homofobia
Sacred Rites and Civil Rights: Religion’s
Effect on Attitudes Toward Same-Sex
Unions and the Perceived
Cause of Homosexuality n
Andrew L. Whitehead, Baylor University
Objective. Past research reveals how religion and opinions about the cause of homosexuality influence attitudes concerning same-sex unions. No study to date contains a comprehensive collection of religion measures while also accounting for views of the cause of homosexuality. Therefore, this study investigates the extent to which religion predicts certain attribution beliefs as well as attitudes toward samesex unions while controlling for attribution beliefs. Method. The Baylor Religion
Survey (2007) is used to estimate binary logistic models predicting the effects of religion and attribution beliefs on attitudes toward same-sex unions. Findings. First, religion is strongly associated with the belief that homosexuals choose their sexual orientation. Second, religion maintains a significant association with attitudes toward same-sex unions despite inclusion of an attribution variable. Conclusion. Even if a biological explanation for homosexuality is ultimately proven, unfavorable attitudes toward same-sex unions will most likely endure due to religion’s persistent effect.
The topic of same-sex unions has been a key political issue for many
Americans since the 2004 presidential elections. Consider that in 2008 alone
New Hampshire passed legislation allowing for homosexual civil unions,
California’s supreme court ruled that homosexuals have the constitutional right to marry, Massachusetts’ House and Senate allowed for same-sex marriages for out-of-state couples, and in the November elections of 2008 voters in Arizona, Florida, and California all elected to amend their state constitutions to legally define marriage, thus outlawing same-sex unions.
Considering all the attention given to the legality and morality of same-sex unions, the key follow-up question for social researchers is what determines individuals’ views toward those unions. More specifically, who is most likely to support or oppose same-sex unions? Recent research demonstrates the n Direct correspondence to Andrew Whitehead, Department of Sociology, Baylor University, One Bear Pl., Box 97326, Waco, TX 76798 hAndrew_Whitehead@Baylor.edui. All data and coding information will be shared with those wishing to replicate the study. The author thanks the anonymous reviewers and the editor of SSQ as well as Paul Froese, Kevin
Dougherty, Christopher Bader, Wade Rowatt, and Scott Draper for all of their helpful comments on previous drafts.
SOCIAL SCIENCE QUARTERLY, Volume 91, Number 1, March 2010 r 2010 by the Southwestern Social Science Association
64
Social Science Quarterly
importance of religion (Olson, Cadge, and Harrison, 2006) as well as the perceived cause of homosexuality (Haider-Markel and Joslyn, 2005, 2008;
Wilcox and Norrander, 2002) when predicting attitudes toward homosexual marriage and civil unions. Regrettably, while Olson, Cadge, and Harrison
(2006) employed a broad collection of religion measures, they were not able to account for individuals’ attribution of the cause of homosexuality. Conversely, the Haider-Markel and Joslyn (2008) and Wilcox and Norrander
(2002) studies accounted for attribution but their religion measures were not as extensive as Olson, Cadge, and Harrison’s (2006) and, interestingly enough, despite the inclusion of the perceived cause variable, the religion measures were still significantly associated. Additionally, none of the aforementioned studies were able to include religious belief measures in their studies. Due to religion’s persistent influence, it is important to discover what is taking place in greater depth and breadth than previously allowed.
Therefore, to fill the voids of past research, a wider range of religion variables was utilized to discover religion’s effect on individuals’ beliefs concerning the cause of homosexuality as well as attitudes toward same-sex unions. In this study, past findings implying the strength of an individual’s belief as to the cause of homosexuality on attitudes toward same-sex unions is supported. Beyond this, a more complete explanation of the effects of religion on the issue is provided. Namely, I find a persistent and pervasive influence of religious belief, behavior, and affiliation on attitudes toward the cause of homosexuality and same-sex unions.
Attribution of the Cause of Homosexuality
Whether individuals choose to be gay or are gay by disposition is essential in debates concerning their right to marry. At the crux of the argument is the controllability of homosexuality and whether responsibility for the orientation can be attributed to the individual. Attribution theory was first proposed by Heider (1944, 1958) and later furthered by Weiner (1979, 1985).
The theory holds that individuals work to predict and control their environment by attributing others’ behaviors as the result of internal or external factors. The idea that behavior can be viewed as either controllable or uncontrollable was added to attribution theory by Weiner. For those behaviors that are labeled controllable, the person exhibiting the behavior can be held personally responsible. Those attributing personal responsibility to a certain individual or group tend to view them more negatively if the behavior in question is stigmatized in some way. A number of studies find support for attribution theory applied to obesity (Crocker, Cornwell, and Major, 1993;
DeJong, 1980), poverty (Griffin and Oheneba-Sakyi, 1993; Zucker and
Weiner, 1993), and when comparing certain stigmas believed to be controllable (AIDS) versus uncontrollable (Alzheimer’s) (Weiner, Perry, and
Magnusson, 1988).
Sacred Rites and Civil Rights
65
Past research that investigated attitudes toward homosexuality supports attribution theory (Aguero, Block, and Byrne, 1984; Herek, 2002; Herek and Capitanio, 1995; Sakalli, 2002; VanderStoep and Green, 1988;
Whitely, 1990). In fact, in their study of African Americans, Herek and
Capitanio concluded that ‘‘the single most important predictor of attitudes
[toward homosexuals] was the attribution of choice to sexual orientation’’
(1995:95). Studies focused on attitudes concerning same-sex unions find support for attribution theory as well. Specifically, individuals believing that homosexuality is the result of natural or biological forces are more likely to support gay rights or same-sex unions, while those attributing homosexuality as the result of a choice are less likely to support same-sex unions (HaiderMarkel and Joslyn, 2005; Tygart, 2000; Wilcox and Norrander, 2002;
Wilcox and Wolpert, 2000; Wood and Bartkowski, 2004). In their latest study Haider-Markel and Joslyn (2008) continued to demonstrate the importance of attribution. The authors found that those viewing homosexuality as nonbiological are much less likely to support same-sex unions.
Haider-Markel and Joslyn concluded that ‘‘attributions’’ of the cause of an individual’s sexual orientation ‘‘are in fact the strongest predictor of support’’ for same-sex unions (Haider-Markel and Joslyn, 2008:291), coinciding with Herek and Capitanio’s (1995) suggestion in their previous study. Religion and Homosexuality
A great deal of research focuses on the intersection of religion and views concerning homosexuality. Type of denomination (Cochran and Beeghley,
1991; Finlay and Walther, 2003; Gay and Ellison, 1993; Greeley and Hout,
2006; Herek, 1988; Koch and Curry, 2000; Olson and Cadge, 2002; Smith et al., 1998), religious tradition (Loftus, 2001; Smith et al., 1998), rate of attendance (Froese, Bader, and Smith, 2008; Herek, 1988; Herek and
Capitanio, 1995; Larsen et al., 1980), literal views of the Bible (Bader and
Froese, 2005; Froese, Bader, and Smith, 2008; Rowatt et al., 2009), and images of God (Bader and Froese, 2005; Froese and Bader, 2007, 2008;
Unnever and Cullen, 2006; Unnever, Cullen, and Applegate, 2005; Unnever, Cullen, and Bartkowsi, 2006) all affect attitudes toward homosexuality. This research shows Christians, conservative denominations, frequent attendees, biblical literalists, and those with active or angry images of God tend to be the most condemning of homosexual behavior.
In addition to being significantly associated with views about homosexuals as well as their civil rights, religion is a strong predictor of attitudes regarding same-sex unions. Specifically, non-Protestants are more likely to be favorable toward homosexual civil unions and marriage (Haider-Markel and
Joslyn, 2008; Olson, Cadge, and Harrison, 2006; Wilcox and Norrander,
2002; Wood and Bartkowski, 2004). Religiously active individuals are also
66
Social Science Quarterly
less likely to agree with same-sex marriage and civil unions (Brumbaugh et al., 2008; Haider-Markel and Joslyn, 2005, 2008; Olson, Cadge, and Harrison, 2006; Wilcox and Norrander, 2002).
These studies provide insight into the general effect of religion but none have been able to fully account for religious behavior, belief, and affiliation.
In fact, no study to date has measured the association of religious belief with same-sex unions while accounting for attribution. Due to the amount of research supporting the claim that individuals’ religious beliefs (images of
God, biblical literalism) are significantly associated with their views toward homosexuals (Bader and Froese, 2005; Froese and Bader, 2007; Froese,
Bader, and Smith, 2008), research dealing with attitudes toward same-sex unions should take religious beliefs into account. Additionally, the present study utilizes the RELTRAD (Steensland et al., 2000) typology to examine the effects of religious affiliation. This measure of religious affiliation will allow for a more comprehensive view of affiliation’s importance when measuring attitudes toward same-sex unions. This is important, as Steensland et al. point out, because measuring religious tradition poorly can influence not only religious affiliation coefficients, but also other coefficients more central to the analysis (2000:20). The RELTRAD typology will be an improvement over the Protestant dummy variable or the mainline, Catholic, fundamentalist, unaffiliated typology used in prior research (Haider-Markel and
Joslyn, 2008; Wilcox and Norrander, 2002; Wood and Bartkowski,
2004).
It is safe to say that religion and attribution are both significantly associated with attitudes toward same-sex unions. Using a more comprehensive collection of religion measures, some of which have not previously been utilized, as well as being able to account for beliefs concerning the cause of homosexuality, this study hopes to provide a more thorough description of religion’s relationship with attitudes concerning homosexual marriage and civil unions. This endeavor will be a modest but important step toward understanding to a greater extent what is significantly associated with beliefs toward the cause of homosexuality and same-sex unions. In light of past research, I expect religious belief, behavior, and affiliation to be significantly associated with believing homosexuals choose their orientation. I also expect religious belief, behavior, and affiliation to maintain significant association with unfavorable attitudes toward same-sex unions while controlling for attribution’s effect.
Data
Data for this study were taken from the second wave (2007) of the Baylor
Religion Survey (BRS). The 2007 BRS is a random, national sample of
1,648 U.S. citizens administered by the Gallup Organization and it compares favorably to similar items on the General Social Survey (Bader,
Sacred Rites and Civil Rights
67
Mencken, and Froese, 2007). The BRS is ideal for this study because of its focus on gaining deeper insight into the religious beliefs, behaviors, and identities of the general public. This focus will allow for more breadth as well as depth in our understanding of religion’s association with the attribution of homosexuality and same-sex unions.
Dependent Variables
The first dependent variable of interest was constructed using a question on the BRS that asked for a level of agreement (strongly agree, agree, disagree, strongly disagree) with the statement: ‘‘People choose to be homosexuals.’’ The strongly agree and agree responses were paired to construct a dichotomous variable. Over the entire sample, 38.5 percent believe that homosexuals choose their orientation. The ‘‘choice’’ variable also serves as an independent measure once attitudes toward same-sex marriage and civil unions are investigated. The second dependent variable of interest uses the question asking for the respondent’s level of agreement with the statement:
‘‘Homosexuals should be allowed to marry.’’ The strongly agree and agree responses were paired and a dichotomous variable was constructed, with
32.2 percent of the sample agreeing with same-sex marriage. Likewise, the question ‘‘Homosexuals should be allowed civil unions’’ was similarly dichotomized, with 53.8 percent of the sample agreeing with this statement
(see Table 1).
Religion Variables
The religious variables of interest account for behavior (attendance), belief
(biblical literalism and images of God), and affiliation (RELTRAD). To control for religious affiliation, a modified RELTRAD typology was used. In accordance with Steensland et al. (2000), individuals are placed in the categories black Protestant, evangelical Protestant, mainline Protestant, Catholic, Jewish, other religion, and no religion. An additional item is considered on the Baylor Religion Survey that asks respondents to provide the name and location of their church (for a description of this modified version of
RELTRAD and its value in research, see Dougherty, Johnson, and Polson,
2007). The evangelical Protestant group will be the contrast group throughout the analysis because of its propensity to be the most conservative of the religious groupings (Finlay and Walther, 2003; Greeley and Hout, 2006;
Haider-Markel and Joslyn, 2008; Koch and Curry, 2000; Olson and Cadge,
2002; Olson, Cadge, and Harrison, 2006; Smith et al., 1998).
The attendance measure utilizes an item asking for how often the respondent frequented a place of worship, with higher scores indicating higher levels of attendance. The first measure of religious belief utilized in this
68
Social Science Quarterly
TABLE 1
Descriptive Statistics
Variables
Support same-sex marriage
Support same-sex civil unions
Believe homosexuals choose orientation
Attend weekly
Biblical literalists
RELTRAD
Evangelical Protestants
Black Protestants
Mainline Protestants
Catholic
Jewish
Other
No religion
Active God
Angry God
Percent
32.17
52.83
38.48
30.31
23.54
33.09
4.79
20.69
22.14
1.90
6.06
11.34
Mean (SD)
27.07 (6.62)
16.99 (6.39)
SOURCE: Baylor Religion Survey (2007).
study is how literally the Bible is interpreted by each individual. To measure biblical literalism, a question was used asking respondents to choose which statement comes closest to their personal beliefs about the Bible: ‘‘The Bible means exactly what it says. It should be taken literally, word-for-word, on all subjects’’; ‘‘The Bible is perfectly true, but it should not be taken literally, word-for-word. We must interpret its meaning’’; ‘‘The Bible contains some human error’’; and ‘‘The Bible is an ancient book of history and legends.’’
