biology

What Is The Science Of Homosexuality?

Alex Coppen

04 Feb 2025 • 26 min read

This is a chapter taken from the forthcoming book "The Devils' Glossary" available on Amazon and Barnes & Noble in February 2025. All facts are triple-checked and available in the footnotes of the book.

The sordid history of research around the understudied area of human sexual behaviour is so fraught with activism, motivated reasoning, and outright fraud, there is little way of extracting useful objective data from it.

When one considers the empirical evidence available from the natural sciences in regards to same-sex behaviours, the picture is markedly different. So different, in fact, one cannot help but shocked at the staggering level of dishonesty and fictional “storytelling” around the subject within the humanities, much of which has been increasingly engaged in by those apparently working in scientific institutions.

The field suffers from limited high-quality longitudinal studies; uselessly small sample sizes; heavy reliance on self-reported data; difficulty isolating variables; political and social coercion; a complete lack of clear biological markers; on top of inconsistent definitions and measurement methods.

The core issue around this area of research is authors falsely inflating the prevalence of same-sex activity by misrepresenting animal behaviours, whilst attempting to discredit previous studies which do not favour their worldview. They are not driven by evidence, but misinterpreting the natural world to support their own conclusion. They confuse - probably wilfully and deliberately - the idea of means and ends. They are unable to distinguish function from dysfunction; or adaptation from maladaptation.

A helpful reminder: "social science" is not science, nor is it a credible source of information. What is contained herein is actual natural science wherever possible.

Mating Is Always Procreative

There are around 5,400 mammal species, and only 30–50 have solid natural science documentation supporting sexual behaviour potentially linked to pleasure. “Pleasure” is inferred by the presence of genital nerve endings (e.g. the clitoris in dolphins and primates); dopamine and oxytocin spikes during mating; activity outside of oestrus cycles or reproduction; and hypotheses about bonding and group cohesion.

There is no evidence for pleasure-based mating in invertebrates; no direct evidence in reptiles, amphibians, or fish; and fewer than five species of birds have weak but observable cases (e.g., swans and albatrosses). The dubious claims of these - such as spiders - is dubious at best. They are utterly disingenuous.

Bats show some evidence of oral-genital stimulation to prolong mating duration. Observations of lions suggest repeated copulations without reproductive outcomes. Some behavioural studies of whales indicate sexual interactions beyond reproduction. Elephants have been observed to masturbate and engage in non-reproductive sexual interactions. Chimpanzees and orangutans have documented evidence of non-reproductive sexual behaviours.

The most extensively documented variation of sexual behaviours has been found in dolphins (masturbation, aggressive pleasure-seeking, etc.), and bonobos (frequent and diverse sexual behaviours unrelated to reproduction). The latter of whom live in matriarchies where females engage in a form of male “enslavement.”

Put simply: your dog humping another dog does mean "gay animals" exist. It means hormones confused them or they're competing.

Nature knows no concept of “consent” when it comes to mating. Moreover, mating in many species is violent, deadly, and painful. Mallards (Anatidae) engage in chasing, pinning, and biting the female which results in severe physical injury. Male cats (Felis catus) have barbed penises, which scrape the walls of the female’s vagina during withdrawal and induce ovulation. Male honeybee (Apis mellifera) drones’ genitalia explode during mating with the queen, resulting in their immediate death. Female octopuses (Hapalochlaena spp. and others) eat the male after or during mating, as do praying mantises (Mantodea).

Male anglerfish (Ceratiidae) fuse with the female permanently, becoming a parasitic appendage. Female hyenas (Crocuta crocuta) have a pseudo-penis (elongated clitoris) through which mating and birth occur. Dominant male elephant seals (Mirounga spp.) aggressively control harems and forcefully mate with females. Male koalas (Phascolarctos cinereus) violently bite and grapple females. Male frogs (Anura) “overswarm” females, leading to physical injury or death due to drowning during amplexus.

Misidentified Behaviour Is Linked To Male/Female Mating

There is little, if no, evidence from the natural sciences any mammals engage in same-sex behaviour as any form of mating. The hypotheses for these atypical behaviours involve correlation with evolved social behaviours which serve ordinary mating:

cohesion (reducing aggression)
hierarchy (reinforcing dominance for access to mates)
cooperation (territorial defence alliances)
practice/learning (younger or inexperienced individuals rehearsing courtship).

The male Amazon River Dolphin (Inia geoffrensis) and Bottlenose Dolphin (Tursiops truncatus) have been observed performing genital stimulation and penetration in the presence of females as a competitive display.

6–8% of male rams (Ovis aries) consistently mount other males even when fertile females are available, due to hormonal triggers like testosterone and oestrogen.

Japanese Macaques (Macaca fuscata) show mounting and pelvic thrusting during the mating season for the same hormonal reason.

Male lions in coalitions frequently engage in mounting behaviours with one another during territorial or pride-takeover events, as a precursor to mating dominance.

