Neil Patrick Harris And David Burtka Expecting Twins

Nph
Harris tweeted the news earlier this afternoon. Congrats go out to the dads to be.

According to E Online, the two are using a surrogate. The babies are due in October.

The congratulations are just starting to poor in. Ricky Martin took to his Twitter account to give his best wishes: "Congratz!!! rest a lot sleep, cause you wont ever again… hehe blessings to you and your family."

That's advice coming from someone who knows a thing or two about being a dad to twins.

Comments

  1. esurience says

    Hey Badlydrawnbear:

    What, you think that no one would find information out about celebrities’ personal lives if the celebrities themselves didn’t divulge that information?

    Do you think tabloids operate solely on press releases from the spokespersons of celebrities or something?

    Anyhoot, if you read the linked article, you’ll notice that E! had already reported on the story, before issuing an update that it was CONFIRMED (by way of NPH’s tweet).

  2. TANK says

    Since the decision to have twins didn’t (and couldn’t since they don’t exist, yet) have anything to do with the “twins,” AND completely overlooked the possibility of adoption which could have or would have taken the consideration of another int account…more celebrity wind.

    It’s rare that people think of the kids when they decide to have ’em…

  3. huh? says

    I’m surprised they are using a surrogate. I saw David Burtka in Albee’s The Play about the Baby, where he strutted around nude showing off one hot bod and one huge schlong. I’m surprised he hadn’t impregnated Neil Patrick Harris years ago.

  4. says

    What most don’t realize is that prior to Neil posting it, it was already leaked to E! Online, who posted it (along with DListed). So, I am sure, just like his ‘outing’, Neil decided to publicly announce it to preclude the constant press, pressing.

  5. Christopher says

    RJ

    STANK talks to a lot of people, famous and no, all day and all night. The fact that they exclusively inhabit his head has never troubled him. Don’t poke the caged bear.

  6. Billy says

    As David points out, David (Burtka) already legally adopted twins with his former partner, about which I recall NPH saying he would have a hand in raising, so this seems slightly odd to me. w

  7. TANK says

    Why don’t you douchebags restrict your responses to the argument itself? Are you capable of doing that? To the question of whether or not they considered adoption, what would rule out that alternative in a justifiable way? That they already have? I guess some lives are more important than others, huh? Especially lives that don’t even exist for some people.

  8. TANK says

    And fair share always comes up…fair share…well, if you saw ten children drowning, and nine other adults, and ran in to save one (as you could only save one at a time) with the expectation that the other nine woud run in, too…but noticed that only four of the nine did, while five were as so much debris shiftlessly walking on….under the “fair share” model, you aren’t responsible for saving the other four children drowning and are morally permitted to walk away as they die… Most people consider that extremely unethical…and your fair share ain’t enough when you can do more.

  9. says

    I’m really disappointed in a lot of you….

    Instead of being happy for the couple, you put them down. JEALOUS?

    Maybe they want children from their own loins, vice adopting. Most of you sound like the right-wingers who state that gays shouldn’t marry each other because they can’t procreate.

    Another point that has been made via these comments, that if they wanted privacy, why go public? It is apparent that you didn’t read others comments. The word had been leaked out. Instead of the usual circus, NPH decided, like he did with his outing, to stop the gossip and instead of lying, he tweeted that he and David were going to have twins.

    What a bunch of hypocrits that can’t be happy for fellow gays and have to twist things around. No wonder the right-wingers love and get away with attacking gays, because gay’s can’t even support their own!

    NPH and David, if you are reading these comments, since I know you do check out ‘Towleroad’ ocassionally – CONGRATULATIONS to the both of you. I know that you will make wonderful parents!!! :)

    Pay no attention to some of these peeps behind the(ir) curtain! 😀

  10. TANK says

    “Maybe they want children from their own loins, vice adopting.”

    How’s that any different than thinking that some lives (lives that don’t even exist, so those lives can’t matter to the decision making process) are more important than others? Are more worthy of saving than others? Do you believe that?

