nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Leo Varadkar comes out as gay

Annasopra

Leo Varadkar just came out on RTE Radio.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

floggg

seamus wrote: »

It's the oldest cover in the book - people seem to think that if you can be as homophobic and vicious as possible about gay people, then you can convince other people and yourself that you're not actually gay.

The number of viciously anti-gay people who've been subsequently found in compromising positions with people of the same sex is quite incredible.

I'd put even money on the vast majority of anti-gay campaigners being at least bisexual. If you're brought up to believe that one of the fundamental pieces of your identity is evil and wrong, then you're going to be a very unhappy person indeed.

I don't think its always simply an intentional cover.

I think when you are in the closet and struggling to accept your sexuality, it's very easy to absorb and believe the various negative messages about gay people.

You tend to focus more on the negatives, and it can be easier for you to believe the negative images, because it is easier to convince yourself you aren't gay when your perception of gay people is an extreme and artificial construct.

While not all anti-gay figures aee gay or bisexual, I di think Anybody who argues its a choice must be bisexual. How can you think your sexual orientation is a choice unless you yourself are capable to some degree of attraction to both sexes.

I certainly tried to xhoose heterosexuality, but try as I night I wasn't capable of it.

To Elland Back

Strawperson, please

floggg

macyard wrote: »

You seem to think if some doesn't like something they are secretly it, gays get very defensive about the links to gay paedophiles are they secretly in that closet and into boys

Actually, we get upset about an inaccurate conflation of two very different groups.

By your logic that must mean we are secretly an inaccurate conflation of two very different groups.

I would really know how to respond to that accusation though.

Shrap

floggg wrote: »

I would really know how to respond to that accusation though.

Mod beat you to it

[Deleted User]

AgileMyth wrote: »

What business is it of anyone else? Nobody ever comes out as straight.

Ah the privilege of the majority. I doubt you are doing anything but pretending to be unable to explain this to yourself already.

Banjo String wrote: »

I can't help feeling though, this revelation will seriously hinder him from ever taking the FG leadership reigns.

Chancer3001 wrote: »

Unfortunately I think this may seriously harm his prospects of becoming Taoiseach one day

It is of course possible - but at least he has the guts to test that. There is a parallel claim in the US that it would be impossible to become elected at all - let alone as president - if you were an outed atheist for example. But how many people have actually tried it? The numbers are low - and perhaps the idea it would not happen is just an assumed part of the narrative.

Similarly here - we might assume a minority sexuality would preclude one from office or specific levels of office. But rather than simply follow that narrative I wonder would we not be better off if people actually tried it.

In a world where we lament the lack of honest politicians - the public seem to maintain narratives that almost positively necessitate secrets and the hiding of ones true self and position. I like to see that narrative being actively challenged and changed.

Dirty Dingus McGee wrote: »

The people who think it is as big deal to come out as gay are the problem.People being completely indifferent about his sexuality are what society should be striving for and making a big deal about it by having to make a public announcement (to people who have no business knowing anything about his personal life) is kind of admitting that its a big deal when it really isn't.

I think you are both right and wrong at the same time. The kind of society you say we should strive for is exactly the one you describe. One where your sexuality with regards other consensual adults simply has no meaning or relevance to anyone.

The issue is how to get to that society and how to do that striving. And one way simply happens to be to normalise it by having it in the public eye. To make the homophobes of the world see that homosexuality is not some back street gutter thing - but that homosexuals are our politicians - our teachers - our clergy - our doctors - our sports and media heros - and so forth. Especially at a time when a referendum relevant to that community is upcoming - we want our public to be aware that we are not voting for some faceless underground sub-culture that only shows its face in gay bars - but real people - in all areas of our society and world.

So like you I strive towards a society where people do not need to come out - but unlike you I see the utility of people coming out as being part of that journey. Would that they did not have to - but that is not the society we are in yet.

You say that _YOU_ do not care about this announcement - that is because you are already the kind of person we want in the society of which we speak. The utility of his coming out has nothing to do with you - or I - who want such an announcement not to matter in the first place though. I do not care which politicians - if any - or if all - are of whatever sexuality either. I do care about what the influence of high profile people coming out can be however. And that is the distinction worth installing between your caring and not caring I feel.

