home of sexual

Plenty of animals are gay.

A research article published in the Trends in Ecology and Evolution Journal - "Same-sex sexual behavior and evolution"

• This article identifies that "Same-sex sexual behavior has been extensively documented in non-human animals," and "The variety and ubiquity of same-sex sexual behavior in animals is impressive; many thousands of instances of same-sex courtship, pair bonding and copulation have been observed in a wide range of species, including mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians, insects, mollusks and nematode."

• Among the animals the study recognizes as exhibiting same-sex sexual behavior in the wild are African bat bugs, bonobos, bottlenose dolphins, the common toad, garter snakes, laysan albatross, and marine snails. These are by no means all animals species which exhibit homosexual behavior, rather these specific species "provide a strong starting point for readers interested in obtaining further information and examples."

• Male chinstrap penguins, male bighorn sheep, and male damselflies are three of the cases the study singles out as particularly interesting.

  • According to a study referenced in the article, "Individuals in a handful of vertebrate species have been described as having same-sex orientations, among them male chinstrap penguins (Pygoscelis antarcticus), which have been documented to form long-term pair bonds in captivity and some male bighorn sheep (Ovis canadensis), which will only mount females if the females adopt male-like behavior."

  • Another study referenced finds that male damselflies have observed to be basically bisexual: "Nevertheless, in the damselfly Ischnura elegans, researchers demonstrated that males exposed to all-male groups preferentially courted other males when they were given a choice between a male and a female. Their preference for one sex over the other was flexible, and could be switched by manipulating the social context they experienced previously."

• Another work the article references finds that roughly half of male bottlenose dolphins engage in sexual activity with other males.

  • "Bottlenose dolphins show one of the highest rates of same-sex sexual behavior documented in any animal. Male–male mounting, genital contact and ‘goosing’ appear to strengthen alliances between small groups of males and provide practice for later opposite-sex encounters. Female– female sexual behavior also occurs, but to a much lesser extent."

• The article makes reference the book Biological Exuberance by Bruce Bagemihl, a work which scientifically documented homosexual behavior in 450 species of animals and it's significance to this issue, "even referenced by the American Psychiatric Association in evidence submitted to the US Supreme Court for consideration during the 2003 gay rights case Lawrence v. Texas, which overturned a Texas law banning homosexual sodomy."

• The study ultimately concludes that "Same-sex interactions occur in an enormous variety of taxonomic groups, and both the mechanisms producing the behaviors and the outcomes of the behaviors can vary widely among and within species."

Review from the Association for Politics and the Life Sciences - "Dean Hamer and Peter Copeland, Living With Our Genes: Why They Matter More Than You Think, Bruce Bagemihl, Biological Exuberance: Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity and Joan Roughgarden, Evolution's Rainbow: Diversity, Gender, and Sexuality in Nature and People"

• Please note that I cite the text on SciHub, as the publisher does not offer a free version of the full text.

• This review provides a useful summary of Biological Exuberance and identifies it's key finding: that homosexual behavior has been observed in 450 different species.

• The review asserts that the book is really two books - one discussing sexual matters in the wild and another which goes species by species regarding sexual behavior in non human animals - and the later half is rich in detail.

  • "In all, this makes up a 768-page tome that is absolutely mindboggling in its data, documenting homosexuality and other forms of sexuality in more than 450 nonhuman species. Never does Bagemihl linger long with any particular system or species; it is purely his encyclopedic coverage and the sheer inventiveness — exuberance — of nature that overwhelms."

• In one chapter, Bagemihl's book "deals with the two-hundred year history of reports of homosexuality in wildlife."

Research from the Journal of Evolutionary Biology - "Testing multiple hypotheses for the maintenance of male homosexual copulatory behaviour in flour beetles"

• Please note that I cite the text on SciHub, as the publisher does not offer a free version of the full text.

• In the abstract, the research identifies that many animals engage in homosexual activities: "Diverse animal groups exhibit homosexual interactions, yet the evolutionary maintenance of such behaviours remains enigmatic as they do not directly increase reproductive success by generating progeny."

• In the introduction the authors state that "Homosexual behavioural interactions have been documented in wild populations of numerous animals, including many birds, reptiles, mammals, insects and spiders."

  • Apparently, male homosexual mounting occurs in over 100 species of insect.

• After their tests of flour beetles involving observing mounting between males mounting/breeding between a male and a female (I won't go as in depth as the research does, go read about it all yourself) the results didn't really support any of the three hypotheses: that homosexual acts are to 1). assert social dominance, 2). be practice for heterosexual encounters, 3). indirectly transit sperm.

  • Regarding the first hypothesis: "we found no evidence that Tribolium males use homosexual copulations to establish dominance, as paired males frequently switched roles, and for those pairs with more consistent roles we found no differences in body size or reproductive performance between mounting and mounted males tested in either competitive or noncompetitive mating situations."

