Paul Ryan backs gay adoption

[compromise]

http://www.usatoday.com/story/onpolitics/2013/04/30/paul-ryan-gay-adoption/2124877/

Seems like he's taking a more libertarian stance to compete with Rand.

[Brett85]

How exactly is that even the libertarian position? Shouldn't the libertarian position be to get the government out of the adoption business?

[heavenlyboy34]

How exactly is that even the libertarian position? Shouldn't the libertarian position be to get the government out of the adoption business?
This^^

[Christian Liberty]

I was uncomfortable with this for awhile. I remember at one point wanting to legalize all drugs but still not being at the point of accepting this. I don't think gay relationships are good for children. On the other hand, the simple reality is (If "Freedom" isn't enough justification, which for me it ultimately is) its a lot better to be born and adopted into a gay family than to be aborted. That's the bottom line. So anyone who objects to abortion but has a problem with what Paul Ryan says here is at least a bit of a hypocrite or overly idealistic to the point of impossible in the real world.

(Not saying I like Paul Ryan, I don't, I'm just saying he's not wrong on this.)

[Smart3]

I was uncomfortable with this for awhile. I remember at one point wanting to legalize all drugs but still not being at the point of accepting this. I don't think gay relationships are good for children. On the other hand, the simple reality is (If "Freedom" isn't enough justification, which for me it ultimately is) its a lot better to be born and adopted into a gay family than to be aborted. That's the bottom line. So anyone who objects to abortion but has a problem with what Paul Ryan says here is at least a bit of a hypocrite or overly idealistic to the point of impossible in the real world.

(Not saying I like Paul Ryan, I don't, I'm just saying he's not wrong on this.)

The present evidence is that gay parents tend to be better than the average straight parents. This is because - since they can not have children of their own, if they want children - THEY REALLY want children.

I was on a Disney Cruise once, and saw two gay dads with 5 young children (2-6). They seemed like good loving fathers - why deprive children of loving homes because of what the two guardians will do once and a while in their bedroom?

[fr33]

How exactly is that even the libertarian position? Shouldn't the libertarian position be to get the government out of the adoption business?

Both are libertarian. It's like how some libertarians are constitutionalists and others are anarchists.

[compromise]

How exactly is that even the libertarian position? Shouldn't the libertarian position be to get the government out of the adoption business?

Well, to the general public, it seems more libertarian that prohibiting gays from adopting. He's definitely trying to compete with Rand Paul here and trying to confuse people by pretending to be a beltway libertarian. The average fool can't tell the difference.

Ryan: "My name is Paul and I like Ayn Rand and I support the Tea Party."
Uninformed GOP voter: "Wait, this is that super fiscally conservative guy who stood up to Obama right?"

http://a.abcnews.com/images/Politics/ap_ryan_kb_120813_wg.jpg

[Brett85]

Well, to the general public, it seems more libertarian that prohibiting gays from adopting. He's definitely trying to compete with Rand Paul here and trying to confuse people by pretending to be a beltway libertarian. The average fool can't tell the difference.

Ryan: "My name is Paul and I like Ayn Rand and I support the Tea Party."
Uninformed GOP voter: "Wait, this is that super fiscally conservative guy who stood up to Obama right?"


There are probably about 100 other issues that should be more important to libertarians than gay marriage/gay adoption. This is kind of like the media now calling Rob Portman a libertarian just because he supports gay marriage, even though he's a huge interventionist overseas, a big supporter of the police state, a big supporter of the war on drugs, etc. These kind of issues are basically just a way for statists to try to hijack the libertarian label.

[Sola_Fide]

How exactly is that even the libertarian position? Shouldn't the libertarian position be to get the government out of the adoption business?

Exactly. And as time goes on, you'll see more and more conservatives get libertarianism wrong by taking state-endorsed socially liberal positions.

[compromise]

There are probably about 100 other issues that should be more important to libertarians than gay marriage/gay adoption. This is kind of like the media now calling Rob Portman a libertarian just because he supports gay marriage, even though he's a huge interventionist overseas, a big supporter of the police state, a big supporter of the war on drugs, etc. These kind of issues are basically just a way for statists to try to hijack the libertarian label.

And that's Ryan's plan.

[whoisjohngalt]

The present evidence is that gay parents tend to be better than the average straight parents. This is because - since they can not have children of their own, if they want children - THEY REALLY want children.

I was on a Disney Cruise once, and saw two gay dads with 5 young children (2-6). They seemed like good loving fathers - why deprive children of loving homes because of what the two guardians will do once and a while in their bedroom?

This analysis is missing the mark. The question we should ask is if being in a household with loving gay parents is better than being in the foster care system. It's not like they are being pulled out of households with straight parents to be adopted by gay people.

[RockEnds]

How exactly is that even the libertarian position? Shouldn't the libertarian position be to get the government out of the adoption business?

That's the way I see it.

[EBounding]

It's a weird issue for him to make his "libertarian stand".

What is the law anyway?

[Christian Liberty]

The present evidence is that gay parents tend to be better than the average straight parents. This is because - since they can not have children of their own, if they want children - THEY REALLY want children.

I was on a Disney Cruise once, and saw two gay dads with 5 young children (2-6). They seemed like good loving fathers - why deprive children of loving homes because of what the two guardians will do once and a while in their bedroom?

Hey, I've been on a Disney Cruise too? How long, where'd you go, how was it?

:)


As for the topic, I don't think that gay parents are going to abuse their children or anything like that (Well, some will, but that's the same thing for straight parents.) I just think homosexuality is a bad moral influence. That's my personal religious position. Even though I don't like that it happens, they still have the right to do what they want.