The evidence we have suggests hormonal triggers direct mating behaviours; the hypothalamus in mammals does not always distinguish between male and female partners; and interactions may arise from “practice” or mimicking.

Every single instance in the animal kingdom of same-sex sexual activity is a prelude, or in some way “orientated”, to ordinary mating. There is no scientifically valid concept of a “sexual orientation” in the natural world whatsoever.

Anthropomorphic Research Driven By Motivated Reasoning

Starting with your own conclusion and finding evidence for it is not science. It is motivated reasoning. Projecting human behaviour onto animals is anthropomorphism.

There is a staggering amount of sophistry, wishful thinking, and outright lying which appear in print about the supposed “prevalence” of homosexuality in the animal kingdom, which always concludes as a fallacious Appeal from Nature demand to support a political cause.

Much of the confusion about human sexual behaviour can be traced back to primatologist Frans de Waal’s work on Bonobo chimps in zoos. In his book “Our Inner Ape” (2005), de Waal explores their matriarchal cooperative tendencies, contrasting them with the more competitive and hierarchical nature of chimpanzees. He argued these traits explain the origin of human morality, and emphasised the role of sexual interactions beyond reproduction in bonobo societies as a tool for conflict resolution, bonding, and maintaining social harmony (“make love, not war”).

These ideas of chimps as sixties feminists, which were of course misused for political purposes, did not survive scrutiny. Among many others, Bernard Chapais pointed out human societies are more akin to chimpanzee structures than bonobos; Richard Wrangham explained male coalitional aggression and intergroup violence have been central to human evolutionary success; Craig Stanford asserted bonobos diverged from chimpanzees relatively recently, and their traits are likely responses to environmental factors like abundant resources, not reflective of ancestral hominin behaviour.

A 2019 opinion article in Nature Ecology and Evolution, “An Alternative Hypothesis for the Evolution of Same-Sex Sexual Behaviour in Animals”, claims 1,500 species exhibit homosexual behaviours as ancestral traits. The author (Julia Monk, “Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies”, an “interdisciplinary” humanities department) hilariously wonders aloud about a self-evident “Darwinian paradox.” Why would evolution produce a sterile dead end? Why indeed!

Her thesis is a triumph of science. Why not?

We aim to redefine the null hypothesis in studies of [same-sex behaviour]—put simply, we are proposing a shift from asking ‘Why engage in SSB?’ to ‘Why not?’

An example she gives is of the aforementioned Japanese Macaques:

Female snow macaques routinely pair off and form temporary but exclusive relationships with other females, during which they engage in same-sex mounting complete with pelvic thrusting. Females will compete with males for access to other females and will sometimes preferentially associate with other females rather than available males.

Monk copies a table from a different paper and cites four sources to triple the figures:

A study from 2000 in the “Journal of Lesbian and Gay Studies” about “queer animals”
A 2004 book by a mad Stanford professor, Joan Roughgarden, about “gender identity” in nature, who believes Darwin’s idea is “false” and the “Christian religion” needs to recognise the Bible’s many verses on “diverse” depictions of “gender”
A 2009 article which cites 450 species, links them to “gay rights”, and provides its “scientific” definitions as unfalsifiable jargon from sociology
A 2013 article claiming 110 species of insects and arachnids engage in “mistaken identity” related to female pheromone release.

On a first look, this sophistry seems convincing to the unscientific eye of a hungry journalist with nothing else to publish. Examples of it being laundered include Deutsche Welle Aug 2017: “10 animal species that show how being gay is natural!”, and the Independent Nov 2019: “Homosexuality and bisexuality commonplace in thousands of animal species and may play key role in evolution, research finds”).

Unfortunately, Japanese Macaques (Macaca fuscata) do not have “relationships”; nor do they “pair off” as if they are in a nightclub; and this behaviour does not make them “bisexual”. It is related to hormonal dysregulation, specifically during the mating season.

Journalists at the BBC wilfully copy-paste this nonsense (“Can animals be gay?”), word-for-word:

This is in contrast to Japanese macaques, another primate in which same-sex sexual behaviour is commonly observed. Females of this species will routinely pair off with other females, forming temporary but exclusive sexual relationships known as ‘consortships’,

The pattern is repetitive. Another preposterous 2010 book, “Animal Homosexuality”, by evolutionary ecologist Aldo Poiani declares some sheep have an “exclusive homosexual orientation”:

“O. aries (ram) only the second mammal known, apart from humans, capable of displaying exclusive homosexuality.”

As opposed to what? The promiscuous ones who aren’t in a loving, committed relationship and just want to get married?

Contemporary absurdity traces back to 1999, when homosexual Canadian biologist Bruce Bagemihl published “Biological Exuberance: Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity” which claimed to document over four hundred mammals, birds, reptiles, and insects who engage in “lifelong same-sex courtship, pair-bonding, sex, and co-parenting.” It was cited by the American Psychological Association and other groups in their amici curiae brief to the United States Supreme Court in Lawrence v. Texas, which struck down sodomy laws in the US.