  • Regarding the second hypothesis: "We found no evidence to support the idea that homosexual copulations provide T. castaneum males with behavioural practice that increases their reproductive success in subsequent heterosexual encounters."

  • Regarding the third hypothesis: "Our results provide limited support for the hypothesis of indirect sperm translocation, which proposes that males engaging in homosexual copulations might indirectly transfer sperm to females through a male intermediary." Only 7% of the observed copulations between a male and female produced results "indicating that they were sired indirectly by their mate’s previous homosexual partner."

• In summary, the research states "homosexual behaviours commonly occur in diverse animal groups, yet such interactions have been poorly studied. In T. castaneum beetles we found no evidence that homosexual copulations are used to establish dominance, or to provide behavioural practice that increases males’ reproductive success in subsequent heterosexual encounters. We found limited support for the hypothesis of indirect sperm translocation to females through a male intermediary, and this phenomenon deserves further study,"

A list of organizations which have made statements publicly validating and supporting same-sex parenting and/or same-sex couples in the adoption process:

The American Psychological Organization

• "On the basis of a remarkably consistent body of research on lesbian and gay parents and their children, the American Psychological Association (APA) and other health professional and scientific organizations have concluded that there is no scientific evidence that parenting effectiveness is related to parental sexual orientation. That is, lesbian and gay parents are as likely as heterosexual parents to provide supportive and healthy environments for their children. This body of research has shown that the adjustment, development and psychological well-being of children are unrelated to parental sexual orientation and that the children of lesbian and gay parents are as likely as those of heterosexual parents to flourish."

The American Academy of Family Physicians

• "The American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP) supports full legal equality for same-gender families to contribute to overall health and longevity, improved family stability and to benefit children of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender (LGBT) families."

• From another AAFP source: "The AAFP establishes policy and supports legislation that promotes a safe and nurturing environment, including psychological and legal security, for all children, including those of adoptive parents, regardless of the parents’ sexual orientation."

American Psychiatric Organization

• "The American Psychiatric Association supports same-sex marriage as being advantageous to the mental health of same-sex couples and supports legal recognition of the right for same-sex couples to marry, adopt and co-parent." Please note that this link is to a pdf and may not work, so I have included a screenshot of the text below (Figure 1).

  • If you Google "american psychiatric organization same sex parents" it should be the first result.

The American Psychoanalytic Association

• "Accumulated evidence suggests the family factors that are important for children’s outcomes and wellbeing are family processes and the quality of interactions and relationships. Evaluation of an individual or family for these parental qualities should be determined without prejudice regarding actual or perceived sexual orientation, gender identity or gender expression. There is no credible evidence that shows that a parent’s sexual orientation or gender identity will adversely affect the development of the child."

• "APsaA opposes any discrimination based on actual or perceived sexual orientation, gender identity or gender expression, against individuals in regard to their rights as biologic, custodial, foster, or adoptive parents. Children deserve to know that their relationships with their parents are stable and legally recognized."

The American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry

• "There is no evidence to suggest or support that parents who are lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender are per se superior or inferior from or deficient in parenting skills, child-centered concerns, and parent-child attachments when compared with heterosexual parents. There is no credible evidence that shows that a parent's sexual orientation or gender identity will adversely affect the development of the child."

• From another AACAP source: "Although research shows that children with gay and lesbian parents are as well adjusted as children with heterosexual parents, they can face some additional challenges. Some LGBT families face discrimination in their communities and children may be teased or bullied by peers."

  • "Like all children, most children with LGBT parents will have both good and bad times. They are not more likely than children of heterosexual parents to develop emotional or behavioral problems."

The Child Welfare League of America

• "The Child Welfare League of America (CWLA) affirms that lesbian, gay, and bisexual parents are as well suited to raise children as their heterosexual counterparts."

The Canadian Psychological Organization

• "A review of the psychological research into the well-being of children raised by same-sex and opposite-sex parents continues to indicate that there are no reliable differences in their mental health or social adjustment and that lesbian mothers and gay fathers are not less fit as parents than are their heterosexual counterparts."

Research into children with same-sex parents

Research review from the Population Research and Policy Review Journal - "Child Well-Being in Same-Sex Parent Families: Review of Research Prepared for American Sociological Association Amicus Brief"

• This review is an assessment on literature - studies, research, and books - published in the past decade regarding child well-being in same sex couples for an amicus curiae brief that prepared in association with the American Sociological Organization and was to be presented to the Supreme Court in 2013. This text provides the authors' "assessment of the literature that was used to assist in the preparation of the amicus brief." Ultimately the authors concluded "that there is a clear consensus in the social science literature indicating that American children living within same-sex parent households fare just, as well as those children residing within different-sex parent households over a wide array of well-being measures: academic performance, cognitive development, social development, psychological health, early sexual activity, and substance abuse."

  • It is not the parents sex which has a huge effect on the child, rather their socioeconomic status and stability: "Differences that exist in child well-being are largely due to socioeconomic circumstances and family stability."

