Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
12/7/2018
SOCI4308
Introduction
Since the 2015 US Supreme Court ruling that legalized same sex marriages, there has been
a growing acceptance of homosexual relations. Leading up to this noteworthy court ruling the
attitudes held by the American people, as well as all across the world, regarding the LGBT
community has been a controversial subject across generations. That being said, there is still an
ongoing discussion within the religious community whether or not homosexuality is a sin and
looked down upon. The viewpoint that the religious community has negative attitudes toward
examine the reasoning behind these notions in order to better understand where they have rooted
from. Furthermore, the purpose of this study is to systematically examine the effects of religiosity
Public opinion research has repeatedly shown that religious persons report more prejudice
Droogenbroeck & Keppens, 2015). This relationship has been studied between many different
denominations and found that in the United States, conservative Protestant’s held the most
negative attitudes towards homosexuals (Roggmans et al., 2015). However, the same pattern that
was found across all denominations was that more religiously involved people tended to have more
reference to unquestionably following an authoritative figure and their beliefs. RWA is also
associated with prejudice that includes homophobic tendencies because it is in related to the
Some researchers even make the argument that acculturation to the US can be a force for
overcoming some anti-homosexual prejudice (Eisenman & Negy, 2016). The point is made
because their results suggest that religion may have a negative affect toward homosexuality.
Russell Eisenman and Charles Negy administered a test on Hispanic college students to measure
their viewpoints on homosexuality and compared them with the participant’s religious beliefs. The
results of this study mention the issue of the US having conflicting views regarding homosexuality
and state that acculturation could also reemphasize the negative viewpoints. They conclude that
religious leaders would need to being awareness to the negative viewpoints and work to have a
The theme across all three articles seems to make the conclusion that people who attend
religious services more frequently and belong to conservative denominations report greater sexual
prejudice towards homosexuals. However, Heather Mak and Jo-Ann Tsang also mention that a
possible inhibitor for sexual prejudice from religious individuals may be a value conflict between
extramarital sexual activity. This is due to the fact that religiousness is related to disapproval of
sexual promiscuity and sexual activity outside of the traditional marriage (Mak & Tsang, 2016).
They conducted a study measuring the prejudice towards sexual promiscuity of those high in
intrinsic religiousness and found that even though there was greater prejudice towards homosexual
promiscuity, there was also negative attitudes towards heterosexual promiscuity. The study results
demonstrated that the participants who reported prejudice against sexually active gay individuals
rather than celibate ones. This finding is consistent with the argument that religious individuals
are prejudice towards those who exhibit any kind of value-violating behavior (Mak & Tsang,
2016).
Literature Review
In the past decade, there have been many research studies published examining the
especially important because in recent years, the United States Supreme Court has been enacting
noteworthy laws in favor of gay rights and protection against religious bias. Following this, the
increasing acceptance of the LGBTQ community in the United States has been well established
community may promote local social norms that justify antigay bias as a religious belief “(Hoffarth
et al., 2018). This is why the question does religiosity influence views of homosexuality, is very
The conversation debating public views on homosexuality can be traced back as early as
the 1960’s. While the liberal’s positive views on homosexuality were increasing, the HIV/AIDS
epidemic was also taking place. Following this, Christian fundamentalists took this time to inject
homophobic fear on the public in the 1980’s (Morales, 2017). Religious beliefs are commonly
used to explain attitudes towards homosexuality in countries with a strong emphasis on self-
expression, like the US (Morales, 2017). Yet, there are other factors that may lead to someone’s
views on homosexual relations, such as the age or generation one belongs to. Participants from the
Morales (2017) study showed that young boys who scored highly religious on a Centrality of
Religion Scale (CRS-10) still showed acceptance toward homosexual relations and favored equal
rights. This view was due mostly to the fact these boys had been exposed to the LGBTQ
community in their high school and they were normalized to it. The participants also stated that
they were aware of older church member’s hostile views towards homosexuals. One boys Mormon
church did not necessarily discriminate homosexuals, but they also did not encourage it. In relation
to gay marriage, his church did not agree gays should have those right but he disagreed and believes
Hoffarth, Hodson & Molnar (2018) conducted eight different studies and all resulted in the
finding that more frequent religious attendance was consistently associated with greater antigay
bias. In this particular study, anti-gay bias included moral opposition to homosexuality, gay
marriage, gay adoption, gays serving in the military, etc. In their study, much of the effect of
religious attendance was reported to be justified by the saying “I love the sinner, but hate the sin”
(Hoffarth et al., 2018). This phrase meaning can be attributed to the fact that the individual does
not agree with homosexuality and believes it is a sin, but will continue to love the homosexual.
