Rep. Paul Ryan now supports gay adoption

  • Thread starter Thread starter oldcelt
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
meltzerboy said:
Well get with the program then, oldcelt. Didn’t you know that name-calling, like patriotism, is the last refuge (or bastion) of a scoundrel?
Click to expand...
Example, btw, of a kinder, gentler insult. Or, is referring to someone as a “scoundrel” a compliment? 😛
 
livingwordunity said:
I asked the question because Julianna said, “a politician is a politician is a politician”. I suspect her aim was to convince Republicans that they might as well vote Democrat. So I reversed it using her same reasoning. 🙂
Click to expand...
No, eh, wrong, but thanks for playing. 😃

What I meant “was”… it doesn’t really matter if it’s an elephant or a donkey, they are both animals…

or better… a politician does what ever he/she can to get elected, they recite all these “pie crust promises”, then they get into office and think they are going to work miracles over night and find out it, “it ain’t that easy”.

FYI, I never voted a straight ticket since I started voting in '76. No one, no human, tells me who to vote for…and my votes are private…and no one can bully me or use hell in a handbasket scare tactics to influence me either. I am an independent/moderate, with the God given ability to think for myself. I don’t boycott and I don’t ride bandwagons.
 
Julianna said:
or better… a politician does what ever he/she can to get elected, they recite all these “pie crust promises”, then they get into office and think they are going to work miracles over night and find out it, “it ain’t that easy”.

FYI, I never voted a straight ticket since I started voting in '76. No one, no human, tells me who to vote for…and my votes are private…and no one can bully me or use hell in a handbasket scare tactics to influence me either. I am an independent/moderate, with the God given ability to think for myself. I don’t boycott and I don’t ride bandwagons.
Click to expand...
Nice summation…there actually are a few moderates left. I dare say probably a lot more than many would suspect. Not a particularly comfortable position since we tend to get hammered by the more extreme elements on either side.
 
Gov. Christie and Paul Ryan have remained pro-life, Gov. Christie vetoed a same sex marriage bill and said it should be left to a public vote. I can’t expect Politicians to be perfect, they are struggling against a range of adversities.

I apologize if things ever sound partisan, I am for justice and for certain principles.

Randall Terry, that guy even ran as a Democrat being a pro life candidate.
 
Ridgerunner said:
What a hoot this is! All the Democrats are surrounding Ryan like a pack of wolves. Sometimes a deer has to be bleeding before a person can see the wolves emerge from the woods. But emerge they do.

Ryan was finished as a national candidate in November, 2012, but I guess he’s symbolic for the left of all they hate, and particularly because he’s Catholic. But there are still only four prolife democrats in the Congress according to NARAL and only four pro-abortion Repubs according to them. And the prolife Dems are shrinking in number as are the pro-abort Repubs. The Democrats are still the party of abortion and homosexual marriage, almost without exception. And their supporters are the supporters of abortion and the profanation of marriage every bit as much as Obama is, and every bit as much as the abortion “doctor” himself is.

Democrat apologists continue in counseling despair to prolife, pro-marriage people. as I have said before, it reminds me of nothing so much as the “Agony in the Garden” scene in “The Passion of Christ” where Satan tempts Jesus to despair…“You can’t save them. No man can do it.”

And it’s the very same temptation to the sin of despair and the very same scandal.

I’m not a Republican. Never have been. But I am not so stupid as to see the evil in the Democrat party of today; a party of which I was once a very active part. The only way to oppose them is to support their opponents. Perhaps those who oppose the paganism of the Democrat party will not win everything with any one candidate or any group of candidates. But the moral imperative to oppose the profoundly evil is still there.

Don’t be fooled by the counselors to despair. There are plenty of them, including on CAF. If all Catholics voted against the Party of Death in even one election, the Dem party would have to change. Until that happens, it won’t. it will get worse and worse. It thinks you all support abortion and homosexual marriage as much as it does, or at least that your moral fibre is so weak that you will even give them a pass when (as with the HHS mandate) they order Catholic nuns to provide contraceptives and abortifacients for themselves. Now that they have officially endorsed abortion and homosexual “marriage” and begun acting to force it on even Catholic nuns, do you really think they’re finished?

Don’t give them a pass. Ryan isn’t the issue. The evil of the Democrat party and its leaders is the issue.
Click to expand...
Great advice for all!! 👍
 
oldcelt said:
How has that type of rhetoric been working out? When you attack and insult people through words my experience has been that their minds snap shut.
Click to expand...
I didn’t start this thread in which Ryan is attacked. It was not my intent to insult, but merely to tell the truth on the abortion-devoted Democrat party and to encourage people to oppose them until such time as they abandon their singleminded devotion to it. As you may recall, I said it would probably only take one disasterous election.

