Brian Dowling and Arthur Gourounlian expecting first baby.

But have you any reason to think that other than you want to keep saying it over and over? Because thus far you got nuttin.

Well no - the one making ANY claim have the work to do to support that claim. You have made a claim. You can not support it. I have not made a claim other than I see no reason to think that any set of parents is more ideal than any other yet. But I am happy to see that evidence if you eventually find any.

Until I make an actual claim though - what work do I have to do? None.

What little evidence I have seen show parents of other configurations faring just as well and in one or two cases faring even better. Unlike you I am happy to cite this on request rather than just run away. So it seems the claim that there is some "ideal" is based on nothing but wishful thinking or a fondness for tradtiion or one's own experience.

Well you said it yourself - the quantity of counter examples is reletively much smaller. Which just makes it difficult for the people likey ourself appealing to tradition to support your case. The only basis you have for it being an "ideal" is purely that it is just what most people have done most of the time. But that is not evidence for anything really. Your "law of averages" just means the children who fare best and the children who fare worst are BOTH more likely to come from the traditional parenting configuration. Because that is what an "average" means.

But nothing about that even remotely suggests such a configuration is "best" or "better" or "ideal". It is just different. Any no studies I have seen yet show that children of any other configuration are in any way likely to far much worse (or in many cases better either) than this average you are so precious about.

Different is just that. Different. All the work to show one is better or more ideal is there for you to do - but clearly you can't do it.

Likely back to Mammy Auntie

You were literally just told: there is no evidence to support the idea that mankind has been using rhe nuclear family model.for thousands of years - which is most certainly an apoeal to tradition - and another guess on your part,

As the poster said: you're saying the same thing again and again and ignoring the flaws in your argument and proof that it's really just guesswork.

Edit

Can't be bothered with this thread.

The vast majority of us would be nothing without our 'mammies' . I have a good father but the majority of the care and bringing up was done by my mum. I cannot imagine explaining to my father that I got my first period and going for bra fitting with him. There is no love like a mothers love and thats reality - its a special bond like no other.

Two daddies bringing up 2 little girls and denying them a mother is just wrong. Its going against nature and biology and nobody will convince me otherwise.

If its a situation where the mum died its different then intentionally having no mother.

I have 2 cousins where their mum died when they were young. Their dad done his best but it just wasnt the same as having a mother. Its not a situation they would wish on any child.

And yet single dads do that very thing all the time. More power to them. And many people do just fine without their "mammies". Maybe YOU would be nothing without your mammy. Maybe. But I doubt it. Your path may have been different but I think the vast majority of us would find our way regardless. Some won't. Most will. And we know this because most do.

But you make a good point with your phrase "I can not imagine". I think thats the reason people like "Gym" and yourself and one or two others above have an issue with it. Each of us has had the upbrining we had. And so it is difficult to imagine another one. It is difficult to imagine life without someone or something that is important to us. But that is just a failure in imagination and nothing else. Imagine harder. It's a good practice and healthy I think to put ourselves mentally in the shoes and others who live different lives to us.

As it happens I live with two women and we have four kids. And my oldest daugther DID come to me first about her first period. Not her mother or her "other" mother. I was her first port of call on it.

Why? Well mainly because since she was a toddler I have been teaching her about her body. Not just sexual related stuff but everything. Fitness. Martial arts. Food. Meditation. And more. And I have taught my kids from an early age to listen to their bodies. I have thought them about morning "body scans" where you look for signs in yourself that something is different this day and to deal with it.

So when it came time for the first period I already had her listening to her body trying to spot it before it actually even started. Twice she came to me thinking it was about to happen. False alarms. But the third time she was right on the money. And because I had that "in touch with our bodies" relationship with her I was the first one she felt comfortable with to declare the first period had started. Because I had already nurtured that open and approachable and ongoing relationship of healthy and comfortable communication.

What does this teach us? I think it shows that each child has a different relationship with our parents. Your "mothers love" was different to your fathers love and was nothing like anything else in your life. That's nautral normal and fine. But you are extrapolating from that unique personal relationship to a generalsation that holds no water. We all have special bonds in our lives that "are like no other". Because we are individuals and they are too. And this is one of the joys of life.

Children of single parents, children who were adopted, children living with step parents and much more are growing up with their own unique relationships and bonds with their carers. And they appear to be every bit as nurturing and healthy and fine as any other. And the sole argument it seems that it isn't comes down to "Well I personally can not imagine it!".

Yes, it is. Its what you've been told is the default and you've accepted it blindly whilst ignoring the evidence of your eyes and ears telling you that lots of non-default families ate doing fine.

Leaving you here, as you know what my point is (and it's NOT that non-traditional setups are better) and you're not contesting it.

Thats great for you but the vast majority of men would not have a clue about periods or to offer any advice to a girl.

There are loads of people out there who were raised in single parent families who will tell you it wasnt a great experience and given the choice they would have preferred to have grown up with a mother and father.

I sincerely hope that in 20 years time that these 2 little girls are not in the media complaining about the dysfunctional upbringing they had. I do really mean that.

Whats best for the little girls is the most important issue here not the need of 2 men to be parents.

Are you for real - Honestly you cant see the difference between a mothers death and a woman being paid to have a baby to hand over to 2 men.

Neither is ideal circumstances for a child growing up but a mothers death is a sad and unintentional situation where surrogacy for 2 men is very much intentionally denying the child of a mother.

The Dowling/Gourounlian girls have a non-show-business “aunty” mother/mother-figure who will no doubt be very close by throughout their lives to keep them some sheltering from the public lives of their show-business daddies, so long as they don’t get paraded too much.

Colm O’Gorman and his husband managed to raise their family in a mostly low key (read non-attention-seeking) way. He is a public figure, only insofar as his work is human-rights based, not publicity for the sake of publicity.

The point being made is relatively obvious.The poster believes it's better for a child, in general, if they are brought up by their mother and father. To intentionally deprive a child of that right is questionable.

That doesn't negate the fact that kids are brought up in all kinds of environments and may or may not get on perfectly fine.

There are no doubt plenty of same sex couples bringing up kids without issue or commentary but I think these two are using the situation to cash in. That's what concerns many people around the long term welfare of the children. Do you not have any concerns around this at all?

Of the pair Brian & Arthur, I prefer the latter, he comes across as more naturally vivacious and warmer hearted, and always seems especially grateful for the life he has has. I always feel Brian has a bit of a cold, botox-held expression, of course I only know them as celebrities figures who appear from time to time. Arthur also seems more at ease with the child, and vice versa.