And even the homosexuality issue aside - a politician being honest - in a society where we lament the lack of honest politicians - where the narrative is pretty compelling to have the politician not be honest - also sets a bar worth lauding too.

liam24 wrote: »

Look at what a hypocrite he is, opposing gay adoption. I wonder if he's still against it

I am not sure where you see hypocrisy here as being homosexual - and gay adoption - and gay marriage - are all different issues entirely. It is perfectly possible to have nothing whatsoever against homosexuality - homosexual sex - or even be homosexual oneself - and be against gay adoption.

I disagree with him - I think the arguments against gay adoption are non-existent and the ones he attempts to offer in your video are patent nonsense - but I do not see a shred of hypocrisy between being gay - and being against gay adoption. He see him as being wrong - uninformed - and full of assumption in the video you just showed - but not in any way hypocritical at all.

VinLieger wrote: »

He's only a hypocrite if he goes back on what he said now. You might need to learn the meaning of the actual word.

I am not sure that that is the correct definition of hypocrisy at all. That is changing ones mind. An entirely different thing indeed. I do not look down on people who change their mind. I look up to them. It is the people who make up their mind and refuse to ever change it that concern me.

Alas the narrative of our media does not help much here - when any time a politician changes position or direction on an issue we throw around words like "flip flopping" and "back tracking" and other phrases either directly - or implicitly - disparaging. I would prefer our elected representatives to be open to reason - data - and argument - and be perfectly open to - and lauded for - changing their mind when it is correct to do so.

liam24 wrote: »

Here's the point. He will have changed his mind - now that he's gay.

I am not sure I am understanding what do you mean by "now that he is gay". Are you assuming he was not gay in the video you linked to? Are you conflating announcing on a particular day that you are a gay man - with becoming gay on that day?

I see zero reason to think that he was not just as gay in the video you linked to - as he is today. Do you?

bjork

ectoraige wrote: »

Dana?? Some things are unforgivable!

The stuff we used to get up at the Seminary. One time me and a few of the lads mitched off to see a dana concert!

ectoraige

bjork wrote: »

The stuff we used to get up at the Seminary. One time me and a few of the lads mitched off to see a dana concert!

And to think this thread began so positively... oh the humanity!

Annasopra

macyard wrote: »

You didn't know you where gay? I though you where born gay I understand you might not tell others but you should have know unless if was choice later in life

When did you choose to be straight?

[Deleted User]

It seems macyard has been booted out for some obvious trolling - but perhaps his question is worth an answer all the same for the more genuine people who share the surprise that he was likely only feigning.

Yes the predominant feeling I have come across - by far - in the gay community is you are born that way. That does not mean however that a gay person will always know it. I have encountered many who share this position of not having known it - or having essentially known it but denied it in every way.

Remember our society is heavily heterosexual - and our social and legal and other structures are built with this dynamic implicit in it. Growing up with that narrative around you - many simply assume themselves to be straight - because the feelings they are having simply do not parse through the dynamic of the society they find themselves in. They might dismiss their feelings in all kinds of ways. Infatuations perhaps. A sickness perhaps. A phase that might go away. Or if parsing it through religious memes - thinking it is some evil thing inside them.

Some of these people genuinely have to either realise what their feelings are and mean - or simply acknowledge them rather than bury them - coming out to themselves essentially. While an unfortunate few implode under it before realising what it all is - and act out their genuine deep confusions and issues in ways harmful to themselves - others - or both.

So even if we acknowledge homosexuality is an attribute one is born with - one can _FAR_ from assume that a gay person is aware of it cognizant of it from the outset. And their realisation of it later in life is not the same thing as choosing to be gay later in life - despite the anti gay lobby using such people as examples to rubbish the "gay from birth" position.

DeadHand

Deleted User wrote: »

So even if we acknowledge homosexuality is an attribute one is born with - one can _FAR_ from assume that a gay person is aware of it cognizantof it from the outset. And their realisation of it later in life is not the same thing as choosing to be gay later in life - despite the anti gay lobby using such people as examples to rubbish the "gay from birth" position.

Yeah, I feel you on this one.

I'm far from old but in the time and place I grew up being gay simply wasn't an option. Homosexuality was seen as this sort of shameful disease, this ultimate insult, unforgivable sin and a fertile subject for mockery all rolled into one.

