In response: Research shows adult children of gay parents face more health risks
October 16, 2012 at 7:00 pm in Duluth News Tribune
A pair of pediatricians, in their Oct. 4 column, “Marriage amendment harmful to health of children, adolescents,” wrote that, “More than 25 years of research has documented that there is no relationship between parents’ sexual orientation and any measure of a child’s emotional, psychosocial and behavioral adjustment.” They were therefore against the Minnesota marriage amendment.
Continue Reading
The study also shows that children who grew up in “biologically intact homes” had the same outcome as children who lived in same-sex families *for the same length of time.*
The study looks at children who grew up during a time when gay sex was illegal in many states, and open same-sex relationships were actively discouraged and unsupported (even more than now). In addition, it studies adult children who self-report that their parents had had at least one same-sex romantic relationship — who in many cases had started out in a family headed by an opposite-sex relationship. It would have made more sense to study children who had been raised by same-sex parents, rather than by parents who had had a same-sex relationship while the kids were growing up.
The flaws in this study go on and on. I for one am appalled that a self-described family physician is willing to let group-outcome data determine basic rights.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
63 
19
http://www.startribune.com/opinion/commentaries/174479351.html?refer=y
I would ask the good doctor from Deer River to read the above article. “More than 25 years of research have documented that there is no relationship between parents’ sexual orientation and any adverse measure of a child’s emotional, psychosocial and behavioral adjustment. It is on the basis of this quarter-century of research that the Minnesota Chapter of the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) announced its opposition to the amendment.”
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
49 
18
The article is tainted by bias and a lack of full disclosure on the findings of the study.
The study also does not take into account the socio-economic impact of bigotry and discrimination that these individuals and their parents must have experienced. A 39 year old raised by gay parents was raised mostly in the 70′s and early 80′s, certainly not in a time period where they and their families would have been treated like most citizens.
I’m confident a study of this nature, carried out in 1960, aimed at children of mixed-race families would show quite similar results. Once again those result would have been skewed by bigotry and discrimination.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
56 
15
Very interesting. Using this same logic, according to your thought patterns, I’d be fascinated to know what kind of lives all these babies born to blonde haired white women and the black men who got them pregnant, then disappeared into thin air afterwards. Often times the guy never used his real name, so the mother doesn’t even have a way of finding out who he is, since he often goes by dozens of aliases, social security numbers and has impregnated dozens of women like what is seen in Duluth: easy white women who will let these men – often times triple felons – to move right in, beat her and her other kids up, wreck her car, live off of her despite the fact that she works in food service and barely makes any money.
It has become clear, to me, that those who are so against gay marriage have never liked gays to begin with, are often terribly jealous and envious of gay people who live financially comfortable and responsible lives, because they often don’t have children, and do have post-graduate level education. You are physically terrified of black men, so you wouldn’t dare write this sort of article for the sake of, lets say, how often they play this game with white girls from cities like Duluth, max out their credit and finances, get them pregnant, and head off into the sunset. Am I promoting stereotypes? Perhaps – but no more so than this commentary does. My point is, if you make these judgements for one group, then you better be ready and willing to do it for all.
You can’t just attack gay people because they have things that you don’t, and worked hard to get into a place in life that isn’t possible for you. As well, you feel better about yourself at the end of the day when you think of the example I mentioned (all these white girls with six kids from six different black guys) because at least that’s someone lower than yourself on the social food chain. I would love to see your same type of research done on all these half-brothers and sisters with these mothers who continue this irresponsible behavior for the shock value, or often times novelty or angering her parents. Gay people cost you virtually nothing in tax dollars – yet these other people cost an astounding fortune through public housing, WIC, food stamps, welfare, legal fees (and many now are suddenly ‘disabled’ and get SSI once their limit on welfare comes to an end).
You want to talk about morality and family values, and you’re putting gay families in the spotlight? You have a lot to learn about dysfunction in your own straight world before you even begin to mention anything about gay people.
Hot debate. What do you think?
23 
17
The Regenerus study has been widely discredited due to shoddy research practices, actually. Even were it sound from a research standpoint, the study didn’t look at same-sex couples; it examined children of couples where ONE of the parents came out as GLBT before the child was 18. That is a topic that is completely different from same-sex couples being together.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
41 
9
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
14 
35
Your statement is not correct regarding social security benefits. Fedearl law since DOMA has defined marriage as one man-one woman. A same sex couple legally married in a state that allows it do not qualify for federal spousal benefits. Private benefit plans will depend on the plan contracts… some allow same-sex spouse, others do not.
Like or Dislike:
10 
5
Not only has this study been widely panned by the scientific community due to shoddy research and basing it on one homosexual parent, they are showing abnormal results that are WELL within the margin of error for this kind of study.
It goes into great lengths to describe the flaws in other studies, that they were done with volunteers rather than random samples. But then they base their IBF (intact Bio-Families) numbers on a study that was not cited anywhere in the paper.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
26 
8
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/beyond-blood/201206/flawed-study-gay-parenting-roundup-recent-media-coverage-and-critiques
Like or Dislike:
10 
5
As others said, the information taken from the study is biased and does not show the same picture. I hope the doctor who only takes what fits his beliefs when recommending what people vote for, doesn’t do the same when reading research into how to treat diseases. I’d hope my doctor would be well-rounded in his research study, and hope that he is able to actually understand the study data when finding solutions for my health problems.
ScruffyWally-you realize this amendment, even if it doesn’t pass, does not give gays anything they don’t have right now, right? That marrying and thus the benefits of it, are illegal in minnesota regardless of the amendment? The amendment only seeks to remove rights from gays via our constitution making it so that it cannot be voted on again as a law or the law challenged in court. The amendment would have to be repealed, which is extremely difficult to do. Marriage, THANKFULLY, has been redefined many times over our history. We consider that a good and human thing today….except when it comes to keeping gays from getting married, then we don’t want to redefine it. Well, if you’d like to go back to how marriage used to be, go ahead and offer up your daughter for some goats, and find her a suitor before she turns 1. Then we’ll really be practicing marriage as it was intended!
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
23 
8