• In the summary this review identifies that "To date, the consensus in the social science literature is clear: in the United States, children living with two same-sex parents fare, as well as children residing with two different-sex parents. Numerous credible and methodologically sound social science studies, including many drawing on nationally representative data, form the basis of this consensus. These studies reveal that children raised in same-sex parent families fare just, as well as children raised in different-sex parent families across a wide spectrum of child well-being measures: academic performance, cognitive development, social development, psychological health, early sexual activity, and substance abuse."

• The review states that "Taken together, the studies included in this review represent a collection of extensive research and indicate that children under the age of 18 raised by same-sex parents fare, as well as their counterparts in different-sex families."

• On academic performance and cognitive development, the review finds that the academic performance of children of same-sex parents is similar to that of children of different-sex parents.

  • The review cites a studies which finds "similar patterns of GPA scores and troubles in school among those living in female, same-sex couple and different-sex couple families" and another study which finds "the association between family structure and math achievement is no longer statistically significant with the inclusion of number of family transitions."

  • Another study the review cites indicates "similar educational outcomes among children who lived with same-sex lesbian parents compared with an age-matched representative sample of children."

  • A large scale study cited in the review "indicates that gay and lesbian parents and children score at least as well on numerous indicators of educational achievement and involvement as parents and children reported in national studies."

    • Differences in school performance is better explained by socioeconomic status than the relationship type of a child's parents.

  • Regarding cognitive development, the review states that "research based on small scale samples indicates similar cognitive development among children raised in same-sex and different-sex families."

• On social development the review finds that "the social development of children raised by same-sex parents is similar to that of children raised by different-sex parents."

  • The review cites different studies which "report no significant differences in first grade social adjustment based on whether they were living with different-sex or same-sex parents in kindergarten" and "find that the number, support, and quality of peer relationships are similar for teens living in female, same-sex couple families, and those living with different-sex parents." Additionally, certain research "indicates that adolescents of same-sex parents experienced fewer social problems than a nationally representative age-matched sample of American youths."

• On psychological well-being the review finds "that adolescents in female, same-sex and different-sex couple families report similar scores on depressive symptoms and self-esteem" based on nationally representative data.

  • The review references a study which shows that adolescents with same-sex parents score similar on ADD/ADHD, anxiety, and depression to adolescents with different-sex parents. This study also has data which indicates "similar scores on positive aspects of psychological adjustment" between adolescents with same-sex parents and adolescents with different-sex parents.

• On sexual activity the review finds that similar proportions of children with same-sex parents and children with different-sex parents have had romantic relationships or sexual intercourse.

• On problem behaviors the review finds that "in a nationally representative sample, adolescents living with female, same-sex parents fare similarly to their counterparts raised in different-sex parent families in terms of frequency of substance use (tobacco, alcohol, marijuana), problems with substance use, and delinquent behavior."

  • One study the review references finds that "Children in same-sex and different-sex parent families performed similarly on various externalizing behavioral indicators of child development contained in the CBCL." CBCL is an acronym for Child Behavior Checklist, a checklist parents complete to detect emotional and behavioral problems in children and adolescents.

• "the majority of literature finds no differences between those raised in same-sex and different-sex parent families."

• The review also touches on certain works which document some negative effects of children with same-sex parents (there are very few of these) and concludes that "each has shortcomings making broad generalizations impossible." Additionally, the majority research and literature on this topic finds no difference between children with same-sex parents and children of different-sex parents - "the majority of literature finds no differences between those raised in same-sex and different-sex parent families" - so the data overwhelmingly indicates there is no disadvantage or negative effects of having same-sex parents.

  • What may appear like disadvantages are not a direct result of a child having same-sex parents, rather the circumstances in which the child came to be in their care/part of their family: "children come into same-sex parent families from a variety of situations, including orphanages, foster families, and divorced or separated heterosexual families. Thus, children living with same-sex couple parents may start out with educational disadvantages that accrued before they came to be raised by same-sex couples." Without context, a hasty generalization that children with same-sex parents are in a bad spot can be made, but this is hardly the case. With context, it is evident that many children raised by same-sex parents faced disadvantages prior to having such parents and having two parents gives a child a better opportunity to succeed and have a better life.

  • Regarding studies which show that children of same-sex couples report higher levels of occasional substance use (but similar levels of heavy substance use) compared to children of different-sex couples and lower levels of having ever used contraception, this review identifies that socioeconomic factors weren't accounted for in either study: "However, both of these studies do not account for socioeconomic circumstances, which may explain the family type differences."

  • Research by Mark Regnerus is also referenced here because while some of his work may seem to provide evidence of same-sex parenting's negative influences on a child's well-being the author himself states "I am thus not suggesting that growing up with a lesbian mother or gay father causes suboptimal outcomes because of the sexual orientation or sexual behavior of the parent."

