Christian anti-SSM jeweler threatened after making rings for lesbian couple

[Starlight]

It's very simple: ideally each child should have a mother and a father because both have their unique and indispensable roles to play,

Can you elaborate on what these "unique and indispensable roles to play" are? I've heard variations on that phrase very often, but almost never any specifics.

When I try and think about what the typical contributions of a father, as a father, might be, the things that come to my mind include: Drinking beer and watching sport; taking the child hunting and fishing; using power tools to do DIY jobs around the house; working on car engines etc. Yet many fathers aren't any good at a lot of those those and don't teach their children them, and some mothers are good at those and do teach their children those.

Extensive empirical studies have found that the gender of the parents raising children has no impact on the quality of childhood outcomes, and all the relevant scientific organisations have testified to courts and governments that same-sex parenting is as good on average as opposite sex parenting. So the idea that children need or benefit from having their parents be of opposite genders seems to be well-established to be empirically false.

letting - and not just letting but normalising and encouraging homosexual marriages will create trends and precedents that strongly detract from this idea.

Why would letting gay people have a "marriage" (rather than a civil union, or just a de facto relationship) affect the number of children raised by gay people? ie Why would the ability, or lack of ability to marry affect a gay couple's decision to have a family?

[Paprika]

Can you elaborate on what these "unique and indispensable roles to play" are? I've heard variations on that phrase very often, but almost never any specifics.

A summary of the main points would be: father as leader and guardian, mother as main nurturer.

Extensive empirical studies have found that the gender of the parents raising children has no impact on the quality of childhood outcomes, and all the relevant scientific organisations have testified to courts and governments that same-sex parenting is as good on average as opposite sex parenting. So the idea that children need or benefit from having their parents be of opposite genders seems to be well-established to be empirically false.

I have previously invited you to critically examine these studies together, just as you have criticised the Regnerus study.

Without this, I have no obligation to engage in argument by weblink with these studies and will treat such claims like I did this one:

I'm going to go with "asserted, but not demonstrated".

It is also, of course, necessary to note that the claim isn't that merely having parents of different sexes achieves the good but that both parents embody and play the necessary sexual roles. With egalitarianism being as widespread as it has been, the studies may not even be relevant at all.

Why would letting gay people have a "marriage" (rather than a civil union, or just a de facto relationship) affect the number of children raised by gay people? ie Why would the ability, or lack of ability to marry affect a gay couple's decision to have a family?

Is that supposed to be rhetorical?

[Starlight]

A summary of the main points would be: father as leader and guardian, mother as main nurturer.

And in practice those vague generalities mean what...?

My imagination is producing a situation where the father orders the mother around and maybe physically disciplines her when she's too slow to follow his orders ('leader'), and gets into the occasional fist-fight with a neighbor ('guardian'), but who is otherwise somewhat cold and distant from the child in order to emphasize the mother's role as the main loving figure towards the child, who puts the bandages on when the child trips over, and who counsels the child when they're bullied at school and reads story books at bedtime ('nurturer')...

But assuming you feel that leadership, guardianship and nurturing (whatever those ideas might mean in practice) are important qualities in parenting, why would you think that a particular parent needs to exemplify a given one of those qualities? What loss is there if the quality is exemplified by both parents or by the parent of the other gender?

Is that supposed to be rhetorical?

No. Increasingly a lot of heterosexual couples are choosing not to be married and instead live in de facto relationships. Their decision to 'marry' or not do so, has generally little to do with any decisions they make about whether to have kids or not. I am confused about what connection you imagine there to be between the legality of same-sex marriage, and the choice gay couples might make to raise children together. Many gay couples raise children together in countries that have not legalized same-sex marriage.

[Paprika]

And in practice those vague generalities mean what...?

It will depend quite a bit on the social context.

My imagination is producing a situation where the father orders the mother around and maybe physically disciplines her when she's too slow to follow his orders ('leader'), and gets into the occasional fist-fight with a neighbor ('guardian'), but who is otherwise somewhat cold and distant from the child in order to emphasize the mother's role as the main loving figure towards the child, who puts the bandages on when the child trips over, and who counsels the child when they're bullied at school and reads story books at bedtime ('nurturer')...

Looks like your imagination needs work. The father, for example, in that context should be teaching self-defence, whether physical or otherwise.

But assuming you feel that leadership, guardianship and nurturing (whatever those ideas might mean in practice) are important qualities in parenting, why would you think that a particular parent needs to exemplify a given one of those qualities? What loss is there if the quality is exemplified by both parents or by the parent of the other gender?

Because maleness and femininity are different, and the roles as parent is a merely a subset of the roles that each sex should play. The roles are precisely how both sexes can play to their respective strengths.

No. Increasingly a lot of heterosexual couples are choosing not to be married and instead live in de facto relationships. Their decision to 'marry' or not do so, has generally little to do with any decisions they make about whether to have kids or not.

Indeed, which is why your cultures are massively screwed.

I am confused about what connection you imagine there to be between the legality of same-sex marriage, and the choice gay couples might make to raise children together. Many gay couples raise children together in countries that have not legalized same-sex marriage.

