Hubbry Logo
Same-sex relationshipSame-sex relationshipMain
Open search
Same-sex relationship
Community hub
Same-sex relationship
logo
7 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Same-sex relationship
Same-sex relationship
Same-sex relationship
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia
Part of a series on
LGBTQ people
      
Sexual orientation and gender
History
General
Identities
Culture
Rights
Health
Societal attitudes
Issues
Academic fields and discourse
LGBTQ portal

A same-sex relationship, also known as same-gender relationship is a romantic or sexual relationship between people of the same sex or gender.[1][2][3][4][5][6]

Some couples in same-sex relationships have children, both biological or non-biological, such as adoptive or foster children, and are parenting them with their partner.

Same-gender or same-sex marriage refers to the institutionalized recognition of such relationships in the form of a marriage; civil unions exist in some countries where same-sex marriage does not.

Terminology

[edit]

Historically, same-sex relationships, were referred to as homosexual relationships, gay relationships, or Lesbian relationships.[6]

This led to exclusion of other members of the LGBTQ+ community and has been described as a form of bisexual or transgender erasure, erasing populations within the LGBTQ+ community.[6]

The 21-st century has seen a shift in language and culture of sex and gender and the phrase same-gender relationship is commonly used synonymously with same-sex relationship,[7][5][4][6] with either phrase being used to reference relationships between people of the same sex or gender interchangeably.[3]

Moving from same-sex relationship to same-gender relationship has been described as removing restrictions of individuals within the same relationship by sexual orientation to be more expansive as gender identification is a spectrum.[6]

In history

[edit]

The lives of many historical figures, including Socrates, Alexander the Great, Lord Byron, Edward II, Hadrian, Julius Caesar, Michelangelo, Donatello, Leonardo da Vinci, Oscar Wilde, Vita Sackville-West, Alfonsina Storni and Christopher Marlowe are believed to have included love and sexual relationships with people of their own sex. Terms such as gay or bisexual have often been applied to them; some, such as Michel Foucault, regard this as risking the anachronistic introduction of a contemporary construction of sexuality foreign to their times,[8] though others challenge this.[9][10]

Forms

[edit]

Some contemporary studies have found that same-sex relationships can be broadly grouped into at least three categories, though there is no consensus regarding the categories, nor empirical metric which has, or could potentially be applied to strongly validate their existence:[11][12][13]

Association Annotations See also
Egalitarian Features two partners belonging to the same generation and adhering to the same gender role associated with their sex (irrespective of their preferred sexual role(s)). This type of same-sex relationship is prevalent in modern Western societies. Egalitarian same-sex relationships are the principal form present in the Western world. As a byproduct of growing Western cultural dominance, this form is spreading from Western culture to non-Western societies although there are still defined differences between the various cultures.[citation needed] Sexuality and gender identity-based cultures, Gender binary, Same-gender loving
Gender-structured Entails each partner assuming an opposite gender role. One partner is cisgender, while the other is androgynous or transgender, and thus the couple superficially bears some resemblance to a heterosexual (heteronormative) couple. This is exemplified by traditional relations between men in the Middle East, Central and South Asia, non-postmodern Latin America and Southern Europe,[14] as well as Two-Spirit or shamanic gender-changing practices seen in native societies. In the western world, this is best represented by the butch–femme dichotomy. Two-Spirit, Hijra and Travesti
Age-structured Involves partners of different ages, usually one adolescent and the other adult. This type of relationship is exemplified by pederasty in ancient Greece. Shudo, Pederasty, Bacha bazi, Twink

Often, one form of same-sex relationship predominates in a society, although others are likely to co-exist. Historian Rictor Norton has pointed out[15] that in ancient Greece, egalitarian relationships co-existed (albeit less privileged) with the institution of pederasty, and fascination with adolescents can also be found in modern sexuality, both opposite-sex and same-sex. Age and gender-structured same-sex relationships are less common (though they are still significant and coexist with the postmodern egalitarian form in Latin America, where male heterosexuals and "butch" i.e. macho, active/insertive bisexuals and pansexuals can even share a single identity).[16]

Examples in art and literature

[edit]
Further information: Homoeroticism, Lesbian literature, and Gay literature
Young men sipping tea, reading poetry, and having sex
Individual panel from a hand scroll on same-sex themes, paint on Chinese silk; Kinsey Institute, Bloomington, Indiana
Happy couple
A same-sex male couple at Pride in London

The record of same-sex love has been preserved through literature and art.

In Iranian (Persian) societies, homoeroticism was present in the work of such writers as Abu Nuwas and Omar Khayyam. A large corpus of literature, numbering in the hundreds of works, fostered the shudo tradition in Japan, together with a widespread tradition of homoerotic shunga art.[17]

In the Chinese literary tradition, works such as Bian er Zhai and Jin Ping Mei, survived many purges. Today, the Japanese anime subgenre yaoi centers on gay youths. Japan is unusual in that the culture's male homoerotic art has typically been the work of female artists addressing a female audience, mirroring the case of lesbian eroticism in western art.

In the 1990s, a number of American television comedies began to feature themes on same-sex relationships and characters who expressed same-sex attractions. The 1997 coming-out of comedian Ellen DeGeneres on her show Ellen was front-page news in America and brought the show its highest ratings. However, public interest in the show swiftly declined after this, and the show was cancelled after one more season. Immediately afterward, Will & Grace, which ran from 1998 to 2006 on NBC, became the most successful series to date focusing on male-male sexual relationships. Showtime's Queer as Folk, running from 2000 to 2005, was noted for its somewhat frank depiction of gay life, as well as its vivid sex scenes, containing the first simulated explicit sex scene between two men shown on American television.

Playwrights have penned such popular homoerotic works as Tennessee Williams's Cat on a Hot Tin Roof and Tony Kushner's Angels in America. Same-sex relationships have also been a frequent theme in Broadway musicals, such as A Chorus Line and Rent. In 2005, the film Brokeback Mountain was a financial and critical success internationally. Unlike most same-sex couples in film, both the film's lovers were traditionally masculine and married. The movie's success was considered a milestone in the public acceptance of the American gay rights movement. Miranda July's Kajillionaire (2020) is another unusual example, where the same-sex love plot is latent throughout the film and revealed only partially in the final kiss between Old Dolio and Melainie.[18]

Same-sex relationships in video games were first made available as an option to players in the 1998 game Fallout 2.[19] Beginning in the 2000s, this option was increasingly included in leading role-playing game franchises, pioneered among others by the BioWare series Mass Effect and Dragon Age.[20]

[edit]
Part of a series on
LGBTQ rights
The Greek letter "lambda"
Lesbian ∙ Gay ∙ Bisexual ∙ Transgender ∙ Queer
Overview
Aspects
Opposition
Organizations
Politics
Timeline
Related
LGBTQ portal
Main article: LGBTQ rights by country or territory

State protections and prohibitions regarding (romantic or sexual) same-sex couples vary by jurisdiction. In some locations, same-sex couples are extended full marriage rights just as opposite-sex couples, and in other locations they may be extended limited protections or none at all. Policy also varies regarding the adoption of children by same-sex couples.

In their essential psychological respects, these relationships were regarded as equivalent to opposite-sex relationships in a brief amici curiae of the American Psychological Association, California Psychological Association, American Psychiatric Association, National Association of Social Workers, and National Association of Social Workers, California Chapter.[21]

State recognition

[edit]
Further information: Same-sex marriage, Civil union, and Domestic partnership
Two men marrying in Amsterdam within the first month that marriage was opened to same-sex couples in the Netherlands (2001)
A female same-sex couple celebrating the US Supreme Court decision Obergefell v. Hodges, which recognized same-sex marriage nationwide

Government recognition of same-sex marriage is available in 36 countries (Andorra, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Cuba, Denmark, Ecuador, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Iceland, Ireland, Luxembourg, Malta, Mexico, the Netherlands,[nb 1] New Zealand,[nb 2] Norway, Portugal, Slovenia, Spain, South Africa, Sweden, Switzerland, Taiwan, the United Kingdom,[nb 3] the United States,[nb 4] and Uruguay) and several sub-national jurisdictions allow same-sex couples to marry. Bills legalizing same-sex marriage are pending, or have passed at least one legislative house in Liechtenstein and Thailand. Other countries, including several European nations, have enacted laws allowing civil unions or domestic partnerships, designed to give gay couples similar rights as married couples concerning legal issues such as inheritance and immigration.

Same-sex couples can legally marry in all U.S. states and receive both state-level and federal benefits.[22] Also, several states offer civil unions or domestic partnerships, granting all or part of the state-level rights and responsibilities of marriage. Though more than 30 states have constitutional restrictions on marriage, all states must recognize same-sex marriages following the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges. All the laws restricting marriage to one man and one woman are therefore unconstitutional and unenforceable.

Same-sex parenting

[edit]
Main article: Same-sex parenting
Lesbian couple with children

Same-sex parenting is parenting of children of same-sex couples, generally consisting of lesbian, gay or bisexual people, either as biological or non-biological parents. Same-sex male couples face options which include: "foster care, variations of domestic and international adoption, diverse forms of surrogacy (whether "traditional" or gestational), and kinship arrangements, wherein they might coparent with a woman or women with whom they are intimately but not sexually involved."[23] LGBT parents can also include single people who are parenting; to a lesser extent, the term sometimes refers to families with LGBT children.

In the 2000 U.S. census, 33 percent of female same-sex couple households and 22 percent of male same-sex couple households reported at least one child under eighteen living in their home.[24] The 2008 general social survey shows that LGBT parents raising children showed 49% were lesbian and bisexual women and 19% were bisexual or gay men. In the United States from 2007 to 2011 the negative public attitude condemning same sex parenting dropped from 50% to 35%.[25] Some children do not know they have an LGBT parent; coming out issues vary and some parents may never come out to their children.[26][27] LGBT parenting in general, and adoption by LGBT couples may be controversial in some countries. In January 2008, the European Court of Human Rights ruled that same-sex couples have the right to adopt a child.[28][29] In the U.S., LGBT people can legally adopt in all states.;[30] Arkansas became to last state to permit adoption by same-sex couple when the Arkansas Supreme Court unanimously found the measure banning such adoptions unconstitutional in 2011.[31] Though estimates vary, as many as 2 million to 3.7 million U.S. children under age 18 may have a lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender parent, and about 200,000 are being raised by same-sex couples.[32]

There is ample evidence to show that children raised by same-gender parents fare as well as those raised by heterosexual parents. More than 25 years of research have documented that there is no relationship between parents' sexual orientation and any measure of a child's emotional, psychosocial, and behavioral adjustment. This data has demonstrated no risk to children as a result of growing up in a family with one or more gay parents.[33] No research supports the widely held conviction that the gender of parents matters for child well-being.[34] It is well-established that both men and women have the capacity to be good parents, and that having parents of both binary sexes does not enhance adjustment. The methodologies used in the major studies of same-sex parenting meet the standards for research in the field of developmental psychology and psychology generally. They constitute the type of research that members of the respective professions consider reliable.[35] If gay, lesbian, or bisexual parents were inherently less capable than otherwise comparable heterosexual parents, their children would evidence problems regardless of the type of sample. This pattern clearly has not been observed. Given the consistent failures in this research literature to disprove the null hypothesis, the burden of empirical proof is on those who argue that the children of sexual minority parents fare worse than the children of heterosexual parents.[36]

Professor Judith Stacey, of New York University, stated: "Rarely is there as much consensus in any area of social science as in the case of gay parenting, which is why the American Academy of Pediatrics and all of the major professional organizations with expertise in child welfare have issued reports and resolutions in support of gay and lesbian parental rights".[37] These organizations include the American Academy of Pediatrics,[33] the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry,[38] the American Psychiatric Association,[39] the American Psychological Association,[40] the American Psychoanalytic Association,[41] the National Association of Social Workers,[21] the Child Welfare League of America,[42] the North American Council on Adoptable Children,[43] and Canadian Psychological Association (CPA). CPA is concerned that some persons and institutions are misinterpreting the findings of psychological research to support their positions, when their positions are more accurately based on other systems of belief or values.[44]

Same-sex sexuality

[edit]

Types of relationships vary from one couple to another. Some relationships are meant to be temporary, casual, or anonymous sex. Other relationships are more permanent, being in a committed relationship with one another.

On the basis of openness, all romantic relationships are of 2 types: open and closed. Closed relationships are strictly against romantic or sexual activity of partners with anyone else outside the relationships. In an open relationship, all partners remain committed to each other, but allow themselves and their partner to have relationships with others.

