 5% of heterosexual men indulge in sodomy then there are more “sodomites” among the “straight” population than there are “gay” people.

We have to win hearts and change minds, not engage in negative and self-defeating thinking.

 

[rlg94086]

We have to win hearts and change minds, not engage in negative and self-defeating thinking.

You don’t truly believe that, or you wouldn’t have used your method of argument against the “sodomite civil unions” poster, would you?

 

[october_baby]

Who is calling him a RINO?

I did and I’m not taking it back!

 

[triumphguy]

You don’t truly believe that, or you wouldn’t have used your method of argument against the “sodomite civil unions” poster, would you?

er… wrong.

If someone uses muddy and inaccurate (and belittling) language I’m entitled to act confused.

My real confusion is how we as Catholics on this board feel that such language will advance our cause.

 

[wynnejj]

I’m hoping it would give pregnant women who wish not to become mothers another option. Why are we so uptight with adoptions? Uncles, aunts, grandparents, etc. adopt or share parental responsibilities all the time. You can’t tell me that’s against Church teachings. Listen, I’m not Paul Ryan’s favorite fan but here I’m giving him the benefit of the doubt.

Not enough homes for babies … same sex couples save the day … babies do not have to be put to sleep!

 

[larsont7]

I did and I’m not taking it back!

Wrong, he’s not a RINO, he’s a CINO. He’s everything the Republican Party has become this past decade. The thing that makes Ryan’s “evolved views” worse than Obama’s is that many faithful Catholics will follow Ryan’s reasoning whereas no faithful Catholic would follow anything Obama has to say.

 

[october_baby]

Wrong, he’s not a RINO, he’s a CINO. He’s everything the Republican Party has become this past decade. The thing that makes Ryan’s “evolved views” worse than Obama’s is that many faithful Catholics will follow Ryan’s reasoning whereas no faithful Catholic would follow anything Obama has to say.

My bad… CINO conservative in name only.