    I don’t see how the miraculous birth of more people is somehow special…I understand why it is for the people go through with it…but that doesn’t make it something they should do.

  11. SSCHIEFRSHA says

    I must say he makes me proud to be gay. This is what being gay should be about. Being gay should not mean wasting away in assorted clubs & Bath houses until said locations spit one back out at old age [Old=35yrs now is it?]. It should be making a home with your partner. I especially admire Harris for settling down at such a young age. Congrats to the Dads-to-be. You will enjoy the little moments with the young ones. It will be pure happiness.

  12. B says

    tank: the kids given up for adoption are not the responsibility of anyone other than the state (w/ tax payer money ofcourse) to raise. Why should people who want children have to get them by adopting other’s left overs? Because YOU feel bad? pssh. If you can have biological children and support them, why not? its not selfish, though some guilt others into thinking it, just like people who chose not to have kids are guilted into feeling like horrible people.

    Now this explaination was in its rawest form. So disclaimer: I do not view children in the system as left overs, it just went with my point.

    Oh, and congrats to them!!

  13. drumstick says

    What’s the carbon load on a set of twins? Is it more efficient to go with triplets?

    Isn’t there something to be said for homosexuality acting as nature’s population control?

  14. TANK says

    I see that people are justifying, as hard as they can, the belief that some lives are more important than others. There’s no other way to spin it. To refer to other human beings a leftovers…I don’t know how you can sleep at night, because that kind of talk really offends me. but not everyone’s like me…and in fact, most people aren’t. That is a reality I’ve confronted since a very young age…and I know that what I feel is irrelevant (and it truly is, and so is what you feel). I have a problem…I feel things very severely, and given my ethic, that is not useful…and I have an understanding that I paid for that I can’t overlook (an education), and I have an argument that you are simply unable to address. And it will be expressed by the following two propositions.

    i.
    An individual’s preferences are no more nor no less important than another individual’s preferences.

    This is an objetive truth as biolgoical evolution and the inverse (gravitational) square law are true.

    and ii.

    If i., then there is no reason to prefer the satisfaction of your preferences to another’s.
    ———————————–

    But we do believe falsely, and value false propositions. And this applies gay or straight. And I don’t understand people like that, despite the evolutionary, meme, and psychological reasons why. But, for me, and others like me…reason is more important than emotion, and that could be why.

  15. TANK says

    and people like jujubee and derek, and all the rest…they’re far too stupid to respond to rational argument, and reason….that’s another reason. but my ethic will prevail regardless of what you idiots belive and defend. There are many ways to sell stupid individuals like you.

  16. huh? says

    We should admire Tank and his willingness to adopt children. He’s a young, obviously bright man (he told us he is) who is actually raising a family of adopted children. I’m impressed that he has time to follow up on comments people make on Towelroad.

    Parenting, and doing it well, is not selfish. A parent who does it well essentially gives up a big portion of his/her previous life and trades this portion in for a new life.

    I suppose you could ban procreation for a few years – dig in and abort all fetuses and stop all IVF. Anyone who wants to be a parent during this period needs to adopt or foster. Once the backlog is cleared, you can re-open up all of the cervixes.

    There are many ways to become a parent. Would I like to see more gay men adopt rather than conceive of children through surrogacy? Sure – I like the idea that gay men, who have historically been marginalized, pay special attention to children who are on the margins. But I will not denigrate gay men who want to be involved pre-natally, who want to be present at the birth process, and who want to be woken up every 2-3 hours for the first week to feed their twins and the joys (and woes) of raising an infant.

  17. BAN TANK! says

    If you’re sick of Tank’s constant bullying and generally reprehensible attitude toward everyone, please send Andy an email encouraging him to ban Tank. No one wants Tank here. It’s Andy’s blog of course, but if more people email him he may just realize how much everyone is fed up with this cretin. BAN TANK!