Higher scores correspond with increasing levels of biblical literalism.
Another measure of religious belief is how individuals view God. The
Baylor Religion Survey contains many measures of beliefs about God beyond beliefs about God’s existence. The two most important images, Froese and Bader (2007) argue, are the extent to which God is angry and active. An angry image of God focuses on judgment, retribution, and wrath. An active view of God refers to whether God is removed from or directly involved with human affairs. The active view of God is an additive scale made up of seven different questions, where higher scores represent a view of God as more active in the world. Respondents are asked what they think God is like using a five point Likert scale. Included are the descriptions: ‘‘Is God ‘removed from worldly affairs’, ‘concerned with the well-being of the world’,
‘concerned with my personal well-being’, ‘directly involved with worldly affairs’, and ‘directly involved in my affairs’.’’ The survey then asks if the adjectives ‘‘ever-present’’ or ‘‘distant’’ describe God ‘‘very well, somewhat well, not very well, not at all, or undecided.’’ Each of these questions was flipped as needed and summed to create the active view of God scale. The
Sacred Rites and Civil Rights
69
resulting scores ranged from 7 to 35, with a mean of 27.07. This scale is hereafter referenced as the active God scale (alpha 5 0.882).
The angry view of God scale combines questions asking for level of agreement, using a five-point Likert scale, with the idea that God is ‘‘angered by human sin,’’ or ‘‘angered by my sins,’’ and with how well the words
‘‘critical,’’ ‘‘punishing,’’ ‘‘severe,’’ and ‘‘wrathful’’ describe God (very well, somewhat well, undecided, not very well, or not at all). These six responses were flipped as needed to coincide with higher scores equating to a more angry view of God. The results were then summed to create the angry God scale (alpha 5 0.850). The resulting scores ranged from 6 to 30, with a mean of 16.99.
Control Variables
The control variables used in this analysis include age (in years), gender
(male 5 1), race (white 5 1), marriage status (married 5 1), income
(o$10K, $10,001–$20K, $20,001–$35K, $35,001–$50K, $50,001–
$100K, $100,001–$150K, and $150,0001), education (o8th, 9–12th no diploma, HS graduate, some college, trade/technical/vocational training, college graduate, postgraduate work/degree), region (South 5 1), and political views (extremely conservative, conservative, leaning conservative, moderate, leaning liberal, liberal, extremely liberal). The responses were ordered so higher scores correspond to more conservative political views.
Each has received support in previous literature concerning its effect on attitudes toward homosexual issues.
Analytic Model
Due to the nature of the dependent variables, binary logistic regression is used for each test. In the first test, the demographic controls and religion variables are regressed on the choice variable. Haider-Markel and Joslyn
(2008) performed the same test. This test extends their findings by using a wider array of religion measures to allow a fuller explanation of what is associated with believing homosexuality is the result of a choice.
The second and third tests regress the attribution, religion, and demographic variables on agreeing with same-sex marriage and civil unions, respectively. Two separate models are reported for each same-sex union dependent variable. The first model contains each of the demographic and religion variables. This allows for a close replication of Olson, Cadge, and
Harrison’s (2006) study. The second model adds in the attribution variable
(choice). This results in a test similar to that performed by Haider-Markel and Joslyn (2008) and Wilcox and Norrander (2002). In this way the conclusions offered by the Olson, Cadge, and Harrison (2006),
70
Social Science Quarterly
Haider-Markel and Joslyn (2008), and Wilcox and Norrander (2002) studies can be directly compared. This ultimately provides a more definitive explanation regarding the association of religion and attribution with samesex unions.
Results
Table 2 displays the results from the first test. The results show that males are significantly more likely to agree that homosexuality is a choice compared to females. Similarly, individuals who label themselves as politically conservative are more likely than their less politically conservative counterparts to believe homosexuality is the result of a choice. As education increases, the odds of believing homosexuals choose their orientation decreases. People who exhibit high levels of religious behavior are more likely to agree that homosexuality is a choice. Compared to evangelical
Protestants, mainline Protestants and Catholics are 54 percent and 43 percent less likely to believe homosexuals choose their orientation, respectively.
Finally, as individuals view the Bible more literal they are 25 percent more likely to believe homosexuality is the result of a choice. In the same way, as individuals view God as more active in the world they are more likely to agree that homosexuality is a choice.1
In Table 3, I find that older individuals are less likely to support same-sex marriages. The same is true for more politically conservative individuals and those from the South. Conversely, as income increases, the odds of agreeing that homosexuals should be allowed to marry increase by 16 percent.
Turning to the religion variables, I find that as people attend worship services more frequently their odds of agreeing with same-sex marriage decrease
13 percent. Mainline Protestants, Catholics, the religious ‘‘other’’ grouping, and the religiously unaffiliated are all more likely than evangelical Protestants to support same-sex marriages. I also find that as individuals view the
Bible more literally the odds of agreeing with homosexual marriage decrease dramatically. 1
Missing cases in each model are mainly due to the large number of religion variables included. The greatest number of missing cases results from the inclusion of the active God and angry God measures. The reason these belief scales cause so many missing cases is because those individuals who do not believe in God (atheists) are omitted. One must believe in God to have a God image. While including atheists in the discussion would be ideal, there are two reasons their omission is not fatal to this discussion. First, the overarching focus of the article is to investigate how religion, while accounting for beliefs about the cause of homosexuality, affects attitudes toward same-sex unions. Since atheists usually are not religious, this investigation does not directly concern them. Second, atheists are a very small portion of the adult population. The Baylor Religion Survey (2007) is almost identical to the General Social
Survey and other national surveys in its estimation of the number of atheists. Usually, atheists make up only 4 to 5 percent of the adult population. Due to these issues, additional analyses were conducted to ensure there are no systematic biases present in the missing cases compared to those cases included in each model. No systematic bias was found concerning each dependent variable of interest.
Sacred Rites and Civil Rights
71
TABLE 2
Logistic Regression of Choice as Cause of Homosexuality on Demographic
Controls and Religion Variables
Choice
Variables
Sociodemographic
Age
Male
White
Married
Education
Politically conservative
Religious Behavior
Attendance
Religious Tradition
Mainline Protestant
Black Protestant
Catholic
Jewish
Other
None
Religious Belief
Biblical literalism
Active God
Angry God
Constant
Pseudo R 2
PRE
N
Estimate
Standard Error
Odds Ratios
À 0.004
0.927 n n n
0.705
0.122
À 0.108 n
0.360 n n n
0.005
0.158
0.624
0.167
0.052
0.057
—
2.528
—
—
0.898
1.433
0.115 n n n
0.034
1.122
À 0.776 n n n
0.845
À 0.558 n n
À 0.640
À 0.375
0.335
0.206
0.772
0.202
0.684
0.322
0.353
0.460
—
0.572
—
—
—
0.226 n
0.042 n
0.007
À 4.766 n n n
0.339
21.48%
1,073
0.099
0.017
0.013
0.835
1.254
1.043
—
po0.05; n npo0.01; n n npo0.001.
SOURCE: Baylor Religion Survey (2007) n The proportional reduction in error (PRE) in Model 1 of Table 3 is 41.72 percent compared to the 43.47 percent PRE of Model 2 with its inclusion of the attribution variable. Generally, this means that taking attribution into account when discussing attitudes toward homosexual marriage reduces error in the model. Unsurprisingly, the choice variable was significant in the model.
Individuals who believe homosexuality is a choice are almost 67 percent less likely to support homosexual marriage compared to those who do not. With the inclusion of the attribution variable, the religious ‘‘other’’ group as well as the mainline Protestant group failed to achieve statistical significance compared to the results from Model 1. Religious behavior and belief continued to significantly predict negative attitudes toward same-sex marriage despite the presence of the attribution variable. Similarly, Catholics and the religiously unaffiliated are still significantly more likely to support homosexual marriage compared to evangelical Protestants net of attribution’s effects.
72
Social Science Quarterly
TABLE 3
Logistic Regression Analysis of Support for Homosexual Marriage
Model 1
Variables
Sociodemographic
Age
Male
White
Married
Income
Education
South
Politically conservative
Religious Behavior
Attendance
Religious Tradition
Mainline Protestant
Black Protestant
Catholic
Jewish
Other
None
Religious Belief
Biblical literalism
Active God
Angry God
Attribution
Choice
Constant
Pseudo R2
PRE
Model 2
Standard
Error
Odds
Ratio
À 0.022 n n n
À 0.227
À 0.203
À 0.378
0.147 n
0.036
À 0.460 n
À 0.760 n n n
0.006
0.197
0.734
0.215
0.074
0.066
0.223
0.073
0.978
—
—
—
1.158
—
0.631
0.468
À 0.142 n n n
0.042
0.868
0.576 n
0.742
0.678 n n
0.603
0.792 n
1.464 n n n
0.259
0.895
0.260
0.589
0.381
0.415
1.779
—
1.970
—
2.207
4.325
À 0.709 n n n
0.024
0.001
0.120
0.020
0.018
—
4.341 n n n
0.574
41.72%
—
0.999
Estimate
Standard
Error
Odds
Ratio
À 0.022 n n n
À 0.030
À 0.111
À 0.335
0.128
0.016
À 0.415
À 0.717 n n n
0.006
0.204
0.702
0.218
0.074
0.068
0.227
0.075
0.978
—
—
—
—
—
—
0.488
À 0.127 n n
0.042
0.880
0.465
0.788
0.561 n
0.493
0.757
1.579 n n n
0.263
0.918
0.264
0.608
0.393
0.427
—
—
1.753
—
—
4.849
0.492
—
—
À 0.687 n n n
0.030
0.004
0.121
0.020
0.018
0.503
—
—
—
À 1.094 n n n
4.160 n n n
0.592
43.47%
0.230
0.982
0.335
Estimate
po0.05; n npo0.01; n n npo0.001.
SOURCE: Baylor Religion Survey (2007); N 5 1,031 (M1); N 5 1,030 (M2). n Table 4 presents the results of the logistic regression analysis concerning attitudes toward civil unions. In Model 1, the analysis reveals that increasing income and education lead to a greater likelihood of supporting homosexual civil unions, whereas politically conservative individuals are less likely to show support. Similarly, as religious service attendance increases, individuals are less likely to agree. The religiously unaffiliated are much more likely than evangelical
Protestants to support homosexual civil unions, while those who interpret the
Bible literally and view God as active are much less likely to agree to civil unions.
The PRE of Model 1 of Table 4 is 33.81 percent, with a PRE in Model 2 of
37.36 percent. As with homosexual marriage, including a variable that accounts for individuals’ attribution of controllability reduces the error in the model. In Model 2 we find that the attribution variable is again statistically significant. Those who believe that homosexuals choose their orientation are almost 60 percent less likely to agree to same-sex civil unions compared to
Sacred Rites and Civil Rights
73
TABLE 4
Logistic Regression Analysis of Support for Homosexual Civil Unions
Model 1
Variables
Sociodemographic
Age
Male
White
Married
Income
Education
South
Politically conservative
Religious Behavior
Attendance
Religious Tradition
Mainline Protestant
Black Protestant
Catholic
Jewish
Other
None
Religious Belief
Biblical literalism
Active God
Angry God
Attribution
Choice
Constant
Pseudo R2
PRE
Model 2
Standard
Error
Odds
Ratio
Standard
Error
Odds
Ratio
À 0.007
À 0.273
0.608
À 0.003
0.227 n n n
0.233 n n n
À 0.302
À 0.342 n n n
0.005
0.172
0.683
0.200
0.065
0.060
0.182
0.062
—
—
—
—
1.254
1.263
—
0.710
À 0.0098
À 0.038
0.760
À 0.008
0.255 n n n
0.222 n n n
À 0.283
À 0.268 n n n
0.005
0.182
0.646
0.205
0.062
0.066
0.188
0.064
—
—
—
—
1.290
1.249
—
0.765
À 0.127 n n n
0.035
0.880
À 0.107 n n
0.037
0.899
0.405
1.228
0.382
1.780
À 0.035
1.145 n
0.221
0.832
0.220
1.420
0.345
0.522
—
—
—
—
—
3.141
0.211
1.417
0.236
1.551
À 0.088
1.525 n n
0.229
0.822
0.228
1.427
0.359
0.555
—
—
—
—
—
4.594
À 0.675 n n n
À 0.043 n
0.006
0.108
0.019
0.015
0.509
0.958
—
À 0.644 n n n
À 0.034
0.008
0.110
0.019
0.015
0.525
—
—
—
2.849 n n
0.499
33.81%
—
0.918
—
À 1.286 n n n
2.390 n n
0.539 n n
37.36%
0.182
0.900
0.395
Estimate
Estimate
po0.05; n npo0.01; n n npo0.001.