Well, to the general public, it seems more libertarian that prohibiting gays from adopting. He's definitely trying to compete with Rand Paul here and trying to confuse people by pretending to be a beltway libertarian. The average fool can't tell the difference.

Ryan: "My name is Paul and I like Ayn Rand and I support the Tea Party."
Uninformed GOP voter: "Wait, this is that super fiscally conservative guy who stood up to Obama right?"

http://a.abcnews.com/images/Politics/ap_ryan_kb_120813_wg.jpg

Did Ryan really say he liked Rand? Ayn Rand was a nutter to begin with, and she was never a libertarian.

Ron Paul >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ayn Rand.

Heck, Rand Paul > Ayn Rand


There are probably about 100 other issues that should be more important to libertarians than gay marriage/gay adoption. This is kind of like the media now calling Rob Portman a libertarian just because he supports gay marriage, even though he's a huge interventionist overseas, a big supporter of the police state, a big supporter of the war on drugs, etc. These kind of issues are basically just a way for statists to try to hijack the libertarian label.

Yeah, this. I'm not sure exactly what Ryan is supporting, but outside of abuse/neglect I don't think the state should have any say in adoption. That means that gay adoption would be "Legal." I also don't really care compared to other issues. I can't remember the last time I've debated this one IRL. I debate foreign policy, drugs, or social services (Noninterventionism, legalization and deregulation, and abolition, respectively) almost every day.

Exactly. And as time goes on, you'll see more and more conservatives get libertarianism wrong by taking state-endorsed socially liberal positions.

Yeah, pretty much. Getting a single position wrong is one thing. Unless its foreign policy, I can accept getting one position wrong and its usually not that big of a deal. Its another thing to call someone a libertarian for getting one position RIGHT (Let alone a position that isn't even right). That's just ridiculous.

[erowe1]

I don't see how competing with Rand fits with this.

The ban on gay adoptions in DC he's talking about is one that Ron Paul voted for. I assume Rand would have too.
http://ontheissues.org/HouseVote/Party_1999-346.htm

[Smart3]

This analysis is missing the mark. The question we should ask is if being in a household with loving gay parents is better than being in the foster care system. It's not like they are being pulled out of households with straight parents to be adopted by gay people.
I don't like foster. I want permanent lifelong parents/guardians who take the place of the biological parents.


Hey, I've been on a Disney Cruise too? How long, where'd you go, how was it?

:)


As for the topic, I don't think that gay parents are going to abuse their children or anything like that (Well, some will, but that's the same thing for straight parents.) I just think homosexuality is a bad moral influence. That's my personal religious position. Even though I don't like that it happens, they still have the right to do what they want.

Six cruises on Disney, two in Mexico, three in the carib (2 west, 1 east) and one in Europe.

I don't see how "morality" has anything to do with homosexuality - or any form of sex except rape and child molestation. I believe firmly in objective morality, and I do not believe what you are calling morality to actually be morality - but rather thinly veiled ignorance. The simple reality is that two married men have the exact same relationship as a married man and woman. Gay men are much better at lifelong relationships and stability than straight men (who are biologically inclined towards having sex with as many women as possible) and gay men will uphold marriage more than a man/woman combination ever could.

Homosexuality is natural and normal. I know that's hard to understand for a religious person - trust me I have empathy for you.

[Christian Liberty]

I don't see how competing with Rand fits with this.

The ban on gay adoptions in DC he's talking about is one that Ron Paul voted for. I assume Rand would have too.
http://ontheissues.org/HouseVote/Party_1999-346.htm

Why did Ron Paul support this? I know he supported DOMA because of the state's rights end of it (Oddly, Rand is against DOMA now) but I don't get why he would have supported this policy for DC...

Maybe that's a flaw? I don't know, its not a big deal but it is frankly weird.

[jmdrake]

The current GOP meme seems to be "Appease libertarians by embracing gays and open borders while remaining steadfast on interventionist wars abroad and the drug war and home and continue butcher civil liberties except for when Rand is filibustering." Somebody explain where I'm wrong?

[fisharmor]

The distractions get more inventive every day, it seems.

[Smart3]

Why did Ron Paul support this? I know he supported DOMA because of the state's rights end of it (Oddly, Rand is against DOMA now) but I don't get why he would have supported this policy for DC...

Maybe that's a flaw? I don't know, its not a big deal but it is frankly weird.

Dr. Paul wants religious agencies to control adoption and does not personally support gay adoption. His vote for this law is one of his numerous paleoconservative (rather than libertarian) votes.

[compromise]

Why did Ron Paul support this? I know he supported DOMA because of the state's rights end of it (Oddly, Rand is against DOMA now) but I don't get why he would have supported this policy for DC...

Maybe that's a flaw? I don't know, its not a big deal but it is frankly weird.

Ron was more paleoconservative back then, since that was a fairly popular ideology in the 90s, because of the growth of the militia movement and the popularity of Pat Buchanan. Back then, he was anti-immigration, pro-capital punishment and more socially conservative than he is today. He became more libertarian when the neocons took over in 2000.

[KingNothing]

I don't care why anyone supports a good position, or what they think about other issues. If Paul Ryan thinks the right way on an issue, I will agree with Paul Ryan on that issue, and we can work together to bring about the change we desire.

[The Free Hornet]

How exactly is that even the libertarian position? Shouldn't the libertarian position be to get the government out of the adoption business?

That's better than sending the gay children to Newt's orphanage.

As to government's role, are you OK with an 8 year-old adopting a 4 year-old? AFAIK, government doesn't really need to do anything other than saying, "OK Mr/Mrs X(s) are or are not fit to parent A,B,C...".