From anthropomorphising “lesbian seagulls” and “gay penguins”; claiming animals socially “bond” in the same way humans do; citing incidental, unverifiable “observations” by amateur naturalists from individually captive animals (rather than the wild within groups); single onetime events over patterns; conflating “mounting” dominance behaviour with mating; having no clear mechanistic explanation of “exuberance” as an alternative to natural selection; to downplaying the reproductive costs of alleged same-sex behaviour in wild populations.

Bagemihl’s magnum opus is patently ridiculous. It even goes so far as to claim animals are “transgender” and “nonreproductive.”

A final example which demonstrates how deeply this anti-scientific rot has set in to academia is a 2023 article in USA Today (“Same-sex relationships are common in the animal kingdom – in fact, it reduces conflict.”), which makes claims so extraordinary they cannot be taken seriously; again citing the spurious “1,500 species” line and quoting “researchers not involved in the work”:

A study by Spanish researchers suggests same-sex sexual behavior among mammals − especially primates − is not only common and adaptive but supports social relationships and reduces conflict.

“Homosexuality is present, widespread and eternal,” said Joan Roughgarden, an emeritus professor of evolutionary biology at Stanford University in California. “If you somehow managed to exterminate it from one species it would re-evolve because it’s adaptive.”

“It is still common for people to argue against homosexual behavior (or the entire LGBTQ+ community) on the basis that heterosexual sex is the only approved and natural kind of sex,” Frans de Waal, a primatologist and professor emeritus at Emory University in Atlanta, said via email. “This review tells us that this is utter nonsense. Humans are by no means exceptional in the animal kingdom.”

In comes our notorious professor from Stanford Joan Roughgarden, with her opinions on “gender identity” in nature, and arch-atheist de Waal, who studied bonobos.

Except it is not what the study suggests at all. What it actually demonstrates is the wilful misrepresentation of science in a newspaper to manufacture a storyline for propaganda purposes, in a classic modern-day example of Lysenkoism.

The 2023 phylogenetic study, in Nature Communications (“The evolution of same-sex sexual behaviour in mammals”), warns of “limitations in our database, and in our overall conclusions, caused by the lack of information on the sexual behaviour of many mammalian species and by the existence of incomplete data (false negatives).” It goes on in great detail, saying the hypothesis of “same-sex behaviour” (SSB):

“… has been recorded in about 5% of [mammals]”;
“… is not an ancestral trait in [mammals], and may have evolved multiple times in several disparate lineages.”;
“ancestral nodes are significantly younger than those ancestral nodes where this behaviour was absent. [SSB] was absent in the ancestors of Cebidae, Atelidae or Hylobatidae, three mammal families that seem to have originated very recently.”;
“… prevalence… is associated with sociality.”
“…may be related to social bonds, but our study (like any other comparative or experimental study) does not conclude that this is the sole cause of the evolution of same-sex sexual behaviour,”
“…also associated with adulticide, but only for males.”
“… appears to be more common in social nonhuman primates forming multi-male/multi-female groups than in monogamous and polygynous species.”
“… seems to facilitate reconciliation among group members in female bonobos (Pan paniscus).”
“…other studies have not found any evidence supporting these adaptive explanations. Same-sex sexual behaviour seems to be caused by mistaken identity in feral cats or as a side effect of excitement in some primate and deer species.”

The authors go out of their way to state the following unequivocally:

Same-sex sexual behaviour is operationally defined here as any temporary sexual contact between members of the same sex. This behaviour should be distinguished from homosexuality as a more permanent same sex preference, as found in humans. For this reason, our findings cannot be used to infer the evolution of sexual orientation, identity, and preference or the prevalence of homosexuality as categories of sexual beings.

In other words, these scientists explicitly rebuke the idea of their research being used for political purposes, and what they actually found, among other things, was same-sex behaviour may well be an evolutionarily associated with adults killing other adults of their species.

Exaggerated Revisionist History In Human Behaviour

The word “sodomy” emerged by the Middle Ages as a broad legal and moral category covering various sexual acts, including homosexuality and beastiality. It was derived from the biblical tale of fire and brimstone (sulphur) raining down upon Sodom & Gomorrah. In the biblical account, two angels (in disguise as men) visit Lot, a resident of Sodom. The men of the city demanded to “know” the visitors and threatened to rape them if they were refused. Lot refused and offered his own daughters instead.

Two potential sites have been posited by archaeologists. Their finds are intriguing but inconclusive.

The first is Tall el-Hammam (Jordan), located northeast of the Dead Sea, which has been excavated extensively by archaeologist Steven Collins. Evidence suggests the city was destroyed around 1700 BC by a catastrophic event, possibly a meteorite explosion or airburst, as described in Scientific Reports (2021). Findings include charred materials, melted pottery, and high levels of heat damage, suggesting an intense fire or blast.