Some scholars even make the argument that the type of religion practiced may result in
different views on homosexuals. People who belong to conservative denominations and attend
church regularly are more likely to react negatively to same-sex behavior. Those who belong to
the church are more likely to reject homosexuals and deem them as morally wrong. (Perry &
Whitehead, 2016) In their study, Perry and Whitehead (2016) Evangelicals and black Protestants
are opposed to homosexual practices, while others religious groups such as Jews and non-Christian
religions will be more supportive of gay sex, marriage, and adoption. In contrast, mainline
Protestants and Catholics are supportive of gay marriage and adoption, but not homosexuality
itself. While most religions view homosexuality as an issue of morality, the difference in beliefs
personal lives such as family members. Families with high religious values react more negatively
to discourse of same sex sexual attraction (Zeininger et al., 2017). However, Zeininger, Holtzman
and Kraus (2017) conducted interviews with 14 participants that identify as religious. The results
were overwhelmingly positive with 10 of the participants reporting immediate acceptance of their
family. Five of the individuals even changed their religious beliefs and left the church they
belonged to when they learned of their family member’s homosexuality. A strong factor in this
study was the degree of religion which promotes homosexual religion and the involvement that
Based on the review of literature, the general conclusion is that there tends to be a
relationship among the variables of religiosity and feelings towards homosexuality. As one’s
strength of religion is higher, the lower acceptance they tend to have towards homosexuals. This
review has led to the creation of three hypotheses. The first, greater presence of religiosity
influences views towards homosexual relations. The second is, greater strength of religion
influences views towards homosexual relations. Finally, religious affiliation influences views
Methodology
In order to answer the three proposed hypotheses, I gathered data from the General Social
Survey (GSS) from 2016. The GSS is used to gather data on social change and explain trends and
attitudes in American society that is used for social research (NORC at the University of Chicago).
New data is gathered every 2 years by a personal-interview survey followed by a set of questions.
Besides the U.S. Census, the GSS is the most frequently analyzed source of information in the
social sciences. The GSS aims to make high-quality data easily accessible to scholars, students,
policy makers, and others with minimal cost and waiting (NORC). I used the 2016 dataset because
it is the most updated and recently published. To preform my analysis, I used the SPSS statistical
Dependent Variables
The dependent variable used for this study is “homosex”. The question is stated as, “What
about sexual relations between two adults of the same sex – do you think it is always wrong, almost
always wrong, wrong only sometimes, or not wrong at all?” The response options were (1) Always
wrong, (2) Almost always wrong, (3) Sometimes wrong, and (4) Not wrong at all. The number of
Independent Variables
The independent variables used for this study are “relpersn”, “reliten”, and “relig”. For the
first variable respondents were asked, “To what extent do you consider yourself a religious
person?” Response options were (1) Very religious, (2) Moderate religious, (3) Slight religious,
and (4) Not religious. There were 2833 valid answers for this variable. For the second variable
respondents were asked, “Would you call yourself a strong (PREFERENCE NAMED IN RELIG)
or a not very strong (PREFERENCE NAMED IN RELIG)?” Response options were (1) Strong,
(2) Not very strong, (3) Somewhat Strong, and (4) No religion. There were 2837 valid answers for
this variable. For the third variable respondents were asked, “What is your religious preference?
Is it Protestant, Catholic, Jewish, some other religion, or no religion?” Response options were (1)
Protestant, (2) Catholic, (3) Jewish, (4) None, (5) Other, (6) Buddhism, (7) Hinduism, (8) Other
Eastern, (9) Moslem/Islam, (10) Orthodox-Christian, (11) Christian, (12) Native American, and
(13) Inter-nondenominational. There were 2849 valid answers for this variable. For the purpose of
this analysis, the variable “relig” needed to be recoded to group the religions with the highest
number of answers. I recoded responses (6 thru 13) into (5) Other religion. (1) Protestant, (2)
Once all variables were recoded, I performed univariate and bivariate analyses using SPSS
to answer my three hypotheses. Frequencies were used for univariate analysis. Due to my three
hypotheses independent variables being ordinal, ordinal, nominal and my dependent variable being
ordinal, Chi square is the most appropriate methodology for a bivariate analysis.