On the basis of number of partners, they are of 2 types: monoamorous and polyamorous. A monoamorous relationship is between only two individuals. A polyamorous relationship is among three or more individuals.

Some couples may choose to keep their relationship secret, because of family upbringing, religion, pressure from friends/family, or other reasons.

The names of legal same-sex relationships vary depending on the laws of the land. Same-sex relationships may be legally recognized in the form of marriage, civil unions, domestic partnerships, or registered partnerships.

Sexual orientation

[edit]

Individuals may or may not express their sexual orientation in their behaviors.[45] People in a same-sex relationship may identify as homosexual, bisexual, or even occasionally heterosexual.[46][47]

Equally, not all people with a bisexual or homosexual orientation seek same-sex relationships. According to a 1990 study of The Social Organization of Sexuality, out of 131 women and 108 men who self-reported same-sex attraction, only 43 men (40%) and 42 women (32%) had participated in gay sex.[48] In comparison, a survey by the Family Pride Coalition showed that 50% of gay men had fathered children[49] and 75% of lesbians had children,[50] and even more have had straight sex without having children.

Laws against

[edit]
Worldwide laws regarding same-sex intercourse, unions and expression
Same-sex intercourse illegal. Penalties:
  Death
  Prison; death not enforced
  Death under militias
  Prison, with arrests or detention
  Prison, not enforced1
Same-sex intercourse legal. Recognition of unions:
  Marriage
  Extraterritorial marriage2
  Civil unions
  Limited domestic
  Limited foreign
  Optional certification
  None
  Restriction of expression, not enforced
  Restriction of association with arrests or detention

1No imprisonment in the past three years[timeframe?] or moratorium on law.
2Marriage not available locally. Some jurisdictions may perform other types of partnerships.

A sodomy law defines certain sexual acts as sex crimes. The precise sexual acts meant by the term sodomy are rarely spelled out in the law, but is typically understood by courts to include any sexual act which does not lead to procreation. Furthermore, Sodomy has many synonyms: buggery, crime against nature, unnatural act, deviant sexual intercourse. It also has a range of similar euphemisms.[51] While in theory, this may include heterosexual oral sex, anal sex, masturbation, and bestiality, in practice such laws are primarily enforced against sex between men (particularly anal sex).[52]

In the United States, the Supreme Court invalidated all sodomy laws in Lawrence v. Texas in 2003. 47 out of 50 states had repealed any specifically anti-homosexual-conduct laws at the time.

Some other countries criminalize homosexual acts. In a handful of countries, all of which are Muslim countries, it remains a capital crime. In a highly publicized case, two male teenagers, Mahmoud Asgari and Ayaz Marhoni, were hanged in Iran in 2005 reportedly because they had been caught having sex with each other.[53]

Men who have sex with men (MSM)

[edit]
Main article: Men who have sex with men

Men who have sex with men (MSM) refers to men who engage in sexual activity with other men, regardless of how they identify themselves; many choose not to accept social identities of gay or bisexual.[54] The term was created in the 1990s by epidemiologists in order to study the spread of disease among men who have sex with men, regardless of identity.[55] As a risk category, MSM are not limited to small, self-identified, and visible sub-populations. MSM and gay refer to different things: behaviors and social identities. MSM refers to sexual activities between men, regardless of how they identify whereas gay can include those activities but is more broadly seen as a cultural identity. MSM is often used in medical literature and social research to describe such men as a group for clinical study without considering issues of self-identification.

As with any sexual relationship, people may begin with various forms of foreplay such as fondling, caressing, and kissing, and may or may not experiment with other practices, as they see fit. Sex between males can include manual sex, frot, intercrural sex, oral sex and anal sex.

Women who have sex with women (WSW)

[edit]
Main article: Women who have sex with women

Women who have sex with women (WSW) is a term used to identify women who have sex with other women, but may or may not self-identify as lesbian or bisexual. Sex between two females can include tribadism and frottage, manual sex, oral sex, and the use of sex toys for vaginal, anal, or oral penetration or clitoral stimulation. As with any sexual relationship, people may begin with various forms of foreplay such as fondling, caressing, and kissing, and may or may not experiment with other practices, as they see fit.

Religious perspectives

[edit]
Main article: Religion and homosexuality
According to historian John Boswell, Saints Sergius and Bacchus may have been united in a pact called Adelphopoiesis, or "brother-making".

Religions have had differing views about love and sexual relations between people of the same sex. A large proportion of the Abrahamic sects view sexual relationships outside of a heterosexual marriage, including sex between same-sex partners, negatively, though there are groups within each faith that disagree with orthodox positions and challenge their doctrinal authority. The Bible can also be understood literally, as homosexuality is viewed as sinful and problematic.[56] Opposition to homosexual behavior ranges from quietly discouraging displays and activities to those who explicitly forbid same-sex sexual practices among adherents and actively opposing social acceptance of homosexual relationships. Support of homosexual behavior is reflected in the acceptance of sexually heterodox individuals in all functions of the church, and the sanctification of same-sex unions. Furthermore, liberal Christians may not consider same-sex relations to be sinful.[56] Jews, Mainline Protestants and the religiously unaffiliated tend to be more supportive of gay and lesbian relationships.[57]

Some churches have changed their doctrine to accommodate same-sex relationships. Reform Judaism, the largest branch of Judaism outside Israel has begun to facilitate religious same-sex marriages for adherents in their synagogues. Jewish Theological Seminary, considered to be the flagship institution of Conservative Judaism, decided in March 2007 to begin accepting applicants in same-sex relationships, after scholars who guide the movement lifted the ban on ordaining people in same-sex relationships.[58] In 2005, the United Church of Christ became the largest Christian denomination in the United States to formally endorse same-sex marriage.

On the other hand, the Anglican Communion encountered discord that caused a rift between the African (except Southern Africa) and Asian Anglican churches on the one hand and North American churches on the other when American and Canadian churches openly ordained clergy in same-sex relations and began same-sex unions. Other churches such as the Methodist Church had experienced trials of clergy in same-sex relations who some claimed were a violation of religious principles resulting in mixed verdicts dependent on geography.

Some religious groups have even promoted boycotts of corporations whose policies support same-sex relations. In early 2005, the American Family Association threatened a boycott of Ford products to protest Ford's perceived support of "the homosexual agenda and homosexual marriage".[59][60][61]

See also

[edit]

Notes

[edit]

References

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Same-sex relationship

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
A same-sex relationship is an intimate partnership, typically involving romantic, emotional, and sexual elements, between two individuals of the same biological sex. Such relationships have been documented across and diverse cultures, often as a minority amid predominant opposite-sex pairings, with suggesting biological underpinnings including genetic and prenatal factors influencing same-sex attraction that can lead to relational bonds. Empirical data indicate that same-sex attraction affects approximately 7% of individuals globally who report being primarily drawn to the same , though fewer form enduring cohabiting or marital unions, comprising roughly 1% of households in surveyed Western populations. Legally, same-sex relationships face varied status worldwide: sexual acts between consenting same-sex adults remain criminalized in numerous jurisdictions, while or civil unions are recognized in 38 countries, encompassing about 1.5 billion people or one-fifth of the global population. Public attitudes toward acceptance diverge sharply, with high endorsement in (e.g., 94% in ) contrasting low support in regions like (e.g., 7% in ), reflecting cultural, religious, and institutional influences. Research on relational dynamics reveals similarities to opposite-sex couples in predictors of satisfaction and commitment, such as communication and support, yet highlights differences including elevated dissolution rates—particularly among female same-sex pairs—and health disparities like poorer self-rated outcomes and higher vulnerability to minority stress factors. Notable controversies include debates over causal origins (balancing with environmental roles), child-rearing impacts (with mixed findings on outcomes compared to opposite-sex households), and the effects of , which some studies link to improved stability and satisfaction for participants while others note persistent disparities.

Definitions and Terminology

Historical and Contemporary Terms

In ancient civilizations, same-sex relationships were typically described through terms denoting specific acts or roles rather than fixed identities. In classical Greece, the practice of pederasty—a socially structured bond between an adult male (erastes) and a younger male (eromenos)—was common among elites, emphasizing mentorship and eroticism without implying lifelong orientation. Similarly, in ancient China, male-male bonds were euphemistically called "the passion of the cut sleeve" or "love of the shared peach," reflecting poetic allusions to imperial favorites rather than categorical labels. Roman terminology focused on passive partners, such as pathicus for receptive males or cinaedus for effeminate men engaging in same-sex acts, often carrying connotations of moral deviation. Medieval and largely framed same-sex acts under religious and legal rubrics like "," derived from the biblical city of Sodom (Genesis 19), encompassing any non-procreative intercourse, including male-male penetration, and punishable by death in many jurisdictions until the . The term "buggery," originating in around 1533, similarly denoted anal intercourse between men or with animals, emphasizing criminality over personal disposition. These were act-based descriptors, not orientations, aligning with pre-modern views that did not conceptualize sexuality as an innate trait. The modern category of "" emerged in the mid-19th century amid psychiatric classification efforts. Coined in 1869 by Austro-Hungarian writer Karl-Maria Kertbeny in a pamphlet opposing anti-sodomy laws, it combined Greek homos ("same") with Latin sexualis to denote attraction to the same sex, initially as a neutral alternative to pathologizing terms. By the , it gained traction in medical literature, such as in Richard von Krafft-Ebing's (1886), framing it as a congenital inversion, though this often reinforced stigma by treating it as a disorder until declassification by the in 1973. In the 20th century, community-driven terms supplanted clinical ones. "Gay," originally denoting joy or hedonism from Old French gai (12th century), shifted to signify male homosexuality by the 1920s in urban subcultures, particularly via the 1929 novel The Young and Evil, and became widespread post-1969 Stonewall riots as a positive self-identifier rejecting pathologization. "Lesbian," from the poet Sappho of Lesbos (c. 630–570 BCE), who versified eros toward women, entered English usage by the 19th century but proliferated in the 20th for female same-sex attraction, often paired with "gay" in movements. Slang like "queer" (originally pejorative for odd or counterfeit, 16th century) was reclaimed in the 1980s–1990s for broader nonconformity, though its vagueness invites critique for diluting specificity. Contemporary terminology prioritizes self-identification and inclusivity, with "" and "" favored for their cultural resonance over "homosexual," which retains clinical baggage and is sometimes weaponized by critics to imply abnormality. "Same-sex attraction" (SSA) offers a descriptive, non-identity-focused alternative, used in psychological and religious contexts to denote experiential patterns without endorsing fixed labels. Expansions like LGBTQ+ (adding bisexual, , /questioning, etc., since the ) reflect activist efforts to encompass fluidity, but analyses note increasing terminological variety in academia correlates with identity proliferation rather than empirical shifts in . Mainstream sources, often institutionally aligned with progressive frameworks, advocate avoiding "homosexual" to prevent bias, yet this overlooks its etymological precision for same-sex eroticism across genders. Same-sex relationships entail mutual romantic, emotional, or sexual partnerships between individuals of the same biological sex, distinguished from same-sex attraction, which denotes an individual's internal pattern of erotic, romantic, or emotional interest toward others of the same sex without requiring partnered involvement. This distinction is evident in empirical data showing discordance between attraction and relational behavior; for instance, surveys of sexual minority populations reveal that approximately 10-20% of those reporting same-sex attraction opt for , opposite-sex partnerships, or no romantic involvement, often influenced by factors such as religious convictions, social pressures, or personal agency rather than inherent orientation. Research on relationship formation further underscores that same-sex partnerships involve deliberate interpersonal commitments, including and mutual support, whereas attraction alone may persist unexpressed or unreciprocated. Unlike platonic same-sex friendships, which lack or romantic dimensions and center on companionship or shared interests, same-sex relationships incorporate sexual intimacy and exclusivity norms akin to heterosexual pairings, though with variations in dynamics such as higher reported rates of in some male same-sex couples (up to 50% in certain longitudinal samples). , as a term, broadly encompasses orientation, attraction, or isolated behaviors, but same-sex relationships specifically denote sustained dyadic structures, excluding transient encounters; historical and psychological analyses confirm that not all homosexual acts evolve into relational bonds, with stability metrics showing same-sex unions exhibiting dissolution rates 1.5-2 times higher than different-sex ones in comparable cohorts. Critically, same-sex relationships are defined by biological sex—chromosomal (XX or XY), anatomical, and physiological traits—rather than , a subjective self-perception that may diverge from biology. This demarcation avoids conflation seen in some identity-based frameworks, where pairings mismatched by sex but aligned by gender (e.g., biological male-female with congruent gender identities) are erroneously categorized as same-sex; measurement studies in and emphasize biological criteria for precision in assessing , health disparities, and evolutionary implications, as gender identity does not alter reproductive incompatibility inherent to same-sex pairings. Such distinctions inform causal analyses of relational outcomes, revealing patterns like elevated mental health risks in same-sex relationships potentially tied to biological mismatches rather than purely social factors.