The second, Bab edh-Dhra and Numeira, are Early Bronze Age cities south of the Dead Sea abandoned after being destroyed by fire. Evidence suggests they were thriving urban centres with advanced irrigation, fortified walls, and communal burial practices.

The specific prohibitions of homosexual behaviour and cross-dressing in Leviticus (to’evah or “abomination”) are believed to have been codified between c. 700–500 BC during or after the Babylonian Exile.

In ancient Mesopotamia and surrounding regions, the priests and devotees of certain pagan deities, particularly “Ishtar” (or “Inanna”), engaged in rituals and practices that included wearing garments associated with the opposite gender. “Ishtar”, the Mesopotamian goddess of love, war, and fertility, was associated with fluidity in gender and sexuality. Her worship included the involvement of priests and cultic figures such as the gala (or kalû), who were often eunuchs or men who adopted feminine roles and attire during rituals as a reflection of Ishtar’s domain over both creation and destruction, and her ability to transgress boundaries.

Canaanite religious practices, which the Israelites sought to distance themselves from, included the worship of “Asherah” and “Baal”. These deities were also associated with fertility and sexual rites. Phoenician cults, particularly in Tyre and Sidon, also featured priests who might blur gender distinctions during ceremonies, reflecting their roles in fertility worship.

The Manusmriti, a key legal and ethical text in Hinduism, was composed between c. 200 BC–200 AD and includes prohibitions. Early Buddhist texts, such as the Vinaya Pitaka (disciplinary rules), written around 300 BC, discuss sexual misconduct within monasteries but do not specifically mention homosexuality.

Our only real source of reliable historical evidence for homosexual cultural tradition outside the biblical texts, which is not deceitfully referred to as “inferring”, or “suggesting” it in otherwise innocent artifacts, is pottery.

The tomb of Niankhkhnum and Khnumhotep (c. 2400 BC, Saqqara Necropolis), royal manicurists, has been interpreted as intimate depictions of two men of unspecified age embracing nose-to-nose, a pose often reserved for married couples. While there are thousands of Egyptian tombs with traditional husband-wife poses, it is one of very few known examples showing two men in such intimate poses.

The Moche Erotic Pottery (100–800 AD, Peru), a set of ceramic vessels (huacos eróticos) depicts explicit scenes of sexual acts of no specified age, including male-male sexual anal intercourse. Archaeologists have uncovered thousands of these vessels, showing various sexual acts, suggesting they were a normal part of Moche cultural expression. They appear in regular burial contexts and seem to have been common ceremonial or educational objects, not exotic curiosities.

The Warren Cup (Roman Empire, 1st Century AD) discovered near Bittir (modern Israel) and housed in the British Museum, depicts explicit scenes of homosexual paedophilia on one side, and the other depicts two older men in an intimate embrace. Similar scenes appear on other Roman artifacts, particularly in private contexts like villa decorations and personal items. The high quality suggests it was a luxury item for elite consumption rather than an underground or exotic piece.

Greek Red-Figure pottery (Ancient Greece, c. 500 BC) depicts explicit pederasty. Pederastic relationships between adult men and adolescent males (usually aged 12-17) were socially sanctioned practices in several ancient Greek city-states, particularly during the Archaic and Classical periods (roughly 800-300 BC) in places like Sparta, Thebes, and Crete. Quantitative data about actual prevalence rates is unavailable due to the historical distance and limitations of archaeological evidence, but it was sufficiently common to be reflected extensively in art and architecture, and integrated into civic institutions. The practice declined during the Hellenistic and Roman periods.

Pederasty was largely an aristocratic practice, tied to upper-class education and social networking. The Sacred Band of Thebes, an elite military unit, was famously organised around these pairs. The typical sexual practice was intercrural (between the thighs) rather than penetrative. Penetrative acts were generally seen as degrading to the younger partner in Athenian society. To put it bluntly, the pederasty of ancient Greece was not sodomy at all.

The erastes-eromenos relationship in ancient Greece followed strict social protocols that were deeply embedded in upper-class society. The older partner (erastes) would pursue the younger through formal courtship, offering gifts and demonstrating their worth as a mentor. This wasn’t simply a romantic pursuit - it carried serious social obligations. The erastes took responsibility for their young partner’s education in everything from politics to warfare, essentially serving as a gateway to adult male society.

The younger partner (eromenos) operated under equally strict social expectations. They were expected to maintain dignity and restraint, never appearing too eager or accepting too many suitors, as this would damage their reputation. The physical aspects of these relationships were governed by complex social rules - while intimate contact was permitted, the eromenos were never supposed to appear to seek or enjoy it.

The physical relationship was expected to be one-sided, with the older partner being the active participant, while the younger partner was expected to remain relatively passive and not show physical desire.

These relationships were temporary by design, ending when the youth reached maturity (indicated by a full beard) as continuing in an eromenos role would have brought social shame. The system perpetuated itself as former eromenoi often became erastai themselves. Rather than being hidden, these relationships were public and formal, typically beginning in social spaces like the gymnasium where youths trained. They formed an integral part of upper-class education and social networking in many Greek city-states, particularly Athens, where they were seen as a crucial step in a young man’s path to full citizenship.

