“It’s unnatural” is the oldest argument against us. Biology says the claim is untrue, and humanism says it’s irrelevant.

https://www.pexels.com/@connorscottmcmanus

For centuries, one of the favourite arguments against LGBTQIA+ people has been that we are “unnatural”. It has been used to justify bad laws, bad medicine and bad theology, and it still turns up in debates about discrimination and conversion practices. Let’s take it seriously for a moment, because the biology is not on its side.

The Birds and the Bees

In 1999, biologist Bruce Bagemihl published Biological Exuberance, which gathered more than two centuries of zoological research. Reviewers summarised it as documenting same-sex pairing, parenting and play in some 450 species, from whiptail lizards and flamingos to bottlenose dolphins, vampire bats and giraffes.

A word of caution. Biologists usually say “same-sex sexual behaviour” rather than “homosexuality” for animals, because we can’t assume that animals have identities or motives like ours. The behaviour, though, is real and widespread. For decades it was explained away as dominance, aggression or mistaken identity. Bagemihl argued that the explanation was simpler: nature is not always economical. Abundance and variety are part of how living systems work, not mistakes in them.

“Unnatural” is not an argument

Suppose the animals did none of this. It still wouldn’t matter. Here the humanist answer is simpler than the biological one: nature is not a moral authority.

Cancer, malaria and being eaten by sharks are all natural, and nobody thinks they are desirable or moral. Infanticide is widespread among animals, and parasitoid wasp larvae eat living caterpillars from the inside, a habit that troubled Darwin himself.

Antibiotics, on the other hand, are unnatural. So are reading glasses, vaccines, heart surgery and aeroplanes, and so is the screen you are using to read this article. No one refuses chemotherapy because the body didn’t make it. In practice, “natural” gets invoked only when it suits a prejudice that already exists.

What decides how we treat each other is the harm we cause or prevent, and whether people can live honestly and safely. Biology can remove a false premise, but the case for equality never rested on it.

From bad biology to real harm

The “unnatural” claim does more than hurt feelings. It underpins conversion practices, which try to change or suppress someone’s sexuality or gender identity and are based, as Equality Australia puts it, on the lie that LGBTQIA+ people are broken. Queensland passed the first ban in 2020, followed by the ACT and Victoria, and more recently New South Wales and South Australia. Queensland’s 2020 law applied only to health settings, which, advocates note, leaves out the religious settings where most such practices occur. Tasmania released a consultation draft of a Conversion Practices Prohibition Bill this year, and Equality Australia has made a submission on it.

Even if “unnatural” were true, there would be nothing to cure. And it isn’t true.

What nature does show

September is Biodiversity Month in Australia, so it’s a good time to remember what nature can and can’t tell us. It can’t tell us what’s right, but it can show us what’s resilient. Ecosystems tend to be sturdier when they contain many kinds of organisms, behaviours and strategies, and monocultures are fragile. A community that tries to stamp out difference makes itself less resilient, and so does a society.

So the next time someone says we’re against nature, we can agree that nature is wonderfully varied. Then we can ask why they want a world with less of it.

(c) 2026 Rainbow Humanists. All rights hereby returned to the original author. We acknowledge the Wurundjeri people of the Kulin Nation, the Traditional Custodians of the land on which this material was prepared, and pay our respects to Elders past and present.

If you’re not religious, mark ‘No Religion’ on the Census.

Update: The Census was held on 11 August 2026. Read our follow-up, “Counted at Last, But Counted Well?“.

Australia’s 2026 Census will be the first to count sexual orientation and gender, for people aged 16 and over. The sex recorded at birth question also gains an “Another term” option, though the Census does not add a separate topic on variations of sex characteristics. These questions matter because visibility drives policy: governments fund what they can measure, and communities that remain statistically invisible stay politically vulnerable. The census is not a survey of identity for its own sake — it is a national dataset that shapes health planning, anti‑discrimination work, service design and long‑term resource allocation. For LGBTQIA+ people and humanists, accurate reporting is one of the few structural tools we have to correct decades of erasure.

The 2026 Census is a chance for LGBTQ+ Australians to make our presence visible in the national record. For decades, our numbers have been guessed at, minimised or ignored — and non‑religious queer people have been overlooked even within our own networks. This census finally gives us a way to be counted on our own terms. If we want better services, better policy and better recognition, we need to show up in the data. Our invisibility has lasted long enough.

Make your voice count. Ensure that all Australians are fairly represented — and that religious organisations no longer receive special privileges based on inaccurate data.

Eight reasons for LGBTQ+ people to consider marking ‘No Religion’ on the 2026 Census

Visibility in national data — Census data determines who is seen and who remains invisible. If you no longer belong to a religion — or never did — marking “No religion” ensures you are counted accurately rather than absorbed into institutions that do not represent you.

Accurate population estimates — Many Australians tick a religion box out of habit or family tradition, not belief or practice. This inflates religious numbers and distorts the national picture. For LGBTQ+ people who left a faith or were pushed out, marking “No religion” reflects reality rather than history.

Funding and service design — Census affiliation numbers influence government funding for religious organisations, including schools, charities and service providers. When nominal affiliation is overstated, these institutions receive resources and political leverage that do not reflect actual community support — including from LGBTQ+ people they have historically excluded.

Health planning and outcomes — LGBTQ+ health needs are distinct and often unmet. Accurate secular data helps ensure that health planning is based on real demographics, not inflated religious membership that can skew priorities and reinforce institutional influence over public health.

Anti‑discrimination and legal protections — Religious exemptions in anti‑discrimination law allow some institutions to treat LGBTQ+ people differently in employment, schooling and service provision. Large census‑reported religious numbers strengthen political resistance to reform. Accurate secular data helps expose the gap between claimed influence and actual community affiliation.

Regional and rural visibility — LGBTQ+ people outside major cities are often erased twice: once by geography, and again by assumptions about religiosity. Marking “No religion” helps reveal the true diversity of regional Australia and challenges the narrative that rural communities are uniformly religious.

Evidence for advocacy and policy change — Community organisations, human‑rights groups and service providers rely on census data to demonstrate need, challenge misinformation and push for reform. Accurate secular numbers strengthen the case for inclusive policy and weaken arguments based on inflated religious affiliation.

Ending a long history of harm, exclusion and religious privilege — LGBTQ+ Australians — especially those who are non‑religious — have lived with decades of erasure, discrimination and institutional hostility. Religious privilege has shaped who gets counted and whose lives are treated as statistically relevant. It’s time for change.

The Safe Schools debate, controversy over religious-based discrimination, Gay Conversion Therapy, the Marriage Equality postal survey, and the current attacks on trans rights all show how organised religious influence can shape public policy and public sentiment in ways that harm our communities. Many still carry the impact of past trauma and ongoing injustice. Marking “No religion” is a way to correct the record and ensure our communities are finally seen on our own terms.

A note of respect

Many LGBTQ+ Australians are religious and find community, affirmation and belonging within faith traditions. This page is not a universal prescription. It is an explanation of why many LGBTQ+ people — especially those who grew up without religion, have left religion, or were harmed by it — may choose “No religion” in 2026. Speak up. Use your individual voice.

Visit

http://censusnotreligious.org.au

In 2026, mark ‘No Religion’ and make every secular Australian count.

= = =

Category: Equality

Nature’s Rainbow: The Myth of “Unnatural”