I can understand completely how any of the hundreds of thousands in this country who received a similar upbringing to me and also happened to be gay could have, out of a sense of self preservation and need for acceptance, buried their true nature so deeply that they even managed to fool themselves.

The part that saddens me is the amount of people who must have lived that never made the leap, who carried their self-deception with them all the way to the grave.

Things are changing for the better here though, we're belatedly maturing as a nation. A person's homosexuality isn't seen as some grotesque scandal anymore. In time, hopefully, it will be seen as an irrelevance.

Generic Dreadhead

Well good for you Leo

(he's reading this)

Baggy Trousers

Cormac... wrote: »

Well good for you Leo

(he's reading this)

I hope he has more sense.

ebbsy

Very interesting that he comes out and a few days later the nurse crisis rears its head..........

What a twat.

DeadHand

ebbsy wrote: »

Very interesting that he comes out and a few days later the nurse crisis rears its head..........

What a twat.

There's ALWAYS a crisis in the HSE.

ebbsy

DeadHand wrote: »

There's ALWAYS a crisis in the HSE.

True bud, The way they pay and treat nurses is disgusting.

BoJack Horseman

DeadHand wrote: »

There's ALWAYS a crisis in the HSE.

Indeed.

Health is a remarkable nexus of genuine underinvestment & crushing interest groups.

Underachievement is certain.

Baggy Trousers

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

Indeed.

Health is a remarkable nexus of genuine underinvestment & crushing interest groups.

Underachievement is certain.

Are you sure about the underinvestment? I read that our HSE budget is bigger per capita than most other European countries. The problem is that a lot of the budget is wasted.

thror

Cormac... wrote: »

Well good for you Leo

(he's reading this)

Is he really?

God love him, some of the "who cares, why is this an issue" dubious self-righteousness would bring a bilious tear to the eye.

(Well done and thanks Leo!)

thror

Edit: double post

BoJack Horseman

Baggy Trousers wrote: »

Are you sure about the underinvestment? I read that our HSE budget is bigger per capita than most other European countries. The problem is that a lot of the budget is wasted.

Your wrong tbh.

Total health expenditure is about European norm, however what the government spend on health is on the low side compared to most European countries.

Decade after decade if insufficient expenditure takes a lot if time to undo.

As for waste?

I know there is a recent cancer drug, that the government spend €4m a year on that actually doesn't work, but is purchased to appease the opposition.

However the vast majority of expenditure is not wasted.

DeadHand

ebbsy wrote: »

True bud, The way they pay and treat nurses is disgusting.

Very true.

But my point was Varadkar can hardly be accused of cynically diverting attention away from the latest onmnishambles in health with his revelation since the fact that the HSE is in itself an ongoing crisis means that whenever the revelation was made it was going to coincide with some mess or other.

Ok, since he isn't even the only gay member of cabinet and he could easily have continued on saying nothing as others do, IF you were very cynical the argument could be made he is trying to appeal to the younger sections of the electorate and build a cult of personality around himself with his coming out, his solo runs and his volunteering with the ambulance service (which he apparently attempted to keep secret anyway).

I, personally, don't buy into that. I believe that the man was just being honest and candid, as is his wont.

SpaceTime

I don't really see the point in blaming someone who is a few months in the job. We all know the health portfolio is an absolute nightmare and nobody can fix it. In reality we probably need some kind of constitutional amendment to allow a commission to go in and absolutely rip through the healthcare system, nationalise various assets like voluntary hospitals, fire a whole raft of management right across the whole sector and recruit professional managers as opposed to administrators and generally just shake it up.

Without doing something as radical as that it's a bit like trying to cure cancer by using paracetamol and hot whiskies!

Dan_Solo

Baggy Trousers wrote: »

Are you sure about the underinvestment? I read that our HSE budget is bigger per capita than most other European countries. The problem is that a lot of the budget is wasted.

Wasted on rock star salaries for consultants, though at least Varadkar's doing his bit and only getting 1/3rd the wage as a TD.

Flem31

SpaceTime wrote: »

I don't really see the point in blaming someone who is a few months in the job. We all know the health portfolio is an absolute nightmare and nobody can fix it. In reality we probably need some kind of constitutional amendment to allow a commission to go in and absolutely rip through the healthcare system, nationalise various assets like voluntary hospitals, fire a whole raft of management right across the whole sector and recruit professional managers as opposed to administrators and generally just shake it up.