So as much as I LOVE to get government out of something, I am curious as to how the cries become more noticable when it is a gay thing? Governments are involved in issues of not just volitional contracts but custodial affairs of those who can't take of themselves.

E.g., if a gay person gets alzheimers, you might petition the government to get gay custody of them so there is a responsible adult (gay or otherwise) to make decisions in their best gay interest. When this issue comes up, I hope not to hear the cries to get the government out of gay custodial issues because.... well - to be FRANK - I don't think you get the whole point of this libertarian thing or how/when governement needs to ... uh ... pull out.

[compromise]

I don't care why anyone supports a good position, or what they think about other issues. If Paul Ryan thinks the right way on an issue, I will agree with Paul Ryan on that issue, and we can work together to bring about the change we desire.

The issue here is that Ryan is a potential candidate for president in 2016, and so is a rival of Rand Paul.

[KingNothing]

The issue here is that Ryan is a potential candidate for president in 2016, and so is a rival of Rand Paul.

And if that forces him to adopt policies that we endorse, excellent.

He certainly won't be getting my vote given his atrocious voting record but insofar as he is pursuing an issue I agree with, he'll have my blessing.

[The Free Hornet]

The current GOP meme seems to be "Appease libertarians by embracing gays and open borders while remaining steadfast on interventionist wars abroad and the drug war and home and continue butcher civil liberties except for when Rand is filibustering." Somebody explain where I'm wrong?

But, of course, you describe a good thing. If you see cracks growing and propagating throughout a wall, the "wrongness" of it might depend on how you feel about that wall itself.

[HOLLYWOOD]

Oh such a "Family Values" guy at all those political pep rallies and conventions. Spineless politician, probably saw their internal polling on the majority supporting this issue in his district.

Typical Paul Ryan slime... I wonder how this faithful patronage to his Catholic priest/parish feels about him, which he has mentioned so many times @ all those political public appearances?

Pandering sleaze at it's finest.

[mczerone]

How exactly is that even the libertarian position? Shouldn't the libertarian position be to get the government out of the adoption business?

Here's my take on the stratification of libertarian positions:

(1) The state is an inefficient, rights abusing institution that shouldn't have to power be in charge of anything.

(2) If we allow the state to do anything, it should be limited to issues of defense of life, liberty and property.

(3) When the state does something, it should not prefer any individual over any other, because it is philosophically supposed to be for all people.

So of course we want the state out of adoption, marriage, etc.

But when it is doing those things, it is much better for freedom and preservation of rights that it does so without inquiring about the people's status beyond their ability to understand and consent to contracts.

[Brett85]

Yeah, this. I'm not sure exactly what Ryan is supporting, but outside of abuse/neglect I don't think the state should have any say in adoption. That means that gay adoption would be "Legal."

Well, if adoption were mostly privatized, you would still have a lot of private adoption agencies that wouldn't allow gays to adopt children. So I don't personally view gay adoption as being a "right" or anything like that. I would just prefer that government adoption agencies be privatized, and then you could just allow private adoption agencies to decide whether gays can adopt or not.

[Brett85]

When this issue comes up, I hope not to hear the cries to get the government out of gay custodial issues because.... well - to be FRANK - I don't think you get the whole point of this libertarian thing or how/when governement needs to ... uh ... pull out.

You seem to be more into social liberalism than any form of authentic libertarianism.

[Brett85]

As to government's role, are you OK with an 8 year-old adopting a 4 year-old?

Why would a private adoption agency ever allow an 8 year old to adopt a 4 year old? It they did, don't you think they would be protested and run out of business?

[tsai3904]

Why did Ron Paul support this? I know he supported DOMA because of the state's rights end of it (Oddly, Rand is against DOMA now) but I don't get why he would have supported this policy for DC...

Maybe that's a flaw? I don't know, its not a big deal but it is frankly weird.

The text of the amendment reads as follows:


None of the funds contained in this Act may be used to carry out any joint adoption of a child between individuals who are not related by blood or marriage.

He may have voted for it as a fiscal issue rather than a civil liberty issue.

[RockEnds]

That's better than sending the gay children to Newt's orphanage.

As to government's role, are you OK with an 8 year-old adopting a 4 year-old? AFAIK, government doesn't really need to do anything other than saying, "OK Mr/Mrs X(s) are or are not fit to parent A,B,C...".

So as much as I LOVE to get government out of something, I am curious as to how the cries become more noticable when it is a gay thing? Governments are involved in issues of not just volitional contracts but custodial affairs of those who can't take of themselves.

E.g., if a gay person gets alzheimers, you might petition the government to get gay custody of them so there is a responsible adult (gay or otherwise) to make decisions in their best gay interest. When this issue comes up, I hope not to hear the cries to get the government out of gay custodial issues because.... well - to be FRANK - I don't think you get the whole point of this libertarian thing or how/when governement needs to ... uh ... pull out.

Adoption is an institution created by the state. It involves stripping parents of their parental rights, reassigning them to strangers, then falsifying vital records to reflect the fantasy that the adopting parents physically gave birth to the child. The state then forever deprives the adoptee of any right to his or her own natural identity. That is anything but a libertarian approach to child custody, and frankly, there is no reason for any of it except to promote the power of the state and strip individuals of natural rights. I do not now nor have I ever supported such an institution. I was thrust into moments after birth, and I have hated it every moment of my life.

Children can be raised by unrelated individuals without all the state intervention in their personal lives.

[The Free Hornet]

You seem to be more into social liberalism than any form of authentic libertarianism.