I would have thought it was rather obvious. The more homosexual relationships are socially normalised, more people will enter into such relationships and therefore more children raised in such relationships.

[Paprika]

Oh, and regarding the studies:

If you're not going to treat them with the same level of critique as you do opposing studies, then don't use them at all, or the statements by 'professionals' which are founded on their conclusions.

[Starlight]

It will depend quite a bit on the social context...
Because maleness and femininity are different, and the roles as parent is a merely a subset of the roles that each sex should play.

Speaking of it depending on the social context... In cultures around the world and through history that have been significantly gender-based, the 'male' and 'female' roles have varied substantially from one culture to the next. Is there one set of 'male' roles which is right and truly the masculine ideal and likewise with female roles? Which culture had it right (if any)? Where is your notion of the ideal of masculinity and femininity coming from, and what makes you think that the particular stereotypes you happen to have in mind are in fact the ideal ones?

You also haven't provided any explanation as to how this helps the child. In what ways does a child brought up by parents that meet your theoretical ideals of masculinity and femininity do better than a child brought up by parents who do not have your idealized balance? I've heard people making this sort of argument in the past allude vaguely to the notion that the children somehow might be confused about the difference between male and female. Yet given that children are exposed to masculinity and femininity in many more ways than merely their parents (eg through movies, books, TV, their friends and their friends' parents, siblings, other relatives, teachers, coaches, classmates), it has never been clear to me why it would be important that the parents were the ones conveying to the child the idealized forms of masculinity vs femininity. (Granted if a same-sex couple raised a child in a cave and home-schooled them and allowed them no books, no TV, no friends, and no visits from relatives, then that child could potentially grow up not understanding the concept of gender. In such a situation though, not understanding gender would seem likely to be the least of the child's social problems and the same-sex nature of the parenting is hardly the root cause of the problems the child will have.) Various scientific studies have looked specifically for children being 'confused' about gender and found no difference between children raised by same-sex parents vs opposite sex parents on every measure of gender confusion that they could come up with.

If you're not going to treat them with the same level of critique as you do opposing studies, then don't use them at all

Regnerus deliberately mislabeled children of divorced parents as children raised by gay parents. The other studies don't have such blatant flaws which is why they are taken more seriously by professionals in the field, while Regnerus' study is scorned. The methodological differences between the dozens of other studies and his errant one have been discussed extensively in court documents submitted by various expert scientific organisations.

or the statements by 'professionals' which are founded on their conclusions.

I regard your casual rejection of the unanimous expert opinions of a dozen different national US professional scientific organisations as reflecting sheer willful ignorance on your part on par with the worst of the head-in-the-sand the-earth-is-flat evidence-denying conspiracy-theorists. If you are fundamentally not interested in evidence, I see little point in discussing it with you. As far as I am concerned, the views of the scientific professionals organisations on the subject is unanimous and they have testified in court to that effect, and you have not presented the slightest shred of evidence that would inspire me to question their credibility or competency.

[Paprika]

Speaking of it depending on the social context... In cultures around the world and through history that have been significantly gender-based, the 'male' and 'female' roles have varied substantially from one culture to the next. Is there one set of 'male' roles which is right and truly the masculine ideal and likewise with female roles? Which culture had it right (if any)?

Masculinity and femininity is intrinsic to one's sex. How the main characteristics I have sketched are to be worked out does depend on the social contexts, though they are fixed points around which to work.

Where is your notion of the ideal of masculinity and femininity coming from, and what makes you think that the particular stereotypes you happen to have in mind are in fact the ideal ones?

I don't know. Scripture? Traditions and praxes from many many cultures? Observation of the tendencies and strengths of males and females?

You also haven't provided any explanation as to how this helps the child. In what ways does a child brought up by parents that meet your theoretical ideals of masculinity and femininity do better than a child brought up by parents who do not have your idealized balance?

A male is much more equipped to perform the role of the father, and similarly for the female. Thus the child benefits from the parents exercising their gifts to bring him up.

[Paprika]

Regnerus deliberately mislabeled children of divorced parents as children raised by gay parents. The other studies don't have such blatant flaws which is why they are taken more seriously by professionals in the field, while Regnerus' study is scorned. The methodological differences between the dozens of other studies and his errant one have been discussed extensively in court documents submitted by various expert scientific organisations.

Now, Starlight, this is the third time I'm inviting you to critically look at the studies together. If you're not willing to do so, then be intellectually honest and stop uncritically using them.

Which studies? What do they say? What court documents? What difference do they claim? Can these be verified from the text of the studies?

I regard your casual rejection of the unanimous expert opinions of a dozen different national US professional scientific organisations as reflecting sheer willful ignorance on your part on par with the worst of the head-in-the-sand the-earth-is-flat evidence-denying conspiracy-theorists. If you are fundamentally not interested in evidence, I see little point in discussing it with you. As far as I am concerned, the views of the scientific professionals organisations on the subject is unanimous and they have testified in court to that effect, and you have not presented the slightest shred of evidence that would inspire me to question their credibility or competency.