Without doing something as radical as that it's a bit like trying to cure cancer by using paracetamol and hot whiskies!

A commission would be a complete waste of time and money until the embargo of no compulsory redundancies is lifted from all aspects of the public service.

To fix the HSE or any of the other long running issues in Ireland requires one major component.......backbone, the ability to standup and say this is wrong and at least start the debate rather than always living in fear of the unions.Unfortunately I don't see any politician In Ireland to make that hard call.

There are over 100,000 employees (direct & indirect) in the HSE as per their website. That's a lot of people for such an awful service.
I pay taxes which helps fund the HSE budget, yet anytime I need any medical assistance, I need to pay a second time.

I agree that asking Leo to fix things within six months is unreasonable, but he doesn't look like someone who is anxious to improve things bar a crises like trolleys that needs attention.
I have no animosity towards Leo and I wish him all the best and yes it was brave of him to make that statement last Sunday. But I suspect that maybe where the bravery ends and he will mark time in Angola like all his predecessors.
And I would like nothing more than to be proved wrong, only time will tell

SILVAMAN

The difference between public ans private health care is efficiency and people actually doing their job. If you don't pull your weight in the private sector, you're shown the door. There is little or no accountability in the public sphere, and those who refuse to pull their weight have a knock on effect on the system and stymie the tremendous efforts of those that give their job their all.
Neither Varadkar nor any other politician will reform the HSE until the unions are routed and the dead weight is eliminated.

JillyQ

SILVAMAN wrote: »

The difference between public ans private health care is efficiency and people actually doing their job. If you don't pull your weight in the private sector, you're shown the door. There is little or no accountability in the public sphere, and those who refuse to pull their weight have a knock on effect on the system and stymie the tremendous efforts of those that give their job their all.
Neither Varadkar nor any other politician will reform the HSE until the unions are routed and the dead weight is eliminated.

Couldn't have put it any better

SpaceTime

We've actually got the worst of both systems though:

Publicly funded private healthcare via 'voluntary hospitals'.

So, basically you've got the all the worst aspects of the private sector and public sector combined with added complete lack of accountability.

Dan_Solo

SILVAMAN wrote: »

The difference between public ans private health care is efficiency and people actually doing their job. If you don't pull your weight in the private sector, you're shown the door. There is little or no accountability in the public sphere, and those who refuse to pull their weight have a knock on effect on the system and stymie the tremendous efforts of those that give their job their all.
Neither Varadkar nor any other politician will reform the HSE until the unions are routed and the dead weight is eliminated.

I don't think you know the first thing about the Irish private medical sector.

jobbridge4life

SILVAMAN wrote: »

The difference between public ans private health care is efficiency and people actually doing their job. If you don't pull your weight in the private sector, you're shown the door. There is little or no accountability in the public sphere, and those who refuse to pull their weight have a knock on effect on the system and stymie the tremendous efforts of those that give their job their all.
Neither Varadkar nor any other politician will reform the HSE until the unions are routed and the dead weight is eliminated.

Thats some fierce rhetoric right there. BOO public sector!

SILVAMAN

Dan_Solo wrote: »

I don't think you know the first thing about the Irish private medical sector.

As long time oncology patient, I've experienced both public and private care.
I spent a year in and out of the Mater Private and everything ran like clockwork-you were scheduled for something like an x-ray, wheeled out, and within 10-5 minutes were being worked upon. NO rescheduling or waiting about.
During my treatment when I was allowed home, "down the country", I had on several occasions to go to the local public emergency room where the staff were of as high a standard as in the private hospital. But there was always a hiccup-a test could not be done because someone was on a break or simply could not be found, to the frustration of the medical staff. I specifically remember the radiologist being paged for over a 1/2 hour, and on the other side of the curtains in ER heard one nurse ask "what's taking her so long?" and the other whisper back "she went up town to do some messages".
That's the bull**** I'm referring to-certain people not pulling their weight.
Let me pose another question: How come I can prioritise my health insurance payment as an absolute necessity, and always have done, and then decide on non-essential expenditure like a holiday or something else? It's about people taking a little personal responsibility for themselves and not expecting the rest of us to carry them.
If Varadkar can sort the HSE out, he deserves our undying gratitude and a full state pension for life.