These were reflected during Japan’s brief Edo period (1603–1868), where shudō (the “way of the youth”) referred to same-sex relationships between Samurai and adolescent boys. Certain Melanesian tribes, including the Sambia of Papua New Guinea, ritualised older males mentoring younger males, often through sexual acts, as a way to “transfer masculinity” and prepare them for adulthood.

These practices persist today. The abhorrent tradition of “Bacha bazi” in Afghanistan, where early-pubescent homeless “dancing boys” (“bacha baz,” or “bachabozlik”) are forced to dress in women’s clothing and dance for the entertainment of older married men before they are sodomitically raped for days, is defended by Western journalists, and denied by regional intellectuals.

Homosexual acts were explicitly condemned within Christianity by the Apostle Paul around 50–60 AD, and by Byzantine Emperor Justinian I in the 6th century within the Corpus Juris Civilis.

Passages in the Qur’an condemning the behaviour of the people of Lut (Lot) date to the 7th Century. These were elaborated upon in Hadiths compiled between c. 8th–10th centuries. Islamic jurisprudence (Sharia) formalised punishments in the 8th–9th centuries AD through the codification of the major Sunni and Shia legal schools.

Socially Prohibited Across All Cultures

Anti-sodomy laws were introduced in Europe during the medieval period and later codified in colonial empires. European colonial powers, particularly the British Empire, exported these laws to their colonies (with the exception of France, which legalised it in 1791). As a result, sodomy laws were widespread in the United States, Australia, Canada, and India (e.g., Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, “carnal intercourse against the order of nature.”).

Many countries in South America had sodomy laws inherited from Spanish and Portuguese colonial codes. In Muslim-majority regions, Sharia-influenced laws criminalised sodomy, often with severe punishments. East Asian countries (e.g., China, Japan) historically lacked explicit sodomy laws, but cultural disapproval has always been widespread.

Some Native American tribes are believed to have honoured roles as shamans, healers, and mediators who practiced same-sex sexual behaviour. In some pre-colonial African societies, such as the Nzema in Ghana, “male wives” were documented. The Buganda Kingdom of Uganda had historical accounts among royalty. In Samoa, fa’afafine are men who embody feminine traits and often engage in same-sex relationships.

Before 1960, 90–95% of recognised countries had laws criminalising same-sex acts such as sodomy. The first to decriminalise them was the Soviet Union in 1922, but they were recriminalised in 1934 under Article 121 of the Soviet criminal code by Stalin until President Boris Yeltsin removed it in 1993.

Under the 1749 Articles of War for the British Royal Navy, sodomy was a capital offense. Section 29 declared,

If any person in the fleet shall commit the unnatural and detestable sin of buggery, he shall suffer death.

Modern laws of war (e.g., the Geneva Conventions) and maritime law (e.g., the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea) do not include provisions addressing or prohibiting it.

As of 2024, sixty-four countries (32.9% of 195 total) uphold laws against homosexuality, with most located in the Middle East, Africa, and Asia. In twelve of these countries, the death penalty is imposed, or at least a possibility.

The list includes Afghanistan, Algeria, Antigua and Barbuda, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belize, Bhutan, Botswana, Brunei, Burundi, Cameroon, Chad, Comoros, Dominica, Egypt, Eritrea, Eswatini, Ethiopia, Gambia, Ghana, Grenada, Guinea, Guyana, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Jamaica, Kenya, Kiribati, Kuwait, Lebanon, Liberia, Libya, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mauritania, Mauritius, Morocco, Myanmar, Namibia, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, Papua New Guinea, Qatar, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Solomon Islands, Somalia, South Sudan, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Syria, Tanzania, Togo, Tonga, Tunisia, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, Uganda, United Arab Emirates, Uzbekistan, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Attitudes towards homosexuality in the world’s two largest countries, China (1.42 billion) and India (1.45 billion), are overwhelmingly hostile. Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India declared Section 377 unconstitutional in 2018, but only 37% are tolerant of the behaviour. The People’s Republic of China labelled it “bourgeois decadence” in 1949, but decriminalised in 1997. Only 15% are tolerant. Neither allow same-sex marriage or civil unions for homosexuals.

There are approximately 2.3 billion Christians in the world (31%), approximately 1.8 billion Muslims (24%), and about 16 million Jews (0.2%). They total 51% of the world’s 8 billion population. All three have strict prohibitions towards homosexual behaviour (albeit not consistently followed or advocated).

If one combines the sixty-four countries where homosexuality is illegal (2.23 billion, including the entire African continent), China and India (2.8 billion), one arrives at 5.1 billion. In total, on their own, they comprise 62.8% of the world’s 8 billion population.

Thirty-six countries (18.5%) legally perform and recognise same-sex marriages. At the most generous, optimistic estimate, there is no numerical scenario where tolerance or acceptance of homosexual behaviour in the human species exceeds a minority viewpoint of thirty-five per cent.

