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 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

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

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.

[Deleted User]

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.

[Deleted User]

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

Dan_Solo

ThisRegard wrote: »

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.

Not opposed to, but for some reason still proposing straight couples as better for some reason. That's my take on it anyway.
Like I said, if this was law no gay couple would ever get to adopt in practical terms.

Dan_Solo

ThisRegard wrote: »

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.

Although under current law only one of them is the legal guardian then?

pragmatic1

Dan_Solo wrote: »

At a guess, wouldn't it be almost impossible to adopt unless you were a married couple?

Yes. The adoption process is very stringent in this country, and rightly so. It would be very difficult for any single person to adopt a child.

suicide_circus

What about the abhorrent situation of straight couples adopting gay children?

ThisRegard

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Although under current law only one of them is the legal guardian then?

Possibly, not sure of the details, but isn't this part of the problem ?

Timberrrrrrrr

Dan_Solo wrote: »

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.

Cool

I'll remember that the next time you drag up someones posting history

Hibernosaur

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.

Dehumanising people you disagree with. How fascist.

AndonHandon

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

But gay adoption is already here

I was using the only argument I've heard against gay marriage.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

This is exactly the same **** but Leo V instead of Iona stick figures.

Make the arguements (a child is best with a mum and dad) non entirely true, but okay...
Make an erroneous statemet (only a man and a woman can have a child)

- he even goes on to contradcit himself by mentioning IVF
Make a statement that's dangerous (it is the State's role to replace a Mum and Dad where the child doesn't have one) sets up a precedent to take kids away from non-traditional family
Completely distract from the original argument (eh - we were takling about equal marriage rights for consenting adults and now it's gay adoption....??)

Blahblah2012

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Completely distract from the original argument (eh - we were takling about equal marriage rights and now it's gay adoption....??)

The cart normally follows the horse...although in this country..you'll probably find the horse in the cart..With 2 daddys pulling it