A meta analysis study conducted by BMJ Global Health found that children who are raised by sexual minorities (i.e., gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender, etc.) had just as good or better family outcomes as heterosexual ones. By family outcomes, the study used several measures of comparison such as children’s physical health, adherence to gender roles, sexual orientation, educational outcomes, and inter-relational workings.

But once one digs deeper into each individual subsection of the outcomes, it increasingly becomes clear that the data was probably skewed. Many had disclaimers saying four of their research sources leaned one way and four the other. In other words, try as these researches might, their findings are probably not very accurate. In explaining their own limitations of the study, they admit, “Overall pooled estimates may be overestimated” because “the studies were limited to regions where same-sex relationships were legalised (sic).” They also didn’t have much research on transgender- or bisexual parent-specific households.

The conclusion was that family outcomes were similar for both sexual groups (heterosexual and LGBTQ+) and that children with LGBTQ+ parents were better psychologically adjusted, at least by preschool age. In other words, the studies probably weren’t objective, but reported by the parents. The researchers suggest this is because these children are prepared for the bias that comes with having sexual minority parents. Beyond that, however, for sexual minority families, “there are significant risk factors often associated with the sexual minority experience and family functioning, such as stigma, poor social support and parenting styles.”

This meta study is supposedly an observance of the data it synthesized; however, it leaves readers with many questions. What is meant by parenting styles? Is “social support” a euphemism for social welfare or for a strong family support system? Why was this study conducted in the first place? Were all the studies collected based on parental reporting?

Alas, it is unclear.

One study the BMJ researchers deem controversial and “moderately risky of bias” is the New Family Structures Study led by University of Texas at Austin’s Dr. Mark Regnerus. Conducted in 2012, this study used a random sample of 18- to 39-year-olds, almost 3,000 of them from all over the U.S. Its findings are startling and shattered the claim that children raised in gay and lesbian households were just as well off as those raised in intact heterosexual ones. (Bear in mind that other sexual minorities were not as prevalent as in our current era.) It is deeply important that this study questions the experiences of children within these homes as adults because most other studies of this type relied on parental reporting. So of course they’re going to be biased in favor of their own parenting choices.

The family outcomes that were measured in this study included instances of drug use, breaking the law, public welfare, suicide, mental illness, sexual abuse by parents, educational achievements, commitment in adult relationships, and so on. In almost every outcome, kids raised in an intact stable heterosexual family had better outcomes than those raised by alternative family structures.

It is particularly sad the number of children who reported that they were sexually abused by their gay or lesbian parent. Of course the BMJ analysts would deem the study controversial because it blew the lid off the theory that non-traditional families were just as likely as traditional ones to produce stable and productive kids.

Of the U.S. population, 7.2% now identify as LGBTQ+, which is a drastic increase in just a few years. Ergo, there is an increased likelihood that there will be more families of the sexual minority cohort.

The timing of the BMJ study also seems suspicious and appears to affirm a narrative — that regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity, any family is good for kids. It could be interpreted as a green light by LGBTQ+ activists to continue their grooming of all children in public schools and public libraries. It is further suspect that it calls the one study by Dr. Regnerus “controversial” without saying what was controversial about it, which says a lot about the particular biases of the researchers.

A stable, committed marriage between a man and a woman is the foundation for the future. Homosexual ones will not create children. All the other sexual and gender ideologies are fraught with confusion and plagued with mental illness and are not the best environment for the prospering of children and family.