The data is extremely clear, without resorting to Argumentum ad Populum fallacy. Homosexual behaviour has been condemned, religiously, legally, and socially, for all of humanity’s history. The majority condemn it today. Moreover, again today, two-thirds of the world’s population consider it so egregious, it is prescribed death, imprisonment, or social exclusion.

Exhibited In Less Than Five Per Cent Of Humans

To the best of our knowledge, through anthropological studies, historical records, and surveys, before the Internet age, two to five per cent (2-5%) of any given human population exhibited same-sex attraction or behaviour. A 2021 Ipsos survey across twenty-seven countries reported the figure as four per cent.

A 2023 report by the California Department of Justice indicated its own state figure was 9.5%, or 2.8 million. Approximately 2–3% of Baby Boomers (1946–1964) claim to be homosexual, 3.3% of Gen X (1965–1980), and 11.2% of Millennials (1981–1996), as opposed to 15-20% of Gen Z (1997–2012). Approximately 72% of the latter self-report being “bisexual”, a term not explicitly defined within the survey questions, allowing participants to interpret and apply the label as they wished. If this specious category is removed, the figure for Gen Z returns to a familiar four per cent.

Those displaying homosexual behaviour are over-represented in crowded urban areas (San Francisco: 15.4%; Seattle: 12.9%, Atlanta: 12.8%); crowded prisons (5–40% of incarcerated individuals); within movies (18.6% of major studio characters), spies (e.g. the “Cambridge Five”); the media (theatre, fashion, and the arts), and activist non-profit organisations (“human rights” and “social justice”).

What the data we have reliably indicates is at least 95% per cent of human beings do not exhibit same-sex behaviour, and those who do are highly concentrated in specific areas and professions.

Biological Correlations But No Biological Cause

There are no single biological markers exclusively correlated with homosexuality. Current scientific thinking is sexual behaviour is polygenic (i.e. influenced by multiple genes) and not determined by any single genetic marker. Research to date has identified limited genetic, hormonal, and neurobiological factors that may be associated with these behaviours.

A large 2019 genome-wide association study (GWAS) involving nearly half a million participants found no single genetic marker exclusively associated with sexual behaviour but noted multiple genes, if found, might contribute modestly.

Concordance rates for homosexuality are higher in identical (monozygotic, or MZ) twins (7.7% for males, 5.3% for females) compared to fraternal (dizygotic, or DZ) twins (6.8% for male, 5.4% for female), however non-shared environmental influences in a study of 7,600 twins (male and female) present at 45–50%.

Across studies, monozygotic twins consistently show higher concordance rates compared to dizygotic twins, suggesting a genetic contribution. Concordance rates below 100% indicate environmental and non-shared factors play a much more significant role.

Exposure to androgens (male sex hormones) during critical periods of prenatal development may influence brain development and sexual attraction (indicated by the ratio between the second index and fourth ring digits).

Men with older brothers are statistically more likely to be homosexual, potentially because of maternal immune responses to male-specific antigens affecting brain development in subsequent male foetuses (“Maternal Immune Hypothesis”).

Some researchers suggest genes linked to homosexuality may enhance reproductive success in female relatives, balancing the reduced direct reproduction of homosexual males (“Kin Selection Hypothesis”). Others suggest female maternal relatives of homosexual men tend to have higher reproductive rates (“Maternal Fecundity Hypothesis”).

Homosexual individuals exhibit distinct patterns of response to pheromone-like substances (e.g., AND and EST, associated with male and female odours) compared to heterosexual individuals.

The Xq28 region, located at the tip of the X chromosome, is associated with male homosexuality in some studies, but results are mixed. They also suggest male homosexuality tends to cluster in maternal lineages (e.g., maternal uncles or cousins).There are differences in the size of the INAH3 nucleus of the hypothalamus between heterosexual and homosexual men. Functional imaging studies show differences in amygdala connectivity and activation.

Homosexual men and heterosexual women show similar patterns of brain hemisphere symmetry (a characteristic more often seen in female brains), while heterosexual men and homosexual women exhibit greater right-hemisphere asymmetry (a pattern traditionally associated with male brains).

Correlated With Childhood Sexual Trauma

Research consistently indicates individuals exhibiting homosexual behaviours self-report higher rates of childhood sexual abuse (or “CSA”) compared to heterosexual individuals. There is a positive association between childhood maltreatment and same-sex sexuality in adulthood, with lesbians and gay men reporting 1.6 to 4 times greater prevalence of sexual and physical abuse than heterosexuals. Some studies have reported it at 3 to 8 times greater.

The age when first abuse consistently falls is during early to mid-childhood (8–12), often slightly earlier for girls (7-10).

In gay men, a higher proportion of the abuse is same sex (40-50%) compared to the general population. It is overwhelming perpetrated by older males in positions of authority (95%), of whom 30–50% are family members (e.g., fathers, uncles, step-parents); 30–40% are trusted adults (e.g., teachers, coaches, neighbours, clergy), and 10-15% are strangers.

