People who address the sexual behavior of homosexuals at length may be accused of being obsessed with gay sexuality, but the most important difference between homosexuals and heterosexuals is one of sexuality, which needs to be addressed in some detail if one is to understand the nature of homosexuality better.

Those who go through the sexuality section of this site will understand why mainstream homosexual activists deemphasize the sexual behavior of homosexuals and bisexuals.

It is obvious that like some heterosexuals, some homosexuals experience loving and fulfilling sexual relationships. However, when homosexuals celebrate homosexuality, they celebrate what makes them different from heterosexuals, not what makes them similar to heterosexuals, and the differences are the focus of this section. It should be kept in mind that the range of sexual practices addressed here do not characterize all homosexuals or bisexuals, but the variability of sexual behavior/interests and the incidence of bizarre sexual practices is much greater among nonheterosexuals compared to heterosexuals.

Sampling issues

Not all studies cited within this section are based on random, population-based studies, and a note on using data from non-random samples and the citation of some anecdotal evidence is pertinent. For various reasons, random samples are not always feasible and one has to use non-random samples to examine an issue. Alternatively, a random sample may be feasible but has not been obtained so far with respect to examining various issues, and only data from non-random samples are available. If a non-random sample reveals an association, then there exist several possibilities concerning this association: the association is absent in a random sample, the association is present in a random sample but its magnitude has been underestimated, the association is present in a random sample but its magnitude has been overestimated, and the association is present in a random sample and its magnitude has been correctly estimated. How do we know which one of these possibilities applies with just the data at hand?

Several homosexuals and homophiles would dismiss any unflattering correlate of homosexuality -- obtained from non-random samples -- as an artifact of non-random sampling, and will not consider the possibility that the unflattering correlate is not only true but the strength of the correlation has been underestimated by the studies based on non-random sampling. For instance, several 1970s and 1980s studies evaluating the mental health aspects of homosexuality/bisexuality revealed somewhat elevated psychiatric morbidity among homosexuals and bisexuals, but this association was dismissed due to non-random sampling; however, random and population-based surveys from the 1990s onward have revealed homosexuals and bisexuals to be more mentally ill than the 1970s and 1980s studies based on non-random samples.1

To make a reasonable inference with respect to the nature of the associations obtained from non-random samples, one can test for convergence across several studies, test for consistency with other information, examine whether the finds lend themselves to a coherent explanation of the phenomena investigated, and see if the finds lend themselves to a parsimonious explanation. This issue is addressed more fully in the conclusions part of this section.

It is also not inappropriate to use anecdotal evidence to illustrate some arguments or to present it as additional evidence if there is a lot of evidence concerning a specific issue.

The published date of cited studies

The reader will note that the cited studies range from current studies to those that are decades old. Older studies are not necessarily irrelevant. Also, some studies couldn't be newer for various reasons. For instance, a case report of a homosexual ending up in an emergency room with a turnip stuck in his colorectum could be published if it were a novel observation, but once published, future similar incidents will not be publishable in peer-reviewed journals unless the cases were markedly different. Additionally, increased power of the gay lobby in recent years translates to pressure on researchers and journal editors to avoid a truthful and thereby unflattering portrayal of gay sexuality in journals.


The sexuality research of the likes of Cameron, Reisman, Rekers, and Nicolosi et al. is deliberately avoided to avoid guilt by association. At most, I have cited some comments -- not pertaining to sexual behavior -- by Cameron and a paper by him regarding a study he didn't carry out, and also a survey report by Nicolosi on aspects of homosexuality other than sexuality.


  1. ^ Meyer IH. Prejudice, social stress, and mental health in lesbian, gay, and bisexual populations: conceptual issues and research evidence. Psychol Bull 2003;129(5):674-97.