Leo Varadkar opposed to gay adoption

liam24

This is a video of Leo Varadkar explaining why two men are incapable of properly raising a child. I think this really casts him in a negative light.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qv-_EyjqpqA

mikom

liam24 wrote: »

This is a video of Leo Varadkar explaining why two men are incapable of raising a child. I think this really casts him in a negative light.

I see what you mean........... He could do with a bit more up-lighting and a touch more foundation.

The Backwards Man

Man has opinion shocker!!

Or had, maybe he's changed his opinion in the intervening SIX YEARS, maybe not.

Who cares? There are many things I don't agree with that other people do, that's why they are called opinions.

biko

What's all this fascination with Leo Wanker suddenly in AH?

J. Marston

biko wrote: »

What's all this fascination with Leo Wanker suddenly in AH?

He's gay.

somesoldiers

J. Marston wrote: »

He's gay.

and opposed to adoption...good for him

ben.schlomo

biko wrote: »

What's all this fascination with Leo Wanker suddenly in AH?

AH really is gone to sh1te.

ardmacha

This is a video of Leo Varadkar explaining why two men are incapable of raising a child. I think this really casts him in a negative light.

He did not say that two men were incapabable of raising a child. He correctly said that every child had a father and a mother. I think the fact that you misquoted him to try and start a contentious thread in Boards really casts you in really casts you in a negative light.

biko

He might be as gay as Christmas, he can still have stupid opinions (and have no obligation to support stuff like gay adoption)

Timberrrrrrrr

liam24 wrote: »

This is a video of Leo Varadkar explaining why two men are incapable of raising a child. I think this really casts him in a negative light.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qv-_EyjqpqA

No he doesn't he says.......


Oh wait it's you



Never mind.

Dan_Solo

The Backwards Man wrote: »

Who cares? There are many things I don't agree with that other people do, that's why they are called opinions.

How did you manage 8,000 posts here if you don't care about anybody's opinion on anything?

thelad95

liam24 wrote: »

This is a video of Leo Varadkar explaining why two men are incapable of raising a child. I think this really casts him in a negative light.

Not really. Just because he's gay doesn't mean he has to support or believe in gay adoption. There was a thread here complaining how free speech is being eroded yet when Varadkar exercises his free speech here he's 'casting himself in a bad light'.

The Backwards Man

biko wrote: »

He might be as gay as Christmas, he can still have stupid opinions (and have no obligation to support stuff like gay adoption)

I'm from Donegal and I support water charges, VRT and the Lisbon Treaty. So what? I think OP is looking to start a smear campaign.

ThisRegard

liam24 wrote: »

This is a video of Leo Varadkar explaining why two men are incapable of raising a child. I think this really casts him in a negative light.

He speaks English in the video I watched. And my English is pretty good being honest. He never said what you're saying he said.

Adamantium

So the LGBT brigade had a hero, but now that he might have a nuanced opinion, this just won't compute.

People are not allowed to hold opposing two thoughts at once it seems.

Dan_Solo

ardmacha wrote: »

He did not say that two men were incapabable of raising a child. He correctly said that every child had a father and a mother.

I didn't realise they debated biology in The Dail?
Just a guess, but they might just have been debating guardianship of children rather than where children come from, unless there is some controversy about this?

The Backwards Man

Dan_Solo wrote: »

How did you manage 8,000 posts here if you don't care about anybody's opinion on anything?

There's a big difference between caring about someone's opinion and caring about whether or not they have one.

Insect Overlord

OP tried to wind people up with the same video 3 days ago and got nowhere.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=93927674

:rolleyes:

ThisRegard

Dan_Solo wrote: »

I didn't realise they debated biology in The Dail?
Just a guess, but they might just have been debating guardianship of children rather than where children come from, unless there is some controversy about this?

His point, too subtle for many around here, was that a child had more of a right to a mother and father than a gay couple had to adopt that child.

Dan_Solo

The Backwards Man wrote: »

There's a big difference between caring about someone's opinion and caring about whether or not they have one.

Nobody said he didn't have an opinion. You just made that up.

Dan_Solo

ThisRegard wrote: »

His point, too subtle for many around here, was that a child had more of a right to a mother and father than a gay couple had to adopt that child.

So he is saying male/female is always better than male/male. In that case there will never be an adoption by a gay couple as the male/female queue to adopt is already ginormous.

The Backwards Man

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Nobody said he didn't have an opinion. You just made that up.

OP seems to think he's not entitled to one, hence the thread.

Blahblah2012

ThisRegard wrote: »

His point, too subtle for many around here, was that a child had more of a right to a mother and father than a gay couple had to adopt that child.

Well considering how much discrimination and contempt there is towards single fathers from heterosexual relationships .. I really can't see how we could be looking at the rights of 2 fathers when we haven't sorted the rights of 1.

Kevin McCloud

Dan_Solo wrote: »

How did you manage 8,000 posts here if you don't care about anybody's opinion on anything?

Alcohol :pac:

liam24

An File wrote: »

OP tried to wind people up with the same video 3 days ago and got nowhere.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=93927674

:rolleyes:

I'm not trying to wind people up. I think it deserves its own thread. Before the gay community adopts him as some sort of mascot - especially if he becomes Taoiseach - I want people to know what sort of a creature they're dealing with.

Timberrrrrrrr

liam24 wrote: »

I'm not trying to wind people up. I think it deserves its own thread. Before the gay community adopts him as some sort of mascot - especially if he becomes Taoiseach - I want people to know what sort of a creature they're dealing with.

And what " sort of a creature" are we dealing with?