A 2015 meta-analysis revealed 39–47% of gay men reported CSA experiences, compared to 22–25% of heterosexual men. The disparity is similarly evident in studies focusing on specific populations. For example, 57% of homosexual men newly diagnosed with HIV reported CSA.

Studies examining broader populations show consistent findings. A 2021 literature review found CSA rates of 30–40%, far exceeding rates reported by heterosexual men. In Sweden, 33% of homosexual adolescents reported CSA, compared to just 18% of heterosexual males. This pattern holds across cultures, with studies reporting conservative rates of 34–47% in homosexual populations compared to 20–25% in heterosexual counterparts.

Lesbians report higher rates of CSA compared to heterosexual women (30–40% vs 20–25%), but the disparity is not as pronounced as in gay men versus heterosexual men. The highest (40–50%) is reported in women who self-report as “bisexual”. As in male populations, most perpetrators are male (85–90%). Unlike gay men, female victims rarely report same-sex abuse. Male perpetrators are most commonly cited. In women, it is less frequently associated with compulsive or high-risk sexual behaviours.

In one study of Latin American men around New York City, 45% reported experiencing CSA, which was strongly associated with high-risk sexual behaviours. Adolescent men with CSA histories were also shown to engage in elevated levels of same-sex sexual behaviours, often accompanied by other risky or compulsive tendencies.

Correlated With Severely Negative Behaviours

There is considerably higher comorbidity of substance abuse and mental health disorders among homosexual men across the board. The specific issues include alcohol abuse (55.4%), depression (44.1%), anxiety (43.8%), suicidal ideation (39.4%), self-harm (24.5%), and eating disorders (16.1%). 15-20% self-report using methamphetamine in the past year, including 23.1% of men with HIV.

14.5% of gay men in an Australian study reported experiencing forced penetration; 10.3% in a UK national survey reported non-consensual sex (including attempted forced penetration); and a 2014 National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey (NISVS) study found 16.2% of gay men experienced other forms of sexual violence.

The figures were similar for women: 44.6% of lesbians had experienced partner violence. 14.2% reported they had been raped and 50% had been emotionally abused. Lesbians divorced each other at a much higher rate than women divorce men or gay men divorce each other, and only 51% of same-sex couples were interested in marriage; even less (15%) were interested in children.

The incarceration rate of self-identified homosexuals in 2011 was more than three times that of the general US adult population. In 2023, 786,000 individuals were listed on sex offender registries across the U.S, and at least 20% claimed to be “LGBTQ” despite “LGBT” being only 5.6% of the prison population as a whole.

A disputed 1996 study found homosexual paedophiles represent a larger (11:1) proportion relative to their prevalence in the general population than heterosexual counterparts, and the proportion of “true paedophiles” (i.e., those with a primary sexual interest in children) is higher among individuals with a homosexual predisposition.

The most virulent claims of a link between homosexual and paedophilic crime were published as an article, “Homosexuality and Child Sexual Abuse“, by the Family Research Council.

An additional set of disputed studies by Paul Cameron reported a third of reported child molestations involved homosexual acts, with perpetrators estimated to be at least twelve times more likely to engage in such acts compared to heterosexuals. 34% of foster parent abuse cases in Illinois were alleged to involve homosexual perpetrators, with same-sex perpetrators accounting for 53% of abuse incidents against boys.

In both sexes, narcissistic personality disorder was much higher in homosexuals, as were non-clinical narcissistic tendencies and “Dark Triad” (Machiavellianism, psychopathy, and narcissism) traits. Risk-taking behaviours, such as unprotected sex and reckless driving, were significantly higher. Borderline personality disorder diagnosis was almost double, vying with increased non-clinical anti-social tendencies and sensation-seeking behaviour.

Eighty-one countries (and two-thirds of US states) have laws criminalising the transmission of HIV or failing to disclose one’s HIV status to sexual partners. Over seven hundred people have been convicted for knowing transmitting the disease to others. In its most extreme form, the disturbing “bareback” homosexual subculture of “bugchasing” arose in 1997 and involves men deliberately seeking HIV infection as a form of quasi-religious fetish.

Vastly Increased Public Health Risks

The median number of partners for gay men globally ranges between 10–20; mean values are regionally higher (UK: 19; US: 44.4; Australia: 15); at least twice the number for heterosexual men (US: 6.4, UK: 4.7). A 1994 study found the mean number of sexual partners for gay men was 42, with a median of 10.

Despite the endless, ongoing attempts to “debunk” unflattering historical data, the 2008-2018 U.S. General Social Survey (GSS) conducted by the National Opinion Research Center at the University of Chicago found 10% of gay men reported having over a hundred sexual partners in their lifetime: 3.8% had 101-200; 2.9% had 201–300; 1% had 301–400 partners; and 1.9% had 400 or more. This somewhat conflicts with a 1978 Kinsey Institute book series featuring data about homosexuals in San Francisco by Alan P. Bell and Martin S. Weinberg (“Homosexualities”), which ambitiously claimed 28% of gay men had more than a thousand sexual partners.