• In conclusion, the review finds that "the consensus in the recent social science literature is clear: children living with two same-sex parents fare just as well as children residing with two different-sex parents. "

Study from Stanford University - "Nontraditional Families and Childhood Progress Through School"

• Using US census data a sociology professor at Stanford university set out "to perform the first large-sample, nationally representative tests of outcomes for children raised by same-sex couples." Ultimately, the study was able to conclude that children raised by same-sex couples made the same progress in school as children raised by heterosexual couples and children of all family types were far more likely to succeed in school than children living in group quarters - orphanages or shelters. It is worth noting that this data comes from the 2000 US census, a time in which same-sex couples could not marry.

  • Why census data? - "the U.S. census is the only nationally representative data set with a large enough sample of children raised by same-sex couples to allow for statistically powerful comparisons with children of other family types."

• As can be seen in Figure 2, children of same-sex couples are less likely to repeat a grade level (a lower grade retention percentage means less likely to repeat a grade) than children in single parent households, households where a heterosexual couple is cohabiting but not married, and children in group quarters. Furthermore, adopted children were less likely to repeat a grade level than stepchildren or foster children. Basically this shows that a child with two parents providing adequate care, regardless of the sex and/or gender of the parents, is the best environment for a child.

  • "Children of heterosexual married couples had the lowest implied rate of grade retention: 6.8%. Children of lesbian mothers and gay fathers had grade retention rates of 9.5% and 9.7%, respectively. Children of heterosexual cohabiting parents had a grade retention rate of 11.7%, while children of single parents had grade retention rates between 11.1% and 12.6%."

  • The study defines grade retention as "the opposite of normal progress through school"

  • The data table can be viewed in its entirety here.

• The study identifies that "For children living in a family, whether the family is headed by a heterosexual married couple or by some less-traditional parenting arrangement, the second–most-important factor in childhood progress through school appears to be parental educational attainment," and the mean (average) household education of children with same-sex parents is actually higher than the mean household education of children with heterosexual parents. Data from the study, Figure 3 below, "shows that educational attainment for gays and lesbians was higher than average at 13.6 years (i.e., 1.6 years of college) compared with 13.4 years for heterosexual married heads of household."

  • The full dataset can be viewed in its entirety here.

• After doing some multivariate analysis with this data, the study was able to conclude that in all but one model, the differences between children with same-sex parents and heterosexual parents were "statistically insignificant ."

  • In the one model where the difference between children with same-sex parents and children with heterosexual parents was significant, it reflected much of the findings as seen below in Figure 2 - that of all the nontraditional family types (children in same-sex parent households, children in single parents households, children in group) the children with same-sex parents were by far the least disadvantages. The study identifies this as well, stating that "the apparent disadvantage of children of same-sex couples (compared with children of heterosexual married couples) is especially small." This reinforces the idea that the best situation for a child to be in is one with two parents providing adequate care, regardless of the gender and/or sex of the parent.

• When comparing own children of same-sex couples and own children of heterosexual couples the study finds that there are virtually no statistically significant differences in grade retention.

  • "After the samples are matched on household income and householder educational attainment (Model 2), children of same-sex couples actually are less likely than their most similar peers among children of heterosexual married couples to be held back in school (9.07% compared with 9.45%), although the difference is not statistically significant."

  • "After parental income and education are taken into account, the differences between children of same-sex couples and children of heterosexual married couples are small enough to be indistinguishable from zero."

• When comparing children of same-sex cohabiting couples to children of heterosexual cohabitating couples, the study found that "These results suggest that for the outcome of normal progress through school, children raised by same-sex cohabiting couples are no different, and perhaps slightly advantaged, compared with children raised by heterosexual cohabiting couples. The similarity in school performance between children of same-sex couples and children of heterosexual cohabiting couples fails to support the gender essentialist theories of parenting, which argue that child development depends on having parental role models from both gender groups."

• To summarize, the study concludes that "To the extent that normal progress through primary school is a useful and valid measure of child development, the results confirm that children of same-sex couples appear to have no inherent developmental disadvantage."

Review Article from the Journal of Developmental & Behavioral Pediatrics - "Lesbian mothers, gay fathers, and their children: a review"

• Please note that I cite the text on SciHub, as the publisher does not offer a free version of the full text.

• The review's abstract states "Findings from research suggest that children with lesbian or gay parents are comparable with children with heterosexual parents on key psychosocial developmental outcomes. In many ways, children of lesbian or gay parents have similar experiences of family life compared with children in heterosexual families."

• In regard to divorced lesbian mother families, this review references several studies published in the 1980s which compared the parent-child relationship between divorced lesbian mothers and comparable single heterosexual mothers, ultimately coming to a unanimous conclusion that "there were no systematic differences between the quality of family relationships of children of lesbian mothers and those of children living with single divorced heterosexual mothers."

