Brian Dowling and Arthur Gourounlian expecting first baby.

Not at all. Again, with the disingenuous replies.

I'm not homophobic, and have no concerns about gay men raising children. Boys or girls, either biological or non-biological.

Let's not forget that the two girls in this case are the biological children of at least one of their parents, and are being raised by him and his partner. Who just happens to be another man.

I see you.

Another also done here.

race cars and diet, definitely analogous to raising children.

I am suddenly not convinced you know what analogy is or is for. You know saying something is analagous is not to say its the same or DIRECTLY comparable? Right? Analogy is used to show a form of thinking about two things so as to allow the listener to understand something structurally and rhetroically about one - which then CAN be applied to the other.

And in this case my analogy stands. The point of the analogy being that often we ask the wrong question when looking for the good and bad in something. We can instead of looking at what is required in a given situation - look at what is providing what is required. And thus assume that this provider is the "ideal" or "required" or "necessary" thing.

The risk being that we miss that there are other things that can - even if very different - provide the same required things just as well.

And I think that's the error we are making when we throw out this (as yet totally unsupported by anyone on this thread) fantasy that "one man and one woman" is somehow an "ideal" that is required to give a child everything and anything else is lesser, inferior, or deficient.

The reality it seems - including in the 75 studies I cited while none of your lot have cited a single one - is that we can identify the things children need for an ideal upbringing and these things are just as readily providable by a single person, two men, two women, a group (such as in my case) and so on.

As yet no one on this thread can come up with a single thing that a man can provide a child a woman cant or a woman can that a man can't. Except this totally comical farce idea that a man can somehow not know anything about periods or how toiletry products work :) Which to be honest is the funniest thing I have heard all week.

his own bio child and a willing surrogate is the best route I think.

in the past he’d have married a woman and lived a life of repression. Or stayed childless and had that grief.

I think it is sad to see terms like degenerate being used here. Hate speech like that makes me realise that Ireland still has its fair share of bigots.

as for media exposure, I have yet to see Vogue get the same vitriol. She gets a fair bit, but usually directed at her actions not her very being.

Lots of people choose to live in the limelight. Hopefully they aren’t harming their kids. I know an Irish dancing mammy who’s life surrounds her dancing kids, makes be sad for them. They aren’t allowed do anything other than dance. But that’s her choice.

The best model is a mother and father as parents.

Both bring different aspects to parenting that one can't bring.

Are their wonderful single mothers and fathers, yes of course they are.

Would two men raising a child instead of a couple of junkies be better, yes of course.

It is not controversial but just blatantly obvious that the best model is a male and a female and it's nonsense to try argue otherwise.

Wait, have you just linked to a blog that is explicitly related to opposing gay people from marrying? Really shows why you shouldn't trust the first link you find. Link to actual studies rather than bigots who are offended by the idea of same sex couples marrying.

References and Further Readings

1. Byrd, A. Dean. “Conjugal marriage fosters healthy human and societal development.” What’s the Harm (2008): 3-26. ↩
2. Moore, Kristin A., Susan M. Jekielek, and Carol Emig. Marriage from a Child’s Perspective: How Does Family Structure Affect Children, and What Can We Do About It?. Washington, DC: Child Trends, 2002. ↩
3. McLanahan, Sarah, and Gary Sandefur. Growing up with a single parent: What hurts, what helps. Harvard University Press, 2009. ↩
4. Parke, Mary. “Are Married Parents Really Better for Children? What Research Says about the Effects of Family Structure on Child Well-Being.” (2003). ↩

Well I can take your word for it, but the comment you made about analogy makes it seem strongly you think you know what it is but actually don't. But who cares, because I made the same point without the analogy in response. And you still have not rebutted it.

Speaking of things you do not seem to understand, why do you ask me if my "link dump" (which it wasn't you also do not appear to know what a link dump is… its when you drop a link but do not say anything about it but I have been talking at length about it) shows that gay parents are "better than biological parents"? Because I have not ONCE made that claim? So it seems you do not even know at this point, after many posts of conversation, what my position even is here! The "leap" you are complaining about is not something I have done, said, believe, claimed, or even once thought.

No my ENTIRE point across multiple posts now is that I have not been shown a single reason to think ANY parental configuration is inherently better OR worse than any other. That they all appear to have equal potential and there is nothing a child requires that is available to any configuration that is precluded any other. With the sole caveat as I mentioned that specifically single parents struggle most of all and overall have the worst outcomes on average.

So why would you think I would show you 75 studies (all of which I have read contrary to your imagination) to show one is "better"? That simply is not something I have claimed anywhere. The only one throwing the word "better" about is you.