Biological and Psychological Foundations

Etiology of Same-Sex Attraction

The of same-sex attraction remains incompletely understood, with evidence indicating a multifactorial origin involving genetic, prenatal biological, and possibly environmental influences, though no single cause has been identified. Twin studies consistently demonstrate higher concordance rates for same-sex attraction among monozygotic twins compared to dizygotic twins, supporting a partial genetic component; for instance, one review of such studies reports concordance rates of approximately 52% for identical twins versus 22% for fraternal twins. These findings suggest estimates ranging from 30% to 50%, implying that genes account for a substantial but not exhaustive portion of variance in . Genome-wide association studies (GWAS) further corroborate polygenic influences, with a of nearly 500,000 individuals identifying multiple genetic loci associated with same-sex sexual behavior, collectively explaining 8-25% of variation, though no individual variant predicts orientation with high certainty. Prenatal factors, particularly hormonal exposure in utero, have been implicated through phenomena like the fraternal birth order effect, wherein each additional older brother born to the same mother increases the odds of in later-born males by about 33%, independent of rearing environment. This effect, observed across multiple studies, is attributed to a maternal to male-specific proteins (e.g., NLGN4Y), which may progressively alter fetal development toward later-born sons, affecting without direct genetic transmission from siblings. Such evidence points to non-genetic biological mechanisms operating prenatally, potentially interacting with genetic predispositions to shape attraction patterns that emerge early in life and persist stably. Postnatal environmental influences, including family dynamics or social experiences, show weaker and more inconsistent associations with same-sex attraction onset, with some analyses estimating shared family environment contributions at around 25% but emphasizing unique individual experiences over broad socialization. Claims linking childhood trauma or parenting styles causally to sexual orientation lack robust replication in peer-reviewed literature and are often confounded by retrospective reporting biases. Overall, empirical data prioritize innate biological pathways over volitional or learned factors, as concordance does not reach 100% even in genetically identical twins, underscoring complex gene-environment interactions without deterministic outcomes.

Evolutionary Explanations

Evolutionary biologists have long regarded the persistence of same-sex attraction as a , given that individuals exhibiting exclusive typically produce fewer than heterosexual counterparts, thereby reducing their direct fitness. This "Darwinian " suggests that non-reproductive traits should diminish under unless offset by indirect benefits, such as enhanced through kin or other mechanisms. Empirical data from twin studies and genome-wide analyses indicate a heritable component to , with concordance rates for monozygotic twins ranging from 20-50% for male , implying genetic factors interact with environmental influences to maintain prevalence estimates of 2-10% across populations. One prominent hypothesis is , originally proposed by and formalized in models where non-reproducing individuals invest resources in relatives sharing their genes, elevating indirect fitness. Supporting evidence includes a study of Indonesian males, where those with homosexual orientations reported greater willingness to allocate resources to kin, potentially aiding nephews' and nieces' survival. However, multiple tests in Western samples have failed to detect elevated toward relatives among , with one 2001 analysis of 460 participants finding no difference in familial generosity compared to heterosexual controls. Critics argue that kin selection inadequately explains the trait's frequency, as the required avuncular investment would need to substantially exceed reproductive costs, a threshold rarely met in human demographic data. A more empirically robust framework is sexually antagonistic selection, positing that alleles conferring homosexuality in males boost in carriers, thereby persisting despite male fitness costs. Italian pedigree studies from 2008-2015 documented that mothers and maternal aunts of averaged 1.3-1.5 more than norms, with X-linked markers showing linkage to traits. This model aligns with genomic findings of multilocus effects, where variants harmful in one enhance in the other, as seen in Samoan fa'afafine (androphilic males) exhibiting elevated kin-directed aid but lower direct reproduction. Recent critiques, including a 2024 familial analysis, question its universality, noting inconsistent advantages in relatives and potential confounding by cultural factors, though it remains among the best-supported explanations for male . Alternative proposals include the "tipping-point" model, where polygenic thresholds amplify small genetic predispositions into exclusive same-sex attraction, and prosocial hypotheses linking it to formation for group benefits in ancestral environments. analogs, such as same-sex mounting in 8% of rams or bonobos, suggest conserved mechanisms for social bonding rather than , but human-specific remain inconclusive. No single theory resolves the enigma comprehensively, with reviews emphasizing multifactorial origins involving prenatal hormones, , and gene-environment interactions over purely adaptive accounts. Ongoing genomic research, including 2022-2025 studies, underscores that while selection pressures act against extreme exclusivity, balanced polymorphisms may sustain variation.

Prevalence and Measurement

Sexual orientation is typically assessed through three primary dimensions: self-identified sexual identity (e.g., heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual), (degree of emotional or erotic interest in same- or opposite-sex individuals), and (history of sexual activity with same- or opposite-sex partners). These dimensions do not always align, with studies showing higher rates of same-sex attraction or than exclusive homosexual identity, particularly among females where bisexual patterns are more common. Measurement relies on population-based surveys using anonymous self-reports, but challenges include , varying question wording, recall inaccuracies, and cultural stigma that historically suppressed reporting in less accepting contexts. Recent methodological improvements, such as including all three dimensions and offering "don't know" options, aim to reduce underestimation, though concordance between measures remains imperfect. In the United States, self-identified homosexual prevalence (gay or lesbian) stands at approximately 3.4% of adults based on 2024 Gallup polling of over 14,000 respondents, comprising 2.0% gay males and 1.4% lesbian females, within a broader 9.3% LGBTQ+ identification rate dominated by 5.2% bisexual. This marks a rise from 3.5% total LGBTQ+ identification in 2012, with sharper increases among younger generations—22.7% of Gen Z (born 1997-2006)—potentially reflecting reduced stigma or shifts in self-labeling rather than underlying attraction changes. Behaviorally, a 2024 meta-analysis of five national surveys (e.g., General Social Survey, National Health Interview Survey) from 2017-2021 estimated 3.3% of U.S. males reported sex with other males in the past year, 4.7% in the past five years, and 6.2% lifetime, aligning closely with 3.4% gay/bisexual identity and 4.9% same-sex attraction rates among males. Internationally, prevalence varies by cultural acceptance and survey methods, with self-reported same-sex attraction ranging from 1-5% exclusive in more conservative nations to higher inclusive estimates (e.g., 3-7% mostly or only same-sex attracted globally per cross-national polls). For instance, population surveys in and report 2-4% homosexual identity, while behavior measures yield slightly higher figures due to situational or experimental same-sex activity not tied to identity. Disparities persist by , with females more likely to report or bisexual attractions (e.g., 12.8% of sexually active adolescent girls vs. 6.8% boys reporting same-sex contact). Overall estimates remain low and stable for exclusive same-sex orientation when controlling for bisexual inclusivity, underscoring the need for dimension-specific reporting to avoid conflation.

Historical Prevalence

Ancient Civilizations

In ancient , same-sex acts between men occurred but were not central to social norms, with evidence primarily from literary and ritual contexts rather than widespread relationships. The , dating to around 2100–1200 BCE, depicts a deep bond between and that some scholars interpret as homoerotic, involving shared adventures and physical intimacy, though framed as heroic friendship rather than romantic partnership. Priests known as gala served the goddess (Ishtar) and engaged in same-sex practices or adopted feminine roles, including , as part of cult rituals around 2000 BCE, but these were specialized religious roles, not indicative of general societal endorsement of egalitarian same-sex unions. No legal codes, such as the (c. 1750 BCE), explicitly prohibited same-sex acts, suggesting indifference unless tied to status violations. Evidence for same-sex relations in remains sparse and interpretive, with no clear textual prohibitions but also no affirmation of ongoing partnerships. The of Niankhkhnum and Khnumhotep, high officials from the 5th Dynasty (c. 2400 BCE), shows the men in intimate poses typically reserved for spouses, such as nose-touching and hand-holding, sparking debate over whether they were brothers, twins, or lovers; archaeological context leans toward exceptional closeness but lacks definitive proof of sexual relations. A Middle Kingdom tale (c. 2000 BCE) satirically portrays Pepi II sneaking to his general's bed, implying disapproval of such acts among rulers, as passive roles undermined masculinity in Egyptian cosmology where male dominance mirrored divine order. acts appear absent from records, and overall, Egyptian sources prioritize heterosexual procreation for continuity, rendering same-sex bonds marginal. In , particularly from the 5th to 4th centuries BCE, —structured pairings between adult male erastai (lovers, typically 20–30 years old) and adolescent eromenoi (beloveds, aged 12–17)—was socially tolerated among elites as a for , evidenced by vase paintings depicting courtship gifts and symposia scenes. Plato's (c. 385–370 BCE) idealizes male-male eros as superior to heterosexual for philosophical ascent, yet restricts passive roles to youths transitioning to adulthood; adult males adopting the receptive position faced ridicule, as in ' comedies mocking effeminacy. institutionalized military for unit cohesion from the Archaic period (c. 800–500 BCE), but Athenian laws, like Solon's (c. 594 BCE), curbed exploitative forms to prevent , reflecting concerns over corruption rather than . Female same-sex relations, alluded to in Sappho's poetry from (c. 600 BCE), were peripheral and lacked institutional support. Scholarly analyses note modern projections of "gay" identity onto these hierarchical, non-exclusive dynamics distort their pedagogical focus. Roman attitudes from the (509–27 BCE) to emphasized dominance: freeborn adult males could engage in penetrative acts with slaves, prostitutes, or youths without stigma, but the penetrated citizen risked (loss of honor), as regulated by the (c. 149 BCE), which fined passive adult males. Emperors exemplified this, with publicly marrying male freedmen and in 67 CE, and (r. 218–222 CE) seeking surgery for a female role, though and Dio Cassius frame these as excesses signaling tyranny. Elite poetry, like ' Satyricon (c. 60 CE), satirizes same-sex liaisons in banquets, indicating prevalence among the powerful but not proletarians, where economic survival prioritized marriage. Female same-sex acts drew less documentation, often pathologized as unnatural lust. Unlike Greek idealization, Roman sources reflect pragmatic tolerance bounded by (manly vigor), with no evidence of committed adult peer relationships. In ancient China, from the (1046–256 BCE), male same-sex bonds among elites paralleled concubine systems, with emperors like Ai of Han (r. 7–1 BCE) favoring consort , inspiring the "cut-sleeve" idiom from Ai severing his sleeve to avoid waking the sleeping youth. Han records (206 BCE–220 CE) document duanxiu (cut-sleeve) and nanfeng (male wind) traditions in courts and academies, viewed as refined rather than deviant, though texts like the (c. 200 BCE) subordinated them to Confucian filial duty for heirs. predominated, with no exclusive orientations noted; female relations appear in but lack prominence. Ancient India, per Vedic texts (c. 1500–500 BCE) and the (c. 400 BCE–200 CE), acknowledged same-sex acts (kliba for passive males, purushapumsi for ) as third-gender variants, with temple carvings at (c. 950–1050 CE, reflecting earlier traditions) depicting oral and manual acts between men and women-women embraces. Epics like the (c. 400 BCE–400 CE) feature , born female but raised male, in gender-fluid roles, tolerated as karmic exception but not normative relationships; (c. 300 BCE) regulates eunuch prostitutes without outright bans. Pre-colonial sources show pragmatic acceptance tied to , absent later Islamic or colonial impositions, though procreative marriage remained paramount.