I don’t worry about whether the minds of people with closed minds will somehow “snap shut”. I was addressing those who might not see with clarity how the supporters of the pro-abortion crowd encourage despair in people who might oppose their agenda.

If that shoe fits any feet here, I can’t help that.
 
oldcelt said:
How has that type of rhetoric been working out? When you attack and insult people through words my experience has been that their minds snap shut.
Click to expand...
I didn’t see any attack and insult, only a recognition that we must oppose a party which has embraced support of evil as a core principle. It’s unfortunate that everything he says is true. Whether voters choose finally to reject evil is up to each voter.

As for ‘gay adoption,’ if that is the alternative, I’ll be happy to support more orphanages operated by compassionate and orthodox Catholics.
 
Partisan Definition: Devoted to or biased in support of a party, group, or cause.

Catholics should most definitely be partisan to the pro-life and pro-traditional marriage causes. We do not need to be party partisans. However, since I first voted in 1992, I have not had an opportunity to vote for a pro-life democrat. So if that makes it appear I’m partisan to the republican party, the democrats are to blame. 🤷
 
Having viewed the video posted by OldCelt in post #1 - on the link to the “Think Progress” website here was the context (from the “Think Progress” article):
Confronted by an audience member about his anti-LGBT voting record — Ryan earned a “zero percent” score on gay rights from the Human Rights Campaign — the House Budget Committee chairman admitted that gays and lesbians could provide a loving home to “orphans.” In 1999, Ryan voted against adoption for same-sex couples in the District of Columbia, but said he would vote differently today:
Click to expand...
RYAN: Adoption, I’d vote differently these days. That was I think a vote I took in my first term, 1999 or 2000. 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. I do believe marriage is between a man and a woman, we just respectfully disagree on that issue.
Click to expand...
Little did Ryan know that this moment of “moderation” - even couched as it was in the perspective of an unadopted living child being POSSIBLY better off being adopted by “a loving person or couple” (sexual preference, same sex relationship not specifically mentioned here but understood in context to cover at least SOME of these given the overall nature of the sweeping question - Ryan’s 0% LGBT voting record) would become a politically defining one for him.

He thought he was being nice. Still answering the “marriage question” but admitting that at least some candidates to be adoptive parents (all?!) " … ought to be able to do that. Period."

He didn’t know that this might be his defining political moment.

This headline is all some people will know before re-labelling him. Though it is not moderating on** abortion **- where children’s very lives are at stake – and Ryan has not even really changed his vote on the adoption matter. Just said he’d “vote differently” (on aspects of a particular bill?). And does “differently” mean “completely the other way now”?

Maybe a good, moral person he knows that struggles with a certain temptation - but would be a good parent - came to his mind? Unfortunate timing for that to come to mind perhaps.

Couples? He did throw that in. And it brought to mind “same sex couples” due to the context of the question. That would be a tougher explanation to his conservative base. Not that ADOPTION is the bad thing - and per built-in safeguards, even many traditionally married couples get turned down in their attempts to adopt.

The headline contains a sub-context: “Even PAUL RYAN now …” to let people who don’t think “gay adoptions” are such a good idea JUST how radical THEY now are.

Ryan may also have given an unwitting signal that now the time is ripe to push for MORE “gay adoptions”. Politics being what it is … in some places “gay couples” who want to adopt will have an “express lane” opened to them instead of no lane at all, or an additional barrier. Some of these “adoptions” exist anyway - officially and otherwise (per who might be a child’s guardian).

Welcome to the Todd Akin pile. < Akin thought he was sticking up for the rights of unborn children (conceived under circumstances not their fault) - to not be killed legally. Akin’s even taking the loaded question finished him. He came off as almost “pro-rape” by the end of the media spin. Humpty Dumpty as a candidate as it turned out. Chastened by Mitt Romney’s criticism at the time. Good thing for Ryan it’s not an election year.

Gone (at least for now) is his image as the responsible leader that put together a budget
when no one else seemed to know how to do it. He’s the “gay adoption” Republican for at least this week.

And the headline “Ryan Now Supports Gay Adoption” ***can look like *** he’d back all such adoptions, and has completely reversed all of his reasoning for voting the opposite way the only time the thing came to a vote in his career. When it might be more the case that “in some cases, such adoptions might be acceptable,” or a much more modest thing than seeming to lead the GOP version of the gay adoption parade.

“Ryan Holds Fast To Traditional Marriage Stance” is also what happened. But :yawn: yawn < as a story. Here is a “gotcha” story. It’s “true”. Though in my opinion the issue for those publishing the story and featuring this moment in the event - is much more about the advancement of a political agenda - than about adoption (or just what’s best for the kids) at all.
 
