Paul Ryan switches stance on gay adoption..now supports

  • You are viewing Orangepower as a Guest. To start new threads, reply to posts, or participate in polls or contests - you must register. Registration is free and easy. Click Here to register.
Jun 8, 2012
4,666
7,861
743
#5
Because there are half a million foster children in the United States who need families. They're beautiful and strong, resilient and traumatized, typical and quirky, and come with baggage that most people - including myself, even having worked with them for 15 years - can't truly even imagine, let alone empathize. They need families to incorporate children into their own lives, not the other way around. They need families who have experienced adversity and acknowledge the fact that no one is perfect, parents who are accepting of sometimes almost insurmountable challenges because they want to parent, and parents who can take those challenges and create healing environments.

The very special families who adopt children from foster care are of every race, single moms, single dads, traditional male/female couples, and gay couples. Children should not have to linger in care, waiting on a correctly sexually-oriented family for permanency, if all other factors and circumstances indicate the match is a good one.

Depending on state statute, a gay couple may have to designate an official adoptive parent through the court and provide legal guardianship for the other parent once the adoption has taken place, which is sort of a happenstance due to statutory language.

And before someone comes swooping in and telling me that some children are homophobic or believe homosexuality is wrong for religious reasons, Im aware. Without going into long drawn out specifics on how generalized beliefs about people are dealt with, I will just say that counselors, when working with youth in care try to unpack those deep-seeded feelings and determine if they are parroted or if it's really what the youth actually believes/feels.

The tl;dr version is that kids need families to love and support and encourage them, and kids come in all sorts of different packages, why can't their families?
 

RxCowboy

Has no Rx for his orange obsession.
A/V Subscriber
Nov 8, 2004
70,440
40,804
1,743
Wishing I was in Stillwater
#6
So, let's assume that the the oft-quoted 10% of the population is homosexual. Some percentage of that is interested in adoption. Some percentage of that is qualified to adopt. So, my question is, what difference does it really make? If we want homes for children without families then make it easier for heterosexual couples who are interested in adoption. This is a politically expedient announcement by Ryan. Nothing more.
 
Jun 8, 2012
4,666
7,861
743
#7
So, let's assume that the the oft-quoted 10% of the population is homosexual. Some percentage of that is interested in adoption. Some percentage of that is qualified to adopt. So, my question is, what difference does it really make? If we want homes for children without families then make it easier for heterosexual couples who are interested in adoption. This is a politically expedient announcement by Ryan. Nothing more.
It's not difficult for most families if they are truly motivated to help children and are interested in adopting from the pool of children needing families. It would be difficult for a family of any composition to adopt if the parameters (demographics, needs, etc) of a child in whom they're interested is not a child typically found within the pool of children available. For instance, minority children are typically overrepresented... Children with siblings, special physical, emotional, psychological or developmental needs, and older children.
 

RxCowboy

Has no Rx for his orange obsession.
A/V Subscriber
Nov 8, 2004
70,440
40,804
1,743
Wishing I was in Stillwater
#8
It would be difficult for a family of any composition to adopt if the parameters (demographics, needs, etc) of a child in whom they're interested is not a child typically found within the pool of children available. For instance, minority children are typically overrepresented... Children with siblings, special physical, emotional, psychological or developmental needs, and older children.
Okay, then let's take that small percentage of the population, the percentage of that sub-population interested in adoption, the percentage of that sub-population that is qualified to adopt, and the percentage of that sub-population that matches with child parameters... and tell me again why this is a big deal? As far as the kids themselves are concerned this is a blip on the radar screen (and his announcement doesn't actually change his vote or change any law or regulation). It is something that was said for political effect, nothing more.
 
Jun 8, 2012
4,666
7,861
743
#10
You are being too logical. Whether he did it for political gain or not, And whether it makes sense or not, it's a big deal when someone "important" stands up for marginalized (or formerly marginalized) populations. It is one teeny weenie little step in altering a culture of discrimination and hate. Even if it changes one mind, it's a step in the right direction.
 
Jun 8, 2012
4,666
7,861
743
#15
Kulonopin, is that you?

You are missing the point entirely. If it is said for political effect it isn't evidence of anything but politics.
Actually, you are. Someone out there will see that he said it and take it at face value, look at things a little differently, pass it along in conversation, and politically motivated or not, it will mean something. It's a butterfly effect.
 

RxCowboy

Has no Rx for his orange obsession.
A/V Subscriber
Nov 8, 2004
70,440
40,804
1,743
Wishing I was in Stillwater
#16
Actually, you are. Someone out there will see that he said it and take it at face value, look at things a little differently, pass it along in conversation, and politically motivated or not, it will mean something. It's a butterfly effect.
Then we're back to a sub-population of a sub-population of a sub-population of a sub-population. Which means that 0.001% more kids are going to be adopted. The butterfly is flapping its wings on Mars.
 
Jun 8, 2012
4,666
7,861
743
#17
Then we're back to a sub-population of a sub-population of a sub-population of a sub-population. Which means that 0.001% more kids are going to be adopted. The butterfly is flapping its wings on Mars.
It's also putting the issue in the news again. Maybe someone will do a report of this story and add their own local story along with it. It is National Foster Care Awareness Month, incidentally.
 

Ball

Deputy
Dec 29, 2008
2,017
776
1,743
Stillwater
#19
Then we're back to a sub-population of a sub-population of a sub-population of a sub-population. Which means that 0.001% more kids are going to be adopted. The butterfly is flapping its wings on Mars.
If it means one more kid gets to have a chance at a loving home, is that not good?