Methodology Limitations
There was one limitation associated with this study. Due to the fact I am only using
GSS2016 data and not including any other years, it is possible that I may have missed some data.
Because I chose not to recode for variables “homosex”, “relpersn”, and “reliten”, higher numbers
will read as less religious. Reverse recoding may have been necessary, but in this case further
analysis could affect gamma for directional results. However, despite these limitations I will still
Results
Univariate Analysis
Frequencies were used to get an understanding of the variables used for analysis.
JEWISH 1.8% 51
Chi-Square analysis was used to further analyze whether religiosity, strength of religiosity,
CHI- P- GAMMA/LAMBDA
SQUARE VALUE
Table 2 reveals that there is statistically significant difference (p=.000) between religiosity,
strength of religiosity, and religious affiliation when relating their views on homosexual relations.
All three hypotheses have positive gamma results which reveals that the less religious that a person
identifies, the more accepting they are of homosexual relations. For the one nominal variable of
religious affiliation, lambda is reported .097. This indicates an association between religious
affiliation and views toward homosexual relations. There is a 9.7% reduction in error predicting
Conclusion
This report has examined the relationship between religiosity and views toward
homosexual relations. The existing literature has discussed the relationship between these
variables and shows it is important to continue studying this topic in the future, given the current
social climate of the United States. Using the GSS 2016, I investigated three research hypotheses:
strength of religion influences views towards homosexual relations, and 3) Religious affiliation
The results indicate that the less religious respondents are, the more accepting they are
towards homosexual relations. It also indicates that the respondents who reported most religious
had the most unfavorable views toward homosexual relations. This demonstrated that identifying
as religious as well as the strength of religiosity has an influence on views of homosexual relations.
In regards to religious affiliation, there was an association between having no religion and viewing
homosexual relations as not wrong at all. Across protestant and catholic denominations, the
majority believed that homosexual relations were always wrong. However, there was a weak
After concluding this analysis, I have discovered the importance of studying the
relationship between religiosity and homosexual relations. I was surprised by my findings and
although there were associations between the variables, it was not as strong as I had initially
predicted they would be. As the United States continues to grow and diversify, it will be very
interesting to observe how future research will continue to study these changes.
References
Eisenman, Russell and Charles Negy. 2016. “Prejudice Against Homosexuals: The Effects of
Ethics25(2):16–19.
Hoffarth, Mark Romeo, Gordon Hodson, and Danielle S. Molnar. 2018. “When and Why Is
Religious Attendance Associated with Antigay Bias and Gay Rights Opposition? A
Psychology115(3):526–63.
Mak, Heather K. and Jo-Ann Tsang. 2008. “Separating the ‘Sinner’ from the ‘Sin’: Religious
Morales, Luis Emilio. 2017. “The Impact of Gay Friendly Cultures on Religious Expression: a
Perry, Samuel L. and Andrew L. Whitehead. 2016. “Religion and Public Opinion Toward Same-
Sex Relations, Marriage, and Adoption: Does the Type of Practice Matter?” Journal for
Roggemans, Lilith, Bram Spruyt, Filip Van Droogenbroeck, and Gil Keppens. 2015. “Religion
and Negative Attitudes towards Homosexuals: An Analysis of Urban Young People and
Research55(2):297–317.
