Margrethe Johnsen

12/7/2018

SOCI4308

Effects of Religiosity and Views Towards Homosexual Relations

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

homosexuality continues to be upheld by many religions across the country. It is important to

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

and views towards homosexual sex relations.

Public opinion research has repeatedly shown that religious persons report more prejudice

against homosexuality when compared to their non-religious counterparts (Roggemans, Spruyt,

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

negative attitudes towards homosexuals. Right-wing Authoritarianism (RWA) is a term that is in

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

endorsement of conservative religious values (Roggmans et al.,2015).

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

more accepting outlook (Eisenman & Negy, 2016).

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

relationship between strength of religion and views on homosexuality. This relationship is

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

(Whitehead, 2012) Despite growing acceptance of homosexuality, “belonging to a religious

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

important to study in quantitative research.

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

that they should.

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

vary based on religious practice.

Other researchers examine the relationship of religiosity and exposure to homosexuals in

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

individual has in their church (Zeininger et al.,2017).

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

towards homosexual relations.

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

software to answer for my three hypotheses.

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

valid answers for this variable are 1806.

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)

Catholic, (3) Jewish, (4) None, and (5) Other religion.

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

be able to sufficiently answer my research hypotheses.

Results

Univariate Analysis

Frequencies were used to get an understanding of the variables used for analysis.

Table 1. presents frequencies for all variables.

Table 1. Descriptive Statistics for Univariate Analysis

HOMOSEXUAL RELATIONS PERCENT FREQUENCY

ALWAYS WRONG 38.8% 700

ALMOST ALWAYS WRONG 3.6% 65

SOMETIMES WRONG 5.6% 101

 NOT WRONG AT ALL 52.0% 940

RELIGIOSITY PERCENT FREQUENCY

VERY RELIGIOUS 16.4% 464

MODERATELY RELIGIOUS 38.5% 1091

SLIGHT RELIGIOUS 22.8% 647

NOT RELIGIOUS 22.3% 631

STRENGTH OF AFFILIATION PERCENT FREQUENCY

STRONG 36.9% 2048

NOT VERY STRONG 35.8% 1015

SOMEWHAT STRONG 5.5% 155

NO RELIGION 21.8% 619

RELIGIOUS PREFERENCE PERCENT FREQUENCY

PROTESTANT 48.1% 1371

CATHOLIC 22.8% 649

JEWISH 1.8% 51

NONE 21.7% 619

OTHER 5.6% 159

Bivariate Analysis

Chi-Square analysis was used to further analyze whether religiosity, strength of religiosity,

and religious affiliation had an effect toward homosexual views.

Table 2. Chi-Square for Bivariate Analysis

CHI- P- GAMMA/LAMBDA

SQUARE VALUE

H1: HOMOSEXUAL RELATIONS 319.128 .000 GAMMA .553

AND RELIGIOSITY LAMBDA .105

H2: HOMOSEXUAL RELATIONS 333.179 .000 GAMMA .553

AND STRENGTH OF RELIGIOSITY LAMBDA .228

H3: HOMOSEXUAL RELATIONS 254.368 .000 LAMBDA .097

AND RELIGIOUS AFFLILIATION

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

views on homosexual relations for religious affiliations.

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:

1) Greater presence of religiosity influences views towards homosexual relations, 2) Greater

strength of religion influences views towards homosexual relations, and 3) Religious affiliation

influences views towards homosexual relations.

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

association as a large proportion also believed it was not wrong at all.

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

Religion and Acculturation on Hispanic College Students.” Journal of Information

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

Justification-Suppression Model Approach.” Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology115(3):526–63.

Mak, Heather K. and Jo-Ann Tsang. 2008. “Separating the ‘Sinner’ from the ‘Sin’: Religious

Orientation and Prejudiced Behavior Toward Sexual Orientation and Promiscuous

Sex.” Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion47(3):379–92.