SOURCE: Baylor Religion Survey (2007); N 5 1,029 (M1); N 5 1,028 (M2). n those who do not believe homosexuals exert a choice. Similarly, increasing levels of income and education make one more likely to support homosexual civil unions. Conversely, those who are more politically conservative are less likely to agree. The more active one is in attending religious services and the more literally he or she views the Bible, the less likely the person is to support same-sex civil unions. Only the religiously unaffiliated are significantly different from evangelical Protestants regarding religious tradition. The active God measure also fails to achieve statistical significance in the second model.
Discussion
The results from this study support many of the general findings found in previous research. One key finding brought to the surface is the differences
74
Social Science Quarterly
between attitudes toward homosexual marriage and same-sex civil unions among religious traditions. For homosexual marriage, I find that even with the attribution variable in the model, distinct differences exist between evangelical Protestants and Catholics and the religiously unaffiliated, respectively. When looking at same-sex civil unions, though, these differences disappear in the presence of the attribution variable. Thus, for homosexual marriage, how individuals’ view the cause of homosexuality does not account for religious affiliation’s effect. Attitudes toward civil unions operate differently concerning religious tradition.
A possible fundamental difference in how attitudes concerning same-sex marriages and same-sex unions operate inside different religious traditions could be at work here. For evangelical Protestants, the question of homosexual marriage elicits a strong, unfavorable view regardless of their views toward the cause of homosexuality. There is something about belonging to an evangelical Protestant community that influences attitudes toward homosexual marriage beyond the effects of religious belief, behavior, or even attitudes about the controllability of homosexuality. For civil unions, though, there are no such distinctions. It is possible that the marriage question refers to a more ‘‘sacred’’ rite, while civil unions refer to a more
‘‘legal’’ standing and as such might not push the same buttons for those identifying as evangelical Protestants.
In support of past research, attribution is strongly associated with views concerning same-sex unions. If individuals view the cause of homosexuality as controllable they will be much more likely to disagree with allowing homosexuals the right to obtain legal marriages or even civil unions. As
Haider-Markel and Joslyn explain, ‘‘[c]ontrollability suggests personal responsibility for behaviors,’’ which results in ‘‘negative affect toward gays’’ and a ‘‘lack of support for gay rights’’ (2008:306). The findings presented here do not negate the similar claims made in past studies that ‘‘the single most important predictor of attitudes was the attribution of choice to sexual orientation’’ (Herek and Capitanio, 1995:95) and ‘‘attributions were by far the strongest predictors of attitudes’’ (Haider-Markel and Joslyn, 2008:306).
Thus, in comparing Olson, Cadge, and Harrison’s (2006) study with
Haider-Markel and Joslyn (2008) and Wilcox and Norrander (2002), I find that when considering attitudes toward same-sex unions, excluding the attribution variable weakens the model. In support of Olson, Cadge, and
Harrison’s general conclusion, this study maintains that religion is still vitally important when discussing these issues.
Beyond these findings, this study also demonstrates that it is not enough to account for just one aspect of religiosity but for all. This is evidenced by religious belief, behavior, and affiliation maintaining a significant association with opinions about the cause of homosexuality and same-sex unions in spite of each other. Indeed, each casts a separate and distinct light on attitudes toward same-sex unions. Despite the effect of attribution, through a triangulation of religious belief, affiliation, and behavior, we understand to
Sacred Rites and Civil Rights
75
a greater extent religion’s association with attitudes toward same-sex unions.
This study adds depth to previous research in three ways. First, evangelical
Protestants differ from other religious traditions and by using a more nuanced and powerful measure of religious affiliation, the true effects of religious affiliation were controlled for as well as discovered. Second, religious behavior measured through rates of attendance is still important when discussing beliefs concerning same-sex unions. Third, individuals’ religious beliefs are strongly associated with attitudes toward same-sex unions and should not be neglected in future research.
Conclusion
Past research has stressed the explanatory power of both religion and attribution in explaining attitudes toward same-sex unions. In previous studies, there were shortcomings that did not allow for a complete statement to be made concerning the interrelationships of the two. In this study, a new data set was utilized to give greater breadth and depth to the religion side of the story while accounting for the ever-important attribution variable. Religious belief, behavior, and affiliation were found to be strongly associated with individuals’ attributions of the cause of homosexuality. Religious belief, behavior, and affiliation were also observed to play a significant role in explaining attitudes toward same-sex marriages and civil unions despite accounting for individuals’ views toward the cause of homosexuality. Most importantly, this study provided a more thorough description of religion’s effect on attitudes toward the perceived cause of homosexuality and same-sex unions. Despite these strengths, not being able to account for whether a respondent personally knows someone who is homosexual is a noteworthy weakness of the data set used in this study.
Olson, Cadge, and Harrison concluded that ‘‘the tide is not likely to turn in favor of same-sex marriages or civil unions without some reframing of the issue’’ (2006:356). The importance of attribution could be the ‘‘reframing’’ of which the authors spoke. If a natural explanation of homosexuality is found, views of homosexuals and homosexual civil rights could become more affirming. Haider-Markel and Joslyn state: ‘‘If homosexuality comes to be largely viewed as a result of genetics, our results predict greater support for gay and lesbian civil rights’’ (2008:308). Some activists might believe that finding a gene responsible for homosexual orientation is the key to gaining equal standing in the public’s eye. Haider-Markel and Joslyn offer a different outcome if homosexuality is ever shown to be the result of genetics:
‘‘the next step may not be tolerance but intervention. If the homosexual gene can be altered or manipulated in some way, the notion that homosexuality can be ‘cured’ will surely be considered’’ (2008:308). In fact, the possibility of a biological explanation of homosexuality tends to further polarize previously held beliefs (Boysen and Vogel, 2007). Individuals who had positive
76
Social Science Quarterly
views of homosexuals accepted biological explanations as a more persuasive reason to accept homosexuals, while those with negative views toward homosexuals actually became more negative toward them once the biological explanation of homosexuality was introduced. The authors conclude that
‘‘learning about the biological explanations of homosexual behavior is interpreted through the lens of preexisting attitudes’’ (Boysen and Vogel,
2007:755).
Could it be possible, then, that attribution may not actually be the engine that drives attitudes to be more positive or negative when considering homosexuality? Previous research points to the importance of ‘‘preexisting attitudes’’ and religion undoubtedly plays a significant role in the formation of these. There is countless evidence pointing to certain religious beliefs, behaviors, and affiliations being strongly associated with negative views toward homosexuals. It is possible that certain views toward attribution are co-opted, in a sense, by religious individuals to provide supplementary support to their previously held beliefs. This would also help explain their likelihood of retaining negative views of homosexuals despite being confronted with the possibility that homosexuals are not responsible for their behavior. In essence, they would simply stop using attribution as support for their beliefs. Thus, religion will continue to play a central role in the formation and maintenance of attitudes toward homosexuality in the presence of and possibly even beyond the influence of attribution. As such, continuing to research religion’s effect on these issues is of the utmost importance. REFERENCES
Aguero, Joseph E., Laura Block, and Donn Byrne. 1984. ‘‘The Relationships Among Sexual
Beliefs, Attitudes, Experience, and Homophobia.’’ Journal of Homosexuality 10:95–107.
Bader, Christopher D., and Paul Froese. 2005. ‘‘Images of God: The Effects of Personal
Theologies on Moral Attitudes, Political Affiliation, and Religious Behavior.’’ Interdisciplinary Journal of Religious Research 1(Article 11). Available at hhttp://www.religjournal.com/pdf/ ijrr01011.pdfi. Bader, Christopher D., F. Carson Mencken, and Paul Froese. 2007. ‘‘American Piety 2005:
Content, Methods and Selected Results from the Baylor Religion Survey.’’ Journal for the
Scientific Study of Religion 46:447–63.
Baylor University. 2007. The Baylor Religion Survey. Waco, TX: Baylor Institute for Studies of Religion.
Boysen, Guy A., and David L. Vogel. 2007. ‘‘Biased Assimilation and Attitude Polarization in Response to Learning About Biological Explanations of Homosexuality.’’ Sex Roles
57:755–62.
Brumbaugh, Stacey M., Laura A. Sanchez, Steven L. Nock, and James D. Wright. 2008.
‘‘Attitudes Toward Gay Marriage in States Undergoing Marriage Law Transformation.’’
Journal of Marriage and Family 70:345–59.
Sacred Rites and Civil Rights
77
Cochran, John K., and Leonard Beeghley. 1991. ‘‘The Influence of Religion on Attitudes
Toward Nonmarital Sexuality: A Preliminary Assessment of Reference Group Theory.’’
Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 30:45–62.
Crocker, Jennifer, Beth Cornwell, and Brenda Major. 1993. ‘‘The Stigma of Overweight:
Affective Consequences of Attributional Ambiguity.’’ Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 64:60–70.
¨
DeJong, William. 1980. ‘‘The Stigma of Obesity: The Consequences of Naıve Assumptions
Concerning the Causes of Physical Deviance.’’ Journal of Health and Social Behavior 21:75–
87.
Dougherty, Kevin D., Byron Johnson, and Edward C. Polson. 2007. ‘‘Recovering the
Lost: Re-Measuring U.S. Religious Affiliation.’’ Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion
46:483–99.
Finlay, Barbara, and Carol S. Walther. 2003. ‘‘The Relation of Religious Affiliation, Service
Attendance, and Other Factors to Homophobic Attitudes Among University Students.’’
Review of Religious Research 44:370–93.
Froese, Paul, and Christopher D. Bader. 2007. ‘‘God in America: Why Theology is Not Simply the Concern of Philosophers.’’ Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion
46:465–81.
———. 2008. ‘‘Unraveling Religious Worldviews: The Relationship Between Images of God and Political Ideology in a Cross-cultural Analysis.’’ Sociological Quarterly 49:689–
718.
Froese, Paul, Christopher D. Bader, and Buster Smith. 2008. ‘‘Political Tolerance and God’s
Wrath in the United States.’’ Sociology of Religion 69:29–44.
Gay, David A., and Christopher G. Ellison. 1993. ‘‘Religious Subcultures and Political
Tolerance: Do Denominations Still Matter?’’ Review of Religious Research 34:311–32.
Greeley, Andrew, and Michael Hout. 2006. The Truth About Conservative Christians: What
They Think and What They Believe. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Griffin, William E., and Yaw Oheneba-Sakyi. 1993. ‘‘Sociodemographic and Political
Correlates of University Students’ Causal Attributions for Poverty.’’ Psychological Reports
73:795–800.
Haider-Markel, Donald P., and Mark R. Joslyn. 2005. ‘‘Attributions and the Regulation of
Marriage: Considering the Parallels Between Race and Homosexuality.’’ PS: Political Science and Politics 38:233–40.
———. 2008. ‘‘Beliefs About the Origins of Homosexuality and Support for Gay Rights: An
Empirical Test of Attribution Theory.’’ Public Opinion Quarterly 72:291–310.
Heider, Fritz. 1944. ‘‘Social Perception and Phenomenal Causality.’’ Psychological Review
51:358–74.
———. 1958. The Psychology of Interpersonal Relations. New York: Wiley.
Herek, Gregory M. 1988. ‘‘Heterosexuals’ Attitudes Toward Lesbians and Gay Men: Correlates and Gender Differences.’’ Journal of Sex Research 25:451–77.
———. 2002. ‘‘Gender Gaps in Public Opinion About Lesbians and Gay Men.’’ Public
Opinion Quarterly 66:40–66.
Herek, Gregory M., and John P. Capitanio. 1995. ‘‘Black Heterosexuals’ Attitudes
Toward Lesbians and Gay Men in the United States.’’ Journal of Sex Research 32:95–
105.
78
Social Science Quarterly
Koch, Jerome R., and Evans W. Curry. 2000. ‘‘Social Context and the Presbyterian Gay/
Lesbian Ordination Debate: Testing Open-Systems Theory.’’ Review of Religious Research
42:206–14.
Larsen, Knud S., Michael Reed, and Susan Hoffman. 1980. ‘‘Attitudes of Homosexuals
Toward Homosexuality: A Likert-Type Scale and Construct Validity.’’ Journal of Sex Research
16:245–57.
Loftus, Jeni. 2001. ‘‘America’s Liberalization in Attitudes Toward Homosexuality, 1973 to
1998.’’ American Sociological Review 66:762–82.
Olson, Laura R., and Wendy Cadge. 2002. ‘‘Talking About Homosexuality: The Views of
Mainline Protestant Clergy.’’ Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 41:153–67.
Olson, Laura R., Wendy Cadge, and James T. Harrison. 2006. ‘‘Religion and Public Opinion About Same-Sex Marriage.’’ Social Science Quarterly 87:340–60.