Pre-Modern and Colonial Eras

In medieval Europe, same-sex sexual acts were classified as and subject to and secular condemnation, with church penitentials from the 6th to 12th centuries prescribing penances ranging from fasting to depending on the act's perceived severity. Prosecutions were sporadic but documented, particularly in urban centers; for instance, in 14th-century , authorities executed individuals by burning at the stake for , reflecting regional enforcement amid broader theological views equating such acts with grave sin akin to bestiality or . Evidence of same-sex bonds appears in hagiographies and literature, such as the 7th-century veneration of saints as spiritual companions whose devotion some later interpreted as intimate, though contemporary sources emphasized fraternal rather than erotic ties. ![Saints Sergius and Bacchus, 7th century][float-right] In the Islamic world from the 9th to 18th centuries, same-sex acts were legally proscribed under as liwat (for s) or sihaq (for females), punishable by discretionary penalties like flogging or in Hanbali , though enforcement varied and female acts received milder treatment. Literary and poetic traditions, including Abbasid-era works, depicted male same-sex desire openly—often idealizing youthful in courtly settings—without conceptualizing it as an innate orientation, treating it instead as transient passion compatible with heterosexual marriage. Historical records indicate tolerance in elite circles, such as Ottoman sultans' harems including eunuchs and pages, but public scandals led to executions, as in the 16th-century case of a official stoned for liwat. Across pre-modern , same-sex practices persisted without uniform criminalization; in Ming and Qing (1368–1912), imperial records noted male favorites among emperors and officials, framed as or pleasure rather than exclusive orientation, with no empire-wide sodomy statutes until late Qing adoption of Western codes. Japanese sources from the Muromachi to periods (1336–1868) document shudo (pederastic ) among , ritualized in literature like Ihara Saikaku's 1687 tales, where such bonds supplemented family duties without societal rupture. In , Mughal-era (1526–1857) texts reference same-sex desire in poetry and Sufi mysticism, though Islamic legal influences imposed penalties in theory, rarely applied to consensual adult acts. During European colonial expansion from the 15th to 19th centuries, Iberian powers enforced sodomy prohibitions via the , executing hundreds in the —such as 50 cases in 16th-century tribunals—for acts deemed unnatural, overlaying indigenous practices like Aztec xochipilli rituals with Catholic absolutism. British colonies adopted the 1533 Buggery Act, criminalizing anal intercourse with death penalties until 1861, exporting it to and ; in , the 1860 Indian Penal Code's mirrored this, targeting "carnal intercourse against the order of nature" despite pre-colonial Hindu texts like the acknowledging same-sex acts without stigma. African evidence counters claims of imported homophobia alone, as pre-colonial societies like the Azande practiced male warrior bonds with sexual elements, yet colonial codes intensified surveillance and penalties, shifting local tolerances toward prohibition. Overall, pre-modern same-sex interactions rarely formed stable, public relationships akin to modern pairings, often embedded in hierarchical or transient contexts amid pervasive religious and legal risks.

20th Century Shifts

In the early decades of the , same-sex relationships remained heavily stigmatized and criminalized in most Western societies, with sodomy laws enforcing penalties including imprisonment and social ostracism. In the United States, for instance, homosexual acts were prosecutable under state laws derived from British , leading to frequent arrests and enforcement through vice squads targeting gay bars and gatherings. Psychiatric institutions pathologized as a , subjecting individuals to treatments like or institutionalization, reflecting prevailing views that equated same-sex attraction with deviance rather than innate variation. Scientific inquiries began challenging these norms mid-century, notably with Alfred Kinsey's 1948 report Sexual Behavior in the Human Male, which documented that 37% of American men had experienced orgasm from same-sex contact at least once, suggesting greater prevalence than previously acknowledged and questioning rigid binaries of . The 1953 follow-up on females reinforced this by estimating 1-6% of women identified as exclusively homosexual, contributing to a gradual destigmatization by portraying such behaviors as part of a continuum rather than aberration, though Kinsey's sampling methods drew later methodological critiques for potential bias toward more sexually active populations. These findings spurred early advocacy groups like the (founded 1950) and (1955), which sought to educate the public and lobby for tolerance amid ongoing risks of job loss and legal persecution. The 1960s marked accelerating legal reforms, with becoming the first U.S. state to decriminalize private consensual sodomy between adults in 1961, followed by similar steps in the via the 1967 Sexual Offences Act, which legalized acts between men over 21 in private. The of June 28, 1969, in —sparked by a on the —ignited widespread activism, shifting from assimilationist strategies to confrontational demands for rights and visibility, catalyzing annual pride marches and the formation of groups like the . By 1973, the removed from its list of disorders, influenced by empirical protests and research indicating no inherent , a decision ratified by member vote and reflecting emerging data on comparability. Public attitudes showed modest liberalization, with Gallup polls from 1977 indicating 43% of Americans viewed homosexuality as immoral, down from implicit majorities in earlier unspoken consensus, though support for legal protections remained limited at under 30%. The 1980s AIDS epidemic profoundly disrupted progress, with over 600,000 U.S. cases by 1999 disproportionately affecting men who have sex with men (MSM), who comprised 60-70% of diagnoses, exacerbating stigma while galvanizing community responses like ACT UP for faster treatments and policy changes. Despite setbacks, late-century trends included Denmark's 1989 registered partnerships—the first legal recognition of same-sex unions—and Pew data showing U.S. opposition to same-sex marriage at 60% in 2004, yet foreshadowing further shifts amid growing visibility. These developments highlighted causal links between reduced enforcement, scientific reevaluation, and activism in fostering tolerance, though underlying relationship patterns and health disparities persisted empirically unchanged.

Forms and Dynamics

Types of Same-Sex Relationships

Same-sex relationships vary in structure and commitment, ranging from casual sexual encounters to long-term committed partnerships, which may be or consensually non-monogamous. Empirical data from surveys and studies indicate that while some same-sex couples mirror heterosexual norms in pursuing exclusive , others adopt open arrangements permitting extradyadic sexual activity, with notable differences between male-male and female-female pairings. In male-male relationships, consensual non-monogamy is more prevalent than in opposite-sex couples. A 2018 study of 316 gay and bisexual men in relationships found 57.6% reported monogamous arrangements, 22.4% open relationships, and 20% "monogamish" structures allowing limited outside encounters. A 2021 analysis of younger gay men showed 76% identifying as monogamous, 18% monogamish, and 6% fully non-monogamous, suggesting a trend toward exclusivity among newer generations but still higher non-monogamy rates overall compared to heterosexual couples, where such arrangements affect only about 2-5%. Casual sexual encounters outside formal relationships are also common, often facilitated by community norms and apps, contributing to higher partner counts in male same-sex contexts. Female-female relationships tend toward greater monogamy and stability, resembling heterosexual patterns more closely. A 2015 survey of queer women reported 56% in relationships and 15% in ones, with lifetime exposure to consensual at around 56% for and bisexual women but lower current prevalence. couples often emphasize and shared domestic roles, with studies showing higher satisfaction levels than in male-male or heterosexual unions, though breakup rates exceed those of gay male and opposite-sex couples. Both types include cohabiting and legally married partnerships where available, with about 40-60% of and 45-80% of lesbians in committed romantic relationships per 1990s-2000s estimates, updated data confirming similar proportions. Polyamorous structures, involving multiple romantic partners, occur but remain a minority across same-sex categories, estimated at 3-7% in broader North American data. These variations reflect biological sex differences in strategies, with male-male dynamics showing greater tolerance for sexual variety and female-female prioritizing relational security.

Sexual Practices and Behaviors

In male same-sex relationships, anal intercourse—either receptive or insertive—is a primary sexual practice, with studies reporting that 70-80% of in Western countries engage in it within the past six to twelve months. Oral-genital contact and mutual are also widespread, often preceding or accompanying , while practices like rimming (oral-anal contact) occur less frequently but remain notable among subsets of men who have sex with men (MSM). use during varies, with consistent application reported by approximately 47% of MSM in longer-term partnerships for both insertive and receptive roles. In female same-sex relationships, , manual vaginal stimulation (fingering), and mutual predominate as core practices, reflecting a focus on clitoral and vulvar contact rather than penetrative acts. Vaginal penetration using fingers or sex toys is reported but less central than in male-male or heterosexual encounters, with oral-genital stimulation emphasized for achieving , which occurs more frequently among women compared to heterosexual women in some surveys. Comparative data highlight behavioral divergences: MSM exhibit markedly higher rates of anal intercourse than women who have sex with women (WSW), who rarely report it, contributing to differences in transmission risks for certain infections, though WSW engage in diverse non-penetrative acts like (genital rubbing). National surveys indicate that over 50 specific practices, including partnered and toy use, co-occur variably, with bisexual women showing higher prevalence of certain acts like other-masturbation than exclusively women.

Relationship Stability and Patterns

Longitudinal studies indicate that same-sex couples experience higher rates of relationship dissolution compared to opposite-sex couples. For instance, in , registered same-sex partnerships dissolved at rates approximately 50% higher than heterosexual marriages between 1995 and 2008, with female-female unions showing even greater instability. Similar patterns appear in U.S. data, where same-sex cohabiting couples exhibit dissolution risks 1.5 to 2 times higher than different-sex married couples over equivalent periods. These findings persist after controlling for factors like age, , and , suggesting inherent differences in relational dynamics rather than solely socioeconomic confounders. Female same-sex couples demonstrate particularly elevated instability. Peer-reviewed analyses of U.S. adoptive samples over five years found couples at twice the of dissolution compared to male or heterosexual couples during early parenthood. In the , where same-sex marriage was legalized in 2001, marriages accounted for about 70% of same-sex divorces by 2019, with annual dissolution rates roughly three times those of male marriages. Longitudinal predictors include higher baseline conflict and lower commitment levels in female-female pairs, independent of external stressors. male couples, by contrast, show stability closer to heterosexual benchmarks in some cohorts, though overall same-sex rates exceed opposite-sex in population-level data from multiple Western countries. Non-monogamous arrangements are markedly more prevalent in male same-sex relationships than in lesbian or heterosexual ones. Surveys of gay male couples report that 40-50% engage in consensual non-monogamy, often structured as open relationships permitting external sexual partners with mutual agreement. A study of long-term same-sex male couples categorized 52.8% as strictly monogamous, 13% as openly non-monogamous, 14.9% as "monogamish" (occasional exceptions), and 19.3% as discrepant (one partner preferring monogamy). Lesbian couples, however, more closely mirror heterosexual patterns, with non-monogamy rates below 10% and a stronger emphasis on emotional exclusivity. These configurations correlate with satisfaction in some gay male samples but may contribute to instability if agreements erode, as evidenced by higher turnover in non-monogamous pairings. Infidelity rates differ by orientation and gender. Heterosexual couples report lifetime infidelity in 20-25% of relationships, often involving emotional betrayal. Among , self-reported cheating occurs in up to 58% of partnerships, though much occurs within consensual frameworks distinguishing it from heterosexual infidelity. Lesbian infidelity aligns more with heterosexual female rates, around 15-20%, but contributes to the observed higher dissolution due to lower tolerance for breaches. Overall, same-sex relationships exhibit patterns of shorter duration and greater fluidity, with male couples leveraging negotiated to sustain longevity, while female couples face amplified risks from relational intensity and unmet expectations.

Health Outcomes

Physical Health Disparities

Men who have sex with men (MSM) experience significantly elevated rates of sexually transmitted infections (STIs) compared to heterosexual men, primarily attributable to the higher transmissibility of pathogens during receptive anal intercourse and networks of higher partner concurrency. In 2022, gay and bisexual men accounted for 67% of the 37,981 new HIV diagnoses in the United States, despite comprising approximately 2% of the male population, with MSM representing 86% of diagnoses among men overall. Syphilis incidence is likewise disproportionate, with MSM bearing the majority of cases amid rising national trends. These disparities persist even after adjusting for behavioral factors, underscoring the biomechanical risks of anal sex, where HIV transmission probability per act exceeds that of vaginal sex by factors of 10 to 18 for receptive partners. Human papillomavirus (HPV)-related cancers also show marked elevation among MSM. Gay and bisexual men face a higher incidence of anal cancer, linked to persistent HPV infection facilitated by anal tissue vulnerability and lower screening uptake. Elevated smoking prevalence—up to 1.5 times that of heterosexual men—further compounds risks for lung and other tobacco-associated cancers. Substance use patterns exacerbate these outcomes; lesbian, gay, and bisexual populations exhibit greater alcohol and illicit drug use, correlating with increased hepatic and cardiovascular morbidity. Among women who have sex with women (WSW), physical health profiles reveal mixed but notable disparities. Lesbian and bisexual women demonstrate higher rates—often exceeding heterosexual counterparts by 10-20 percentage points—which elevate risks for and related conditions. incidence is heightened due to factors including nulliparity, later age at first birth, and increased alcohol consumption, with meta-analyses indicating 10-15% excess risk. Bisexual women specifically show elevated rates, potentially tied to differential HPV exposure histories or screening barriers. Mortality data from large cohorts, such as the Nurses' Health Study II, indicate bisexual women die 37% sooner and lesbians 20% sooner than heterosexual women, even controlling for some confounders. However, cardiovascular events like heart attacks and appear less prevalent in sexual minority women per some systematic reviews.
Health MetricMSM DisparityWSW DisparitySource
HIV/STI Incidence67% of new U.S. cases (2022)Lower than MSM but elevated
Anal/Breast Cancer RiskElevated (HPV-driven)Elevated (parity, BMI factors)
Obesity PrevalenceComparable or lowerHigher by 10-20% vs. heterosexual women
All-Cause MortalityLimited direct data; STI sequelae contribute20-37% shorter lifespan

