Brian Dowling and Arthur Gourounlian expecting first baby.

Oh, your answer is obvious, alright.

Even if you don't have the courage to say it outright.

More of the gaslighting. Try and reply to what i have posted not what you are imagining.

Not directly throwing this fallacy at you - but it is still worth a mention as a cautionary note at this juncture. The Naturalistic Fallacy is named on the list of fallacies for a reason. Even if we did go around splitting the world into Natural and Unnatural - we have done nothing useful at all.

Saying something is natural says pretty much nothing at all.

What it certainly does not say (again, cautiouary note, not directly accusing you of anything) is that natural is "better" or "good" or "useful" or "ideal" or any other value judgement that might be imported into it. There is no reason we should tend towards or favor anything we feel we have identified as "natural" either in isolation OR relative to something we feel we have identified as "unnatural".

Saying something is natural or unnatural literally adds nothing to a conversation of this sort. It errs into red herring territory.

Saying two men parenting a child is "unnatural" would still just leave people waiting to hear what the point actually is. If there is one.

Though I am still strugging to understand an earlier comment that two women is essentially for the most part ok but two men not. Thus far that comment just seems born of nothing but base misandry. Still waiting to hear a single thing one gender can do or offer that the other is precluded. (aside from breast feeding obivously, which is the one thing I can think of and one thing more than anyone else has offered so far).

Summarising them and collating them are also two different things. I for one would certainly not go around looking for links that do nothing but summarise articles that support a position. If however there are 75 links that support a position and someone else has COLLATED them into one place so I can paste one link rather than 75 - that's a different thing. Summation and collation are very different things.

Fair mention though - I am someone who has both in and out of my career, and in and out of my various third level studies - had extensive experience and training on reading, parsing and understanding scientific studies, statistics and analysis.

So if you actually link or cite a study (rather than a politically motivated opinion piece on an equally politically motivated website) you will find my willingness to read it, consider it, and break it down extensive to say the least. Try me :)

You resoonded to a pist about it being unnatural.

You against two gay men raising a child are you not? And you're against it because you see it as an unnatural family situation, are you not?

Now i could be wrong - and correct me if I am - but which statement do you disagree with and what should the correct statement be, and i will apologise for the misunderstanding.

ah it was the first link i came across, lazy of me, mea culpa etc.

So it appears scientific studies show that outcomes are about the same in different types of family units. Great. It still doesnt change my opinion that all other things being equal that the biological parents in a committed relationship isnt the best thing for a child. That doesnt mean i think other set ups are inherently bad despite the conclusions people are jumping to.

Well that is certainly fine. Nothing wrong with opinion.

My ONLY question on this thread has been if there is any reason to think "one man one woman" is specifically best for a child in reality. Not opinion. And thus far the answer seems to be "no".

IF it is your opinion - and nothing else - certainly nothing wrong with that really. Though I personally (only me here) tend to try not to hold opinions that have no basis. But that's just me.

But it's a topic that for obvious reasons (my family setup) both interests me and affects me. So when people make such claims - I tend to get interested if they know something I don't on the matter. Because if they do - it would behove me to learn it.

"Energy" now is it? Would this be crystals and stuff or some other woo? When people start talking about "energies" I get a little worried about what hippy nonsense it's going to be next. Do they have different "vibrations" too? :)

Ok tongue out of cheek and more serious response -

Can you be more specific as to what you mean? "Energy" is just too vague for me. I think you will find that ANY two individuals of any gender can compliment and contrast each other. Nothing to do with gender. I think far too many people in conversations like this realise their mother and father were very different people - which complimented each other - and they just jump to the assumption this must be because one was a man and one a woman. When in fact they were just different people.

When getting specific though remember we are talking about parenting here. So not only would I need to know what this "energy" is specifically - I would also be wondering what aspect of it is relevant or required for parenting. So just saying "energy" A) does not show what you even mean and B) does not show how what you mean has anything to do with child rearing ideals.

Your second paragraph though is an issue. What you refer to there is single parenting households. And yes crime stats especially in the US do indeed show issues with children growing up with a single parent. Other stats too such as education outcomes and health outcomes and so forth. It genuinely does seem that of all the parenting configurations possible - single parents has the biggest potentials for issues.

But I already mentioned this many posts ago as a warning that someone will come in with single parent stats and mix it up with "one gender is missing". And you have come along and done exactly that as I predicted. If we are having a discussion about whether "one man one woman" is the ideal then we need to distinguish expressly between a missing gender and an entire missing second parent.

Why do you feel the need to defend it? No one is attacking it that I can see. Quite literally all I have been saying - and all anyone else seems to be saying is "Yeah it's fine. But other models appear to be absolutely equally fine at this point and none of your lot seem to be showing a single reason why it isn't".

If that makes you feel one model is under attack and needs defending then may I suggest you are over reacting and swinging at ghosts that are not there? If you said you loved Band1's music and I say "It's great yea but Band2 is just as good" would you feel I had attacked Band1 and you need to defend them?

Your post was:

You against two gay men raising a child are you not? And you're against it because you see it as an unnatural family situation, are you not?

a) i am not against it as such, but my belief as to whats better is on record, thats not to say it wont be perfectly fine b) it is an unnatural family situation (by its very definition) but thats just a statement of fact.

That would depend what you mean by "natural". Nature itself is replete with all kinds of family structures across all kinds of species even the higher primate animals like ourselves. In fact given our particular species of animal came from small tribal structures it is quite likely in fact - though this is outside my realm of expertise and likely yours too - that the nuclear family so recently popular in our species is in fact what is "unnatural" for our species.

It may be more a relatively recent development in our evolution of culture. Mainly in the western culture. Early in the thread I listed quite a few modern and recent varieties across the world in all kinds of areas and time periods. So when you say "natural by definition" you would have to be contriving to cherry pick a definition there.

But once again I rush to remind everyone that saying something is "unnatural" simply says nothing at all. Many "natural" things we do are awful. Many "unnatural" things we do are helpful and beneficial and better. The entire discussion of what is "natural" or not is simply a red herring in discussions such as this one. It. Literally. Says. Nothing.

You should take up a career in politics, if you're not in it already.

Don't take that as a compliment.

As usual, the inference behind your words, speaks louder than the words you wrote.

You're really not as clever as you think you are.

Your objection was that it was " an unnatural family situation'.

If you don't see unnatural as bad, then the objection makes no sense because if you see it as potentially good family situation, why object? - and we return to the original question: why are you against it? Because its obviously not on grounds of natual/unnatural.

Are you just trolling now?

you're not ignorant, you know what you're objecting to.