  • Follow up studies where done after the mother began cohabitating with a partner (the review reports 80% of the single divorced heterosexual mothers had cohabited with a new male partner, or remarried, while a similar proportion of the original group of lesbian mothers had cohabited with a female partner) which found that "In general, sons and daughters from lesbian mother families reported more positive relationships with their mother’s new partner compared with the young people from heterosexual mother families." Furthermore, the review identifies that "The sons and daughters of lesbian mothers rarely described their mother’s girlfriend as intruding on family relationships, whereas some of the young people with divorced and repartnered heterosexual mothers described their relationship with their stepfather with some hostility, if he was seen as trying to take on a father’s role."

  • Regarding a child's psychological well-being, the review identifies that several studies have found no difference between children of single lesbian parents and children of single heterosexual parents. Furthermore, there is virtually no difference in the psychiatric rating, school grades, and behavior between the two groups. This continued into adulthood, as there were no differences between the two groups on the standardized questionnaire and interview data studies collected.

• In regard to divorced gay father families, this review identifies that "Current evidence suggests that the parenting of divorced gay fathers is similar to that of divorced heterosexual fathers."

  • Interestingly, this review finds that while homosexual and heterosexual fathers reported similar involvement in their children's lives, the heterosexual fathers were generally more strict and "also reported that they employed reasoning strategies and were responding to their children’s needs more often than were the heterosexual fathers surveyed."

  • Regarding a child's psychological well-being, the review recognizes that there have been little to know extensive evaluations, but "Anecdotal reports from gay fathers and their children suggest no concern about serious emotional or behavioral problems."

• In regard to planned lesbian led families the review finds "Lesbian mothers reported positive relationships with their child; in fact, in comparison with the heterosexual mothers interviewed, the lesbian mothers reported smacking their children less and engaged more frequently in imaginative and domestic play."

  • Interestingly, the review finds that children raised in lesbian led families where both parents shared fairly equal childcare responsibilities (as opposed to heterosexual couplings where the mother takes on most childcare responsibilities) had higher levels of psychological adjustment.

    • "Two studies using independent samples have found that children whose lesbian parents shared child care were reported to have higher levels of psychological adjustment."

  • Regarding a child's psychological well-being, the review identifies several studies which identify that "children born to lesbian mothers and children born to heterosexual mothers have similar levels of psychological adjustment." One study referenced in the review rather explicitly finds that "of children aged around 7 years old conceived by donor insemination to single- or two parent lesbian or heterosexual families found that neither family structure nor parental sexual orientation influenced scores on any measures of children’s psychological adjustment." In terms of intellect, school performance, and emotional problems, the review references multiple studies which find that pre school and school aged children born to lesbian couples were no different than children born to heterosexual couples.

• In summary, this review asserts that "Findings from the existing research studies indicate that while there is obviously variation among children with lesbian and gay parents, they are as a group just as likely as children with heterosexual parents to show typical adjustment on the various developmental outcomes assessed." The review also states that "While there is no evidence that children experience difficulties because of being brought up by lesbian or gay parents, it is also important to remember the variation in their experiences."

Research from Pediatrics: The Official Journal of The American Academy of Pediatrics - "Technical report: coparent or second-parent adoption by same-sex parents"

• In the abstract, this research states that "A growing body of scientific literature demonstrates that children who grow up with 1 or 2 gay and/or lesbian parents fare as well in emotional, cognitive, social, and sexual functioning as do children whose parents are heterosexual. Children's optimal development seems to be influenced more by the nature of the relationships and interactions within the family unit than by the particular structural form it takes."

• Regarding gay fathers, "Empirical evidence reveals in contrast that gay fathers have substantial evidence of nurturance and investment in their paternal role and no differences from heterosexual fathers in providing appropriate recreation, encouraging autonomy, or dealing with general problems of parenting," and "Overall, there are more similarities than differences in the parenting styles and attitudes of gay and nongay fathers."

• Regarding lesbian mothers, "few differences have been found in the research from the last 2 decades comparing lesbian and heterosexual mothers’ self-esteem, psychologic adjustment, and attitudes toward child rearing. Lesbian mothers fall within the range of normal psychologic functioning on interviews and psychologic assessments and report scores on standardized measures of self-esteem, anxiety, depression, and parenting stress indistinguishable from those reported by heterosexual mothers," and overall "few differences have been found in the research from the last 2 decades comparing lesbian and heterosexual mothers’ self-esteem, psychologic adjustment, and attitudes toward child rearing. Lesbian mothers fall within the range of normal psychologic functioning on interviews and psychologic assessments and report scores on standardized measures of self-esteem, anxiety, depression, and parenting stress indistinguishable from those reported by heterosexual mothers." Additionally, lesbian mothers "have been shown to be more concerned with providing male role models for their children than are divorced heterosexual mothers."

  • The research identifies several studies which found no no differences in measures of personality, peer group relationship, self esteem, behavior difficulties, academic success, and warmth or quality of family relationships between children of divorced lesbian mothers and children of divorced homosexual mothers: "Several studies comparing children who have a lesbian mother with children who have a heterosexual mother have failed to document any differences between such groups on personality measures, measures of peer group relationships, self-esteem, behavioral difficulties, academic success, or warmth and quality of family relationships."