Kevin McCloud

Think we need a Leo Varadkar Forum.

Dan_Solo

The Backwards Man wrote: »

OP seems to think he's not entitled to one, hence the thread.

Nope, he didn't. Unless you are assuming all comment on a person's opinion is automatically a comment on their right to have an opinion.
Can't see why anybody would assume that myself unless there was some attempt to attack a poster for commenting on an opinion.

The Backwards Man

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Nope, he didn't. Unless you are assuming all comment on a person's opinion is automatically a comment on their right to have an opinion.
Can't see why anybody would assume that myself unless there was some attempt to attack a poster for commenting on an opinion.

What's the point of the thread then?

edit; scratch that, already answered for me below

liam24

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

And what " sort of a creature" are we dealing with?

He's basically no better than all of those toilet cruising gay republicans in america who vote down any gay rights bill because they hate themselves.

Dan_Solo

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

And what " sort of a creature" are we dealing with?

Is this where we start inventing allegations of homophobia when anything a homosexual says or does is criticised? Yup, looks like it.

AndonHandon

Vote no to gay marriage as gay adoption will follow.

Timberrrrrrrr

AndonHandon wrote: »

Vote no to gay marriage as gay adoption will follow.

But gay adoption is already here

jobbridge4life

thelad95 wrote: »

Not really. Just because he's gay doesn't mean he has to support or believe in gay adoption. There was a thread here complaining how free speech is being eroded yet when Varadkar exercises his free speech here he's 'casting himself in a bad light'.

Yes. You seem to be mistaking free speech with freedom from criticism. You are entitled to your opinions as I am entitled to say your opinions are sh!te and you are stupid for having them. (you as in one)

Dan_Solo

The Backwards Man wrote: »

What's the point of the thread then?

edit; scratch that, already answered for me below

Granted he's posted it before, it's a comment on the fact that Varadkar doesn't think gay couples are as competent as straight couples at parenting.
Or didn't think so before, whatever he says or believes now.
Didn't seem all that complicated TBH.

Timberrrrrrrr

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Is this where we start inventing allegations of homophobia when anything a homosexual says or does is criticised? Yup, looks like it.

So you think his choice of words considering his posting history is ok?

ThisRegard

Dan_Solo wrote: »

So he is saying male/female is always better than male/male. In that case there will never be an adoption by a gay couple as the male/female queue to adopt is already ginormous.

He's saying that a child coming from a mother/father family is best to go into another mother/father family.

liam24

liam24 wrote: »

This is a video of Leo Varadkar explaining why two men are incapable of raising a child.

At the risk of calling you an outright liar - can you point me to the exact point in the video where he makes such a claim. I have listened 3 times and simply can not find it.

Or would you like to have the decency to back pedal the lie?

secman

The Backwards Man wrote: »

I'm from Donegal and I support water charges, VRT and the Lisbon Treaty. So what? I think OP is looking to start a smear campaign.

And you are backwards ......

Dan_Solo

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

So you think his choice of words considering his posting history is ok?

If I don't consider his posting history, which is kinda what everybody should do when assessing the content of a post, then no problem TBH. The word "creature" has the same dictionary definition no matter what he has posted before.

The Backwards Man

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

But gay adoption is already here

I don't think it's 100% yet, but it's supposed to be before the referendum AFAIK

liam24

Deleted User wrote: »

At the risk of calling you an outright liar - can you point me to the exact point in the video where he makes such a claim. I have listened 3 times and simply can not find it.

Or would you like to have the decency to back pedal the lie?

If you've listened to it three times and you don't have the ability to divine his view on the deficiency of gay couples vis a vis raising children, then I question your proficiency in the English langauge.

Dan_Solo

ThisRegard wrote: »

He's saying that a child coming from a mother/father family is best to go into another mother/father family.

Barring surrogacy on behalf of a gay couple (I've no idea if this happens here), wouldn't this be all children?

liam24

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

So you think his choice of words considering his posting history is ok?

What posting history are you referring to specifically?

Dan_Solo

liam24 wrote: »

What posting history are you referring to specifically?

Timberrrrr probably considers himself an expert on re-regs for some reason.

pragmatic1

AndonHandon wrote: »

Vote no to gay marriage as gay adoption will follow.

Gay adoption is already being drafted into law. You don't have a vote on it.

You do however have a say in gay marriage.

liam24

liam24 wrote: »

If you've listened to it three times and you don't have the ability to divine his view on the deficiency of gay couples vis a vis raising children, then I question your proficiency in the English langauge.

Thats exactly the point. I understand his position perfectly. And neither I - nor you we can now see - can find anything in the video that matches your lie.

pragmatic1

The Backwards Man wrote: »

I don't think it's 100% yet, but it's supposed to be before the referendum AFAIK

I think he means that gay individuals can already adopt, while gay couples cannot yet.

ThisRegard

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Barring surrogacy on behalf of a gay couple (I've no idea if this happens here), wouldn't this be all children?

Pretty much. But he never said that he's opposed to gay adoption.

I'm sure surrogacy does happen here, I know one lesbian couple with a couple of kids.

Dan_Solo

pragmatic1 wrote: »

Gay adoption is already being drafted into law. You don't have a vote on it.

You do however have a say in gay marriage.

At a guess, wouldn't it be almost impossible to adopt unless you were a married couple? I can't see how gay adoption could ever happen then before the referendum, though the point of law is important.

Blahblah2012

pragmatic1 wrote: »

Gay adoption is already being drafted into law. You don't have a vote on it.

You do however have a say in gay marriage.

Maybe we do need 2 men...that might equal the rights of 1 mother