Mental Health and Mortality Risks

Individuals in same-sex relationships face elevated risks of mental health disorders compared to those in opposite-sex relationships. Population-based studies consistently report higher prevalence of depression and anxiety among lesbian, gay, and bisexual individuals, with odds ratios indicating nearly double the risk for lesbian/gay persons relative to heterosexuals. Bisexual individuals exhibit even greater disparities, with odds ratios of 2.70 for depression and 2.87 for anxiety versus heterosexuals. These findings derive from a meta-analysis of 26 studies encompassing over 500,000 participants, primarily from Western countries, using diagnostic criteria or validated scales. Suicidality shows pronounced disparities, with individuals having 2.89 times the odds and bisexual individuals 4.81 times the odds compared to heterosexuals. Register-based cohort data from and (1989–2016) on over 3.9 million individuals entering revealed an adjusted incidence rate ratio for of 2.3 (95% CI 1.9–2.8) among those in same-sex marriages versus opposite-sex marriages, controlling for age, sex, calendar period, country, and civil status. The elevated rate persisted across subgroups, including an IRR of 2.7 for females and 2.1 for males in same-sex marriages, though it declined over time from 2.8 (1989–2002) to 1.5 (2003–2016). All-cause mortality risks are higher among certain sexual minority subgroups associated with same-sex relationships. In the cohort of U.S. female nurses (born 1945–1964, followed 1989–2022), women died 20% earlier (adjusted acceleration factor 0.80, 95% CI 0.68–0.95) and bisexual women 37% earlier (0.63, 95% CI 0.51–0.78) than heterosexual women, adjusted for birth cohort. A prospective Swedish survey (2008–2017) of 25,071 adults found bisexual men with a of 1.91 (95% CI 1.10–3.30) and bisexual women 3.18 (95% CI 1.64–6.18) for all-cause mortality versus heterosexuals. Homosexual men and women in this study showed no significant mortality excess. Leading causes in such cohorts include cancer, , respiratory conditions, and .

Comparative Data on MSM and WSW

Men who have sex with men (MSM) exhibit substantially higher rates of sexually transmitted infections (STIs) compared to women who have sex with women (WSW). In the United States, MSM accounted for 67% of estimated new diagnoses in 2022, despite comprising approximately 2-4% of the male population, with a prevalence rate among MSM estimated at 10-15% in many urban cohorts. In contrast, transmission between women is rare, with no well-documented cases of female-to-female sexual transmission reported by the CDC, and WSW prevalence aligning closely with or lower than heterosexual women, often attributable to non-same-sex risk factors like injection drug use. rates among MSM are disproportionately elevated, with CDC data indicating MSM represent over 50% of primary and secondary cases annually, while WSW experience STI rates lower than women who have sex with women and men (WSWM), and comparable to or below general female populations for and .
STI/HIV MetricMSM Rates (U.S., Recent Data)WSW Rates (U.S., Recent Data)
New HIV Infections (% of total)67% (2022)<1% attributable to same-sex contact
Syphilis (Primary/Secondary Cases)>50% of casesLow, similar to hetero women
Chlamydia/Gonorrhea PrevalenceElevated (e.g., gonorrhea 2-3x general male rate)Lower than WSWM, akin to general females
Mental health outcomes show elevations in both groups relative to heterosexual counterparts, though patterns differ. WSW demonstrate higher risks for mortality, with adjusted hazard ratios indicating 2-3 times greater likelihood compared to heterosexual women, linked to factors including substance use and depression. MSM experience comparable or higher rates of anxiety, depression, and suicidality, often compounded by HIV-related stigma, with studies reporting 1.5-3 times increased vulnerability to mood disorders versus heterosexual men. Both MSM and WSW report greater utilization of services, but WSW show stronger associations with heavy drinking, , and illicit use, contributing to broader morbidity. Overall mortality and chronic disease burdens reflect these disparities. MSM face elevated risks from HIV/AIDS complications, anal cancer (due to HPV and receptive anal intercourse), and hepatitis, with life expectancy reductions of 8-20 years in high-prevalence cohorts pre-ART advancements, though modern treatments mitigate some gaps. WSW exhibit higher odds of hepatitis C positivity, obesity-related conditions, and breast cancer disparities, potentially tied to nulliparity and behavioral factors, but lower infectious disease loads. Peer-reviewed analyses underscore that biological differences in sexual practices—such as higher trauma risk in anal versus vaginal sex—drive MSM's infectious risks, while psychosocial stressors affect both, with source data from surveillance systems like CDC's indicating persistent gaps despite interventions.

Family Structures and Parenting

Reproduction and Family Formation

Same-sex couples cannot produce offspring biologically through sexual intercourse between partners, necessitating third-party involvement for reproduction via assisted reproductive technologies (ART), adoption, fostering, or step-parenting arrangements. In the United States, approximately 21% of same-sex parenting households include adopted children, 4% involve fostering, and 17% feature stepchildren, reflecting reliance on non-biological pathways. Overall, same-sex couples adopt at rates four times higher than opposite-sex couples, with over 43% of same-sex households reporting adopted or stepchildren compared to about 10% of opposite-sex households. Female same-sex couples commonly pursue family formation through intrauterine insemination (IUI) or in vitro fertilization (IVF) using donor sperm. Success rates for IUI in lesbian couples average 11% clinical per cycle, comparable to 12% for heterosexual women using the same method. Cumulative pregnancy rates after three IUI cycles reach about 37% for lesbians, slightly higher than 28% for heterosexuals in some datasets, though outcomes depend on factors like age and sperm quality. Reciprocal IVF, where one partner provides eggs and the other carries the , yields success rates akin to standard IVF, ranging from 41-43% for women under 35 to 23-27% for ages 38-40. Male same-sex couples typically rely on gestational involving donor eggs and one or both partners' sperm, followed by . In the , only about 5,000 successful surrogacy journeys occur annually, meeting roughly 8% of estimated demand among prospective parents, with facing elevated costs (often exceeding $100,000 per attempt) and logistical barriers compared to female couples. remains prevalent, comprising a significant share of formation for male couples, though international and private adoptions are limited, averaging 11.1 per 100,000 households in broader data. These methods entail empirical challenges, including restricted access in regions prohibiting commercial (e.g., much of ), high financial burdens, and legal uncertainties around parental , which disproportionately affect male couples seeking biological ties. Among married same-sex couples under 50 in recent surveys, 27% already have children, while over 40% express desire for parenthood, underscoring ongoing demand amid these hurdles.

Empirical Outcomes for Children

Research on the well-being of children raised by same-sex couples reveals significant methodological divides, with smaller, targeted studies often reporting equivalence to outcomes in heterosexual-parented families, while population-representative datasets consistently indicate elevated risks across emotional, educational, and social domains. Early meta-analyses aggregating such smaller studies, typically involving convenience samples from fertility clinics or activist networks, concluded negligible differences in child adjustment, parent-child relationships, and . However, these findings have faced scrutiny for relying on non-random, high-functioning samples that overlook family instability and fail to compare against stable, intact biological families, potentially inflating equivalence due to and short-term assessments. Larger-scale, probability-sampled research challenges the no-differences narrative. The New Family Structures Study (NFSS), surveying over 15,000 U.S. young adults in 2011, found that those who experienced a parent in a same-sex relationship reported markedly worse outcomes on 24 of 40 measures versus peers from intact biological families, including depression rates of 31% (versus 10%), at 2.5 times higher, and doubled unemployment odds. Reanalyses of NFSS data, addressing critiques on family transitions, upheld negative associations with same-sex parenting, attributing persistence to inherent structural differences rather than alone. Similarly, the National of Adolescent to Adult Health (Add Health), tracking over 15,000 participants from adolescence into adulthood, showed adults raised by same-sex parents at age 28 facing a 2.6-fold increased of depression (95% CI 1.4-4.6), alongside higher anxiety and emotional distress, even after adjusting for demographics and family changes. Educational attainment also lags in representative data. Census-linked analyses from 2006 U.S. data indicated children in same-sex households were 35% less likely to graduate high school on time compared to those in intact heterosexual marriages. These patterns extend to behavioral risks, with same-sex-parented youth exhibiting higher odds of , substance use, and early sexual debut, linked causally to absent biological ties and reduced gender-specific modeling—effects amplified by same-sex couples' dissolution rates, which exceed heterosexual marriages by 1.5 to 2 times, prompting frequent residential shifts detrimental to development. Institutional summaries endorsing equivalence, such as those from Cornell's What We Know Project, have been accused of selective inclusion, prioritizing ideologically aligned research while marginalizing representative findings amid academic pressures favoring affirmative outcomes. Dissenting reviews emphasize that biological parentage and complementary gender roles in stable unions yield optimal child results, with same-sex arrangements introducing irreplaceable deficits in and . Ongoing longitudinal tracking underscores these risks persisting into adulthood, underscoring the need for policy to prioritize empirical representation over consensus narratives.

Long-Term Societal Effects on Families

The legalization of has been linked to reductions in opposite-sex rates and in empirical analyses of U.S. states. Douglas Allen's examination of state-level data from 2000–2010 found that jurisdictions permitting experienced a 5.1%–9% decline in opposite-sex rates beyond national trends, correlating with lower as strongly predicts childbearing. This effect persisted when controlling for economic and demographic variables, with states legalizing showing fertility declines nearly twice as large as non-legalizing states during 2005–2010. Such shifts suggest a weakening of 's normative association with procreation, potentially leading to 1.75 million fewer births over 30 years based on differential childbearing rates between married (1.84 children per woman) and unmarried women (0.46). Higher dissolution rates in same-sex unions may further influence societal family stability over time. Longitudinal studies across multiple countries indicate that same-sex couples, particularly , face elevated divorce risks compared to opposite-sex couples—up to 2.2 times higher after adjusting for age, duration, and socioeconomic factors. For instance, Dutch registry data and U.S. surveys show female same-sex couples dissolving at rates exceeding those of male same-sex or heterosexual unions by factors of 1.6–2.0, with 12–28% dissolution in tracked cohorts over 5–12 years. This pattern, observed in early-adopting nations like the (legalized 2001), could normalize higher instability in marital commitments, indirectly eroding incentives for long-term formation across society. Long-term, these dynamics contribute to demographic pressures on systems, as total rates in same-sex marriage pioneers (e.g., , TFR 1.5–1.7 as of 2023) remain below replacement (2.1), amplifying aging populations and reliance on non-biological supports like or assisted . While some reviews assert no adverse effects on different-sex , such conclusions often rely on aggregate trends without isolating causal shifts in marriage- linkages, as Allen's regressions do. Over generations, decoupling marriage from biological complementarity risks diminishing intact, procreative essential for societal renewal, heightening intergenerational care burdens.

Recognition of Relationships and Marriage

Legal recognition of same-sex relationships includes full marriage equality, civil unions, and registered partnerships, granting varying rights such as inheritance, adoption, and spousal benefits. As of October 2025, same-sex marriage is permitted in 38 countries, encompassing territories like and the , with these jurisdictions accounting for about 1.2 billion people or roughly 15% of the global population. The pioneered national legalization on April 1, 2001, through parliamentary legislation effective after royal assent in 2000. Europe leads with 22 countries authorizing same-sex marriage, including early adopters like (2003), (2005), and more recent entries such as (2023) and (2022). In the Americas, 11 sovereign states have legalized it, starting with in 2010 via court ruling followed by legislation, and extending to (nationwide 2022) and (2022 referendum). Asia saw its first with in 2019 through constitutional interpretation, followed by Thailand's parliamentary approval on January 22, 2025, effective later that year as Southeast Asia's inaugural case. enacted marriage equality via Landtag vote, effective January 1, 2025. Africa has one instance in (2006, court-mandated), while Oceania includes (2017) and (2013). Beyond marriage, at least 20 additional countries provide national civil unions or partnerships as of 2025, offering partial equivalence but often excluding joint or full marital terminology. Examples include Italy's civil unions since 2016, Hungary's registered partnerships (2009), and Greece's agreements (2015), which confer limited property and social security rights without access. In , civil unions established in 2010 were upgraded to in 2021, illustrating a progression model observed elsewhere. Some nations, like , recognize foreign same-sex marriages for limited purposes such as residency but not domestic ones. Recognition frequently stems from judicial overrides of traditional statutes, as in the United States' 2015 Supreme Court decision in mandating nationwide validity, or legislative compromises amid public referenda, such as Ireland's 2015 approval by 62% voter majority. However, in over 100 countries, same-sex unions receive no formal acknowledgment, and in approximately 30, same-sex conduct itself incurs penalties up to , curtailing relational rights entirely. These disparities reflect cultural, , and political variances, with expansions concentrated in secularizing Western democracies.

