This list of gay celebrities starts with the earliest gay historic figures, but you can sort by any column. Which famous men in history are gay? This many people can't be wrong, maybe straight men should explore homosexuality.
Original Research ARTICLE
If you want more lists about famous homosexuals, check out this list of famous gay authors. He has worked with lyricist Bernie Taupin as his songwriter partner since Neil Patrick Harris age 45 Neil Patrick Harris is an American actor, writer, producer, director, comedian, magician, singer, and television host. He is known for playing Barney Stinson in the television comedy series How Kevin Spacey age 59 Kevin Spacey Fowler, better known as Kevin Spacey, is an American actor, film director, writer, producer, and comedian.
He began his career as a stage actor during the s, before being cast Freddie Mercury Dec. As a performer, he was known for his flamboyant stage persona George Michael age 55 Georgios Kyriacos Panayiotou, widely known by his stage name George Michael, is an English singer, songwriter, multi-instrumentalist and record producer.
70 Hottest Gay Male Actors - IMDb
Michael rose to superstardom during the He is best known as a comic but is also known for his eccentric and controversial His blog, PerezHilton. After a troubled childhood and adolescence, during which he was expelled from two schools and spent three months Leonardo da Vinci Dec. He is Boy George age 57 Boy George is a British singer-songwriter, who was part of the English New Romantic movement which emerged in the late s to the early s.
His music is often classified as blue-eyed soul, Jeffrey Dahmer Dec. Diagnosed by psychiatrists as suffering from a borderline personality disorder, Martin began his career at age twelve with the all-boy pop group Menudo. Ten highest ratios of gay male couples, lesbian couples, opposite-sex married couples, and opposite-sex cohabiting couples: Table 3. Ten lowest ratios of gay male couples, lesbian couples, opposite-sex married couples and opposite-sex cohabiting couples: For comparative purposes, we also present in Table 1 descriptive data for ratios for opposite-sex couples.
The average metropolitan area has a ratio value of 1. This means that the average metro area is just about as likely to have an opposite-sex married couple or an opposite-sex cohabiting couple residing there as it would be likely to have a randomly selected couple from a metro household residing there. Of all the metro areas, the Provo—Orem, UT area is the most likely to have an opposite-sex married couple located there, with a ratio value of 1. And the Lewiston—Auburn, ME area is the most likely of all the metro areas to have an opposite-sex cohabiting couple residing there Table 2.
The metro areas with the lowest opposite-sex ratios are the Gainesville, FL metro area with an opposite-sex married couples value of 0. Table 2 reports the 10 highest ratios and Table 3 the 10 lowest ratios for same-sex male and lesbian partnering.
- gay polygamy dating;
- gay pinoy movie - the escort;
- Gay (given name) - Wikipedia;
- gay and bi men dating and hook ups;
- best gay dating site australia;
- Famous Gay Men | List of Gay Male Celebrities in History;
Five metro areas are among the top 10 areas for both the gay male and lesbian ratios. There are also some similarities among the metro areas with respect to the lowest gay male and lesbian ratios Table 3 , but there are not as many metro areas among the 10 with the lowest values as there are among the 10 with the highest values, 3 versus 5.
Breadcrumb Navigation
We now compare the degree to which these four sets of partnering indexes gay males, lesbians, opposite-sex married, and opposite-sex cohabiting vary across the metropolitan areas. Since the means for the four ratios are very different see Table 1 , we should not compare their respective SDs. The CRV is especially useful and preferred over the straightforward SD when one wishes to compare the levels of dispersion of data with different means.
The CRVs for the two same-sex ratios are 0. As one might expect, there is clearly much greater relative variation across the metro areas in both of the same-sex partnering indexes, with the opposite-sex cohabiting index values having the next highest amount of relative variation, and the opposite-sex married index values showing the lowest amount.
Past research on the geographic locations of same-sex partners see, e. In Figure 2 , we present a scatterplot comparing for the metropolitan areas in the prevalence indexes for gay male partners with those for lesbian partners. The diagonal line in the figure is not a regression line, but, rather, a line representing equal gay male and lesbian partnering ratio index values. Observations above the diagonal line refer to areas with higher gay male ratios than lesbian ratios; and vice versa for observations below the line.
Figure 2. Scatterplot comparing ratio index values for gay male couples with ratio index values for lesbian couples: However, we also see in Figure 2 that in most metropolitan areas the prevalence ratios for lesbian partners are higher than those for male partners. That is, most of the metropolitan areas are located below the diagonal line in Figure 2 , meaning that their lesbian ratios are greater than their gay male ratios. To illustrate, we have identified by name the observation for the Ithaca metro area; its lesbian ratio is 2.
Also identified in Figure 2 is the Santa Fe area, with a lesbian ratio of 2. By contrast, the San Francisco metro area has a gay male ratio of 2. We noted above the very high correlation between the gay male ratios and the lesbian ratios; this means that gay and lesbian couples tend to settle in similar metropolitan areas, although not at the same levels.
- Why are there no superstar gay male stand-ups? - NOW Magazine;
- gay men dating younger guys;
- 82 Generic Gay Guy Names And What It Says About His Personality | Thought Catalog;
- List of LGBT slang terms - Wikipedia;
- gay dating apps are all catfishers;
- More From Thought Catalog.