Morales, Luis Emilio. 2017. “The Impact of Gay Friendly Cultures on Religious Expression: a

Study of Inclusive Attitudes and Behaviours among Religious Adolescent American

Male Athletes.” Journal of Gender Studies27(3):323–34.

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

the Scientific Study of Religion55(3):637–51.

Roggemans, Lilith, Bram Spruyt, Filip Van Droogenbroeck, and Gil Keppens. 2015. “Religion

and Negative Attitudes towards Homosexuals: An Analysis of Urban Young People and

Their Attitudes toward Homosexuality.” Young23(3):254–76.

Whitehead, Andrew L. 2012. “Religious Organizations and Homosexuality: The Acceptance of

Gays and Lesbians in American Congregations.” Review of Religious

Research55(2):297–317.
Zeininger, Katherine, Mellisa Holtzman, and Rachel Kraus. 2017. “The Reciprocal Relationship

Between Religious Beliefs and Acceptance of One’s Gay or Lesbian Family

Member.” Sociological Spectrum37(5):282–98.

Appendix

Frequencies

Statistics
HOMOSEXUAL SEX RELATIONS
N Valid 1806
Missing 1061
Median 4.00
Mode 4
Range 3

HOMOSEXUAL SEX RELATIONS

Frequency Valid Percent
Valid ALWAYS WRONG 700 38.8
ALMST ALWAYS WRG 65 3.6
SOMETIMES WRONG 101 5.6
NOT WRONG AT ALL 940 52.0
Total 1806 100.0
Missing IAP 977
DK 50
NA 34
Total 1061
Total 2867

Statistics
R CONSIDER SELF A
RELIGIOUS PERSON
N Valid 2833
Missing 34
Median 2.00
Mode 2
Range 3

R CONSIDER SELF A RELIGIOUS PERSON

Frequency Valid Percent
Valid VERY RELIGIOUS 464 16.4
MODRTE RELIGIOUS 1091 38.5
SLIGHT RELIGIOUS 647 22.8
NOT RELIGIOUS 631 22.3
Total 2833 100.0
Missing DONT KNOW 12
NA 22
Total 34
Total 2867

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

Case Processing Summary

Cases
Valid Missing Total
N Percent N Percent N Percent
HOMOSEXUAL SEX 1788 62.4% 1079 37.6% 2867 100.0%
RELATIONS * R CONSIDER
SELF A RELIGIOUS
PERSON
HOMOSEXUAL SEX 1790 62.4% 1077 37.6% 2867 100.0%
RELATIONS * STRENGTH
OF AFFILIATION
HOMOSEXUAL SEX 1798 62.7% 1069 37.3% 2867 100.0%
RELATIONS * RS
RELIGIOUS PREFERENCE
 HOMOSEXUAL SEX RELATIONS * R CONSIDER SELF A RELIGIOUS
PERSON
Crosstab
Count
R CONSIDER SELF A RELIGIOUS PERSON
VERY MODRTE SLIGHT
RELIGIOUS RELIGIOUS RELIGIOUS
HOMOSEXUAL SEX ALWAYS WRONG 216 317 101
RELATIONS ALMST ALWAYS WRG 9 35 13
SOMETIMES WRONG 12 45 25
NOT WRONG AT ALL 70 285 267
Total 307 682 406

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

HOMOSEXUAL SEX RELATIONS * STRENGTH OF AFFILIATION

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.

HOMOSEXUAL SEX RELATIONS * RS RELIGIOUS PREFERENCE

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

a. 3 cells (15.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum

expected count is 1.21.
 Directional Measures
Asymptotic
Value Standard Errora
Nominal by Nominal Lambda Symmetric .097 .015
HOMOSEXUAL SEX .202 .029
RELATIONS Dependent
RS RELIGIOUS .000 .000
PREFERENCE Dependent
Goodman and Kruskal tau HOMOSEXUAL SEX .108 .012
RELATIONS Dependent
RS RELIGIOUS .067 .008
PREFERENCE Dependent