Recent Developments (2020s)

In early 2020, became the final part of the to legalize , with the law taking effect on January 13 after parliamentary approval in to override regional assembly inaction. followed on May 26, 2020, when its ruled that excluding same-sex couples from violated equality principles, prompting legislative compliance. Switzerland voters approved same-sex marriage via referendum on September 26, 2021, with the law entering force on July 1, 2022, extending rights including joint and sperm/egg donation access. In the United States, the , signed by President Biden on December 13, 2022, repealed the Defense of Marriage Act's federal non-recognition of same-sex unions and mandated interstate and federal acknowledgment of such marriages, though it did not alter state-level bans where applicable. legalized same-sex marriage on February 15, 2024, via parliamentary vote, making it the first Orthodox Christian-majority nation to do so, while also permitting joint . Thailand enacted Southeast Asia's first same-sex marriage law on September 24, 2024, effective January 22, 2025, after , granting full marital rights including and medical decision-making. followed with legalization effective throughout 2025. These expansions brought the global total to 38 countries recognizing as of mid-2025, primarily in and the . Countervailing trends persisted elsewhere, with over 60 countries maintaining criminal penalties for same-sex relations as of 2023, including death sentences in at least five (, , , , ) and parts of and . Uganda intensified restrictions via the May 2023 Anti-Homosexuality Act, prescribing death for "aggravated " (e.g., repeated acts or those involving minors) and for consensual same-sex conduct, drawing international condemnation but domestic support for preserving traditional norms. In the U.S., by August 2025, at least nine states introduced or passed measures to block new licenses or challenge , prompting petitions to the for review. Such actions reflect ongoing cultural and political resistance, particularly in religiously conservative regions where same-sex unions lack legal standing and face societal penalties.

Regional Variations and Resistance

Legal recognition of same-sex relationships exhibits stark regional disparities. As of 2025, 38 sovereign states permit , predominantly in , , and select Latin American countries, encompassing approximately 1.5 billion people or 20% of the global . In contrast, 65 countries maintain criminal penalties for consensual same-sex sexual activity, with punishments ranging from imprisonment to death in nations such as , , and . In Europe, 28 of 44 countries recognize same-sex marriage or civil unions, with full marriage equality established in nations like the (2001), (2005), and most recently via civil unions in April 2025. Eastern European states, however, show greater variation; introduced civil partnerships in 2024 amid conservative governance, while restricts adoption rights for same-sex couples under laws passed in 2020. In the Americas, (2005) and the (2015 via ) lead North America, alongside 11 Latin American countries including (2010) and (2021), though pockets of resistance persist in culturally conservative areas like parts of . Asia-Pacific regions demonstrate limited progress amid widespread opposition. legalized in 2019, and followed on January 23, 2025, becoming the first Southeast Asian nation to do so, yet over 20 Asian countries criminalize such acts, including via non-enforcement of de facto bans and Indonesia's regional Sharia-based penalties. exhibits near-uniform resistance, with 30 of 54 countries imposing criminal sanctions; Uganda's 2023 Anti-Homosexuality Act, which mandates or death for "aggravated homosexuality," exemplifies intensified enforcement driven by religious and traditionalist influences. The maintain some of the harshest regimes, where 13 countries authorize the death penalty, rooted in interpretations of Islamic law. Resistance to legal recognition often stems from cultural, religious, and demographic factors, with illiberal governments in regions like and framing advancements as threats to national and norms. In , federal laws since 2013 prohibit "propaganda of non-traditional sexual relations" to minors, upheld by courts in 2022, reflecting broader authoritarian pushback. Public referendums in democracies have yielded mixed results; while approved equality in 2015 with 62% support, opposition in more traditional societies correlates with higher and lower rates, sustaining legal barriers. These patterns underscore causal links between societal values and policy, where empirical data on population attitudes predict slower adoption in conservative-majority areas.

Religious and Ethical Perspectives

Views in Abrahamic Traditions

In , the explicitly prohibits male same-sex intercourse in :22 and 20:13, prescribing it as an abomination punishable by death, a stance upheld in traditional Orthodox interpretations as incompatible with . reinforces this, viewing such acts as violations of natural order and procreation mandates, with no provision for same-sex unions. Orthodox bodies like the affirm opposition to legal recognition of , emphasizing adherence to biblical commandments over contemporary pressures. Christian traditions derive prohibition from both laws against and passages, such as Romans 1:26-27, which describe same-sex relations as contrary to nature, and 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, listing practitioners among those excluded from God's kingdom. Early , including and , condemned such acts as unnatural and demonic influences, a view codified in canonical teachings. The maintains that homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered, calling individuals to while rejecting any approval of behavior or unions. Traditional Protestant confessions, prior to 20th-century shifts in some denominations, unanimously interpreted scripture as barring same-sex conduct, prioritizing fidelity. In , the recounts the destruction of Lot's people for approaching men with desire instead of women (7:80-84, 26:165-166), framing same-sex acts as transgression warranting divine punishment. collections, including Sahih Bukhari and Muslim, prescribe severe penalties like for , classifying it as a major (kabira) disrupting social and familial order. Sunni and Shi'a jurists historically enforce this through , prohibiting same-sex relationships outright, with no doctrinal allowance for or affirmation. Across Abrahamic faiths, these prohibitions trace to shared scriptural motifs of as defilement, evident from Genesis 19's Sodom narrative influencing later codes against non-procreative acts. While reformist movements in each have emerged since the late to reinterpret texts accommodating same-sex relations, orthodox majorities sustain the classical stance, grounded in textual literalism and teleological views of sexuality for .

Perspectives in Other Religions and Philosophies

In , ancient texts such as the describe same-sex acts as occurring in certain communities while deeming them forbidden in others, framing them within a broader taxonomy of sexual behaviors rather than endorsing them as equivalent to heterosexual unions oriented toward procreation. The , a treatise on statecraft attributed to Kautilya around 300 BCE, classifies homosexual intercourse as an offense punishable by fines, emphasizing and societal order over permissive sexuality. While homoerotic themes appear in epic literature and temple iconography from the epic period (c. 500 BCE–200 CE), these depictions often associate same-sex relations with third-gender categories like hijra or divine , not as normative marital ideals, reflecting a cultural acknowledgment without doctrinal affirmation of relational equality. Buddhist scriptures, including the , do not explicitly prohibit same-sex relationships but subordinate all sexual conduct to the third precept against kamesu micchacara (), defined traditionally as acts causing harm, coercion, or disruption of social harmony, such as or exploitation. For monastics, complete applies regardless of orientation, while lay precepts prioritize consensual relations within , implicitly favoring procreative heterosexual bonds to sustain familial duties and karmic continuity. interpretations, drawing from texts, view intense same-sex attachments as potential obstacles to detachment due to their reinforcement of craving (tanha), though no inherent condemnation exists; traditions similarly emphasize ethical intent over orientation, but historical East Asian Buddhist societies, influenced by Confucian norms, exhibited low tolerance for public same-sex expression. Jainism recognizes biological and psychological variations, including a "third sex" (napumsaka) in doctrinal texts like the Tattvartha Sutra (c. 2nd–5th century CE), attributing same-sex inclinations to karmic residues from prior lives manifesting as inverted sexual urges in the current body. However, the faith's core vows of brahmacharya (celibacy or chastity) for ascetics and moderated restraint for laity deem all passionate sexual acts—heterosexual or otherwise—as binding karma that perpetuates rebirth, with same-sex relations viewed as particularly unskillful due to their deviation from reproductive purposes aligned with non-violence (ahimsa) and soul liberation. Empirical surveys of contemporary Jain communities indicate widespread adherence to these principles, prioritizing detachment from sensual attachments over accommodation of non-procreative unions. Sikhism's foundational scripture, the (compiled 1604 CE), contains no direct references to same-sex relationships, focusing instead on grihastha (householder life) as a path of disciplined heterosexual marriage for progeny and ethical living, condemning lust () and promiscuity irrespective of partners. Traditional Sikh interprets marital hymns () as mandating complementary male-female unions to fulfill , with same-sex acts seen as contrary to natural order (hukam) and familial propagation, as evidenced by resolutions from bodies like the rejecting same-sex marriages in 2023. Confucian philosophy, as articulated in the Analects (c. 5th century BCE), prioritizes filial piety (xiao) and lineage continuity through heterosexual marriage, rendering same-sex relationships incompatible with the rectification of names (zhengming) and social hierarchy, though classical texts like those of Confucius himself offer no explicit prohibitions, focusing on relational propriety over erotic specifics. Historical Confucian states, such as imperial , tolerated private same-sex acts ("cut sleeve" anecdotes from records) but subordinated them to dynastic imperatives, with modern surveys showing Confucian-influenced societies exhibiting lower tolerance rates (e.g., 20-30% approval in vs. 70-80% in ) due to enduring emphasis on procreative family structures. Taoism's canonical texts, including the (c. 6th century BCE), adopt an amoral stance toward sexuality, viewing it through yin-yang balance without privileging orientations, but practical traditions like internal alchemy () caution against same-sex unions as disrupting vital energy flow () essential for health and immortality, potentially classifying them as imbalances akin to "deviations from nature." Historical Taoist sects occasionally incorporated homoerotic rituals for esoteric purposes, yet the philosophy's core imperative of harmony with the Tao favors adaptive procreation over fixed non-reproductive pairings, with no doctrinal endorsement of marital equivalence. In ancient Greek philosophy, Plato's early Symposium (c. 385–370 BCE) idealizes eros, including same-sex mentorship (paiderastia), as a ladder to divine contemplation, yet his later Laws condemns non-procreative homosexuality as unnatural, arguing it contravenes natural male-female mating observed in animals and undermines civic virtue. Aristotle, in Nicomachean Ethics (c. 350 BCE), regards homosexual conduct as intrinsically shameful and excessive, prioritizing self-control (sophrosyne) and the telos of human flourishing through balanced, procreative relations within the polis. These views reflect a cultural tolerance for asymmetric pederastic bonds among elites—distinct from egalitarian adult same-sex partnerships—but frame mutual adult homosexuality as failing natural purpose (physis), influencing subsequent Stoic and later Hellenistic critiques of passion-driven acts.

Secular Ethical Debates

In secular ethical discourse, proponents of same-sex relationships often invoke principles of individual autonomy and , arguing that mutual adult relationships free from or harm to third parties should be morally permissible under frameworks like , which prioritizes non-interference in private consensual acts. Libertarian thinkers contend that state regulation of such relationships violates the , as no victim exists in voluntary unions, extending this to opposition against criminalization or denial of legal recognition. Utilitarian perspectives similarly support same-sex relationships by emphasizing net happiness maximization, positing that permitting such unions reduces suffering from stigma or suppression while providing emotional fulfillment comparable to heterosexual ones, without of broader societal detriment outweighing individual benefits. , an early utilitarian, extended this logic to advocate equal marital rights based on utility in promoting pleasure and equality between sexes, influencing modern arguments that legal recognition enhances overall welfare. Critics within , drawing on theory, challenge this by asserting that same-sex acts fail to instantiate essential human goods, such as the procreative and unitive dimensions of sexuality oriented toward and spousal complementarity. Philosopher argues that such conduct is morally disordered, as it involves intentional exclusion of reproductive potential inherent to the sexual act's biological structure, rendering it incapable of fulfilling the basic good of even in non-procreative heterosexual contexts. This view, rooted in Aristotelian-Thomistic reasoning but applied secularly, posits that ethical evaluation must consider acts' teleological purpose, with ancient philosophers like and deeming homosexual acts shameful for subverting natural ends. Some secular opponents further contend that redefining to include same-sex unions undermines its definitional core as a procreative serving state interests in stability and population renewal, potentially eroding incentives for opposite-sex pairings that biologically sustain . These arguments prioritize causal realism in , warning that decoupling from its reproductive could lead to downstream harms like weakened structures, though mainstream academic discourse often marginalizes such critiques amid prevailing acceptance.