Technically, I'm more of a classical liberal (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism) (as you should be too).

As far as my focus - economic versus social (as two possibilities) - my focus is increasingly social. The risk and harm of living on a prison planet is far worse than the economic 'slings and arrows' of taxes and business regulations.

Beyond the point of survival, each additional unit of wealth is valued less, while each unit of freedom is valued more. Statistically, I'm far more likely to run out of freedom (be imprisoned or prevented from an activity like treating cancer as I elect - no I don't have cancer) or out of life (police, blowback, drug war bystander/casualty) than to run out of money. So why focus more on economic liberalism than social liberalism?????? [This assumes the extent to which 'economic' is separable from 'social' - not a lot in many cases.]

The priorities of not just the 1% but also those of the 53% are misplaced (http://the53.tumblr.com/).



Why would a private adoption agency ever allow an 8 year old to adopt a 4 year old? It they did, don't you think they would be protested and run out of business?

My scenario assumes the 8-year old runs their own adoption agency. Their slogan is "WE KNOW BEST!" (and there is a foot stamped down in the logo, the shoe is untied... very cute!). Since you got government out of it, this should be A-OK with you. I can live with it... can you?



Edit/Added: What kind of state or non-state thuggery is "protested and run out of business"??? If they lack customers that is OK, but protesting/running people out of business has unsettling implications.

[compromise]

You seem to be more into social liberalism than any form of authentic libertarianism.

Social liberalism or cultural liberalism?

[Brett85]

My scenario assumes the 8-year old runs their own adoption agency. Their slogan is "WE KNOW BEST!" (and there is a foot stamped down in the logo, the shoe is untied... very cute!). Since you got government out of it, this should be A-OK with you. I can live with it... can you?

Well, I said that there should only be extremely limited government involvement. Of course you could have a law which states that you have to be at least 18 or 21 to run an adoption agency.

[Brett85]

Social liberalism or cultural liberalism?

What's the difference?

[jmdrake]

But, of course, you describe a good thing. If you see cracks growing and propagating throughout a wall, the "wrongness" of it might depend on how you feel about that wall itself.

The wall I care about is foreign policy. I see no cracks in it I'm afraid. I could care less about these sideshow issues. It's like the thread were people were making a big deal about an attempt in New Hampshire to let people have their bodies melted into sludge at death. Ummm....okay. Meh.

[compromise]

What's the difference?

A right-libertarian can be a cultural liberal (socially liberal or liberal on social issues) like Gary Johnson, but they cannot be a social liberal (a hybrid of social democracy and liberalism, the overlying ideology of the Democratic Party).

[Christian Liberty]

A right-libertarian can be a cultural liberal (socially liberal or liberal on social issues) like Gary Johnson, but they cannot be a social liberal (a hybrid of social democracy and liberalism, the overlying ideology of the Democratic Party).

Gary Johnson had way too much of that "Fiscally conservative, socially liberal" thing going on.


Ron was more paleoconservative back then, since that was a fairly popular ideology in the 90s, because of the growth of the militia movement and the popularity of Pat Buchanan. Back then, he was anti-immigration, pro-capital punishment and more socially conservative than he is today. He became more libertarian when the neocons took over in 2000.

Hmm... That surprises me considering a certain video from 1988. Did he leave, and then reenter, libertarianism?

I don't necessarily think capital punishment is anti-libertarian. Some libertarians such as Hoppe have issues with free immigration as well, although I usually would disagree.

I don't care why anyone supports a good position, or what they think about other issues. If Paul Ryan thinks the right way on an issue, I will agree with Paul Ryan on that issue, and we can work together to bring about the change we desire.

Yeah, that's true, even though he still sucks.


That's better than sending the gay children to Newt's orphanage.

As to government's role, are you OK with an 8 year-old adopting a 4 year-old? AFAIK, government doesn't really need to do anything other than saying, "OK Mr/Mrs X(s) are or are not fit to parent A,B,C...".

So as much as I LOVE to get government out of something, I am curious as to how the cries become more noticable when it is a gay thing? Governments are involved in issues of not just volitional contracts but custodial affairs of those who can't take of themselves.

E.g., if a gay person gets alzheimers, you might petition the government to get gay custody of them so there is a responsible adult (gay or otherwise) to make decisions in their best gay interest. When this issue comes up, I hope not to hear the cries to get the government out of gay custodial issues because.... well - to be FRANK - I don't think you get the whole point of this libertarian thing or how/when governement needs to ... uh ... pull out.

They should be able to sign any contract they want and ask the government to enforce it. They should not be able to have the government outright redefine marriage for them.


Here's my take on the stratification of libertarian positions:

(1) The state is an inefficient, rights abusing institution that shouldn't have to power be in charge of anything.

(2) If we allow the state to do anything, it should be limited to issues of defense of life, liberty and property.

(3) When the state does something, it should not prefer any individual over any other, because it is philosophically supposed to be for all people.

So of course we want the state out of adoption, marriage, etc.

But when it is doing those things, it is much better for freedom and preservation of rights that it does so without inquiring about the people's status beyond their ability to understand and consent to contracts.

I agree except that I don't want the state redefiining terms. Hence why I support getting government out of marriage bu I don't support SSM.


Well, if adoption were mostly privatized, you would still have a lot of private adoption agencies that wouldn't allow gays to adopt children. So I don't personally view gay adoption as being a "right" or anything like that. I would just prefer that government adoption agencies be privatized, and then you could just allow private adoption agencies to decide whether gays can adopt or not.

I'd like to agree, but what do you do when the birth parents don't give a crap? What if they don't even select an adoption agency?