  18. says

    You are a sad and pathetic man. You’re a homosexual and you don’t want to be. But there is nothing you can do to change it. Not all your prayers to your God, not all the analysis you can buy in all the years you’ve left to live. You may very well one day be able to know a heterosexual life if you want it desperately enough — if you pursue it with the fervor with which you annihilate. But you will always be homosexual as Well. Always, Tank. Always. Until the day you die.

  19. RJ says

    @CHEEKIEY, nice rush to judgment. If you’d bother to check out the Eonline link or just peruse the earlier comments, you would have been aware that NPH tweeted basically the confirmation of the information already posted by Eonline.

    RE: Tank, maybe those who know him better could answer this. Is he bipolar? Or maybe he has a Jekyll/Hyde complex. Because sometimes he can write the most sensitive, eloquent posts while at other times, he’s like a combination of Ann Coulter and Louie “Terror Babies” Gohmert.

  20. LA Guy says

    People can choose to have kids how they want. But surrogacy is gross. Would you want your sister or friend to go through the pain of having their eggs harvested for $8000? would you want them to risk their lives bringing someone else’s children into the world? The whole system is based on people with money preying on people without.

    And for what end? Even with surrogacy you still have a child who is only biologically tied to one parent. so for the other parent, it’s the equivalent of adoption.

  21. TANK says

    Sure, it’s too late, and we should always praise the good people do and not how much more they could do. It’s not practical the other way around. And this isn’t a personal attack against NPH. That’s absurd. It’s a general point I’m making that when people decide to procreate or bring new life into the world, rarely does the wellbeing of that person come into the picture because that person doesn’t yet exist to take into account. For the vast majority of people who have kids (gay or straight parents), reasons other than the wellbeing and consideration of that future person are operative in the decision. Is that right?

    Rather that if you’re going to have children (I think you ought be able to make that determination…), and decide not to adopt because you value your DNA more than another’s (or for whatever reason), it’s inescapable that you believe that some lives are more important than others…and that is false. Further, I’ve never seen a compelling reason offered that some lives are more worthy of saving or helping than others (and the ones that do in hypothetical space often fall back on…saving and helping other lives, relying on that truth to justify helping someone rather than another). And the reality is that when someone makes that decision, that person they’re making the decision to bring into the world doesn’t yet exist, and others who are waiting to be adopted do, in fact, exist. So what’s being valued other than yourself at that point?

  22. Christopher says

    ANDY PLEASE DON’T BAN YOUR RODEO CLOWN STANK! Look how hard he was worked to entertain us just with his comments on this one post alone; claiming to have just turned 30 while clinging to his faux-butch, Vietnam-era CB handle TANK! Questioning the intelligence of others while constructing absurd ethical equations out of imaginary drowning orphans and yawning passers-by. And his drunken, sloppy iterative comments–my Lord, we can almost see him passing out and waking up only to hit the send key!

    Too much fun on a slow news day; too much.

  23. TheNiebur says

    “And his drunken, sloppy iterative comments–my Lord, we can almost see him passing out and waking up only to hit the send key!”

    lmao! Clear as day, that is 😉

    Although, I think it’s rather sad…

  24. TANK says

    Sooooooooo, you are unable to address/comprehend the arguments provided. Uh huh…

    I’m really not that concerned about being banned, especially when the DEMAND for it is coming from hypocritical douchebursts like yourselves. You angry concern trolls are far too much fun to irritate, anyway…you regular trolls who obsessively follow me from one comments section to another, setting up sock puppets and slavishly trying to irritate me by making up the most insipid, predictable “insults” and repeating them ad nauseam. You truly are the crabs of this and every other blog pump out your leavings on. that is, in case I wasn’t clear, you are like a recurring, obnoxious venereal disease…like syphilis, because to read your inane ramblings causes cognitive atrophy. Sexually transmitted disease! That is what you’re like…a sexually transmitted illness that never quite goes away…and eventually kills you…I’m sure many of you know exactly what I’m referring to, considering you have them.