  • Growing up with lesbian parents results in no disadvantages: "Children born to and raised by lesbian couples also seem to develop normally in every way. Ratings by their mothers and teachers have demonstrated children’s social competence and the prevalence of behavioral difficulties to be comparable with population norms."

• The research finds that having homosexual parents isn't likely to "make" a child gay, as "Similar proportions of young adults who had homosexual parents and those who had heterosexual parents have reported feelings of attraction toward someone of the same sex."

• In summary, the research concludes that "the weight of evidence gathered during several decades using diverse samples and methodologies is persuasive in demonstrating that there is no systematic difference between gay and nongay parents in emotional health, parenting skills, and attitudes toward parenting. No data have pointed to any risk to children as a result of growing up in a family with 1 or more gay parents."

  • It's worth noting that the research also concludes that some family forms may "prove more conducive to healthy psychosexual and emotional development than others," but this is in reference to the observed increase in behavioral problems hen parents report more personal distress and more dysfunctional parent-child interactions. Children are better adjusted when their parents "report greater relationship satisfaction, higher levels of love, and lower interparental conflict regardless of their parents’ sexual orientation."

Research from "What We Know" at Cornell University - "What does the scholarly research say about the well-being of children with gay or lesbian parents?"

• This research looked at 79 different studies regarding the well-being of children with gay or lesbian parents and found that "75 concluded that children of gay or lesbian parents fare no worse than other children." That's roughly 95%. In the four studies which concluded children with same-sex parents faced some disadvantages, research identified that these studies "took their samples from children who endured family break-ups, a cohort known to face added risks"

• The research asserts that "Taken together, this research forms an overwhelming scholarly consensus, based on over three decades of peer-reviewed research, that having a gay or lesbian parent does not harm children."

There is nothing degenerate about being lesbian, gay, bisexual, et cetera

Those who think homosexuality is somehow degenerate or unacceptable behavior often cite the increased risk for HIV and other STDs often associated with homosexuality (this mainly occurs in male/male sexual activity, as the CDC reports that anal sex is the highest-risk sexual behavior. Woman/woman [lesbian] sex is extremely unlikely to result in HIV). However, it is a commonly accepted principal within society that an individual may choose the degree of risk they place themselves at, provided they do not risk harming others, so this is quite a dumb thought. It is people's "risk" to take to engage in certain sexual activities because everybody partaking in it consents to it (if the sexual activity isn't consensual or one of the participants does not disclose that they have an STD, that is not an issue that reflects on homosexuality but the individual - heterosexual people can also engage in nonconsensual sex and lie about not having an STD). There are many things that are perfectly accepted by society which come with some heightened degree of "risk" but none draw same association to immorality or degeneracy that homosexuality does, thus exposing this "risk" viewpoint as just extremely thinly veiled bigotry and/or homophobia.

To see exactly how dumb this viewpoint is let's take a look at another "risky" behavior: driving a motorcycle. Despite making up 3% of all registered vehicles and 0.6% of all vehicle miles traveled in the United States, motorcyclists accounted for 14% of all traffic fatalities and 17% of all occupant fatalities in 2018. Additionally, in 2017, motorcyclists had a fatality rate 28x that of passenger vehicles per mile driven according to the Governors Highway Safety Association and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration reports that in 2017 motorcyclists had a fatality rate 10x that of passenger vehicles per 100,00 registered vehicles and a fatality rate 27x that of passenger vehicles per 100,000 miles traveled. Considering these statistics and the health risk that comes with riding a motorcycle, why is that not considered immoral? Are motorcyclists degenerates? Should motorcyclists be banned from marriage? Should motorcyclists be banned from adoption? Should motorcyclists stop riding motorcycles and attempt to travel via only passenger vehicle? According to the bigoted and homophobic rational established the answers to all these questions should be "yes."

Lets take a look at another HIV issue to show how dumb this bigoted viewpoint is. HIV.gov reports that black people and Hispanics/Latinos are disproportionately affected by HIV compared to other racial and ethnic groups, as does the CDC. The CDC reports that in 2018, black individuals accounted for 13% of the population but 42% (16,002/37,882) of all new HIV cases in the United States. We must then ask the same questions as above: Are black people immoral? Are black people degenerates? Should black people be banned from marrying? Should black people be banned from adoption? Should black people try to stop being black and attempt to change race? According to the bigoted and homophobic rational established the answers to all these questions should be "yes."

Now, obviously motorcyclists and black people are not immoral or degenerate, nor should they be denied the opportunity to marry or adopt - this exercise was to show how dumb and bigoted arguments against homosexuality are that bring up HIV.