Rowatt, Wade C., Jordan LaBouff, Megan Johnson, Paul Froese, and Jo-Ann Tsang. 2009.
‘‘Associations Between Religiousness, Social Attitudes, and Prejudice in a National Random
Sample of American Adults.’’ Psychology of Religion and Spirituality 1:14–24.
Sakalli, Nurray. 2002. ‘‘Application of the Attribution-Value Model of Prejudice to Homosexuality.’’ Journal of Social Psychology 142:264–71.
Smith, Christian, Michael Emerson, Sally Gallagher, Paul Kennedy, and David Sikkink.
1998. American Evangelicalism: Embattled and Thriving. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago
Press.
Steensland, Brian, Jerry Z. Park, Mark D. Regnerus, Lynn D. Robinson, W. Bradford
Wilcox, and Robert D. Woodberry. 2000. ‘‘The Measure of American Religion: Toward
Improving the State of the Art.’’ Social Forces 79:291–318.
Tygart, C. E. 2000. ‘‘Genetic Causation Attribution and Public Support of Gay Rights.’’
International Journal of Public Opinion Research 12:259–75.
Unnever, James D., and Francis T. Cullen. 2006. ‘‘Christian Fundamentalism and Support for Capital Punishment.’’ Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 43:169–97.
Unnever, James, Francis T. Cullen, and Brandon K. Applegate. 2005. ‘‘Turning the Other
Cheek: Reassessing the Impact of Religion on Punitive Ideology.’’ Justice Quarterly 22:
304–38.
Unnever, James D., Francis T. Cullen, and John P. Bartkowski. 2006. ‘‘Images of God and
Public Support for Capital Punishment: Does a Close Relationship with a Loving God
Matter?’’ Criminology 44:835–66.
Vander Stoep, Scott W., and Charles W. Green. 1988. ‘‘Religiosity and Homonegativism: A
Path-Analytic Study.’’ Basic and Applied Social Psychology 9:135–47.
Weiner, Bernard. 1979. ‘‘A Theory of Motivation for Some Classroom Experience.’’ Journal of Educational Psychology 71:3–25.
———. 1985. ‘‘An Attribution Theory of Achievement, Motivation, and Emotion.’’ Psychological Review 92:548–73.
Weiner, Bernard, Raymond Perry, and Jamie Magnusson. 1988. ‘‘An Attributional
Analysis of Reactions to Stigmas.’’ Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 55:
738–48.
Whittey, Bernard E. Jr. 1990. ‘‘The Relationship of Heterosexuals’ Attributions for the
Causes of Homosexuality to Attitudes Towards Lesbians and Gay Men.’’ Personality and
Social Psychology Bulletin 16:369–77.
Sacred Rites and Civil Rights
79
Wilcox, Clyde, and Barbara Norrander. 2002. ‘‘Of Moods and Morals: The Dynamics of
Opinion on Abortion and Gay Rights.’’ In Barbara Norrander and Clyde Wilcox, eds.,
Understanding Public Opinion, 2nd ed. Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly Press.
Wilcox, Clyde, and Robin Wolpert. 2000. ‘‘Gay Rights in the Public Sphere: Public Opinion on Gay and Lesbian Equality.’’ In Craig A. Rimmerman, Kenneth D. Wald, and Clyde
Wilcox, eds., The Politics of Gay Rights. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Wood, Peter B., and John P. Bartkowski. 2004. ‘‘Attribution Style and Public Policy Attitudes Toward Gay Rights.’’ Social Science Quarterly 85:58–74.
Zucker, Gail S., and Bernard Weiner. 1993. ‘‘Conservatism and Perceptions of Poverty: An
Attributional Analysis.’’ Journal of Applied Social Psychology 23:925–43.
Copyright of Social Science Quarterly (Blackwell Publishing Limited) is the property of Blackwell Publishing
Limited and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder 's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.
References: Aguero, Joseph E., Laura Block, and Donn Byrne. 1984. ‘‘The Relationships Among Sexual Beliefs, Attitudes, Experience, and Homophobia.’’ Journal of Homosexuality 10:95–107. Bader, Christopher D., and Paul Froese. 2005. ‘‘Images of God: The Effects of Personal Theologies on Moral Attitudes, Political Affiliation, and Religious Behavior.’’ Interdisciplinary Journal of Religious Research 1(Article 11) Bader, Christopher D., F. Carson Mencken, and Paul Froese. 2007. ‘‘American Piety 2005: Content, Methods and Selected Results from the Baylor Religion Survey.’’ Journal for the Baylor University. 2007. The Baylor Religion Survey. Waco, TX: Baylor Institute for Studies of Religion. Boysen, Guy A., and David L. Vogel. 2007. ‘‘Biased Assimilation and Attitude Polarization in Response to Learning About Biological Explanations of Homosexuality.’’ Sex Roles Brumbaugh, Stacey M., Laura A. Sanchez, Steven L. Nock, and James D. Wright. 2008. Cochran, John K., and Leonard Beeghley. 1991. ‘‘The Influence of Religion on Attitudes Toward Nonmarital Sexuality: A Preliminary Assessment of Reference Group Theory.’’ Crocker, Jennifer, Beth Cornwell, and Brenda Major. 1993. ‘‘The Stigma of Overweight: Affective Consequences of Attributional Ambiguity.’’ Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 64:60–70. Dougherty, Kevin D., Byron Johnson, and Edward C. Polson. 2007. ‘‘Recovering the Lost: Re-Measuring U.S Finlay, Barbara, and Carol S. Walther. 2003. ‘‘The Relation of Religious Affiliation, Service Attendance, and Other Factors to Homophobic Attitudes Among University Students.’’ Froese, Paul, and Christopher D. Bader. 2007. ‘‘God in America: Why Theology is Not Simply the Concern of Philosophers.’’ Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion ———. 2008. ‘‘Unraveling Religious Worldviews: The Relationship Between Images of God and Political Ideology in a Cross-cultural Analysis.’’ Sociological Quarterly 49:689– Froese, Paul, Christopher D. Bader, and Buster Smith. 2008. ‘‘Political Tolerance and God’s Wrath in the United States.’’ Sociology of Religion 69:29–44. Gay, David A., and Christopher G. Ellison. 1993. ‘‘Religious Subcultures and Political Tolerance: Do Denominations Still Matter?’’ Review of Religious Research 34:311–32. Greeley, Andrew, and Michael Hout. 2006. The Truth About Conservative Christians: What They Think and What They Believe Griffin, William E., and Yaw Oheneba-Sakyi. 1993. ‘‘Sociodemographic and Political Correlates of University Students’ Causal Attributions for Poverty.’’ Psychological Reports Haider-Markel, Donald P., and Mark R. Joslyn. 2005. ‘‘Attributions and the Regulation of Marriage: Considering the Parallels Between Race and Homosexuality.’’ PS: Political Science ———. 2008. ‘‘Beliefs About the Origins of Homosexuality and Support for Gay Rights: An Empirical Test of Attribution Theory.’’ Public Opinion Quarterly 72:291–310. Heider, Fritz. 1944. ‘‘Social Perception and Phenomenal Causality.’’ Psychological Review 51:358–74. ———. 1958. The Psychology of Interpersonal Relations. New York: Wiley. Herek, Gregory M. 1988. ‘‘Heterosexuals’ Attitudes Toward Lesbians and Gay Men: Correlates and Gender Differences.’’ Journal of Sex Research 25:451–77. ———. 2002. ‘‘Gender Gaps in Public Opinion About Lesbians and Gay Men.’’ Public Opinion Quarterly 66:40–66. Herek, Gregory M., and John P. Capitanio. 1995. ‘‘Black Heterosexuals’ Attitudes Toward Lesbians and Gay Men in the United States.’’ Journal of Sex Research 32:95– Koch, Jerome R., and Evans W. Curry. 2000. ‘‘Social Context and the Presbyterian Gay/ Lesbian Ordination Debate: Testing Open-Systems Theory.’’ Review of Religious Research Larsen, Knud S., Michael Reed, and Susan Hoffman. 1980. ‘‘Attitudes of Homosexuals Toward Homosexuality: A Likert-Type Scale and Construct Validity.’’ Journal of Sex Research Loftus, Jeni. 2001. ‘‘America’s Liberalization in Attitudes Toward Homosexuality, 1973 to 1998.’’ American Sociological Review 66:762–82. Olson, Laura R., and Wendy Cadge. 2002. ‘‘Talking About Homosexuality: The Views of Mainline Protestant Clergy.’’ Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 41:153–67. Olson, Laura R., Wendy Cadge, and James T. Harrison. 2006. ‘‘Religion and Public Opinion About Same-Sex Marriage.’’ Social Science Quarterly 87:340–60. Rowatt, Wade C., Jordan LaBouff, Megan Johnson, Paul Froese, and Jo-Ann Tsang. 2009. Sakalli, Nurray. 2002. ‘‘Application of the Attribution-Value Model of Prejudice to Homosexuality.’’ Journal of Social Psychology 142:264–71. Tygart, C. E. 2000. ‘‘Genetic Causation Attribution and Public Support of Gay Rights.’’ International Journal of Public Opinion Research 12:259–75. Unnever, James D., and Francis T. Cullen. 2006. ‘‘Christian Fundamentalism and Support for Capital Punishment.’’ Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 43:169–97. Unnever, James, Francis T. Cullen, and Brandon K. Applegate. 2005. ‘‘Turning the Other Cheek: Reassessing the Impact of Religion on Punitive Ideology.’’ Justice Quarterly 22:
Effect on Attitudes Toward Same-Sex
Unions and the Perceived
Cause of Homosexuality n
Andrew L. Whitehead, Baylor University
Objective. Past research reveals how religion and opinions about the cause of homosexuality influence attitudes concerning same-sex unions. No study to date contains a comprehensive collection of religion measures while also accounting for views of the cause of homosexuality. Therefore, this study investigates the extent to which religion predicts certain attribution beliefs as well as attitudes toward samesex unions while controlling for attribution beliefs. Method. The Baylor Religion
Survey (2007) is used to estimate binary logistic models predicting the effects of religion and attribution beliefs on attitudes toward same-sex unions. Findings. First, religion is strongly associated with the belief that homosexuals choose their sexual orientation. Second, religion maintains a significant association with attitudes toward same-sex unions despite inclusion of an attribution variable. Conclusion. Even if a biological explanation for homosexuality is ultimately proven, unfavorable attitudes toward same-sex unions will most likely endure due to religion’s persistent effect.
The topic of same-sex unions has been a key political issue for many
Americans since the 2004 presidential elections. Consider that in 2008 alone
New Hampshire passed legislation allowing for homosexual civil unions,
California’s supreme court ruled that homosexuals have the constitutional right to marry, Massachusetts’ House and Senate allowed for same-sex marriages for out-of-state couples, and in the November elections of 2008 voters in Arizona, Florida, and California all elected to amend their state constitutions to legally define marriage, thus outlawing same-sex unions.
Considering all the attention given to the legality and morality of same-sex unions, the key follow-up question for social researchers is what determines individuals’ views toward those unions. More specifically, who is most likely to support or oppose same-sex unions? Recent research demonstrates the n Direct correspondence to Andrew Whitehead, Department of Sociology, Baylor University, One Bear Pl., Box 97326, Waco, TX 76798 hAndrew_Whitehead@Baylor.edui. All data and coding information will be shared with those wishing to replicate the study. The author thanks the anonymous reviewers and the editor of SSQ as well as Paul Froese, Kevin
Dougherty, Christopher Bader, Wade Rowatt, and Scott Draper for all of their helpful comments on previous drafts.
SOCIAL SCIENCE QUARTERLY, Volume 91, Number 1, March 2010 r 2010 by the Southwestern Social Science Association
64
Social Science Quarterly
importance of religion (Olson, Cadge, and Harrison, 2006) as well as the perceived cause of homosexuality (Haider-Markel and Joslyn, 2005, 2008;
Wilcox and Norrander, 2002) when predicting attitudes toward homosexual marriage and civil unions. Regrettably, while Olson, Cadge, and Harrison
(2006) employed a broad collection of religion measures, they were not able to account for individuals’ attribution of the cause of homosexuality. Conversely, the Haider-Markel and Joslyn (2008) and Wilcox and Norrander
(2002) studies accounted for attribution but their religion measures were not as extensive as Olson, Cadge, and Harrison’s (2006) and, interestingly enough, despite the inclusion of the perceived cause variable, the religion measures were still significantly associated. Additionally, none of the aforementioned studies were able to include religious belief measures in their studies. Due to religion’s persistent influence, it is important to discover what is taking place in greater depth and breadth than previously allowed.
Therefore, to fill the voids of past research, a wider range of religion variables was utilized to discover religion’s effect on individuals’ beliefs concerning the cause of homosexuality as well as attitudes toward same-sex unions. In this study, past findings implying the strength of an individual’s belief as to the cause of homosexuality on attitudes toward same-sex unions is supported. Beyond this, a more complete explanation of the effects of religion on the issue is provided. Namely, I find a persistent and pervasive influence of religious belief, behavior, and affiliation on attitudes toward the cause of homosexuality and same-sex unions.