We might need a minimal state involvement here...

[Christian Liberty]

Oh, and foreign policy and civil liberties trump everything else for me. Fiscal issues trump social issues.

[RockEnds]

Ya'll are debating private adoption agencies when they exist now. The only adoptions handled directly by the state are those through social services. The fact of the matter is that private agencies are governed by state oversight, and there is absolutely no way to remove that oversight so long as adoption exists.

In order to adopt, a court must terminate parental rights, making the child a social or political orphan. Once that is accomplished, the prospective adopters must petition the court for an adoption. An adoption involves a home study which must be performed by a worker who is licensed by the state. If the prospective adopters pass the home study, then after a certain period of time, the court finalizes the adoption. The adoption itself is a matter of the state through the court system transferring the rights of the child's parents to the child's adopters. It involves issuing a decree of adoption as well as ordering the state vital statistics to alter the original birth record to reflect that the adopting parties are the child's human progenitors.

If someone can explain to me how this can be done without the state, I would really like to hear it. Adoption is a state institution. Before adoption existed, courts simply appointed a guardian or custodian for the child. Now, the state engages in the alteration of human identities, calls it adoption, and expects society to treat it as a sacred cow that has always existed.

[anaconda]

How exactly is that even the libertarian position? Shouldn't the libertarian position be to get the government out of the adoption business?

Ryan is part of the problem rather than the solution.

[jonhowe]

How exactly is that even the libertarian position? Shouldn't the libertarian position be to get the government out of the adoption business?

Agreed. If the law currently says "Gay couples may not adopt", it should instead read, " ".
Everyone wins!

[KrokHead]

Paul Ryan backs gay adoption

Ignorant question but who's against it?

[Christian Liberty]

Ignorant question but who's against it?

Plenty of people.

Heck, apparently Ron Paul in '96.

[mike6623]

I am not well studied in adoption, but do you have to be married in order to adopt? He is against gay marriage=not really for gay adoptions even if certain states allow it. Again, I don't know much of anything when it comes to adoption but sounds like a typical politician, changing his views to appease a certain demographic.

[QueenB4Liberty]

This analysis is missing the mark. The question we should ask is if being in a household with loving gay parents is better than being in the foster care system. It's not like they are being pulled out of households with straight parents to be adopted by gay people.


I think anyone would say being in a loving home is better than foster care.

[Christian Liberty]

I've heard some people disagree...

[Brett85]

I think anyone would say being in a loving home is better than foster care.

If the government is going to remain involved in the issue, I think what I would prefer is for gay adoption to only be used as a last resort, when no other couple is willing to adopt. If a straight couple is willing to adopt a child it's generally better for the child to have both a mother and a father.

[fr33]

If the government is going to remain involved in the issue, I think what I would prefer is for gay adoption to only be used as a last resort, when no other couple is willing to adopt. If a straight couple is willing to adopt a child it's generally better for the child to have both a mother and a father.

And I think the opposite, almost. If the government is going to remain involved then couples should be treated equally. Otherwise it is institutionalized discrimination.

Get the government out of it and then I'm fine with private adoption companies discriminating how they see fit.

[Brett85]

And I think the opposite, almost. If the government is going to remain involved then couples should be treated equally. Otherwise it is institutionalized discrimination.

Get the government out of it and then I'm fine with private adoption companies discriminating how they see fit.

What if it's more than a couple but a group of polygamists who want to adopt the child? Should they be treated the same as straight and gay couples?

[affa]

Who cares what sexuality people are? It has absolutely no bearing on anything.

[affa]

What if it's more than a couple but a group of polygamists who want to adopt the child? Should they be treated the same as straight and gay couples?

What if a bear and a dog want to adopt a child and make them watch them lick honey off each other?

/sarcasm

Sexuality is not a 'sin'. It's in the bedroom. If solid, loving people want to raise an otherwise unloved/unparented child, then fantastic.

[affa]

If the government is going to remain involved in the issue, I think what I would prefer is for gay adoption to only be used as a last resort, when no other couple is willing to adopt. If a straight couple is willing to adopt a child it's generally better for the child to have both a mother and a father.

I know more than a few gay couples of both genders, and everyone one of them would make great parents. Far better parents than some of the 'straight' couples in my neighborhood.

[WhistlinDave]

A couple thoughts on this: 1. Question for anybody who is against allowing gay people the freedom to adopt kids and has the balls to admit it: Do you know how many children in the US are currently without parents of any kind, including foster parents? (i.e. How many kids are in orphanages right now, roughly?)

2. I'm surprised no one on this thread has realized Ryan's real reason for this. Has nothing to do with pandering or elections or any of that. Clearly, he is thinking he might want to adopt kids in the future, and there's probably a big gay prostitution scandal hiding in his closet somewhere. :toady:

[Christian Liberty]

A couple thoughts on this: 1. Question for anybody who is against allowing gay people the freedom to adopt kids and has the balls to admit it: Do you know how many children in the US are currently without parents of any kind, including foster parents? (i.e. How many kids are in orphanages right now, roughly?)

2. I'm surprised no one on this thread has realized Ryan's real reason for this. Has nothing to do with pandering or elections or any of that. Clearly, he is thinking he might want to adopt kids in the future, and there's probably a big gay prostitution scandal hiding in his closet somewhere. :toady:

Your first question is kind of what convinced me about a year ago (At that point I was sort of libertarian but not quite, Ron Paul had ALMOST completely eradicated my neoconnery by that point, I may still have made the Afghanistan mistake). I've never been a fan of gay adoption but what else are we supposed to do? Leave kids on the street? If abortion is banned, and it absolutely should be, this further increases the problem. Its a necessary evil, at the very least.