Criminalizing homosexuality = more HIV infections (the opposite of the intended but still bigoted purpose)

Interestingly, there is a higher HIV prevalence in countries that criminalize homosexuality, thus the idea that homosexuality should be banned due to HIV would actually lead to higher rates of HIV. Essentially, anti-gay attitudes and laws have been shown to drastically increase HIV transmission rates because they prevent people from seeking medical help out of fear of prosecution and discrimination. A report from the Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS) asserts that "Public health arguments in favour of criminalisation include the fallacy that it curbs sexually transmitted infections, such as HIV." The report identifies that criminalization is not an effective means to treat HIV or AIDS: "Experts have repeatedly concluded that, rather than slowing the spread of HIV, the criminalisation of homosexuality seriously impedes the effectiveness of measures designed to reverse the HIV pandemic. Further, on an individual level criminalisation leads to increased morbidity and risk of death in those infected with HIV due the barriers it creates to accessing treatment."

• The report cites a 2012 The Lancet report which found that the odds of HIV infection in MSM (male/male sex) were "nearly two times higher in the African and Caribbean countries that criminalise homosexual activity than for those living in countries where homosexual behaviour is legal. The odds of being infected with HIV are significantly greater in Caribbean countries that criminalise homosexual sex than in those where such behaviour is legal." Thus, criminalizing homosexuality to end HIV leads to the exact opposite of it's intentions.

  • From The Lancet report itself: "Disparities in the prevalence of HIV infection are greater in African and Caribbean countries that criminalise homosexual activity than in those that do not criminalise such behaviour. "

• In a study done by the UNAIDS found that HIV prevalence from male/male sex occurred in 1/15 (6.6%) encounters in countries where homosexuality is not criminalized and occurred in 1/4 (25%) encounters in countries where homosexuality is criminalized. That means HIV infection from male/male sex is 3.75x more common in countries which criminalize homosexuality (Figure 4).

• Figure 5 below compares HIV prevalence in criminalising countries (top) with neighbouring non-criminalising countries (bottom), with the data coming from a 2015 UNAIDS - The Lancet report. As you can see, the HIV prevalence is higher in the countries which criminalize homosexuality.

  • The authors of the report find that the link between the stigma associated with criminalization and HIV rates is clear, and the solution is clear too, namely decriminalization: "Stigma is often multi-layered, and can strongly interface with other structural drivers, such as gender inequality, poverty, human rights violations, and violence. This is particularly evident for marginalised groups. For both generalised and concentrated HIV epidemics, decriminalisation of sex work and of same-sex relations could avert incident infections through combined effects on violence, police harassment, safer work environments, and HIV transmission pathways."

• The report also identifies the criminalization of homosexuality as a human rights violation: "The criminalisation of consensual samesex intimacy raises numerous human rights issues, such as the rights to privacy, dignity and equality, and the prohibition on cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment, which are discussed in detail in our other briefing notes. In addition, criminalisation and stigmatisation raise specific health-related human rights violations connected with access to HIV testing and treatment."

The authors of a The Lancet study with quite the lengthy title - "The immediate effect of the Same-Sex Marriage Prohibition Act on stigma, discrimination, and engagement on HIV prevention and treatment services in men who have sex with men in Nigeria: Analysis of prospective data from the TRUST cohort" - state that "our findings reinforce the negative HIV-related health effects of anti-homosexuality legislation in young MSM with a high HIV prevalence and incidence. Urgent efforts to characterise safe and trusted HIV prevention and treatment services are needed, particularly in countries with discriminatory legal environments, to minimise the risks of HIV acquisition and transmission and finally achieve an AIDS-free generation."

A report from the The United Nations Development Programme (UNDP)’s Global Commission on HIV and the Law has stated that criminalising homosexuality "both causes and boosts’ the rate of HIV infection among MSM."

• "Criminalisation both causes and boosts those numbers. For example, UNAIDS reports that in the Caribbean countries where homosexuality is criminalised, almost 1 in 4 MSM is infected with HIV. In the absence of such criminal law the prevalence is only 1 in 15 among MSM."

• The report also states that "the decriminalisation of homosexuality is an essential component of a comprehensive public health response to the elevated risk of HIV acquisition and transmission among men who have sex with men."

The United Nations Office of the High Commissioner on Human Rights identifies this as a human rights issue: "Human rights are inextricably linked with the spread and impact of HIV on individuals and communities around the world. A lack of respect for human rights fuels the spread and exacerbates the impact of the disease, while at the same time HIV undermines progress in the realisation of human rights."

Due to the fact that it was written over 2,000 years ago by a variety of people, a text like the Bible can lead to a lot of different interpretations. One of these interpretations suggests that homosexuality is evil or sinful. However, this is really isn't the case. In general, the Bible only ever offers "criticism" of homosexuality because God's will in Genesis was for his people to procreate. Homosexuality was "criticized" not because it is inhertinly evil or sinful but because God wanted his people to get busy doing the kind of sex that resulted in pregnancy and more humans. Genesis 38:9 even makes reference to someone who was struck dead by God for refusing to procreate with his brother's widow. This act was "wicked" from God's perspective. With this in mind let's look at some common passages used to condemn homosexuality.

Common passages used to condemn homosexuality

Leviticus 18:22 - "Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman; that is detestable."