Attribution of the Cause of Homosexuality
Whether individuals choose to be gay or are gay by disposition is essential in debates concerning their right to marry. At the crux of the argument is the controllability of homosexuality and whether responsibility for the orientation can be attributed to the individual. Attribution theory was first proposed by Heider (1944, 1958) and later furthered by Weiner (1979, 1985).
The theory holds that individuals work to predict and control their environment by attributing others’ behaviors as the result of internal or external factors. The idea that behavior can be viewed as either controllable or uncontrollable was added to attribution theory by Weiner. For those behaviors that are labeled controllable, the person exhibiting the behavior can be held personally responsible. Those attributing personal responsibility to a certain individual or group tend to view them more negatively if the behavior in question is stigmatized in some way. A number of studies find support for attribution theory applied to obesity (Crocker, Cornwell, and Major, 1993;
DeJong, 1980), poverty (Griffin and Oheneba-Sakyi, 1993; Zucker and
Weiner, 1993), and when comparing certain stigmas believed to be controllable (AIDS) versus uncontrollable (Alzheimer’s) (Weiner, Perry, and
Magnusson, 1988).
Sacred Rites and Civil Rights
65
Past research that investigated attitudes toward homosexuality supports attribution theory (Aguero, Block, and Byrne, 1984; Herek, 2002; Herek and Capitanio, 1995; Sakalli, 2002; VanderStoep and Green, 1988;
Whitely, 1990). In fact, in their study of African Americans, Herek and
Capitanio concluded that ‘‘the single most important predictor of attitudes
[toward homosexuals] was the attribution of choice to sexual orientation’’
(1995:95). Studies focused on attitudes concerning same-sex unions find support for attribution theory as well. Specifically, individuals believing that homosexuality is the result of natural or biological forces are more likely to support gay rights or same-sex unions, while those attributing homosexuality as the result of a choice are less likely to support same-sex unions (HaiderMarkel and Joslyn, 2005; Tygart, 2000; Wilcox and Norrander, 2002;
Wilcox and Wolpert, 2000; Wood and Bartkowski, 2004). In their latest study Haider-Markel and Joslyn (2008) continued to demonstrate the importance of attribution. The authors found that those viewing homosexuality as nonbiological are much less likely to support same-sex unions.
Haider-Markel and Joslyn concluded that ‘‘attributions’’ of the cause of an individual’s sexual orientation ‘‘are in fact the strongest predictor of support’’ for same-sex unions (Haider-Markel and Joslyn, 2008:291), coinciding with Herek and Capitanio’s (1995) suggestion in their previous study. Religion and Homosexuality
A great deal of research focuses on the intersection of religion and views concerning homosexuality. Type of denomination (Cochran and Beeghley,
1991; Finlay and Walther, 2003; Gay and Ellison, 1993; Greeley and Hout,
2006; Herek, 1988; Koch and Curry, 2000; Olson and Cadge, 2002; Smith et al., 1998), religious tradition (Loftus, 2001; Smith et al., 1998), rate of attendance (Froese, Bader, and Smith, 2008; Herek, 1988; Herek and
Capitanio, 1995; Larsen et al., 1980), literal views of the Bible (Bader and
Froese, 2005; Froese, Bader, and Smith, 2008; Rowatt et al., 2009), and images of God (Bader and Froese, 2005; Froese and Bader, 2007, 2008;
Unnever and Cullen, 2006; Unnever, Cullen, and Applegate, 2005; Unnever, Cullen, and Bartkowsi, 2006) all affect attitudes toward homosexuality. This research shows Christians, conservative denominations, frequent attendees, biblical literalists, and those with active or angry images of God tend to be the most condemning of homosexual behavior.
In addition to being significantly associated with views about homosexuals as well as their civil rights, religion is a strong predictor of attitudes regarding same-sex unions. Specifically, non-Protestants are more likely to be favorable toward homosexual civil unions and marriage (Haider-Markel and
Joslyn, 2008; Olson, Cadge, and Harrison, 2006; Wilcox and Norrander,
2002; Wood and Bartkowski, 2004). Religiously active individuals are also
66
Social Science Quarterly
less likely to agree with same-sex marriage and civil unions (Brumbaugh et al., 2008; Haider-Markel and Joslyn, 2005, 2008; Olson, Cadge, and Harrison, 2006; Wilcox and Norrander, 2002).
These studies provide insight into the general effect of religion but none have been able to fully account for religious behavior, belief, and affiliation.
In fact, no study to date has measured the association of religious belief with same-sex unions while accounting for attribution. Due to the amount of research supporting the claim that individuals’ religious beliefs (images of
God, biblical literalism) are significantly associated with their views toward homosexuals (Bader and Froese, 2005; Froese and Bader, 2007; Froese,
Bader, and Smith, 2008), research dealing with attitudes toward same-sex unions should take religious beliefs into account. Additionally, the present study utilizes the RELTRAD (Steensland et al., 2000) typology to examine the effects of religious affiliation. This measure of religious affiliation will allow for a more comprehensive view of affiliation’s importance when measuring attitudes toward same-sex unions. This is important, as Steensland et al. point out, because measuring religious tradition poorly can influence not only religious affiliation coefficients, but also other coefficients more central to the analysis (2000:20). The RELTRAD typology will be an improvement over the Protestant dummy variable or the mainline, Catholic, fundamentalist, unaffiliated typology used in prior research (Haider-Markel and
Joslyn, 2008; Wilcox and Norrander, 2002; Wood and Bartkowski,
2004).
It is safe to say that religion and attribution are both significantly associated with attitudes toward same-sex unions. Using a more comprehensive collection of religion measures, some of which have not previously been utilized, as well as being able to account for beliefs concerning the cause of homosexuality, this study hopes to provide a more thorough description of religion’s relationship with attitudes concerning homosexual marriage and civil unions. This endeavor will be a modest but important step toward understanding to a greater extent what is significantly associated with beliefs toward the cause of homosexuality and same-sex unions. In light of past research, I expect religious belief, behavior, and affiliation to be significantly associated with believing homosexuals choose their orientation. I also expect religious belief, behavior, and affiliation to maintain significant association with unfavorable attitudes toward same-sex unions while controlling for attribution’s effect.
Data
Data for this study were taken from the second wave (2007) of the Baylor
Religion Survey (BRS). The 2007 BRS is a random, national sample of
1,648 U.S. citizens administered by the Gallup Organization and it compares favorably to similar items on the General Social Survey (Bader,
Sacred Rites and Civil Rights
67
Mencken, and Froese, 2007). The BRS is ideal for this study because of its focus on gaining deeper insight into the religious beliefs, behaviors, and identities of the general public. This focus will allow for more breadth as well as depth in our understanding of religion’s association with the attribution of homosexuality and same-sex unions.
Dependent Variables
The first dependent variable of interest was constructed using a question on the BRS that asked for a level of agreement (strongly agree, agree, disagree, strongly disagree) with the statement: ‘‘People choose to be homosexuals.’’ The strongly agree and agree responses were paired to construct a dichotomous variable. Over the entire sample, 38.5 percent believe that homosexuals choose their orientation. The ‘‘choice’’ variable also serves as an independent measure once attitudes toward same-sex marriage and civil unions are investigated. The second dependent variable of interest uses the question asking for the respondent’s level of agreement with the statement:
‘‘Homosexuals should be allowed to marry.’’ The strongly agree and agree responses were paired and a dichotomous variable was constructed, with
32.2 percent of the sample agreeing with same-sex marriage. Likewise, the question ‘‘Homosexuals should be allowed civil unions’’ was similarly dichotomized, with 53.8 percent of the sample agreeing with this statement
(see Table 1).
Religion Variables
The religious variables of interest account for behavior (attendance), belief
(biblical literalism and images of God), and affiliation (RELTRAD). To control for religious affiliation, a modified RELTRAD typology was used. In accordance with Steensland et al. (2000), individuals are placed in the categories black Protestant, evangelical Protestant, mainline Protestant, Catholic, Jewish, other religion, and no religion. An additional item is considered on the Baylor Religion Survey that asks respondents to provide the name and location of their church (for a description of this modified version of
RELTRAD and its value in research, see Dougherty, Johnson, and Polson,
2007). The evangelical Protestant group will be the contrast group throughout the analysis because of its propensity to be the most conservative of the religious groupings (Finlay and Walther, 2003; Greeley and Hout, 2006;
Haider-Markel and Joslyn, 2008; Koch and Curry, 2000; Olson and Cadge,
2002; Olson, Cadge, and Harrison, 2006; Smith et al., 1998).
The attendance measure utilizes an item asking for how often the respondent frequented a place of worship, with higher scores indicating higher levels of attendance. The first measure of religious belief utilized in this
68
Social Science Quarterly
TABLE 1
Descriptive Statistics
Variables
Support same-sex marriage
Support same-sex civil unions
Believe homosexuals choose orientation
Attend weekly
Biblical literalists
RELTRAD
Evangelical Protestants
Black Protestants
Mainline Protestants
Catholic
Jewish
Other
No religion
Active God
Angry God
Percent
32.17
52.83
38.48
30.31
23.54
33.09
4.79
20.69
22.14
1.90
6.06
11.34
Mean (SD)
27.07 (6.62)
16.99 (6.39)
SOURCE: Baylor Religion Survey (2007).
study is how literally the Bible is interpreted by each individual. To measure biblical literalism, a question was used asking respondents to choose which statement comes closest to their personal beliefs about the Bible: ‘‘The Bible means exactly what it says. It should be taken literally, word-for-word, on all subjects’’; ‘‘The Bible is perfectly true, but it should not be taken literally, word-for-word. We must interpret its meaning’’; ‘‘The Bible contains some human error’’; and ‘‘The Bible is an ancient book of history and legends.’’
Higher scores correspond with increasing levels of biblical literalism.
Another measure of religious belief is how individuals view God. The
Baylor Religion Survey contains many measures of beliefs about God beyond beliefs about God’s existence. The two most important images, Froese and Bader (2007) argue, are the extent to which God is angry and active. An angry image of God focuses on judgment, retribution, and wrath. An active view of God refers to whether God is removed from or directly involved with human affairs. The active view of God is an additive scale made up of seven different questions, where higher scores represent a view of God as more active in the world. Respondents are asked what they think God is like using a five point Likert scale. Included are the descriptions: ‘‘Is God ‘removed from worldly affairs’, ‘concerned with the well-being of the world’,
‘concerned with my personal well-being’, ‘directly involved with worldly affairs’, and ‘directly involved in my affairs’.’’ The survey then asks if the adjectives ‘‘ever-present’’ or ‘‘distant’’ describe God ‘‘very well, somewhat well, not very well, not at all, or undecided.’’ Each of these questions was flipped as needed and summed to create the active view of God scale. The
Sacred Rites and Civil Rights
69
resulting scores ranged from 7 to 35, with a mean of 27.07. This scale is hereafter referenced as the active God scale (alpha 5 0.882).
The angry view of God scale combines questions asking for level of agreement, using a five-point Likert scale, with the idea that God is ‘‘angered by human sin,’’ or ‘‘angered by my sins,’’ and with how well the words
‘‘critical,’’ ‘‘punishing,’’ ‘‘severe,’’ and ‘‘wrathful’’ describe God (very well, somewhat well, undecided, not very well, or not at all). These six responses were flipped as needed to coincide with higher scores equating to a more angry view of God. The results were then summed to create the angry God scale (alpha 5 0.850). The resulting scores ranged from 6 to 30, with a mean of 16.99.
Control Variables
The control variables used in this analysis include age (in years), gender
(male 5 1), race (white 5 1), marriage status (married 5 1), income
(o$10K, $10,001–$20K, $20,001–$35K, $35,001–$50K, $50,001–
$100K, $100,001–$150K, and $150,0001), education (o8th, 9–12th no diploma, HS graduate, some college, trade/technical/vocational training, college graduate, postgraduate work/degree), region (South 5 1), and political views (extremely conservative, conservative, leaning conservative, moderate, leaning liberal, liberal, extremely liberal). The responses were ordered so higher scores correspond to more conservative political views.
Each has received support in previous literature concerning its effect on attitudes toward homosexual issues.
Analytic Model
Due to the nature of the dependent variables, binary logistic regression is used for each test. In the first test, the demographic controls and religion variables are regressed on the choice variable. Haider-Markel and Joslyn
(2008) performed the same test. This test extends their findings by using a wider array of religion measures to allow a fuller explanation of what is associated with believing homosexuality is the result of a choice.
The second and third tests regress the attribution, religion, and demographic variables on agreeing with same-sex marriage and civil unions, respectively. Two separate models are reported for each same-sex union dependent variable. The first model contains each of the demographic and religion variables. This allows for a close replication of Olson, Cadge, and
Harrison’s (2006) study. The second model adds in the attribution variable
(choice). This results in a test similar to that performed by Haider-Markel and Joslyn (2008) and Wilcox and Norrander (2002). In this way the conclusions offered by the Olson, Cadge, and Harrison (2006),
70
Social Science Quarterly
Haider-Markel and Joslyn (2008), and Wilcox and Norrander (2002) studies can be directly compared. This ultimately provides a more definitive explanation regarding the association of religion and attribution with samesex unions.