[Brett85]

A couple thoughts on this: 1. Question for anybody who is against allowing gay people the freedom to adopt kids and has the balls to admit it: Do you know how many children in the US are currently without parents of any kind, including foster parents? (i.e. How many kids are in orphanages right now, roughly?)

2. I'm surprised no one on this thread has realized Ryan's real reason for this. Has nothing to do with pandering or elections or any of that. Clearly, he is thinking he might want to adopt kids in the future, and there's probably a big gay prostitution scandal hiding in his closet somewhere. :toady:

I don't think it should be completely banned, but generally speaking I just think it's better for a child to have a mother and a father. This should just be obvious since the mother and the father have different roles, and a child needs both. The father is generally the disciplinarian which is something the child needs, and the mother is generally the nurterer which the child also needs. But again, I'm not saying that there should be a complete ban on gay adoption. If no straight couple is willing to adopt the child then having a gay couple raise the child is probably better than the child staying in the foster care system.

[RockEnds]

A couple thoughts on this: 1. Question for anybody who is against allowing gay people the freedom to adopt kids and has the balls to admit it: Do you know how many children in the US are currently without parents of any kind, including foster parents? (i.e. How many kids are in orphanages right now, roughly?)



I'm against adoption as it is currently practiced. I am against adoption because its purpose is social engineering. I believe individual rights and liberties trump any social engineering program. Your concern for children in the system is admirable. Ending the drug war would free some of these children. Making cps accountable in open court instead of allowing them to hide their home wrecking techniques behind a wall of confidentiality would also help. Either of those options would be a much more liberty oriented place to start if child welfare is the primary concern. Adopting from foster care comes with problems that are being totally overlooked in this conversation. I'll go out on a limb here and guess the reason for that is that many would rather argue over sexual orientation than have an informed discussion on child welfare. Adoption is theoretically a child welfare program, not a cure for infertility or a platform for the "equal rights" of those who think the state should supply them with children. In practice, of course, quite the opposite is true.

[jmdrake]

2. I'm surprised no one on this thread has realized Ryan's real reason for this. Has nothing to do with pandering or elections or any of that. Clearly, he is thinking he might want to adopt kids in the future, and there's probably a big gay prostitution scandal hiding in his closet somewhere. :toady:

LOL

[Christian Liberty]

Those of you who are bashing CPS (And I agree, they overstep their bounds all the time), what do you suggest doing when there is actually a case of abuse? Do you suggest reforming CPS (Possibly decentralizing it) or do you support abolition altogether? What would you replace it with?

[Feeding the Abscess]

Why did Ron Paul support this? I know he supported DOMA because of the state's rights end of it (Oddly, Rand is against DOMA now) but I don't get why he would have supported this policy for DC...

Maybe that's a flaw? I don't know, its not a big deal but it is frankly weird.

There were subsidies or government financing of adoption in the bill, plus requirements placed on adoption agencies.

[QueenB4Liberty]

I don't think it should be completely banned, but generally speaking I just think it's better for a child to have a mother and a father. This should just be obvious since the mother and the father have different roles, and a child needs both. The father is generally the disciplinarian which is something the child needs, and the mother is generally the nurterer which the child also needs. But again, I'm not saying that there should be a complete ban on gay adoption. If no straight couple is willing to adopt the child then having a gay couple raise the child is probably better than the child staying in the foster care system.

It's your opinion that only a mother can nurture or nurture better than a father. This isn't the 1950's. lol

[Origanalist]

It's your opinion that only a mother can nurture or nurture better than a father. This isn't the 1950's. lol

No, it's the 2010's, lol. What a fucked up mess.

[Christian Liberty]

I personally agree with TraditionalConservative, but then, that's my personal conservatism. Its not the government's job/business, as much as that can be attained.

[Brett85]

Even if you had a minimal government role in adoption, the government could still allow the private adoption agencies to decide for themselves whether gays are allowed to adopt or not. I see no reason why the government should decide that. If you have a Catholic adoption agency who views gay adoption as a violation of conscience, the government shouldn't force that adoption agency to have a policy of allowing gays to adopt.

[Christian Liberty]

Even if you had a minimal government role in adoption, the government could still allow the private adoption agencies to decide for themselves whether gays are allowed to adopt or not. I see no reason why the government should decide that. If you have a Catholic adoption agency who views gay adoption as a violation of conscience, the government shouldn't force that adoption agency to have a policy of allowing gays to adopt.


This is exactly my position. +1.

[erowe1]

There were subsidies or government financing of adoption in the bill, plus requirements placed on adoption agencies.

Wouldn't those be reasons to vote no, rather than yes?

[RockEnds]

Those of you who are bashing CPS (And I agree, they overstep their bounds all the time), what do you suggest doing when there is actually a case of abuse? Do you suggest reforming CPS (Possibly decentralizing it) or do you support abolition altogether? What would you replace it with?

Sunshine is a natural disinfectant. Let their every step be taken in the light of day.

Of course there are cases of abuse. Let those cases go to jury trial. If the parents are guilty, and there is no family willing to take the child(ren), permanent placement with strangers may be the best option. However, adoption as it's currently practiced is completely unnecessary. If someone isn't willing to raise a child without having their name fraudulently placed on that child's birth record, they probably aren't the best placement. Frankly, many adoptive parents are not all that pleased with the current system. Once one becomes a member of the 'triad', one's perspective is subject to drastic modification.