So perhaps you can do me the service of replying once again but this time to what my position actually is, rather than twice mentioning a position I never once claimed?? Then we might have a cordial and respecful adult conversation.

Finally you say I can find the "plenty of studies" if I go look. No. If you want to cite studies, like I did, I will read them. But the "go find it yourself" approach is not kosher. Quoting opinion pieces so I have to trawl through the references is not kosher. If you want me to specifically read a study - cite the study directly and you will find me more than willing.

Especially as the one link you just offered above is not to a study at all. But an opinion piece. An opinion piece on a site specifically created with the bias of pedaling "traditional marriage" and disparaging same sex marriage. An opinion piece is not a study. And it is an opinion piece that's opening line for example is simply a moral assertion with no basis. And they continue in this vein afterwards. Assertions are not evidence or arguments or studies. They are opinions.

The problem also with science is you can usually find a study (or in your case an opinion piece) to support any position. That is why we do things like meta analysis and multiple analysis and more. I cited 75 studies that show kids of other configurations faring just as well as others. I even cited FOUR studies showing the opposite. You cited 1 single link which is not even a study. Thats a 75:4:1 ratio. If you are going to support a position contrary to a large body of studies, you are going to have to do it better than a single link to a single person expressing an opinion that conforms with your own.

So yeah in general I would start by A) Learning what my position actually is and responding to it rather than one you invented B) Learning the difference between an opinion piece and a study and we can work from there.

You posted a link that cited 75 studies, you didnt cite 75 studies, ergo a link dump.

So your position is that it doesnt matter a whit who brings kids up, any configuration can be as good as another? Fair representation?

I fundamentally disagree, in fact i think thats utter nonsense.

i get that you want to validate yourself.

See you do not know what a link dump is as I said. A link dump on boards is when you make a thread or a post - with a link iink in it - and nothing else. It's when you do not talk about what is in the link, what the link is for, why the content of the link is relevant, or anything else. You just dump the link and run.

I did not do that. I have been discussing my position AT LENGTH and when someone asked for citations related to my position I gave them a compliation of 75 of them. That is the exact opposite of a link dump.

Your representation is much fairer now yes. This is progress. However I still would word it a little different. I am not saying any configuration "can be as good". What I am saying is I am get to see any arguments or evidence that specifically "one man or one woman" is better than all the rest. So it APPEARS at this point that any other configuration is as good. Because we can not find after a long discussion a single reason to think otherwise. Other than the comical "Oh no periods!" nonsense from earlier.

Put even simpler if it helps: I am not actually making any claim at all. I am directly questioning and querying the claim others have made to see if it holds water. Not everyone who questions the validity of a claim is, or must, present a counter claim. One claim can be considered in isolation on it's own individual merits. Which is what I have been doing.

Your last sentence is just petty, personal and false - so I will not dignify it but I am aware you disagree. The point is I am waiting to find a single basis for that disagreement. You have not shown me one yet. But I am a patient person. If you find a single reason or argument to think that a one man one woman is an ideal and others (like 2 men, 2 women, or my own situation of 1 man and 2 women) is lesser I am all ears. It hasn't come yet.

'References and Furher Reading' - references from where and further to what...?

Also:

1 - No ones actually denying this one....

2 - Does not contain a hypothesis

3 - Discusses a topic not relevant (the couple in question aren't single and you've stated you're not against single parents)

4 - Does not contain a hypothesis.

I'm inclined to think this is a random copy and paste job from another link you just randomly clicked on.

The first study isn't readily available. The second explicitly states this "Note: This Child Trends brief summarizes research conducted in 2002, when neither same-sex parents nor adoptive parents were identified in large national surveys. Therefore, no conclusions can be drawn from this research about the wellbeing of children raised by same-sex parents or adoptive parents.". So it absolutely doesn't support what you're claiming.

The third study relates to single parents and the fourth says the aspect of marriage might be as important as biology in terms of stability, however it also notes that the vast majority of children not living with biological married parents turn out fine. So you just linked to some studies without even looking at them? Right? 😂 In future, you should probably not just outright trust a random homophobic WordPress site.

Question for you, (eta) and for those who thinks its "not natural".

Do you also consider it "not natural" when a man and a woman who can't conceive or physically have children, go the IVF, donor egg/sperm or surrogate route?

Or is "not natural" only applicable, when gay couples do it?

fair point! i just need cornell to summarise 70 odd articles that support my position, it would be a lot handier in internet arguments.

From this, i could conclude you're against all forms of medicine and instead favour things like homeopathy and shamanic medicines.