Zeininger, Katherine, Mellisa Holtzman, and Rachel Kraus. 2017. “The Reciprocal Relationship
Appendix
Frequencies
Statistics
HOMOSEXUAL SEX RELATIONS
N Valid 1806
Missing 1061
Median 4.00
Mode 4
Range 3
Statistics
R CONSIDER SELF A
RELIGIOUS PERSON
N Valid 2833
Missing 34
Median 2.00
Mode 2
Range 3
Statistics
STRENGTH OF AFFILIATION
N Valid 2837
Missing 30
Median 2.00
Mode 1
Range 3
STRENGTH OF AFFILIATION
Frequency Valid Percent
Valid STRONG 1048 36.9
NOT VERY STRONG 1015 35.8
SOMEWHAT STRONG 155 5.5
NO RELIGION 619 21.8
Total 2837 100.0
Missing IAP 3
DK 4
NA 23
Total 30
Total 2867
Statistics
RS RELIGIOUS PREFERENCE
N Valid 2849
Missing 18
Mode 1
RS RELIGIOUS PREFERENCE
Frequency Valid Percent
Valid PROTESTANT 1371 48.1
CATHOLIC 649 22.8
JEWISH 51 1.8
NONE 619 21.7
OTHER 159 5.6
Total 2849 100.0
Missing DK 3
NA 15
Total 18
Total 2867
Crosstabs
Count
R CONSIDER SELF A
RELIGIOUS PERSON
NOT RELIGIOUS Total
HOMOSEXUAL SEX RELATIONS ALWAYS WRONG 55 689
ALMST ALWAYS WRG 8 65
SOMETIMES WRONG 18 100
NOT WRONG AT ALL 312 934
Total 393 1788
Chi-Square Tests
Asymptotic
Significance (2-
Value df sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 319.128a 9 .000
Likelihood Ratio 331.608 9 .000
Linear-by-Linear Association 302.806 1 .000
N of Valid Cases 1788
a. 0 cells (0.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected
count is 11.16.
Directional Measures
Asymptotic
Value Standard Errora
Nominal by Nominal Lambda Symmetric .105 .022
HOMOSEXUAL SEX .208 .031
RELATIONS Dependent
R CONSIDER SELF A .024 .022
RELIGIOUS PERSON
Dependent
Goodman and Kruskal tau HOMOSEXUAL SEX .134 .013
RELATIONS Dependent
R CONSIDER SELF A .053 .006
RELIGIOUS PERSON
Dependent
Symmetric Measures
Asymptotic Approximate
Value Standard Errora Approximate Tb Significance
Ordinal by Ordinal Gamma .553 .025 20.134 .000
N of Valid Cases 1788
Crosstab
Count
STRENGTH OF AFFILIATION
NOT VERY SOMEWHAT
STRONG STRONG STRONG
HOMOSEXUAL SEX ALWAYS WRONG 431 176 36
RELATIONS ALMST ALWAYS WRG 27 19 6
SOMETIMES WRONG 33 42 5
NOT WRONG AT ALL 193 394 45
Total 684 631 92
Count
STRENGTH OF
AFFILIATION
NO RELIGION Total
HOMOSEXUAL SEX RELATIONS ALWAYS WRONG 51 694
ALMST ALWAYS WRG 12 64
SOMETIMES WRONG 18 98
NOT WRONG AT ALL 302 934
Total 383 1790
Chi-Square Tests
Asymptotic
Significance (2-
Value df sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 333.179a 9 .000
Likelihood Ratio 347.462 9 .000
Linear-by-Linear Association 255.686 1 .000
N of Valid Cases 1790
a. 1 cells (6.3%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected
count is 3.29.
Directional Measures
Asymptotic
Value Standard Errora
Nominal by Nominal Lambda Symmetric .228 .019
HOMOSEXUAL SEX .278 .025
RELATIONS Dependent
STRENGTH OF .190 .021
AFFILIATION Dependent
Goodman and Kruskal tau HOMOSEXUAL SEX .142 .014
RELATIONS Dependent
STRENGTH OF .087 .009
AFFILIATION Dependent
Symmetric Measures
Asymptotic Approximate
Value Standard Errora Approximate Tb Significance
Ordinal by Ordinal Gamma .553 .026 19.529 .000
N of Valid Cases 1790
a. Not assuming the null hypothesis.
b. Using the asymptotic standard error assuming the null hypothesis.
Crosstab
Count
RS RELIGIOUS PREFERENCE
PROTESTANT CATHOLIC JEWISH NONE
HOMOSEXUAL SEX ALWAYS WRONG 478 131 4 51
RELATIONS ALMST ALWAYS WRG 34 14 0 12
SOMETIMES WRONG 44 29 2 18
NOT WRONG AT ALL 304 244 28 302
Total 860 418 34 383
Count
RS RELIGIOUS
PREFERENCE
OTHER Total
HOMOSEXUAL SEX RELATIONS ALWAYS WRONG 32 696
ALMST ALWAYS WRG 4 64
SOMETIMES WRONG 8 101
NOT WRONG AT ALL 59 937
Total 103 1798
Chi-Square Tests
Asymptotic
Significance (2-
Value df sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 254.368a 12 .000
Likelihood Ratio 270.375 12 .000
Linear-by-Linear Association 189.160 1 .000
N of Valid Cases 1798