Gay males, thus, appear to have a few favorite metropolitan areas, namely San Francisco, Atlanta, Los Angeles, Miami, Washington, DC, New York, Houston, and the other areas mentioned above where their prevalence ratios surpass those of lesbians. Partnered lesbians, on the other hand, tend to have concentrations that are greater than those of gay males in most of the metropolitan areas, tending not to prefer certain metropolitan areas to the degree they are preferred by gay males. We turn now to the issue of accounting for variation in the indexes of gay male and lesbian partnering.
Among the metropolitan areas, why, for instance, do San Francisco and Miami have the highest gay male partnering indexes, and why do Ithaca and Santa Fe have the highest lesbian ratios see Table 2? Why do Grand Forks and Bismarck have the lowest gay male partnering ratios, and why do Wausau and Provo—Orem have the lowest lesbian ratios see Table 3? What kinds of social and ecological characteristics of the metropolitan areas might be brought to bear to answer these questions? In this section, we draw on sociological human ecology and a literature dealing with gay and lesbian settlement patterns to identify characteristics of metropolitan areas that one could be related to levels of gay male and lesbian concentration; we then propose and test a number of hypotheses in an attempt to address this issue.
There is good reason to expect higher levels of gay and lesbian concentration in areas with larger populations Abrahamson, ; Gates and Ost, ; Walther et al. These expectations are based in part on the notion that the larger the size of the general population, the greater the likelihood for some of the residents to be gay males and lesbians. Also, we have reason to expect that levels of gay male and lesbian concentration should be positively associated with levels of heterosexual cohabitation.
If the social and political climate of a metropolitan area is conducive to heterosexual cohabitation, then one might argue that the same should be the case for homosexual cohabitation Black et al. Metro areas that are more accepting of heterosexual unmarried couples who are living together should be more accepting of gay males and lesbians living together. These so-called more accepting populations will likely be politically and socially more liberal, or less conservative, than populations less accepting of heterosexual cohabitants.
Metro areas with large college populations, e. Thus, metropolitan areas with a high prevalence of unmarried heterosexuals who are cohabiting should have a high prevalence of homosexual cohabitation, and vice versa. We also hypothesize that the median age of the population in the metro area should be associated in a negative manner with levels of gay male and lesbian concentration. Given that much older populations tend to be more conservative than younger populations, we expect that the higher the median age of the population, the lower the level of same-sex partnering Florida, , We also expect that the mode of household occupancy should be associated with the prevalence of same-sex partnering.
Among the metropolitan areas, we hypothesize that the higher the percentage of households that are renter occupied, the higher the prevalence of gay male and lesbian partnering. This hypothesis is based in part on the fact that rental housing tends to be more associated with a more mobile and dynamic, i. Finally, we expect that the higher the percentages of African Americans and Latinos in the populations, the larger the presence of same-sex partnering.
The first two columns of Table 4 present the results of two ordinary least squares OLS multiple regression equations modeling the prevalence of gay male partners and lesbian partners among the metropolitan areas. Table 4. Standardized regression coefficients from four multiple regression equations of same-sex gay male partnering ratios, same-sex lesbian partnering ratios, opposite-sex married partnering ratios, and opposite-sex cohabiting partnering ratios, on six independent variables: We note first that the statistical tolerances of the six independent variables are all acceptable.
In the gay male and lesbian equations, the tolerances range from a low of 0.
NOW Newsletters
The mean tolerance of the six independent variables in the metro area equations is 0. Multicollinearity does not appear to be an issue in any of the equations presented in Table 4. Looking at the standardized regression coefficient results across the metropolitan areas predicting levels of gay male concentration left panel of data of Table 4 , four are signed in the hypothesized direction, and all four of them are statistically significant.
The larger the concentration of renter-occupied housing, and the larger the percentage of Latinos in the metropolitan area, the higher the gay male partnering ratio. Also, the higher the prevalence of unmarried cohabitation and the larger the population size, the higher the gay male partnering ratio. The median age variable, however, is related positively, not negatively as hypothesized, with same-sex male prevalence.
And the percentage Black variable is not signed as hypothesized, and it is also not statistically significant. The renter variable has the largest standardized coefficient; for every one SD increase in the percentage of the metro area population in rental housing, there is a 0. The population size variable has the next strongest effect on the gay male ratio. We next look at the regression results predicting among the metropolitan areas the prevalence of lesbian partnering.
With only one difference from the results for the gay male equation, those for the lesbian equation are the same. The higher the prevalence of unmarried cohabitation and the larger the population size, the higher the lesbian partnering ratio. And the larger the concentration of renter-occupied housing in the metro area, the higher the lesbian partnering ratio. Also, as was the situation in the gay male equation, the renter variable has the strongest relative effect on the lesbian partnering ratio of all six independent variables.
For every one SD increase in the rental housing variable, there is a 0. For comparative purposes, we now turn to analyses of heterosexual partnering among the metropolitan areas, specifically that involving opposite-sex married couples and opposite-sex cohabiting couples. We first ask whether the variability among the metropolitan areas in each of the two homosexual partnering ratios is related to the variability in each of the two heterosexual partnering ratios. One might expect that metro areas with high levels of homosexual partnering either gay male or lesbian should also have high levels of heterosexual cohabitation.
After all, as we noted earlier, if the climate of a metropolitan area is conducive to gay male or lesbian cohabitation, the same should be the case for heterosexual cohabitation.