• This verse is not a comment on gay sex in general, rather male-on-male incest since the section begins with God saying "No one is to approach any close relative to have sexual relations. I am the Lord." Later on in this passage God refers to acts like these (which include having sexual relations with your sister, sexual relations with your father's wife, sexual relations with your son's daughter, et cetera) as those which will defile the land: "Do not defile yourselves in any of these ways, because this is how the nations that I am going to drive out before you became defiled". This is interesting verbiage because in Deuteronomy 22:9 it is stated that planting two different seeds in the same vineyard will defile crops and the fruit. So if it is to be believed that people go to Hell for being homosexual then people also go to Hell for planting two seeds in the same vineyard. That seems pretty ridiculous.

  • Also if we are to treat this passage from Leviticus as truth and ignore the context then that also means that Leviticus 19:33 and 34 should be upheld as well, but you won't see many idiots who think homosexuality is a sin also thinking that foreigners should not be mistreated in America.

For more passages and verses which seem to reference homosexuality but actually don't check out this research article from the Biblical Theology Bulletin journal.

Also check out this video from Hunter Avallone which touches on some other verses and passages he explains a whole lot better than I can.

In all honesty I don't know all that much about specific Bible passages and religious text, but I know that if something like homosexuality was to become illegal or banned by the US government on a religious basis or as religion as the prevailing influence on the law/ban that would violate the Constitution, as the Establishment Clause clearly prohibits the government from making any law establishing an official religion and prohibits government actions that unduly favor one religion over another.

There is this dumbass theory that the love between a man and a woman is somehow more special or something than the love between same-sex couples because a man and a woman can create life with their love. This is dumb for several reasons. Firstly, love isn't a required element in the creation of a new life - conception can happen from casual sexual encounters, rape, or even in vitro. Secondly, if the ability to reproduce is an effective measure of a relationship's validity then relationships then what about the love between a man and a woman who don't want to have kids? Or the love between a man and a woman where one of them is infertile? Or both are infertile? What about the love between an elderly man and woman who cannot conceive a child due to their age? Based on this idea, Catholic priests and others who take vows of celibacy are patently immoral, as are the aforementioned relationships, based upon this standard. Furthermore, if sex is for reproducing and that's a great thing or the most valuable human trait then anyone who makes this argument who does not actively try and spread their seed every day is an immoral hypocrite (based on their logic). Additionally, if someone genuinely maintains this attitude, then they should advocate that all children immediately and continuously attempt to procreate the moment that they reach puberty.

Saying sex is only for reproducing is like saying food is only for providing your body with nutrients. People have sex for recreational purposes, similarly people eat food for recreational purposes. People don't eat just because they wish to fill their body with nutrients so they can have energy, people eat because they get a craving for something, because they're interested in trying a new food that looks good, because they're bored, et cetera. Similarly, people don't have sex just because they want to have a child but because they're horny, they're wanting to orgasm and feel good, et cetera. Casual sex has even been observed in non-human animals, so it's natural to seek out sexual pleasure.

Idiots can sometimes peddle the theory that homosexuality is still a mental illness (along with being transgender) because the APA decision to remove it from the DSM was influenced by gay activists and not actual science or research. As usual with the theories idiots bring up, this is hardly the truth. An examination of Ronald Bayer's book "Homosexuality and American Psychiatry: The Politics of Diagnosis" shows that, while gay activism was certainly a driving force for the change, it is not the only one. There had been a growing body of research that the APA kind of ignored and it took the gay activism for them to actually pay attention to it. Charles Socarides and Irving Bieber presented their theories. The research studied by the APA included the work of Seymour Halleck, Dr. Wardell Pomeroy, Alfred Kinsey, Alan Bell, Evelyn Hooker, Charles Silverstein, Sigmund Freud, Ford and Beach, Judd Marmor, Richard Green, and Martin Hoffman, as Bayer's book details. There was also a "changing of the guard" in the APA ranks and younger psychiatrists were more open to this new research. Robert Spitzer, who chaired a subcommittee looking into the issue, “reviewed the characteristics of the various mental disorders and concluded that, with the exception of homosexuality and perhaps some of the other ‘sexual deviations’, they all regularly caused subjective distress or were associated with generalized impairment in social effectiveness of functioning." This comes from his own writing, published in the American Journal of Psychiatry (you can read it for free here). In layman's terms, this dude is saying that homosexuality was not associated with generalized impairment in having to function in society while every other mental disorder was characterized by such a thing. The Nomenclature Committee then agreed that homosexuality was not a mental disorder. Several other APA committees and deliberative bodies then reviewed and accepted their work and recommendations. As a result, in December 1973, APA’s Board of Trustees (BOT) voted to remove homosexuality from the DSM. A vote was held after the APA was petitioned by some people and it was determined that 58% approved of the scientific process the APA had set up to make the determination (it should be noted that those favoring retention of the diagnosis were the ones who petitioned for a vote in the first place).

Thank you to this research and this review which helped with this section.