Societal Impacts and Controversies

Cultural and Demographic Influences

Cultural attitudes toward same-sex relationships exhibit significant global variation, with acceptance levels strongly correlated to and . In urban environments, individuals report higher and visibility of same-sex relationships compared to rural areas, where stigma and minority stress are more prevalent. facilitates the formation of supportive networks and accelerates policy advancements, contributing to greater self-identification and relationship formation among same-sex attracted individuals. Higher levels further amplify , as evidenced by surveys showing progressive attitudes more common among those with postsecondary . Demographically, same-sex relationships are more prevalent among younger cohorts, with 17% of (born 1997-2012) identifying as LGBT+ across 26 countries in 2024, compared to 11% of . In the United States, LGBTQ+ identification reached 9.3% in 2024, with over 20% among Gen Z adults. Same-sex coupled households constitute approximately 1.7% of U.S. households, with female same-sex couples at 0.9% and male at 0.8%. Racial composition shows individuals comprising 74% of those in same-sex couples, followed by Latino/a at 11% and at 9%. Individuals in same-sex couples average 44.7 years old, younger than the 49.6 average for different-sex couples. Parenting demographics highlight differences, as same-sex couples rely on , fostering, or stepchildren rather than biological . In 2024, 21% of same-sex parenting households included adopted children, compared to 3% for different-sex households; fostering rates were 4% versus under 1%. same-sex households had children in 21% of cases in 2023, versus 6% for same-sex households. These patterns reflect cultural shifts toward family formation via non-biological means, influenced by legal access and societal norms favoring in permissive environments. Global cultural surveys from 2023-2025 indicate persistent divides, with 94% acceptance of in versus 7% in . Support for averaged 69% across 23 countries in 2025, down from 74% in 2021, suggesting potential stabilization or backlash in some regions. In the U.S., 69% supported legal in 2024, with higher endorsement among urban and younger demographics. These attitudes shape relationship prevalence by influencing visibility, migration to accepting areas, and self-reporting rates.

Arguments For and Against Normalization

Proponents of normalization contend that same-sex relationships, when consensual among adults, warrant legal and social parity with opposite-sex relationships under principles of individual liberty and non-discrimination, as serves as a contractual for mutual support rather than solely procreation. This view posits that state restrictions on same-sex unions infringe on personal autonomy without compelling , echoing broader arguments for equal protection in civil rights frameworks. Empirical support includes findings that legal recognition correlates with reduced minority stress and improved psychological well-being among sexual minorities, as evidenced by post-legalization data from jurisdictions like the , where same-sex access was linked to lower rates of disorders. Some suggests comparable or superior outcomes for children raised by same-sex parents in areas like internalizing behaviors and cohesion, drawing from meta-analyses of over 70 studies that no systematic disadvantages relative to opposite-sex parents. Advocates attribute this to selective motivations among same-sex couples, who often pursue or intentionally. However, such studies frequently rely on small, non-representative samples from supportive communities, potentially overlooking instability or long-term effects, as critiqued in methodological reviews highlighting in pre-2015 . Opponents argue from natural law traditions that human sexual faculties are teleologically ordered toward reproduction and complementary union between sexes, rendering same-sex acts intrinsically disordered and incapable of fulfilling marriage's essential goods of procreation and spousal unity. This perspective, articulated by theorists like , maintains that normalization conflates private conduct with public institutions designed to incentivize stable childbearing environments, potentially eroding societal incentives for opposite-sex pairings optimal for offspring. Empirical data on child outcomes challenge equivalence claims, with population-based studies like Mark Regnerus's 2012 analysis of nearly 3,000 U.S. adults revealing that those from same-sex parent households reported significantly higher rates of depression (24% vs. 5% for intact biological families), (28% vs. 8%), and early sexual debut, even after controlling for structure stability. Subsequent vindications, including reanalyses, affirm these disparities, attributing them to inherent challenges like absent opposite-sex and higher relationship volatility in same-sex unions, contrasting with convenience-sampled affirmative studies often funded by groups. Health disparities further inform critiques, as Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) data indicate that men who have sex with men (MSM), comprising about 2-4% of the male population, accounted for 67% of new diagnoses in the U.S. in 2022, alongside elevated risks for , , and other sexually transmitted infections due to behavioral factors like higher partner counts and anal intercourse prevalence. These patterns persist despite interventions, suggesting normalization may inadvertently downplay inherent risks in promoting equivalence to low-risk opposite-sex behaviors.
Outcome CategoryIntact Biological ParentsSame-Sex Parents (Regnerus Data)
Depression5%24%
Unemployed at Age 258%28%
Public Assistance ReceiptLowElevated (specific OR 2.5x)
This table summarizes key disparities from the New Family Structures Study, underscoring arguments that normalization overlooks causal links between family structure and child welfare. Overall, while liberty-based rationales prioritize adult consent, causal realism emphasizes empirical harms to dependents and , questioning whether institutional endorsement aligns with verifiable societal benefits.

Empirical Critiques of Mainstream Narratives

Empirical data indicate that same-sex couples exhibit lower relationship stability compared to opposite-sex couples, particularly among female same-sex partnerships. A study analyzing Dutch registry data found that female same-sex marriages dissolved at rates more than double those of male same-sex marriages and significantly higher than opposite-sex marriages, with dissolution risks elevated due to factors like and lower commitment levels. Similarly, longitudinal analyses of U.S. couples revealed that same-sex cohabitations, especially ones, face heightened dissolution risks, challenging assumptions of parity in durability. These patterns persist even after controlling for selection effects, suggesting inherent differences in dyadic dynamics rather than solely external stressors. Health risks associated with same-sex sexual activity, particularly among men who have sex with men (MSM), substantially exceed those in heterosexual populations. CDC surveillance data from 2023 report that MSM accounted for 68% of primary and secondary cases despite comprising about 2-4% of the male population, with rates among MSM over 40 times higher than among women overall. diagnoses among MSM remain disproportionately high, representing 67% of new cases in 2022, driven by biological factors such as higher transmission efficiency in anal intercourse and behavioral patterns including concurrency. These disparities persist despite interventions, underscoring that mainstream portrayals of equivalent risk minimization may overlook anatomical and epidemiological realities. Mental health outcomes among individuals in same-sex relationships reveal elevated rates of disorders compared to heterosexual counterparts, with peer-reviewed syntheses estimating LGBTQ+ populations experience over twice the lifetime prevalence of conditions like depression and anxiety. A 2025 analysis of U.S. population data confirmed sexual minorities report poorer metrics, including higher suicidality, even after adjusting for socioeconomic factors, pointing to potential intrinsic vulnerabilities rather than purely discriminatory causation. Critiques of "minority stress" models argue that such frameworks, dominant in academia, underemphasize evidence from twin studies and cross-cultural data suggesting partial biological or temperamental contributions to these disparities. Regarding child outcomes, rigorous large-scale studies challenge the mainstream equivalence narrative, revealing disadvantages for children raised by same-sex parents. The 2012 New Family Structures Study, involving over 15,000 adults, found children of same-sex parents reported significantly higher rates of , depression, and in young adulthood compared to those from intact biological families, effects persisting after controls for family instability. A 2015 review critiqued prior affirmative research for methodological flaws, including small non-representative samples and failure to distinguish stable intact families, noting that when stability is accounted for, same-sex parented children show elevated emotional and behavioral risks. Meta-analyses purporting "no differences" often rely on convenience samples biased toward well-adjusted families, ignoring population-level data from sources like the U.S. National of Adolescent to Adult Health, which indicate poorer adjustment metrics. These findings highlight systemic biases in peer-reviewed literature, where ideological pressures have led to selective reporting and replication failures, as evidenced by reanalyses confirming negative effects.