The problem with adopting children who have been genuinely abused (by parents, not simply cps) is that these kids have genuine problems. Raising them has challenges. Some of these adoptions fail, and these children end up institutionalized again. It hits home once you've regularly transported a teenager in foster care to court-ordered visits with former foster parents who adopted and still draw the subsidy despite neither actively raising the child nor showing up to the visits. The system is so far beyond broken that unless you've worked in it, volunteered within it, or been the victim of it, you probably cannot imagine just how far it operates from the assumed goal of child welfare.

[Feeding the Abscess]

Wouldn't those be reasons to vote no, rather than yes?

Yes. Those were probably the reasons why Ron voted against it.

[erowe1]

He voted for it.

[tsai3904]

He voted for it.

Yea, he voted to end the subsidies and government financing. The amendment said it would prohibit funding for...

[WhistlinDave]

I'm against adoption as it is currently practiced. I am against adoption because its purpose is social engineering. I believe individual rights and liberties trump any social engineering program. Your concern for children in the system is admirable. Ending the drug war would free some of these children. Making cps accountable in open court instead of allowing them to hide their home wrecking techniques behind a wall of confidentiality would also help. Either of those options would be a much more liberty oriented place to start if child welfare is the primary concern. Adopting from foster care comes with problems that are being totally overlooked in this conversation. I'll go out on a limb here and guess the reason for that is that many would rather argue over sexual orientation than have an informed discussion on child welfare. Adoption is theoretically a child welfare program, not a cure for infertility or a platform for the "equal rights" of those who think the state should supply them with children. In practice, of course, quite the opposite is true.

I agree with a lot of what you said. The war on drugs has probably put tons of kids into the system. And CPS does have a ton of power that gets abused far too often. The whole system needs major overhaul or replacement. (Like most of what our government does.)

[erowe1]

Thanks tsai. Where can I read that?

ETA: So if that's right, what Paul Ryan is saying here is that if he could go back and support taxpayer funding of gay adoption he would.

[affa]

I don't think it should be completely banned, but generally speaking I just think it's better for a child to have a mother and a father. This should just be obvious since the mother and the father have different roles, and a child needs both. The father is generally the disciplinarian which is something the child needs, and the mother is generally the nurterer which the child also needs. But again, I'm not saying that there should be a complete ban on gay adoption. If no straight couple is willing to adopt the child then having a gay couple raise the child is probably better than the child staying in the foster care system.

You do realize two parents of the same gender can play different roles, right? One can be 'disciplinarian', etc? Or that the mother can be the disciplinarian? The dad can be at home?

I feel like you have a... I don't know... a completely misguided view of who 'gay' people are. Quite often, you'd never know. They're just people. The media (especially tv) loves to push stereotypes, but that's often not the case. Pick any two random guys or girls off the street, and imagine they're a couple. And... you might be right. It's not like most gay guys are wearing leather chaps to work, or speak effeminately, or whatever.

I see parents every day that treat their kids like shit. A kid can do much, much worse than a pair of loving parents.

[UMULAS]

....

[tsai3904]

Thanks tsai. Where can I read that?

It's at post #32


None of the funds contained in this Act may be used to carry out any joint adoption of a child between individuals who are not related by blood or marriage.

[erowe1]

It's at post #32

OK. But where did you find it? I tried finding it online and couldn't.

[tsai3904]

OK. But where did you find it? I tried finding it online and couldn't.

1. Select the 106th Congress here: http://thomas.loc.gov/home/LegislativeData.php
2. Select Largent in the box that says "Choose House Members"
3. Click on Sponsor underneath that box then hit Search
4. Click on the Amendment in #6
5. Click on the link "106-263" and the text of the amendment is listed there

[erowe1]

I hate how the word "ban" gets carelessly applied to things like that.

[mczerone]

I agree except that I don't want the state redefiining terms. Hence why I support getting government out of marriage bu I don't support SSM.

Okay - then the only logical position to hold is that the individual people involved in a marriage or adoption get to define the term marriage or adoption. Words do not have fixed, objective meanings that can reliably signify a fixed class of things or actions. They only have subjective meaning among the individuals who use them.

The state, by picking "traditional, Christian marriage" is redefining the term by taking the term away from those individuals wishing to consecrate a marriage.

For instance, I'm not young, but I've ALWAYS had the idea that marriage simply means a perpetual contract between individuals who may be of any sex or gender. For the govt to select a "man-woman ONLY" meaning is changing the definition that I have.

I don't want to change the definition that YOU have for marriage, and allow you to reserve the right not to recognize a marriage. But giving the state the power to institute a meaning to the term distinct from the intention of the parties involved restricts BOTH of our notions of the term "marriage".

Thus, if the state is to recognize marriages, it should recognize ANYTHING that ANYONE calls a marriage. AND it should allow you to keep your own definition and not recognize marriages that the state itself must recognize under a theory that it should not play favorites.

[Brett85]

It's your opinion that only a mother can nurture or nurture better than a father. This isn't the 1950's. lol

That's too bad. Our country is a lot more messed up right now than it was in the 1950's.

[RockEnds]

I support child adoption regardless if the couple is gay or not. I mean, I wish everyone would be able to have nice biological parents since it is more healthy due to decreased psychological issues that occurs in the adoption process. But, I understand that this is an idealistic world and that it's good for people to try to help in any way.

