Posted on 04/30/2013 3:07:32 PM PDT by LonelyCon
Never mind! Paul Ryan has changed his view on adoption by same-sex partners, he told a town-hall audience in Wisconsin on Monday. In 1999, Ryan voted against gay couples, but now says he has reversed course on the issue. “I’d vote differently these days,” he 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.” On same-sex marriage, he says he’s still opposed.
I have and will again cheer the good they do. But you are dead right. It’s a dying commodity.
All the people who said they would hold feet to fire with a Romney presidency need to step up today and hold the ‘winners’ Dem and Pub alike’s feet to the fire. Shouldn’t matter who won. or who lost. I have argued with people talking about ‘Realville”. Well we are in it. So fire up the kindlin folks.
Or we A L L need to STFU and just drink the Kool Aid. Them’s the choices.
Part of the problem is some in talk radio who claim to be “conservative”, are also pro-same sex adoption. Exhibit A: Michael Medved
I’ll look into it tonight. Cant imagine it’s long, but it should be insightful considering the Bhoner strongarming that’s gone on.
I honestly don’t know at this point. Others on this thread have said Cruz probably isn’t a natural born citizen. Will have to research that. Certainly Palin if she’d jump in, but she just hasn’t made any moves that seem to me to indicate she’s truly interested, and we can’t just wait around hoping. Jindal? I know he supposedly screwed up the state of the union response a few years back, but that’s not really a huge deal. I haven’t really followed him too much. How is he on immigration? Certainly no more Bushes. Who do you have on your list?
That’s a lefty Madison outlet and it’s the interpretation that they want to be.
Michael Medved exists to move conservatives to the left, to always massage the discussion to the left.
Freepmail wagglebee to subscribe or unsubscribe from the homosexual agenda ping list.
Be sure to click the FreeRepublic homosexual agenda keyword search link for a list of all related articles. We don't ping you to all related articles so be sure to click the previous link to see the latest articles.
Add keywords homosexual agenda to flag FR articles to this ping list.
Not a rumor; Ryan is as bad as any of them. Anyone who thinks homosexuals should adopt children must think it's fine for children to at the very least get exposed to mentally ill perversion, and at worst, get molested. No one can be so ignorant as to think being raised in a home with homosexuals for "parents" is benign. Where are those who have strong moral courage? Where are they?
Anyone wanting on/off either ping list, freepmail me.
Sorry I have been absent from pinging...will try to do more now.
Thanks. I just called too.
I don’t even think it’s because they want to win. If the GOP really wanted to win, they wouldn’t have turned a hard left. They turned left because the elites in the party are leftists. It’s “principle over winning” to them. Of course, their principles are from hell.
Why has the Tea Party generation become suicidal?
We’re down to Cruz and Palin. Run Sarah, run!
Cruz was born in Cananda, lived there until IIRC four years of age, and his father was not a US citizen until years later.
He is most definitely not a NBC. Thus, not eligible to be president.
-— I grew up in foster homes and there was not one and still not one kid who wants two homosexuals to be raising them. -—
Thanks for that. Someone should remind Paul of what Jesus said about millstones.
I can’t imagine anything more nonsensical than homo “marriage,” and it’s rapidly gaining acceptance. These are exceptionally dark days.
I agree with except for the last part - he’s not Hispanic, he’s a Cuban anti-Leftist, and no one who voted for the L.A. mayor would vote for him in a million years.
Children are not “owned” by their mothers either. I know a mother who sold her baby son to a couple of gay men. Was that OK with you?
I’m like you. I keep striking people off the list due to acquiescence to the open borders, supporting Obamacare and giving in to the gay agenda.
Bad parents harm their children in many ways, some of them severe, and there isn't any way to prevent. One might make a small dent in the problem by shifting the balance of power from parents to government, but the harm that would do to the children of good parents would far outweigh the small benefit it might afford to the children of bad parents (especially since removing power from parents would reduce the incentives to invest time and effort raising their children optimally, thus likely increasing the number of apathetic parents).
Fundamentally, I regard any ability of government to impose its judgment as superior to that of a child's parents to be dangerous. While it's possible for some small carefully-circumscribed powers to do more good than harm, governments always try to grow their powers beyond their prescribed limits; the more powers governments have, the harder it will keep them from growing out of control. Even if parents were given absolute life and death authority over their own children, the harm bad parents could do to the children of good parents would pale in comparison to what an out of control government will do.
I consider myself a small government libertarian, but unlike many who call themselves libertarians, I recognize that many of the "freedoms" sought by the left are really powers to impose their will on others. Conservatives and libertarians alike both miss the real point of having governments recognize marriages, which is that there are many people who wish to voluntarily bestow courtesies and benefits upon couples meeting certain common criteria, and that having governments recognize marriages which meet those criteria makes it easy for people who wish to bestow courtesies and benefits upon such couples a means of identifying who should receive them. The purpose of the "gay marriage" movement is to restrict the ability of people to choose the beneficiaries of their good will.
One more thing: I would expect that if mothers were allowed to specify whether they wanted to allow their children to be raised by a same-sex couple, or only by a married couple, the vast majority would opt for the latter. I would further expect that “gay rights” advocates would regard this as totally unacceptable, and would complain that such a thing represented “discrimination”. The reason the “gay rights” movement has gone as far as it has is that few people understand what they’re really about. Getting the leaders of that movement on record as saying that a mother who is considering putting her child up for adoption should be forced to give that child to a same-sex couple would help the public realize that the movement isn’t really “pro-freedom” at all.
I guarantee that if you ask a child in foster homes if they want a mother and father or two fathers or two mothers and they will say mother and father.
I know for a fact after being on foster homes, growing up in foster homes, and now my nieces are in foster homes that not one child wants two of the same sex especially boys
agree, they’re either cowards or the ysupport this communist agenda
That's why the pope said gay adoption is child abuse.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.