Results
Table 2 displays the results from the first test. The results show that males are significantly more likely to agree that homosexuality is a choice compared to females. Similarly, individuals who label themselves as politically conservative are more likely than their less politically conservative counterparts to believe homosexuality is the result of a choice. As education increases, the odds of believing homosexuals choose their orientation decreases. People who exhibit high levels of religious behavior are more likely to agree that homosexuality is a choice. Compared to evangelical
Protestants, mainline Protestants and Catholics are 54 percent and 43 percent less likely to believe homosexuals choose their orientation, respectively.
Finally, as individuals view the Bible more literal they are 25 percent more likely to believe homosexuality is the result of a choice. In the same way, as individuals view God as more active in the world they are more likely to agree that homosexuality is a choice.1
In Table 3, I find that older individuals are less likely to support same-sex marriages. The same is true for more politically conservative individuals and those from the South. Conversely, as income increases, the odds of agreeing that homosexuals should be allowed to marry increase by 16 percent.
Turning to the religion variables, I find that as people attend worship services more frequently their odds of agreeing with same-sex marriage decrease
13 percent. Mainline Protestants, Catholics, the religious ‘‘other’’ grouping, and the religiously unaffiliated are all more likely than evangelical Protestants to support same-sex marriages. I also find that as individuals view the
Bible more literally the odds of agreeing with homosexual marriage decrease dramatically. 1
Missing cases in each model are mainly due to the large number of religion variables included. The greatest number of missing cases results from the inclusion of the active God and angry God measures. The reason these belief scales cause so many missing cases is because those individuals who do not believe in God (atheists) are omitted. One must believe in God to have a God image. While including atheists in the discussion would be ideal, there are two reasons their omission is not fatal to this discussion. First, the overarching focus of the article is to investigate how religion, while accounting for beliefs about the cause of homosexuality, affects attitudes toward same-sex unions. Since atheists usually are not religious, this investigation does not directly concern them. Second, atheists are a very small portion of the adult population. The Baylor Religion Survey (2007) is almost identical to the General Social
Survey and other national surveys in its estimation of the number of atheists. Usually, atheists make up only 4 to 5 percent of the adult population. Due to these issues, additional analyses were conducted to ensure there are no systematic biases present in the missing cases compared to those cases included in each model. No systematic bias was found concerning each dependent variable of interest.
Sacred Rites and Civil Rights
71
TABLE 2
Logistic Regression of Choice as Cause of Homosexuality on Demographic
Controls and Religion Variables
Choice
Variables
Sociodemographic
Age
Male
White
Married
Education
Politically conservative
Religious Behavior
Attendance
Religious Tradition
Mainline Protestant
Black Protestant
Catholic
Jewish
Other
None
Religious Belief
Biblical literalism
Active God
Angry God
Constant
Pseudo R 2
PRE
N
Estimate
Standard Error
Odds Ratios
À 0.004
0.927 n n n
0.705
0.122
À 0.108 n
0.360 n n n
0.005
0.158
0.624
0.167
0.052
0.057
—
2.528
—
—
0.898
1.433
0.115 n n n
0.034
1.122
À 0.776 n n n
0.845
À 0.558 n n
À 0.640
À 0.375
0.335
0.206
0.772
0.202
0.684
0.322
0.353
0.460
—
0.572
—
—
—
0.226 n
0.042 n
0.007
À 4.766 n n n
0.339
21.48%
1,073
0.099
0.017
0.013
0.835
1.254
1.043
—
po0.05; n npo0.01; n n npo0.001.
SOURCE: Baylor Religion Survey (2007) n The proportional reduction in error (PRE) in Model 1 of Table 3 is 41.72 percent compared to the 43.47 percent PRE of Model 2 with its inclusion of the attribution variable. Generally, this means that taking attribution into account when discussing attitudes toward homosexual marriage reduces error in the model. Unsurprisingly, the choice variable was significant in the model.
Individuals who believe homosexuality is a choice are almost 67 percent less likely to support homosexual marriage compared to those who do not. With the inclusion of the attribution variable, the religious ‘‘other’’ group as well as the mainline Protestant group failed to achieve statistical significance compared to the results from Model 1. Religious behavior and belief continued to significantly predict negative attitudes toward same-sex marriage despite the presence of the attribution variable. Similarly, Catholics and the religiously unaffiliated are still significantly more likely to support homosexual marriage compared to evangelical Protestants net of attribution’s effects.
72
Social Science Quarterly
TABLE 3
Logistic Regression Analysis of Support for Homosexual Marriage
Model 1
Variables
Sociodemographic
Age
Male
White
Married
Income
Education
South
Politically conservative
Religious Behavior
Attendance
Religious Tradition
Mainline Protestant
Black Protestant
Catholic
Jewish
Other
None
Religious Belief
Biblical literalism
Active God
Angry God
Attribution
Choice
Constant
Pseudo R2
PRE
Model 2
Standard
Error
Odds
Ratio
À 0.022 n n n
À 0.227
À 0.203
À 0.378
0.147 n
0.036
À 0.460 n
À 0.760 n n n
0.006
0.197
0.734
0.215
0.074
0.066
0.223
0.073
0.978
—
—
—
1.158
—
0.631
0.468
À 0.142 n n n
0.042
0.868
0.576 n
0.742
0.678 n n
0.603
0.792 n
1.464 n n n
0.259
0.895
0.260
0.589
0.381
0.415
1.779
—
1.970
—
2.207
4.325
À 0.709 n n n
0.024
0.001
0.120
0.020
0.018
—
4.341 n n n
0.574
41.72%
—
0.999
Estimate
Standard
Error
Odds
Ratio
À 0.022 n n n
À 0.030
À 0.111
À 0.335
0.128
0.016
À 0.415
À 0.717 n n n
0.006
0.204
0.702
0.218
0.074
0.068
0.227
0.075
0.978
—
—
—
—
—
—
0.488
À 0.127 n n
0.042
0.880
0.465
0.788
0.561 n
0.493
0.757
1.579 n n n
0.263
0.918
0.264
0.608
0.393
0.427
—
—
1.753
—
—
4.849
0.492
—
—
À 0.687 n n n
0.030
0.004
0.121
0.020
0.018
0.503
—
—
—
À 1.094 n n n
4.160 n n n
0.592
43.47%
0.230
0.982
0.335
Estimate
po0.05; n npo0.01; n n npo0.001.
SOURCE: Baylor Religion Survey (2007); N 5 1,031 (M1); N 5 1,030 (M2). n Table 4 presents the results of the logistic regression analysis concerning attitudes toward civil unions. In Model 1, the analysis reveals that increasing income and education lead to a greater likelihood of supporting homosexual civil unions, whereas politically conservative individuals are less likely to show support. Similarly, as religious service attendance increases, individuals are less likely to agree. The religiously unaffiliated are much more likely than evangelical
Protestants to support homosexual civil unions, while those who interpret the
Bible literally and view God as active are much less likely to agree to civil unions.
The PRE of Model 1 of Table 4 is 33.81 percent, with a PRE in Model 2 of
37.36 percent. As with homosexual marriage, including a variable that accounts for individuals’ attribution of controllability reduces the error in the model. In Model 2 we find that the attribution variable is again statistically significant. Those who believe that homosexuals choose their orientation are almost 60 percent less likely to agree to same-sex civil unions compared to
Sacred Rites and Civil Rights
73
TABLE 4
Logistic Regression Analysis of Support for Homosexual Civil Unions
Model 1
Variables
Sociodemographic
Age
Male
White
Married
Income
Education
South
Politically conservative
Religious Behavior
Attendance
Religious Tradition
Mainline Protestant
Black Protestant
Catholic
Jewish
Other
None
Religious Belief
Biblical literalism
Active God
Angry God
Attribution
Choice
Constant
Pseudo R2
PRE
Model 2
Standard
Error
Odds
Ratio
Standard
Error
Odds
Ratio
À 0.007
À 0.273
0.608
À 0.003
0.227 n n n
0.233 n n n
À 0.302
À 0.342 n n n
0.005
0.172
0.683
0.200
0.065
0.060
0.182
0.062
—
—
—
—
1.254
1.263
—
0.710
À 0.0098
À 0.038
0.760
À 0.008
0.255 n n n
0.222 n n n
À 0.283
À 0.268 n n n
0.005
0.182
0.646
0.205
0.062
0.066
0.188
0.064
—
—
—
—
1.290
1.249
—
0.765
À 0.127 n n n
0.035
0.880
À 0.107 n n
0.037
0.899
0.405
1.228
0.382
1.780
À 0.035
1.145 n
0.221
0.832
0.220
1.420
0.345
0.522
—
—
—
—
—
3.141
0.211
1.417
0.236
1.551
À 0.088
1.525 n n
0.229
0.822
0.228
1.427
0.359
0.555
—
—
—
—
—
4.594
À 0.675 n n n
À 0.043 n
0.006
0.108
0.019
0.015
0.509
0.958
—
À 0.644 n n n
À 0.034
0.008
0.110
0.019
0.015
0.525
—
—
—
2.849 n n
0.499
33.81%
—
0.918
—
À 1.286 n n n
2.390 n n
0.539 n n
37.36%
0.182
0.900
0.395
Estimate
Estimate
po0.05; n npo0.01; n n npo0.001.
SOURCE: Baylor Religion Survey (2007); N 5 1,029 (M1); N 5 1,028 (M2). n those who do not believe homosexuals exert a choice. Similarly, increasing levels of income and education make one more likely to support homosexual civil unions. Conversely, those who are more politically conservative are less likely to agree. The more active one is in attending religious services and the more literally he or she views the Bible, the less likely the person is to support same-sex civil unions. Only the religiously unaffiliated are significantly different from evangelical Protestants regarding religious tradition. The active God measure also fails to achieve statistical significance in the second model.
Discussion
The results from this study support many of the general findings found in previous research. One key finding brought to the surface is the differences
74
Social Science Quarterly
between attitudes toward homosexual marriage and same-sex civil unions among religious traditions. For homosexual marriage, I find that even with the attribution variable in the model, distinct differences exist between evangelical Protestants and Catholics and the religiously unaffiliated, respectively. When looking at same-sex civil unions, though, these differences disappear in the presence of the attribution variable. Thus, for homosexual marriage, how individuals’ view the cause of homosexuality does not account for religious affiliation’s effect. Attitudes toward civil unions operate differently concerning religious tradition.
A possible fundamental difference in how attitudes concerning same-sex marriages and same-sex unions operate inside different religious traditions could be at work here. For evangelical Protestants, the question of homosexual marriage elicits a strong, unfavorable view regardless of their views toward the cause of homosexuality. There is something about belonging to an evangelical Protestant community that influences attitudes toward homosexual marriage beyond the effects of religious belief, behavior, or even attitudes about the controllability of homosexuality. For civil unions, though, there are no such distinctions. It is possible that the marriage question refers to a more ‘‘sacred’’ rite, while civil unions refer to a more
‘‘legal’’ standing and as such might not push the same buttons for those identifying as evangelical Protestants.
In support of past research, attribution is strongly associated with views concerning same-sex unions. If individuals view the cause of homosexuality as controllable they will be much more likely to disagree with allowing homosexuals the right to obtain legal marriages or even civil unions. As
Haider-Markel and Joslyn explain, ‘‘[c]ontrollability suggests personal responsibility for behaviors,’’ which results in ‘‘negative affect toward gays’’ and a ‘‘lack of support for gay rights’’ (2008:306). The findings presented here do not negate the similar claims made in past studies that ‘‘the single most important predictor of attitudes was the attribution of choice to sexual orientation’’ (Herek and Capitanio, 1995:95) and ‘‘attributions were by far the strongest predictors of attitudes’’ (Haider-Markel and Joslyn, 2008:306).
Thus, in comparing Olson, Cadge, and Harrison’s (2006) study with
Haider-Markel and Joslyn (2008) and Wilcox and Norrander (2002), I find that when considering attitudes toward same-sex unions, excluding the attribution variable weakens the model. In support of Olson, Cadge, and
Harrison’s general conclusion, this study maintains that religion is still vitally important when discussing these issues.
Beyond these findings, this study also demonstrates that it is not enough to account for just one aspect of religiosity but for all. This is evidenced by religious belief, behavior, and affiliation maintaining a significant association with opinions about the cause of homosexuality and same-sex unions in spite of each other. Indeed, each casts a separate and distinct light on attitudes toward same-sex unions. Despite the effect of attribution, through a triangulation of religious belief, affiliation, and behavior, we understand to
Sacred Rites and Civil Rights
75
a greater extent religion’s association with attitudes toward same-sex unions.