Ridgerunner said:
I didn’t start this thread in which Ryan is attacked. It was not my intent to insult, but merely to tell the truth on the abortion-devoted Democrat party and to encourage people to oppose them until such time as they abandon their singleminded devotion to it. As you may recall, I said it would probably only take one disasterous election.

I don’t worry about whether the minds of people with closed minds will somehow “snap shut”. I was addressing those who might not see with clarity how the supporters of the pro-abortion crowd encourage despair in people who might oppose their agenda.

If that shoe fits any feet here, I can’t help that.
Click to expand...
😃
 
CaptFun said:
Having viewed the video posted by OldCelt in post #1 - on the link to the “Think Progress” website here was the context (from the “Think Progress” article):

Little did Ryan know that this moment of “moderation” - even couched as it was in the perspective of an unadopted living child being POSSIBLY better off being adopted by “a loving person or couple” (sexual preference, same sex relationship not specifically mentioned here but understood in context to cover at least SOME of these given the overall nature of the sweeping question - Ryan’s 0% LGBT voting record) would become a politically defining one for him.

He thought he was being nice. Still answering the “marriage question” but admitting that at least some candidates to be adoptive parents (all?!) " … ought to be able to do that. Period."

He didn’t know that this might be his defining political moment.

This headline is all some people will know before re-labelling him. Though it is not moderating on** abortion **- where children’s very lives are at stake – and Ryan has not even really changed his vote on the adoption matter. Just said he’d “vote differently” (on aspects of a particular bill?). And does “differently” mean “completely the other way now”?

Maybe a good, moral person he knows that struggles with a certain temptation - but would be a good parent - came to his mind? Unfortunate timing for that to come to mind perhaps.

Couples? He did throw that in. And it brought to mind “same sex couples” due to the context of the question. That would be a tougher explanation to his conservative base. Not that ADOPTION is the bad thing - and per built-in safeguards, even many traditionally married couples get turned down in their attempts to adopt.

The headline contains a sub-context: “Even PAUL RYAN now …” to let people who don’t think “gay adoptions” are such a good idea JUST how radical THEY now are.

Ryan may also have given an unwitting signal that now the time is ripe to push for MORE “gay adoptions”. Politics being what it is … in some places “gay couples” who want to adopt will have an “express lane” opened to them instead of no lane at all, or an additional barrier. Some of these “adoptions” exist anyway - officially and otherwise (per who might be a child’s guardian).

Welcome to the Todd Akin pile. < Akin thought he was sticking up for the rights of unborn children (conceived under circumstances not their fault) - to not be killed legally. Akin’s even taking the loaded question finished him. He came off as almost “pro-rape” by the end of the media spin. Humpty Dumpty as a candidate as it turned out. Chastened by Mitt Romney’s criticism at the time. Good thing for Ryan it’s not an election year.

Gone (at least for now) is his image as the responsible leader that put together a budget
when no one else seemed to know how to do it. He’s the “gay adoption” Republican for at least this week.

And the headline “Ryan Now Supports Gay Adoption” ***can look like *** he’d back all such adoptions, and has completely reversed all of his reasoning for voting the opposite way the only time the thing came to a vote in his career. When it might be more the case that “in some cases, such adoptions might be acceptable,” or a much more modest thing than seeming to lead the GOP version of the gay adoption parade.

“Ryan Holds Fast To Traditional Marriage Stance” is also what happened. But :yawn: yawn < as a story. Here is a “gotcha” story. It’s “true”. Though in my opinion the issue for those publishing the story and featuring this moment in the event - is much more about the advancement of a political agenda - than about adoption (or just what’s best for the kids) at all.
Click to expand...
This whole thing reminds me of when VP Dan Quayle was once asked on television what he would do if his daughter found she was pregnant but chose to terminate her pregnancy, and he said he would support his daughter. Sometimes a careless remark can change everything.
 
10gr8kids said:
Partisan Definition: Devoted to or biased in support of a party, group, or cause.

Catholics should most definitely be partisan to the pro-life and pro-traditional marriage causes. We do not need to be party partisans. However, since I first voted in 1992, I have not had an opportunity to vote for a pro-life democrat. So if that makes it appear I’m partisan to the republican party, the democrats are to blame. 🤷
Click to expand...
Exactly. The “moderates” who brag about never voting a “straight ticket” must be talking about gay rights (we still need a rim shot smiley), because I’ve never been in a situation where there was a good mix of stances among Democrats on moral issues. That’s not to say I have never voted Democrat. I have. I vote for the person, not the party. That said, it’s pretty rare since the great majority of Democrats support the killing of innocent human beings as a constitutionally supported basic right and favor changing the definition of marriage.
 