I reject your misuse of argument by authority, as well as your use of argument by weblink (ie the many studies, in this case). Trying to elephant-hurl studies (that I'd wager you haven't even looked at) is hardly intellectually honest and you know it.

You are unwilling to critically examine the evidence you claim supports your position, neither do you present them here for others to see. Very well, they have no meaning here.

[Starlight]

I was thinking this morning more about your idea of a mother as a 'nurturer'. I think even within relatively egalitarian modern Western societies the mother generally does tend to spend more time with the children in a nurturing type role than the father.

However, the irony is that various anti-gay pseudo-psychologists have cited precisely that as a reason for men becoming gay in the first place - the idea is that the emotional closeness that the son establishes with his mother compared to his father (because she is the 'nurturer' while he is the stricter more authoritative 'leader'), leads to the son growing up having a strong emotional bond with a woman (his mother) but lacking an emotional bond of comparative strength with his own sex (his less emotionally-close and more authoritative father) and so the child then seeks out a close emotional relationship with men in the form of a romantic same-sex relationship. That seems to be the single most enduring pop-psychology theory among anti-gay Christians about how 'incorrect' parenting leads to homosexuality. Their proposed solution is, ironically, the exact opposite to your model - they think that therefore the father should make sure he is emotionally closer to the son than the mother and the mother should make sure she maintains her emotional distance and is not the one in the family providing emotional support for the child.

So while you're telling me that the mother should be the nurturer due to '~handwave~ masculinity/femininity... arbitrary ideals... something something', I see a lot of anti-gay Christians telling me that mothers shouldn't be nurturers because that leads to homosexuality in the children.

Now, Starlight, this is the third time I'm inviting you to critically look at the studies together.

If you have any critical comments to make about them, I am happy to respond. The current status quo is that all the various relevant professional scientific organisations in the US have critically examined the studies and testified in court that they are sufficiently sound as to be utterly convincing. If you have any specific reasons to disagree with their assessments I am happy to discuss your concerns with you.

What court documents?

This one is the joint testimony of 8 different national US scientific organisations to the US Supreme court earlier this year, and it extensively cites the research in various footnotes. If you have any specific concerns with any specific statements they made in it, then I am happy to discuss them. Otherwise I will continue to take it for granted that they are the accredited experts and know what they are talking about.

I reject your misuse of argument by authority,

The universal and unanimous testimony of all major scientific organisations is not a 'misuse' of an argument by authority. Sure, you're allowed to have your own views that differ to theirs' and there's a theoretical possibility that you might be right and that they're all wrong. I don't see much reason to take you very seriously on the subject over them. Your attempt to dismiss an established scientific consensus via handwaving is a bit absurd.

[Paprika]

I was thinking this morning more about your idea of a mother as a 'nurturer'. I think even within relatively egalitarian modern Western societies the mother generally does tend to spend more time with the children in a nurturing type role than the father....

So while you're telling me that the mother should be the nurturer due to '~handwave~ masculinity/femininity... arbitrary ideals... something something', I see a lot of anti-gay Christians telling me that mothers shouldn't be nurturers because that leads to homosexuality in the children.

The mother as nurturer does not exclude the father from directly playing a significant role in the child's development; 'comparative strength' also does not imply that the father must spend most time. As in the case of the child being bullied and the father ideally teaching the kid self-defense, your imagination needs to be developed; needless to say I haven't espoused the views of such psychologists.

[Paprika]

If you have any critical comments to make about them, I am happy to respond. The current status quo is that all the various relevant professional scientific organisations in the US have critically examined the studies and testified in court that they are sufficiently sound as to be utterly convincing. If you have any specific reasons to disagree with their assessments I am happy to discuss your concerns with you.
...

The universal and unanimous testimony of all major scientific organisations is not a 'misuse' of an argument by authority. Sure, you're allowed to have your own views that differ to theirs' and there's a theoretical possibility that you might be right and that they're all wrong. I don't see much reason to take you very seriously on the subject over them. Your attempt to dismiss an established scientific consensus via handwaving is a bit absurd.

I am perfectly willing to look at the studies (see the other thread with Sam; I don't want to do the same conversation in two threads). What I have not done here in this thread to say that the authorities are definitely wrong or can't be trusted at all; what I am saying is that if you're not going to directly refer to the specific studies to back up this claim here then your claims have the mere evidentiary weight here of mere argument by weblink, and can be ignored as such.

This one is the joint testimony of 8 different national US scientific organisations to the US Supreme court earlier this year, and it extensively cites the research in various footnotes. If you have any specific concerns with any specific statements they made in it, then I am happy to discuss them. Otherwise I will continue to take it for granted that they are the accredited experts and know what they are talking about.

Thank you, I will have a look at these.

At the moment, my comment to you would be the same as that to Sam: the majority of the 'many studies' you (and they) rely on are based on unrepresentative samples and the comparison to national averages is hardly sound for the purposes of reaching the conclusion, eg

Early research in this area employed nonprobability samples (whose representativeness cannot be determined)

Such research should be dismissed (as Regnerus and the others) or counted as very weak evidence, yet you and yours use the numbers to try and impress "Oh look we have many dozens of studies!"