    Also, I think you’ll notice that I rarely, if ever, start any of the flame wars that you degenerate losers routinely try to incite and bring over into other threads.

    I can’t believe I’m even dignifying your meaningless existences with this much. Consider it an honor.

  25. Paul R says

    @Tank, I’m going to ignore most of your comments and focus on adoption. Wanting to have kids with your DNA, born in a known setting and with known history, is perhaps selfish and lazy. But it also saves people from trouble they didn’t create.

    I have two adopted brothers, and they’re both learning disabled. I’m neighbors with a gay couple who chose to adopt, and their child (now 4, and because of red tape his adoption didn’t happen until he was 1.5 years old) has yet to recover from the damage his mother did to him through drug abuse. I think people (like my parents, back in the 1950s) willing to take on such kids are saints. That said, another of my brothers was born to my parents and is far more severely learning disabled.

    So, having kids is hard enough and a crapshoot even in the best of genetic or other circumstances. If someone feels compelled to have kids, they should be allowed to make whatever decisions they think will suit them and the children best. Gays seeking to adopt often get the kids no one else wants, and it’s admirable that they’re willing to deal with the ensuing problems. But any birth is a potential disaster, and if potential parents want to stack the odds in their favor through surrogacy, I can’t blame them.

    I freely admit that, were I to have a child, I’d have a very hard time dealing with one with serious problems related to health, intellect, emotions, or anything else. Kids are a crapshoot, and I’d prefer to have the best possible outcome. Yes that’s selfish, but the emotional and financial costs of the alternative are too daunting to me. It’s not eugenics; it’s a weakness of mine. But I don’t think that weakness is rare or worthy of condemnation.

  26. BAN TANK! says

    Tank, you are a delusional buffoon! You incite flame wars in multiple threads every day with your persistent attack dog persona, and you make every thread about you. It’s a clear sign of low self-esteem. You’re a common playground bully. BAN TANK!

  27. TANK says

    So if you were less likely to have a child who developed learning and physical disabilities, had cognitive or health problems, adoption would be a better alternative, paul? I think that’s more than possible with adoption given disclosure, and an ability for people who are adopting to meet parents of adopted children and know the history. Genetic diversity is increased with adoption, and thereby, your odds of having a child without physical/cognitive disabilities. Therefore, I’d say that your odds of raising a healthy child who doesn’t have severe learning disabilities is increased by the fact that you can choose amongst many different genetic histories when you adopt.

    I don’t think it works that way for most people who have children, though. Most are unconcerned (or unconcerned enough to go through with it) with the potential risks to that child’s wellbeing that are the byproduct of their genetic lineage (many are unconcerned with a child’s chances of leading the good life). Even when they’re aware of a health history (barring certain extreme genetic diseases…and even then, for a lot of people the importance they place on lives that don’t even exist yet far exceeds the life of those who do exist, entailing that they think some lives are more important than others), they do, in fact, think that that’s a tolerable trade off, and they’re willing to make it to have children.

    But what about people with learning disabilities? I don’t believe in eugenics. The simple reason is that evolution is smarter than you are…mindless process that is infinitely more complex than any human being can comprehend enough to control. But the fact remains that there are some disabilities that prevent people from having a life worth living. They suffer so much, or comprehend so little (aren’t really persons at some point…individuals capable of being aware of their preferences and going about satisfying them), that they are incapable of having a life worth living. I don’t think it’s right to inflict such a wretched fate on anyone. But they exist, and they will continue to exist. Insofar as they exist and will continue to exist because of people’s choices, an attempt needs to be made to make sure that they have the ability to lead lives worth living. The cut off point is when they are no longer capable of suffering, and require so many resources to extend their lives that they are depriving others who do not require as many resources of living a life worth living.

    But this is no real threat to adoption…and, it seems, the higher one’s IQ and education, the less likely they are to have children. But high IQ is such a poor measure of the good life.

Leave A Reply