Lesbians typically report an average of 4–6 female sexual partners over a lifetime and were more likely to report having more than one sexual partner in the past 12 months (32%) compared to heterosexual women (7%), and 77.3% reported one or more lifetime male sexual partners. They tend to engage in fewer and longer-term relationships compared to gay men, but are less likely to be sexually monogamous.

The AIDS epidemic affected 35-40 million people with a fatality rate of 60%, more than half of whom were homosexual. By contrast, Covid-19 affected 7.9 billion, with a fatality rate of 0.1%.

Sodomy and tribadism (female genital rubbing) have extraordinary medical implications as behaviours. Both the rectum and vagina have mucous membranes that can absorb viruses and bacteria, but vaginal tissue evolved specific protective features like beneficial bacteria and multiple epithelial layers, which provide additional barriers against infection.

The anal mucosa is thinner, lacks natural lubrication, and is more prone to micro-tearing compared to the vaginal mucosa, allowing pathogens to enter the bloodstream more easily. Additionally, the rectum’s absorption-optimised surface area and high concentration of immune cells (which can be targeted by viruses like HIV) contribute to increased transmission risk.

The anus is close to the gastrointestinal (GI) tract, which can facilitate the transmission of enteric pathogens (e.g., bacteria, viruses, and parasites) and blood-borne pathogens (e.g., HIV, Hepatitis).

Sodomy transmits bacterial diseases staggeringly more prevalent in male homosexuals (Gonorrhoea: 30%, Chlamydia: 20%, Shigella (Dysentery): 90%, Escherichia Coli, Monkeypox: 90%). It transmits viral diseases (HIV: 70%, Herpes Simplex/Papillomavirus: 43%, Hepatitis A/B/C: < 5%). It also transmits parasitic infections (Amoebiasis, Giardiasis).

In lesbian sexual behaviour, the most common diseases are Bacterial Vaginosis (BV: 33-45%); Vulvovaginal Candidiasis (VVC: 15-23%); Human Papillomavirus (12-16%); and Herpes Simplex (HSV-1: 26-30%, HSV-2: 21-25%).

Sexually transmitted infection is disproportionately more prevalent among homosexuals due to multiple sexual partners and lower contraceptive use. Gay men account for approximately 70% of new HIV infections (CDC) and nearly 50% of primary and secondary Syphilis cases (CDC). Lesbians have a lower risk for many STIs compared to gay men but show higher rates of Bacterial Vaginosis and Herpes Simplex virus.

High Probability Of Irreversibility

One subject vexes activists more than any other: the “fluidity” or immutability of the homosexual condition, or its apparent permanence. Few studies have been conducted in this area, which is telling in and of itself.

The data is extremely thin and muddy. A notable proportion of individuals who claim to be exclusively gay or lesbian have engaged in heterosexual relationships at some point in their lives. A limited 2013 survey by the Pew Research Center found 2% of gay men and 1% of lesbians were in heterosexual relationships, and 84% of individuals claiming to be “bisexual” were in opposite-sex relationships.

Aversion therapies have been shown to reduce homosexual feelings and behaviour, but don’t significantly change long-term outcomes. Among many others, the non-profit, interdenominational Christian organisation, Exodus International, founded in San Rafael, California around 1976 and closed in 2013, reported limited success in its attempts at intervention.

Longitudinal research indicates while sexual behaviour remains stable for many individuals, other experience shifts. In prospective studies (following people over time rather than retrospective self-reports), rates of complete change to heterosexual behaviour/attraction are consistently under 2% among those who previously identified as exclusively homosexual in adulthood, and higher in women.

Studies of clinical attempts in religious settings to change behaviour have found similar or lower rates of change when using objective measures and long-term follow-up. Higher reported rates (3-5%) typically come from self-selected samples or rely solely on self-reported changes without behavioural verification.

A Puzzle Attempted By Charlatans

The current evidence suggests a complex multi-factorial origin similar to left-handedness, personality traits, colour vision, or cognitive processing, involving:

Some genetic components (~30-50% potential heritability in twin studies)
Epigenetic factors (chemical modifications affecting gene expression)
Developmental factors (hormonal exposure during key periods)
Neurobiological differences (brain structure/function variations observed in studies)

The trait persists at modestly stable rates across populations and time periods, suggesting some underlying scientific mechanism we don’t yet understand. The complete absence of viable explanatory models (evolutionary, genetic, developmental) is unusual. The combination of stability and resistance to change with no clear biological markers is scientifically puzzling. The inconsistency between twin study heritability data and the lack of direct genetic transmission creates an explanatory gap.

However, none of these things mean some animals are gay, people are born gay, the behaviour is historically widespread, or any of it is a social good which can be helped by encouraging more of it.