This study adds depth to previous research in three ways. First, evangelical
Protestants differ from other religious traditions and by using a more nuanced and powerful measure of religious affiliation, the true effects of religious affiliation were controlled for as well as discovered. Second, religious behavior measured through rates of attendance is still important when discussing beliefs concerning same-sex unions. Third, individuals’ religious beliefs are strongly associated with attitudes toward same-sex unions and should not be neglected in future research.
Conclusion
Past research has stressed the explanatory power of both religion and attribution in explaining attitudes toward same-sex unions. In previous studies, there were shortcomings that did not allow for a complete statement to be made concerning the interrelationships of the two. In this study, a new data set was utilized to give greater breadth and depth to the religion side of the story while accounting for the ever-important attribution variable. Religious belief, behavior, and affiliation were found to be strongly associated with individuals’ attributions of the cause of homosexuality. Religious belief, behavior, and affiliation were also observed to play a significant role in explaining attitudes toward same-sex marriages and civil unions despite accounting for individuals’ views toward the cause of homosexuality. Most importantly, this study provided a more thorough description of religion’s effect on attitudes toward the perceived cause of homosexuality and same-sex unions. Despite these strengths, not being able to account for whether a respondent personally knows someone who is homosexual is a noteworthy weakness of the data set used in this study.
Olson, Cadge, and Harrison concluded that ‘‘the tide is not likely to turn in favor of same-sex marriages or civil unions without some reframing of the issue’’ (2006:356). The importance of attribution could be the ‘‘reframing’’ of which the authors spoke. If a natural explanation of homosexuality is found, views of homosexuals and homosexual civil rights could become more affirming. Haider-Markel and Joslyn state: ‘‘If homosexuality comes to be largely viewed as a result of genetics, our results predict greater support for gay and lesbian civil rights’’ (2008:308). Some activists might believe that finding a gene responsible for homosexual orientation is the key to gaining equal standing in the public’s eye. Haider-Markel and Joslyn offer a different outcome if homosexuality is ever shown to be the result of genetics:
‘‘the next step may not be tolerance but intervention. If the homosexual gene can be altered or manipulated in some way, the notion that homosexuality can be ‘cured’ will surely be considered’’ (2008:308). In fact, the possibility of a biological explanation of homosexuality tends to further polarize previously held beliefs (Boysen and Vogel, 2007). Individuals who had positive
76
Social Science Quarterly
views of homosexuals accepted biological explanations as a more persuasive reason to accept homosexuals, while those with negative views toward homosexuals actually became more negative toward them once the biological explanation of homosexuality was introduced. The authors conclude that
‘‘learning about the biological explanations of homosexual behavior is interpreted through the lens of preexisting attitudes’’ (Boysen and Vogel,
2007:755).
Could it be possible, then, that attribution may not actually be the engine that drives attitudes to be more positive or negative when considering homosexuality? Previous research points to the importance of ‘‘preexisting attitudes’’ and religion undoubtedly plays a significant role in the formation of these. There is countless evidence pointing to certain religious beliefs, behaviors, and affiliations being strongly associated with negative views toward homosexuals. It is possible that certain views toward attribution are co-opted, in a sense, by religious individuals to provide supplementary support to their previously held beliefs. This would also help explain their likelihood of retaining negative views of homosexuals despite being confronted with the possibility that homosexuals are not responsible for their behavior. In essence, they would simply stop using attribution as support for their beliefs. Thus, religion will continue to play a central role in the formation and maintenance of attitudes toward homosexuality in the presence of and possibly even beyond the influence of attribution. As such, continuing to research religion’s effect on these issues is of the utmost importance. REFERENCES
Aguero, Joseph E., Laura Block, and Donn Byrne. 1984. ‘‘The Relationships Among Sexual
Beliefs, Attitudes, Experience, and Homophobia.’’ Journal of Homosexuality 10:95–107.
Bader, Christopher D., and Paul Froese. 2005. ‘‘Images of God: The Effects of Personal
Theologies on Moral Attitudes, Political Affiliation, and Religious Behavior.’’ Interdisciplinary Journal of Religious Research 1(Article 11). Available at hhttp://www.religjournal.com/pdf/ ijrr01011.pdfi. Bader, Christopher D., F. Carson Mencken, and Paul Froese. 2007. ‘‘American Piety 2005:
Content, Methods and Selected Results from the Baylor Religion Survey.’’ Journal for the
Scientific Study of Religion 46:447–63.
Baylor University. 2007. The Baylor Religion Survey. Waco, TX: Baylor Institute for Studies of Religion.
Boysen, Guy A., and David L. Vogel. 2007. ‘‘Biased Assimilation and Attitude Polarization in Response to Learning About Biological Explanations of Homosexuality.’’ Sex Roles
57:755–62.
Brumbaugh, Stacey M., Laura A. Sanchez, Steven L. Nock, and James D. Wright. 2008.
‘‘Attitudes Toward Gay Marriage in States Undergoing Marriage Law Transformation.’’
Journal of Marriage and Family 70:345–59.
Sacred Rites and Civil Rights
77
Cochran, John K., and Leonard Beeghley. 1991. ‘‘The Influence of Religion on Attitudes
Toward Nonmarital Sexuality: A Preliminary Assessment of Reference Group Theory.’’
Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 30:45–62.
Crocker, Jennifer, Beth Cornwell, and Brenda Major. 1993. ‘‘The Stigma of Overweight:
Affective Consequences of Attributional Ambiguity.’’ Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 64:60–70.
¨
DeJong, William. 1980. ‘‘The Stigma of Obesity: The Consequences of Naıve Assumptions
Concerning the Causes of Physical Deviance.’’ Journal of Health and Social Behavior 21:75–
87.
Dougherty, Kevin D., Byron Johnson, and Edward C. Polson. 2007. ‘‘Recovering the
Lost: Re-Measuring U.S. Religious Affiliation.’’ Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion
46:483–99.
Finlay, Barbara, and Carol S. Walther. 2003. ‘‘The Relation of Religious Affiliation, Service
Attendance, and Other Factors to Homophobic Attitudes Among University Students.’’
Review of Religious Research 44:370–93.
Froese, Paul, and Christopher D. Bader. 2007. ‘‘God in America: Why Theology is Not Simply the Concern of Philosophers.’’ Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion
46:465–81.
———. 2008. ‘‘Unraveling Religious Worldviews: The Relationship Between Images of God and Political Ideology in a Cross-cultural Analysis.’’ Sociological Quarterly 49:689–
718.
Froese, Paul, Christopher D. Bader, and Buster Smith. 2008. ‘‘Political Tolerance and God’s
Wrath in the United States.’’ Sociology of Religion 69:29–44.
Gay, David A., and Christopher G. Ellison. 1993. ‘‘Religious Subcultures and Political
Tolerance: Do Denominations Still Matter?’’ Review of Religious Research 34:311–32.
Greeley, Andrew, and Michael Hout. 2006. The Truth About Conservative Christians: What
They Think and What They Believe. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Griffin, William E., and Yaw Oheneba-Sakyi. 1993. ‘‘Sociodemographic and Political
Correlates of University Students’ Causal Attributions for Poverty.’’ Psychological Reports
73:795–800.
Haider-Markel, Donald P., and Mark R. Joslyn. 2005. ‘‘Attributions and the Regulation of
Marriage: Considering the Parallels Between Race and Homosexuality.’’ PS: Political Science and Politics 38:233–40.
———. 2008. ‘‘Beliefs About the Origins of Homosexuality and Support for Gay Rights: An
Empirical Test of Attribution Theory.’’ Public Opinion Quarterly 72:291–310.
Heider, Fritz. 1944. ‘‘Social Perception and Phenomenal Causality.’’ Psychological Review
51:358–74.
———. 1958. The Psychology of Interpersonal Relations. New York: Wiley.
Herek, Gregory M. 1988. ‘‘Heterosexuals’ Attitudes Toward Lesbians and Gay Men: Correlates and Gender Differences.’’ Journal of Sex Research 25:451–77.
———. 2002. ‘‘Gender Gaps in Public Opinion About Lesbians and Gay Men.’’ Public
Opinion Quarterly 66:40–66.
Herek, Gregory M., and John P. Capitanio. 1995. ‘‘Black Heterosexuals’ Attitudes
Toward Lesbians and Gay Men in the United States.’’ Journal of Sex Research 32:95–
105.
78
Social Science Quarterly
Koch, Jerome R., and Evans W. Curry. 2000. ‘‘Social Context and the Presbyterian Gay/
Lesbian Ordination Debate: Testing Open-Systems Theory.’’ Review of Religious Research
42:206–14.
Larsen, Knud S., Michael Reed, and Susan Hoffman. 1980. ‘‘Attitudes of Homosexuals
Toward Homosexuality: A Likert-Type Scale and Construct Validity.’’ Journal of Sex Research
16:245–57.
Loftus, Jeni. 2001. ‘‘America’s Liberalization in Attitudes Toward Homosexuality, 1973 to
1998.’’ American Sociological Review 66:762–82.
Olson, Laura R., and Wendy Cadge. 2002. ‘‘Talking About Homosexuality: The Views of
Mainline Protestant Clergy.’’ Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 41:153–67.
Olson, Laura R., Wendy Cadge, and James T. Harrison. 2006. ‘‘Religion and Public Opinion About Same-Sex Marriage.’’ Social Science Quarterly 87:340–60.
Rowatt, Wade C., Jordan LaBouff, Megan Johnson, Paul Froese, and Jo-Ann Tsang. 2009.
‘‘Associations Between Religiousness, Social Attitudes, and Prejudice in a National Random
Sample of American Adults.’’ Psychology of Religion and Spirituality 1:14–24.
Sakalli, Nurray. 2002. ‘‘Application of the Attribution-Value Model of Prejudice to Homosexuality.’’ Journal of Social Psychology 142:264–71.
Smith, Christian, Michael Emerson, Sally Gallagher, Paul Kennedy, and David Sikkink.
1998. American Evangelicalism: Embattled and Thriving. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago
Press.
Steensland, Brian, Jerry Z. Park, Mark D. Regnerus, Lynn D. Robinson, W. Bradford
Wilcox, and Robert D. Woodberry. 2000. ‘‘The Measure of American Religion: Toward
Improving the State of the Art.’’ Social Forces 79:291–318.
Tygart, C. E. 2000. ‘‘Genetic Causation Attribution and Public Support of Gay Rights.’’
International Journal of Public Opinion Research 12:259–75.
Unnever, James D., and Francis T. Cullen. 2006. ‘‘Christian Fundamentalism and Support for Capital Punishment.’’ Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 43:169–97.
Unnever, James, Francis T. Cullen, and Brandon K. Applegate. 2005. ‘‘Turning the Other
Cheek: Reassessing the Impact of Religion on Punitive Ideology.’’ Justice Quarterly 22:
304–38.
Unnever, James D., Francis T. Cullen, and John P. Bartkowski. 2006. ‘‘Images of God and
Public Support for Capital Punishment: Does a Close Relationship with a Loving God
Matter?’’ Criminology 44:835–66.
Vander Stoep, Scott W., and Charles W. Green. 1988. ‘‘Religiosity and Homonegativism: A
Path-Analytic Study.’’ Basic and Applied Social Psychology 9:135–47.
Weiner, Bernard. 1979. ‘‘A Theory of Motivation for Some Classroom Experience.’’ Journal of Educational Psychology 71:3–25.
———. 1985. ‘‘An Attribution Theory of Achievement, Motivation, and Emotion.’’ Psychological Review 92:548–73.
Weiner, Bernard, Raymond Perry, and Jamie Magnusson. 1988. ‘‘An Attributional
Analysis of Reactions to Stigmas.’’ Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 55:
738–48.
Whittey, Bernard E. Jr. 1990. ‘‘The Relationship of Heterosexuals’ Attributions for the
Causes of Homosexuality to Attitudes Towards Lesbians and Gay Men.’’ Personality and
Social Psychology Bulletin 16:369–77.
Sacred Rites and Civil Rights
79
Wilcox, Clyde, and Barbara Norrander. 2002. ‘‘Of Moods and Morals: The Dynamics of
Opinion on Abortion and Gay Rights.’’ In Barbara Norrander and Clyde Wilcox, eds.,
Understanding Public Opinion, 2nd ed. Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly Press.
Wilcox, Clyde, and Robin Wolpert. 2000. ‘‘Gay Rights in the Public Sphere: Public Opinion on Gay and Lesbian Equality.’’ In Craig A. Rimmerman, Kenneth D. Wald, and Clyde
Wilcox, eds., The Politics of Gay Rights. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Wood, Peter B., and John P. Bartkowski. 2004. ‘‘Attribution Style and Public Policy Attitudes Toward Gay Rights.’’ Social Science Quarterly 85:58–74.
Zucker, Gail S., and Bernard Weiner. 1993. ‘‘Conservatism and Perceptions of Poverty: An
Attributional Analysis.’’ Journal of Applied Social Psychology 23:925–43.