CaptFun said:
Couples? He did throw that in. And it brought to mind “same sex couples” due to the context of the question. .
Click to expand...
He didn’t actually say he would not opposed adoptions by same sex “couples”. What he said was " I think if A PERSON wants to love and raise a child, they ought to be able to do that."

I recall reading a story by a well-known Catholic writer in which a Polish man with SSA in Nazi-occupied Poland raises a Jewish boy, remaining chaste the whole time. Perhaps Ryan read that story.

It is amusing, though, to see liberals use this as a weapon against Ryan and all faithful Catholics, for that matter. Reminds me of something Solzhenitsyn said of those Soviet functionaries who would sometimes denigrate their own system to a victim in order to get the victim to cooperate. Solhenitsyn called it “Wiping their a** with their own flag.”

A fair amount of that going on with this Ryan story, and no doubt will be more.
 
Publisher said:
My how the praises at CAF for Paul Ryan have changed since last November…amazing.
Click to expand...
No less than the Ryan detractors last November as some type of Randian anti Christ now singing his praises. I noticed you started a duplicate thread on the same subject.

And I’m sure it was to denouce Ryan’s contrary to Catholic teaching stance?

I’m guessing “No”.
 
CaptFun said:
Having viewed the video posted by OldCelt in post #1 - on the link to the “Think Progress” website here was the context (from the “Think Progress” article):

Little did Ryan know that this moment of “moderation” - even couched as it was in the perspective of an unadopted living child being POSSIBLY better off being adopted by “a loving person or couple” (sexual preference, same sex relationship not specifically mentioned here but understood in context to cover at least SOME of these given the overall nature of the sweeping question - Ryan’s 0% LGBT voting record) would become a politically defining one for him.

He thought he was being nice. Still answering the “marriage question” but admitting that at least some candidates to be adoptive parents (all?!) " … ought to be able to do that. Period."

He didn’t know that this might be his defining political moment.

This headline is all some people will know before re-labelling him. Though it is not moderating on** abortion **- where children’s very lives are at stake – and Ryan has not even really changed his vote on the adoption matter. Just said he’d “vote differently” (on aspects of a particular bill?). And does “differently” mean “completely the other way now”?

Maybe a good, moral person he knows that struggles with a certain temptation - but would be a good parent - came to his mind? Unfortunate timing for that to come to mind perhaps.

Couples? He did throw that in. And it brought to mind “same sex couples” due to the context of the question. That would be a tougher explanation to his conservative base. Not that ADOPTION is the bad thing - and per built-in safeguards, even many traditionally married couples get turned down in their attempts to adopt.

The headline contains a sub-context: “Even PAUL RYAN now …” to let people who don’t think “gay adoptions” are such a good idea JUST how radical THEY now are.

Ryan may also have given an unwitting signal that now the time is ripe to push for MORE “gay adoptions”. Politics being what it is … in some places “gay couples” who want to adopt will have an “express lane” opened to them instead of no lane at all, or an additional barrier. Some of these “adoptions” exist anyway - officially and otherwise (per who might be a child’s guardian).

Welcome to the Todd Akin pile. < Akin thought he was sticking up for the rights of unborn children (conceived under circumstances not their fault) - to not be killed legally. Akin’s even taking the loaded question finished him. He came off as almost “pro-rape” by the end of the media spin. Humpty Dumpty as a candidate as it turned out. Chastened by Mitt Romney’s criticism at the time. Good thing for Ryan it’s not an election year.

Gone (at least for now) is his image as the responsible leader that put together a budget
when no one else seemed to know how to do it. He’s the “gay adoption” Republican for at least this week.

And the headline “Ryan Now Supports Gay Adoption” ***can look like *** he’d back all such adoptions, and has completely reversed all of his reasoning for voting the opposite way the only time the thing came to a vote in his career. When it might be more the case that “in some cases, such adoptions might be acceptable,” or a much more modest thing than seeming to lead the GOP version of the gay adoption parade.

“Ryan Holds Fast To Traditional Marriage Stance” is also what happened. But :yawn: yawn < as a story. Here is a “gotcha” story. It’s “true”. Though in my opinion the issue for those publishing the story and featuring this moment in the event - is much more about the advancement of a political agenda - than about adoption (or just what’s best for the kids) at all.
Click to expand...
I think this post is very correct, I would not pay attention to a press that would love to “entrap” “gotcha” someone like Paul Ryan, they have salvaged him at virtually every point the MSM can to all of a sudden say, Oh yeah, this is the truth, this is just a town hall. There are not many sources confirming this.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top