Oh yes, the "psychological issues" are why we adoptees can't be trusted with our own identities. That rhetoric has calmed down some in recent years, but it was the excuse du jour when I first got involved in the political process surrounding adoption. The problem is that many, maybe even most, of the "psychological issues" could be avoided if adoption was not an exercise in doublethink:


The power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them... To tell deliberate lies while genuinely believing in them, to forget any fact that has become inconvenient, and then, when it becomes necessary again, to draw it back from oblivion for just as long as it is needed, to deny the existence of objective reality and all the while to take account of the reality which one denies – all this is indispensably necessary. Even in using the word doublethink it is necessary to exercise doublethink. For by using the word one admits that one is tampering with reality; by a fresh act of doublethink one erases this knowledge; and so on indefinitely, with the lie always one leap ahead of the truth.

Orwell, George (1949). Nineteen Eighty-Four.


Maybe adoption was the spark that ignited the novel:



http://www.netcharles.com/orwell/ctc/docs/onlyheir.htm

At 39, Richard Blair is a reluctant and disassociated heir. His adoptive mother died when he was 10 months old, and Orwell passed on when he was just 6. The author, using a cigarette, had burned the names of Blair's real parents off the adoption papers. "He didn't want me to know and maybe didn't want to know himself," Blair says. "He wanted to consider me his very own."



Fortunately, I was not adopted by Orwell. I was adopted by a fellow who believed the adoption papers and the information contained therein was my property and therefore secured them and relinquished them to me when I came of age. It's a good thing, too, because I'm not legally a party to the adoption. Isn't that just a hoot?

[anaconda]

Ryan's "austere" budget that balanced in 28 years made him forever a joke, at least in my mind. When combined with his Soviet style voting record and his whopper lie regarding his marathon PR, he loses all credibility with me. I don't even care to know what his opinion on gay adoption is.

[KingNothing]

That's too bad. Our country is a lot more messed up right now than it was in the 1950's.

Don't tell that to black people, gay people, or the people who were about to build bomb shelters to protect them from the commies that McCarthy was hunting.

[UMULAS]

.....

[Brett85]

Don't tell that to black people, gay people, or the people who were about to build bomb shelters to protect them from the commies that McCarthy was hunting.

The 1950's were better for anyone who believes in limited government, considering that we didn't have Medicare and the rest of the Great Society back then, didn't have the EPA, didn't have a 16 trillion dollar national debt, etc. As time goes on liberty continually decreases.

[RockEnds]

What the heck are you even saying? It's true that there may be issues in which adoptees may have due to the change of the caregivers; if you want to argue with me, use some logic and reasoning first.

I guess I fail to see the logic and reasoning of your logic and reasoning. You said, "I support child adoption regardless if the couple is gay or not," and then go on to recognize the psychological damage caused by adoption which you apparently attribute to a change in care givers. The water runs just a little deeper than that. In fact, to reduce the damaged caused by the institution of adoption to something strictly psychological is to miss the mark entirely. Adoption demands the child completely surrender his or her self to the institution and the new family. In order to become an adoptee, a child must surrender everything to the state for reassignment. The child's origins, identity, heritage, and name are erased by the state and rewritten as if born to the person or persons adopting the child. Surely you can see the Orwellian nature of this? This goes beyond psychological issues caused by a change in caregivers.

The institution of adoption creates a situation that cannot be completely comprehended by someone who has not always existed under those terms. And how does the state respond? By leveling the accusation that the very desire to know the truth is a psychological problem. They create terms of existence that violate the very fabric of humanity, then label dissenters as maladjusted trouble makers who cannot be trusted with their own history. Through this methodology, they justify a system of Orwellian statism.

You say you support adoption. Sorry. I don't, and for the life of me, I cannot see what being gay has to do with anything. Gay adoptees are denied the right to their identities just as straight adoptees are denied. I support the right of everyone to throw off the oppression of the state.

[I<3Liberty]

I'm glad he backed it. Even though some people do morally oppose it, I don't think we should deny kids good homes because the person or couple that wants to adopt them is gay. 1 out of every 5 kids that enter the American foster home, will became an adult before he/she is adopted. In other countries, orphans are just left to fend for themselves. It's terribly depressing. Even though I'm United Methodist, I feel like putting a kid with a loving couple is better than letting them out on their own or in foster homes for the rest of their childhood.

[Christian Liberty]

Okay - then the only logical position to hold is that the individual people involved in a marriage or adoption get to define the term marriage or adoption. Words do not have fixed, objective meanings that can reliably signify a fixed class of things or actions. They only have subjective meaning among the individuals who use them.

The state, by picking "traditional, Christian marriage" is redefining the term by taking the term away from those individuals wishing to consecrate a marriage.

For instance, I'm not young, but I've ALWAYS had the idea that marriage simply means a perpetual contract between individuals who may be of any sex or gender. For the govt to select a "man-woman ONLY" meaning is changing the definition that I have.

I don't want to change the definition that YOU have for marriage, and allow you to reserve the right not to recognize a marriage. But giving the state the power to institute a meaning to the term distinct from the intention of the parties involved restricts BOTH of our notions of the term "marriage".

Thus, if the state is to recognize marriages, it should recognize ANYTHING that ANYONE calls a marriage. AND it should allow you to keep your own definition and not recognize marriages that the state itself must recognize under a theory that it should not play favorites.

I guess I differ from you in that, while I support the state staying out of everything except police courts and defense, and I support the right of people to do what they want without hurting anyone else, I don't want the government to outright recognize something I consider to be immoral. So while I don't support the government declaring marriage to be between one man and one woman, I also don't want them to declare that to be false and to say two men can get married. Ultimately, I want them out of the issue and everything less than that is mostly just a stupid argument of what kind of statism is less bad, but if I was forced to let the state define the terms, I'd rather them call gay relationships "Civil Unions" rather than redefine the definition of marriage.

This really isn't a big deal to me though. We frankly have about a million bigger fish to fry.