(LifeSiteNews) — On June 21, GB News commentator Julie Hayes made waves in a TV debate on the murder of Preston Davey, the little boy tortured, abused, and finally murdered by the homosexual couple who adopted him. Dr. Renee Hoenderkamp opened the segment by stating that the abuse had been ignored because the couple was part of a “protected class,” and passionately denounced the system that permitted it.
Another guest pushed back, and the debate instantly got heated. At that point, Haynes — who goes by the X handle “basedandbougie” — poured gasoline on the fire.
“There is no denying, and I can’t pull up the evidence now, but people can easily research this, that gay men and gay couples are more prone to not only just domestic abuse amongst each other but child sexual assault with their adopted children,” she said. “The statistics are out there. They’ve been proven time and time again that gay men are more prone to more sexual deviancy.”
“Now, I’m not saying this is the case for all men, but the statistics are out there,” she added. “We need to stop having protected classes and instead we need to look at statistics and react to these statistics.” She emphasized that she was not claiming the crimes against Davey were committed because the couple was gay but affirmed Hoenderkamp’s assertion that the evidence was ignored because of their protected status.
Additionally, Haynes emphasized that the LGBT community is known for its “sexual kinks,” referencing the “furry” phenomenon and other sexual behaviors regularly on display at LGBT events such as “pride” parades and festivals. Despite that, Haynes also said she still supports same-sex adoption (which Katy Faust at Them Before Us eloquently opposes).
On June 23, Haynes kept her promise and posted a thread of statistical backing for her claim on X:
🚨Last Saturday on GB News I promised to show statistics of Homosexual couples .
Here is a thread of
Do not shoot the messenger.
Facts do not care about your feelings.
— BASEDANDBOUGIE (@basedandbougie) June 23, 2026
Haynes came under immediate fire for using “outdated” or “debunked” data, but the LGBT movement has long ignored any evidence contradictory to its agenda. In fact, a 2016 study reviewing every single study done on same-sex parenting and child development found that “Relationship instability appears to be higher among gay and lesbian parent couples and may be a key mediating factor influencing outcomes for children.”
In her own 2017 review of the evidence, Faust meticulously debunks many of the criticisms leveled at Haynes. She quotes one expert who gets to the very heart of the issue — the key point that every GB panelist carefully avoided:
The higher risk of emotional problems for children in same-sex parent families has little or nothing to do with the quality of parenting, care, or other relational characteristics of those families.
If the greatest benefits for child well-being are conferred only on the biological offspring of both parents; and since same-sex relationships cannot, at least at present, conceive a child that is the biological offspring of both partners, in the way that every child conceived by opposite-sex partners is such; then same-sex partners, no matter how loving and committed, can never replicate the level of benefit for child well-being that is possible for opposite-sex partners.
This defect, moreover, is an essential and permanent feature of same-sex relationships; it is part of their definition, an irreducible difference that cannot be amended or abrogated by improving the circumstances, stability, legal status or social acceptance of same-sex couples.
Haynes was willing to express unpopular truths but stopped short of affirming this one: Fathers cannot be mothers, and mothers cannot be fathers. Same-sex adoption, by definition, denies a child one or the other. “Gender matters in parenting,” Faust observed. “Fathers and mothers bring complementary parenting styles. The absence of a father often correlates with behavioral issues in boys and early sexual activity in girls.”
Both the reaction to Haynes’ comments — as well as what she was not willing to say — were revealing. It should not be controversial to say that children need both a mother and father. The reason that it is controversial to say this is because Hoenderkamp got it precisely right in her opening dialogue: LGBT-identifying people are a “protected class.”