Copyright of Social Science Quarterly (Blackwell Publishing Limited) is the property of Blackwell Publishing
Limited and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder 's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.
References: Aguero, Joseph E., Laura Block, and Donn Byrne. 1984. ‘‘The Relationships Among Sexual Beliefs, Attitudes, Experience, and Homophobia.’’ Journal of Homosexuality 10:95–107. Bader, Christopher D., and Paul Froese. 2005. ‘‘Images of God: The Effects of Personal Theologies on Moral Attitudes, Political Affiliation, and Religious Behavior.’’ Interdisciplinary Journal of Religious Research 1(Article 11) Bader, Christopher D., F. Carson Mencken, and Paul Froese. 2007. ‘‘American Piety 2005: Content, Methods and Selected Results from the Baylor Religion Survey.’’ Journal for the Baylor University. 2007. The Baylor Religion Survey. Waco, TX: Baylor Institute for Studies of Religion. Boysen, Guy A., and David L. Vogel. 2007. ‘‘Biased Assimilation and Attitude Polarization in Response to Learning About Biological Explanations of Homosexuality.’’ Sex Roles Brumbaugh, Stacey M., Laura A. Sanchez, Steven L. Nock, and James D. Wright. 2008. Cochran, John K., and Leonard Beeghley. 1991. ‘‘The Influence of Religion on Attitudes Toward Nonmarital Sexuality: A Preliminary Assessment of Reference Group Theory.’’ Crocker, Jennifer, Beth Cornwell, and Brenda Major. 1993. ‘‘The Stigma of Overweight: Affective Consequences of Attributional Ambiguity.’’ Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 64:60–70. Dougherty, Kevin D., Byron Johnson, and Edward C. Polson. 2007. ‘‘Recovering the Lost: Re-Measuring U.S Finlay, Barbara, and Carol S. Walther. 2003. ‘‘The Relation of Religious Affiliation, Service Attendance, and Other Factors to Homophobic Attitudes Among University Students.’’ Froese, Paul, and Christopher D. Bader. 2007. ‘‘God in America: Why Theology is Not Simply the Concern of Philosophers.’’ Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion ———. 2008. ‘‘Unraveling Religious Worldviews: The Relationship Between Images of God and Political Ideology in a Cross-cultural Analysis.’’ Sociological Quarterly 49:689– Froese, Paul, Christopher D. Bader, and Buster Smith. 2008. ‘‘Political Tolerance and God’s Wrath in the United States.’’ Sociology of Religion 69:29–44. Gay, David A., and Christopher G. Ellison. 1993. ‘‘Religious Subcultures and Political Tolerance: Do Denominations Still Matter?’’ Review of Religious Research 34:311–32. Greeley, Andrew, and Michael Hout. 2006. The Truth About Conservative Christians: What They Think and What They Believe Griffin, William E., and Yaw Oheneba-Sakyi. 1993. ‘‘Sociodemographic and Political Correlates of University Students’ Causal Attributions for Poverty.’’ Psychological Reports Haider-Markel, Donald P., and Mark R. Joslyn. 2005. ‘‘Attributions and the Regulation of Marriage: Considering the Parallels Between Race and Homosexuality.’’ PS: Political Science ———. 2008. ‘‘Beliefs About the Origins of Homosexuality and Support for Gay Rights: An Empirical Test of Attribution Theory.’’ Public Opinion Quarterly 72:291–310. Heider, Fritz. 1944. ‘‘Social Perception and Phenomenal Causality.’’ Psychological Review 51:358–74. ———. 1958. The Psychology of Interpersonal Relations. New York: Wiley. Herek, Gregory M. 1988. ‘‘Heterosexuals’ Attitudes Toward Lesbians and Gay Men: Correlates and Gender Differences.’’ Journal of Sex Research 25:451–77. ———. 2002. ‘‘Gender Gaps in Public Opinion About Lesbians and Gay Men.’’ Public Opinion Quarterly 66:40–66. Herek, Gregory M., and John P. Capitanio. 1995. ‘‘Black Heterosexuals’ Attitudes Toward Lesbians and Gay Men in the United States.’’ Journal of Sex Research 32:95– Koch, Jerome R., and Evans W. Curry. 2000. ‘‘Social Context and the Presbyterian Gay/ Lesbian Ordination Debate: Testing Open-Systems Theory.’’ Review of Religious Research Larsen, Knud S., Michael Reed, and Susan Hoffman. 1980. ‘‘Attitudes of Homosexuals Toward Homosexuality: A Likert-Type Scale and Construct Validity.’’ Journal of Sex Research Loftus, Jeni. 2001. ‘‘America’s Liberalization in Attitudes Toward Homosexuality, 1973 to 1998.’’ American Sociological Review 66:762–82. Olson, Laura R., and Wendy Cadge. 2002. ‘‘Talking About Homosexuality: The Views of Mainline Protestant Clergy.’’ Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 41:153–67. Olson, Laura R., Wendy Cadge, and James T. Harrison. 2006. ‘‘Religion and Public Opinion About Same-Sex Marriage.’’ Social Science Quarterly 87:340–60. Rowatt, Wade C., Jordan LaBouff, Megan Johnson, Paul Froese, and Jo-Ann Tsang. 2009. Sakalli, Nurray. 2002. ‘‘Application of the Attribution-Value Model of Prejudice to Homosexuality.’’ Journal of Social Psychology 142:264–71. Tygart, C. E. 2000. ‘‘Genetic Causation Attribution and Public Support of Gay Rights.’’ International Journal of Public Opinion Research 12:259–75. Unnever, James D., and Francis T. Cullen. 2006. ‘‘Christian Fundamentalism and Support for Capital Punishment.’’ Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 43:169–97. Unnever, James, Francis T. Cullen, and Brandon K. Applegate. 2005. ‘‘Turning the Other Cheek: Reassessing the Impact of Religion on Punitive Ideology.’’ Justice Quarterly 22:
You May Also Find These Documents Helpful
-
Barry, A. (1998) Theorizing Homophobia. Sexualities, Vol. 1, No. 4, 387-404. Retrieved November 7, 2010 from EBSCOhost.…
- 3387 Words
- 14 Pages
Best Essays -
With the modern world’s hyper-sensitive awareness of race and gender and religion and sexual preferences and politics and, well, everything, making a few misplaced generalizations is inevitable. Although stereotyping can be false and misleading, it does not have the same implications that actively discriminating has.…
- 534 Words
- 3 Pages
Good Essays -
The two different companies I will be looking at are Tesco and The British Heart Foundation. Tesco is an organisation which produces profit by selling goods to the general public, they usually sell food but now they are gradually bringing in other products, for example home décor and clothing. Tesco has different brands within the brand itself, for example they have Tesco’s Finest, Best of British, Cocopia etc; these different brands are what makes Tesco different. They sell products of their own brand and other brands within their store, selling their own brands help create more profit from them as they keep it within the business.…
- 535 Words
- 2 Pages
Good Essays -
Murphy, Timothy F. "Same-Sex Marriage: Not a Threat to Marriage or Children." Journal of Social…
- 4000 Words
- 16 Pages
Powerful Essays -
Cited: Kangas, Steve. "Homosexuality is Biologically Determined." Gay Politics. 7 Nov. 1997. Rpt. In Homosexuality: Opposing viewpoints. Ed. Mary E. Williams. San Diego: Greenhaven, 1999. 17-21…
- 882 Words
- 4 Pages
Better Essays -
Influential Religious Institutions, especially in small towns, enforces the concept of heteronormativity and emphasizes the dislike for difference. In, “The Laramie Project,” Director, Moisés Kaufman shows the spectrum of religious standpoints against those who practice same-sex relationships. Ranging from a conservative like the Baptist Minister who, when asked to comment on Matthew Shepard’s murder said:…
- 1137 Words
- 3 Pages
Powerful Essays -
A negative attitude toward same-sex/same-gender attraction and orientation and a view that engaging in homosexual acts is morally unacceptable and ultimately punishable in the spiritual sense are some mainstream Christian biblical interpretations regarding homosexuality. In this presentation,…
- 1391 Words
- 6 Pages
Good Essays -
The promoters of same-sex “marriage” propose something entirely different. They propose the union between two men or two women. This denies the self-evident biological, physiological, and psychological differences between men and women which find their complementarily in marriage. It also denies the specific primary purpose of marriage: the…
- 1696 Words
- 7 Pages
Powerful Essays -
Worsnop, R. L. (1993, March 5). Gay rights. CQ Researcher, 3, 193-216. Retrieved June 22, 2010, from CQ Researcher Online, http://library.cqpress.com/cqresearcher…
- 4924 Words
- 20 Pages
Best Essays -
Chapter 8 in the textbook charts information on the public’s attitude toward homosexuality has been moving toward greater acceptance. (Macionis, 2010). In the early 1970’s the views of homosexuality were on the verge of change and gay liberation movements begin. Survey conducted in 1973 over 75% of adults in the US viewed homosexual relations as wrong and by 2006 less than 60% of adults in the US viewed homosexual relations as wrong (Macionis, 2010). In 2004 gay marriages became legal in the state of Massachusetts. This made making homosexual individuals comfortable in the world in which they lived in. Other states like Connecticut, Vermont, Maine, Iowa, and New Hampshire also adapted laws for gay marriages and the number of states is still increasing today.…
- 493 Words
- 2 Pages
Good Essays -
Both authors have some similar perspectives on the same sex marriage topic; one of them being sociological views and the matter of same-sex couples. In addition, both Evan and Andrew believe that family and friends who support and understand gay couples have a major positive on same sex marriage. Both authors discussed that many gay or lesbian children are being raised in a non-gay environment and that has a negative impact on the lives of children. The differences between Wolfson and Sullivan’s viewpoints are that Sullivan emphasizes the individual citizen, and Wolfson emphasize the importance of same-sex marriage. Some people are still ignoring the fact that our society is changing and evolving rapidly. Same-sex couples have been suppressing their voices throughout many decades, and now they are ready to fight for their freedom and the right to be married.…
- 1257 Words
- 6 Pages
Better Essays -
Homosexuality has been a great social, psychological and biological issue discussed amongst experts. Although, same sex relationships have been discriminated and misunderstood, over the years they have more and more accepted socially, but some stigma still lingers. This essay will expose the origin and biological explanation of homosexuality to better understand it. This essay uses research studies, examinations and tests that will ultimately reveal that homosexuality is not a learned behavior, it is a biological factor. This essay also reveals how people who view homosexuality negatively do not change view after learning these crucial biological factors that drive people to be sexually attracted to the same sex. This essay's goal is to state…
- 1599 Words
- 7 Pages
Better Essays -
This article regarding the Supreme Court’s decision to hear the argument for same-sex marriage does not cover information outside of the United States. The article does cover statistical information from a few select states that have been in the news surrounding this topic. The alternative perspectives discussed were merely, people are either for same-sex marriage or they are against it. The article did not go into detail about the process of getting to the place of contemplating…
- 640 Words
- 3 Pages
Satisfactory Essays -
When someone hears the word “gay” or “queer”, they most often think of the middle class, Caucasian gay male. For my research proposal, I plan on studying what is very often overlooked in queer identity: the struggle of queer identity in the African American gay male. I am interested in studying this because I grew up knowing I was gay in a small, middle class town in rural America. I wish to argue how gay African Americans are restricted by Black stereotypes, gay stereotypes, acceptance with stipulations in the gay community and black community, racism in the gay community, homophobia in the Black community, perceptions of blackness and masculinity attitudes toward homosexuality and their effect on gay Black men living openly, homosexuality and religion (the black church), and media perceptions of Black homosexuality. The majority of the black community stated they wished to live restriction free lives. They are not able to fully be themselves in their daily lives and often have to assimilate to be accepted.…
- 2948 Words
- 12 Pages
Powerful Essays -
Abstract: Sexual minorities and LGBT rights have always been a taboo to talk about in our country. This behavior can be drawn from many misconception of about sexual minorities and also from religious beliefs that have guided our societies for ages. However, there have been many phenomena in the recent decades which changed the landscape of LGBT right in other countries around the world. There has been many LGBT rights movements have brought remarkable change to society where people have started to see them in different light but not everywhere is so. Western nations of the world may have accepted equal rights for sexual minorities but is a different issue altogether in many Asian countries mostly in South Asia and Middle East. States for these regions not only provide equal rights to LGBTs but also have criminalized some fundamental aspects of Homosexuality. This research is focused on finding out the common perception of our people about LGBTs and LGBT rights and also to find what leads this behavior to such extent. Does religion play a bigger role in shaping this behavior then we thought or is it governed by so many misconceptions that people tend to be less forgiving towards sexual minorities. The hypothesis was that most people in our country have negative attitude towards them and they should not be allowed some of the equal rights that are provided to majority and also that religion plays greater role in shaping these behavior. The findings somewhat approved that. Most people that were surveyed was against same sex marriage, they admitted that religion does influence our behavior towards sexual minorities. Most even agreed with criminalizing homosexuality.…
- 5374 Words
- 19 Pages
Powerful Essays