References

  1. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4294225/
  2. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0018506X19304660
  3. https://glreview.org/article/evolutionary-origins-of-homosexuality/
  4. https://www.ipsos.com/sites/default/files/ct/news/documents/2021-06/LGBT%2520Pride%25202021%2520Global%2520Survey%2520Report_3.pdf
  5. https://ourworldindata.org/data-insights/15-billion-people-now-live-in-countries-where-same-sex-marriage-is-legal-but-thats-only-one-in-five-worldwide
  6. https://www.hrc.org/resources/marriage-equality-around-the-world
  7. https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/legal-status-of-same-sex-sexual-acts
  8. https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2020/06/25/global-divide-on-homosexuality-persists/
  9. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7259589/
  10. https://www.apa.org/about/policy/marriage
  11. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9055726/
  12. https://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/press/marriage-equality-press-release/
  13. https://www.psephizo.com/sexuality-2/were-loving-faithful-same-sex-relations-known-in-antiquity/
  14. https://www.plannedparenthoodaction.org/planned-parenthood-florida-action/blog/four-ancient-civilizations-that-would-celebrate-pride-month
  15. https://notchesblog.com/2016/06/09/queer-terminology-lgbtq-histories-and-the-semantics-of-sexuality/
  16. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/homosexuality/
  17. https://www.oed.com/dictionary/homosexual_adj
  18. https://medium.com/%40gvgktang/150-years-ago-the-word-homosexual-was-coined-in-a-secret-correspondence-1803ff9a79bc
  19. https://www.etymonline.com/word/homosexual
  20. https://www.gayly.com/history-word-%25E2%2580%259Cgay%25E2%2580%259D
  21. https://queerkentucky.com/the-origin-of-the-word-gay-in-its-homosexual-context/
  22. https://www.nationalgeographic.com/history/article/from-lgbt-to-lgbtqia-the-evolving-recognition-of-identity
  23. https://glaad.org/reference/terms/
  24. https://health.ucdavis.edu/belonging/community-engagement/community-resources/lgbtq-glossary
  25. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/360225441_Academic_LGBTQ_Terminology_1900-2021_Increasing_Variety_Increasing_Inclusivity
  26. https://www.apa.org/pi/lgbt/resources/language
  27. https://www.apa.org/topics/lgbtq/orientation
  28. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10519-022-10130-x
  29. https://paa2019.populationassociation.org/uploads/190395
  30. https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/meet-catch-and-keep/201710/are-same-sex-or-heterosexual-relationships-more-stable
  31. https://www.apa.org/topics/lgbtq/transgender-people-gender-identity-gender-expression
  32. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK581050/
  33. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13558358.2020.1818541
  34. https://www.psychiatryonline.org/doi/10.1176/appi.pn.2019.10a23
  35. https://www.scholars.northwestern.edu/en/publications/human-sexual-orientation-has-a-heritable-component
  36. https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aat7693
  37. https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2024/04/15/1243861703/sexuality-birth-order-gay-siblings
  38. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5777082/
  39. https://www.embopress.org/doi/10.15252/embr.202255290
  40. https://durham-repository.worktribe.com/OutputFile/1263519
  41. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11106125/
  42. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12180867/
  43. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/bjhs-themes/article/evolution-of-darwinian-sexualities/7754D924656733682771BAC1192B527E
  44. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12500647/
  45. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29797146/
  46. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1090513801000745
  47. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/247233162_Is_male_homosexuality_maintained_via_kin_selection
  48. https://ojs.lib.umanitoba.ca/index.php/pmuser/article/download/619/722/3103
  49. https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0002282
  50. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25635045/
  51. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4382746/
  52. https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/cambridge-handbook-of-evolutionary-perspectives-on-human-behavior/kin-selection-and-the-evolution-of-male-androphilia/18EA02B2E12BBFEC8174F4EF285D7468
  53. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1090513824001259
  54. https://www.hbes.com/the-relatives-of-gay-individuals-do-not-have-more-offspring/
  55. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/psychology/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02955/full
  56. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3935715/
  57. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10508-019-01590-0
  58. https://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/10.2105/AJPH.2017.303917
  59. https://www.jahonline.org/article/S1054-139X%2822%2900646-2/fulltext
  60. https://news.gallup.com/poll/656708/lgbtq-identification-rises.aspx
  61. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11200033/
  62. https://psych.utah.edu/_resources/documents/people/diamond/Sexual%2520Fluidity%2520in%2520Males%2520and%2520Females.pdf
  63. https://www.jstor.org/stable/25766947
  64. https://www.worldhistory.org/article/1790/lgbtq-in-the-ancient-world/
  65. https://bibletalk.tv/homosexuality-in-the-past
  66. https://hyperallergic.com/742038/could-this-be-the-first-recorded-gay-couple-in-history/
  67. https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1t55vx/how_was_homosexuality_in_ancient_egypt_regarded/
  68. http://www.oeaw.ac.at/en/news/queerness-in-ancient-egypt
  69. https://scholarcommons.scu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1062&context=historical-perspectives
  70. https://bigthink.com/the-past/pederasty-homosexuality-ancient-greece/
  71. https://www.historyextra.com/period/ancient-greece/pederasty-homosexuality-ancient-greece-boys-sparta-girls-plato-sappho-consent/
  72. https://egrove.olemiss.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1496&context=hon_thesis
  73. https://www.thoughtco.com/homosexuality-in-ancient-rome-4585065
  74. https://imperiumromanum.pl/en/article/homosexuality-in-ancient-rome/
  75. https://daily.jstor.org/in-han-dynasty-china-bisexuality-was-the-norm/
  76. https://www.prismfl.org/post/homosexuality-in-ancient-china
  77. https://www.chinaresidencies.com/news/263
  78. https://www.indiatoday.in/india/story/10-instances-of-homosexuality-among-lgbts-in-ancient-india-1281446-2018-07-10
  79. https://www.lawctopus.com/academike/history-of-homosexuality-in-india/
  80. https://scholarworks.umt.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1002&context=libstudies_pubs
  81. https://www.the-low-countries.com/article/the-sodom-of-the-north-homosexuals-were-burned-at-the-stake-in-medieval-bruges/
  82. https://alpennia.com/blog/legal-logic-medieval-islamic-law-homosexuality
  83. https://transreads.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/2022-02-10_62054cd61ba3b_BeforeHomosexualityintheArab-IslamicWorld1500-1800byKhaledEl-Rouayhebz-lib.org_.pdf
  84. https://www.fairobserver.com/region/asia_pacific/hidden-histories-homosexuality-asia-77120/
  85. https://www.hrw.org/report/2008/12/17/alien-legacy/origins-sodomy-laws-british-colonialism
  86. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/mar/08/african-homosexuality-colonial-import-myth
  87. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1699&context=honorstheses
  88. https://online.gcc.mass.edu/mod/url/view.php?id=734826&redirect=1
  89. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC1447862/
  90. https://www.ebsco.com/research-starters/social-sciences-and-humanities/kinsey-publishes-sexual-behavior-human-female
  91. https://scholarship.depauw.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1105&context=studentresearch
  92. https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/stonewall-milestones-american-gay-rights-movement/
  93. https://guides.loc.gov/lgbtq-studies/stonewall-era
  94. https://repository.lib.fsu.edu/islandora/object/fsu:204754/datastream/PDF/view
  95. https://news.gallup.com/poll/258065/gallup-first-polled-gay-issues-changed.aspx
  96. https://www.hiv.gov/hiv-basics/overview/history/hiv-and-aids-timeline
  97. https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/fact-sheet/changing-attitudes-on-gay-marriage/
  98. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7978647/
  99. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5830303/
  100. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/26408066.2020.1723769
  101. https://joekort.com/new-study-younger-gay-men-trending-toward-monogamy/
  102. https://www.usatoday.com/story/life/health-wellness/2024/06/20/gay-people-monogamy-polyamory/74152637007/
  103. https://www.verygoodlight.com/2021/08/19/gay-couples-open-relationships/
  104. https://www.autostraddle.com/heres-the-salacious-sex-statistics-on-queer-women-in-non-monogamous-vs-monogamous-relationships-290347/
  105. https://peplau.psych.ucla.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/141/2017/07/Peplau_Fingerhut_2007.pdf
  106. https://thehomoarchy.com/blog/lesbian-relationships-are-the-most-unstable-why
  107. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352250X22001890
  108. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4370347/
  109. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/288569346_Heterosexual_and_homosexual_anal_intercourse_An_international_perspective
  110. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3334840/
  111. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC1744617/
  112. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10298299/
  113. https://www.cdc.gov/std/treatment-guidelines/wsw.htm
  114. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/230803745_Anal_sex_practices_in_heterosexual_and_male_homosexual_populations_A_review_of_population-based_data
  115. https://research.rug.nl/files/198830305/Frederick2021_Article_DebunkingLesbianBedDeathUsingC.pdf
  116. https://ccpr.ucla.edu/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/The-Stability-of-Same-Sex-Cohabitation_-Different-Sex-Cohabitation_-and-Marriage.pdf
  117. https://read.dukeupress.edu/demography/article-abstract/53/4/937/167627
  118. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/2378023119829312
  119. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4460604/
  120. https://freedomforallamericans.org/lesbian-divorce-rate/
  121. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2024-22285-001
  122. https://www.iamclinic.org/blog/considering-open-relationships-p1-thoughts-for-gay-couples-to-consider/
  123. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22906124/
  124. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11398688/
  125. https://www.highrq.com/blog/gay-and-lesbian-vs-heterosexual-relationships
  126. https://www.facebook.com/groups/2462084430481208/posts/24061611303435209/
  127. https://www.cdc.gov/hiv/data-research/facts-stats/index.html
  128. https://www.cdc.gov/hiv/data-research/facts-stats/gay-bisexual-men.html
  129. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4747986/
  130. https://www.cancer.org/cancer/risk-prevention/understanding-cancer-risk/cancer-facts/cancer-facts-for-gay-and-bisexual-men.html
  131. https://www.urmc.rochester.edu/encyclopedia/content?contenttypeid=134&contentid=131
  132. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3288601/
  133. https://bmcpublichealth.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12889-016-3467-1
  134. https://acsjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/cncr.35355
  135. https://cinj.org/lgbtq-community-disproportionately-burdened-cancer-0
  136. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2818061
  137. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38146632/
  138. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/acps.13405
  139. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6929702/
  140. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666535220300318
  141. https://www.hiv.gov/hiv-basics/overview/data-and-trends/statistics
  142. https://www.cdc.gov/std/treatment-guidelines/STI-Guidelines-2021.pdf
  143. https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/rr/rr7004a1.htm
  144. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK573159/
  145. https://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/full/10.2105/AJPH.2014.301974
  146. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4573266/
  147. https://academic.oup.com/edited-volume/34864/chapter/298283988
  148. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4566530/
  149. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352827324000867
  150. https://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/wp-content/uploads/LGBTQ-Parenting-Jul-2024.pdf
  151. https://www.lifelongadoptions.com/lgbt-adoption/lgbt-adoption-statistics
  152. https://www.fertstert.org/article/S0015-0282%2819%2930887-8/fulltext
  153. https://www.cnyfertility.com/iui-success-rates/
  154. https://www.pfcla.com/blog/reciprocal-ivf-success-rates
  155. https://www.cnbc.com/2023/06/23/gay-male-couples-face-more-challenges-higher-costs-to-start-a-family.html
  156. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8274574/
  157. https://www.swlaw.edu/sites/default/files/2023-05/8%2520-%2520Rector.pdf
  158. https://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/press/same-sex-parenting-press-release/
  159. https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=5291&context=facpub
  160. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1569490925000139
  161. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jomf.70027
  162. https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_briefs/RBA2912-1.html
  163. https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=5170&context=facpub
  164. https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/fact-sheet/same-sex-marriage-around-the-world/
  165. https://www.equaldex.com/issue/marriage
  166. https://www.voronoiapp.com/society/Where-Same-Sex-Marriage-is-Legal-in-2025-5009
  167. https://www.equaldex.com/timeline/2020s
  168. https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/8404
  169. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-43822234
  170. https://features.hrw.org/features/features/lgbt_laws/
  171. https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/supreme-court-formally-asked-overturn-landmark-same-sex/story?id=124465302
  172. https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/same-sex-marriage-country-count
  173. https://www.thepinknews.com/2025/07/09/how-many-countries-is-it-illegal-to-be-gay/
  174. https://www.fairplanet.org/story/death-penalty-homosexualty-illegal/
  175. https://www.journalofdemocracy.org/articles/the-global-resistance-to-lgbtiq-rights/
  176. https://ilga.org/news/laws-on-us-2024-lgbti-human-rights/
  177. https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2012/12/11/wide-regional-differences-in-support-for-gay-marriage/
  178. https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/663504/jewish/Judaism-and-Homosexuality-Do-Homosexuals-Fit-into-the-Jewish-Community.htm
  179. https://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/orthodox-judaism-and-lgbtq-issues/
  180. https://www.ou.org/news/orthodox-union-clarifying-statement-with-regard-to-the-respect-for-marriage-act/
  181. https://www.catholic.com/tract/early-teachings-on-homosexuality
  182. https://www.catholic.com/tract/homosexuality
  183. https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20030731_homosexual-unions_en.html
  184. https://www.redeemer.com/redeemer-report/article/the_bible_and_same_sex_relationships_a_review_article
  185. https://www.anic.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/Islams-Clear-Position-on-Homosexuality.pdf
  186. https://www.hrc.org/resources/stances-of-faiths-on-lgbt-issues-islam
  187. https://www.biblestudy.org/question/is-sodomy-permitted-in-bible.html
  188. https://owlcation.com/humanities/hindu-view-on-homosexuality
  189. https://www.oxfordbibliographies.com/abstract/document/obo-9780195399318/obo-9780195399318-0223.xml
  190. https://www.buddhanet.net/homosexu/
  191. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0049089X14001823
  192. https://journals.library.unt.edu/index.php/sujjs/en/article/view/311
  193. https://www.worldreligionnews.com/religion-news/hinduism/jain-buddhist-hindu-and-sikh-perspectives-on-homosexuality/
  194. https://www.reddit.com/r/Jainism/comments/13rn64q/lgbt_community_through_the_lens_of_jainism/
  195. https://www.sikhmissionarysociety.org/sms/smsarticles/advisorypanel/gurmukhsinghsewauk/sikhviewabouthomosexualityandsamesexmarriages/
  196. https://www.sarbat.net/articles/a-statement-on-marriage-equality-from-sarbat
  197. https://www.thediplomat.com/2015/07/confucius-on-gay-marriage/
  198. https://personaltao.com/taoism/questions/taoism-homosexuality/
  199. https://www.the-taoism-for-modern-world.com/what-is-taoisms-position-on-homosexuality-and-sexuality/
  200. https://www.princeton.edu/~anscombe/articles/finnisorientation.pdf
  201. https://www.cato.org/commentary/libertarians-have-long-led-way-marriage
  202. https://fee.org/articles/a-libertarian-perspective-on-the-gay-rights-movement/
  203. https://www.libertarianism.org/publications/essays/gay-rights-libertarian-approach
  204. https://studycorgi.com/gay-marriage-and-ethical-theories/
  205. https://home.sandiego.edu/~baber/research/homosexuality.pdf
  206. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/01440360902765415
  207. https://scholarship.law.nd.edu/law_faculty_scholarship/205/
  208. https://theimaginativeconservative.org/2013/04/non-religious-case-against-same-sex-marriage-michael-bauman.html
  209. https://scholarship.law.nd.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2671&context=law_faculty_scholarship
  210. https://www.frc.org/issuebrief/ten-arguments-from-social-science-against-same-sex-marriage
  211. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13178-025-01154-z
  212. https://ejpr.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1475-6765.12418
  213. https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/11/27/how-people-around-the-world-view-same-sex-marriage/
  214. https://www.ipsos.com/en-us/ipsos-pride-survey-2024-gen-zers-most-likely-identify-lgbt
  215. https://www.census.gov/library/stories/2024/08/same-sex-couples-geographic-variation.html
  216. https://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/visualization/lgbt-stats/?topic=SS
  217. https://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/press/lgbtq-parenting-2024-press-release/
  218. https://www.census.gov/library/stories/2024/11/same-sex-tables-2023.html
  219. https://www.ipsos.com/en/ipsos-pride-survey-2025
  220. https://news.gallup.com/poll/646202/sex-relations-marriage-supported.aspx
  221. https://news.gallup.com/poll/646646/almost-half-world-sees-area-gay-friendly.aspx
  222. https://digitalcommons.law.buffalo.edu/journal_articles/66/
  223. https://www.britannica.com/procon/gay-marriage-debate
  224. https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_briefs/RBA2912-2.html
  225. https://whatweknow.inequality.cornell.edu/topics/lgbt-equality/what-does-the-scholarly-research-say-about-the-wellbeing-of-children-with-gay-or-lesbian-parents/
  226. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10016267/
  227. https://scholarlycommons.law.case.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1572&context=faculty_publications
  228. https://scholarship.law.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1870&context=scholar
  229. https://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2025/07/98359/
  230. https://www.heritage.org/marriage-and-family/report/the-regnerus-study-social-science-new-family-structures-met-intolerance
  231. https://acpeds.org/same-sex-parenting-a-scientific-analysis/
  232. https://cmda.org/article/negative-health-consequences-of-same-sex-sexual-behavior/
  233. https://www.baylorisr.org/wp-content/uploads/Regnerus.pdf
  234. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5095690/
  235. https://www.cdc.gov/sti-statistics/media/pdfs/2025/09/2023_STI_Surveillance_Report_FINAL_508.pdf
  236. https://www.cdc.gov/std/treatment-guidelines/msm.htm
  237. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2829708
  238. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5685247/
  239. https://www.heritage.org/marriage-and-family/report/the-research-same-sex-parenting-no-differences-no-more
  240. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0033294116665594
  241. https://dr.lib.iastate.edu/server/api/core/bitstreams/ef60564d-8711-4ed0-9911-82094e3d49e7/content
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.