How Religion Affects Homosexuality and Same Sex Marriage

By: Leroy A. Binns Ph.D.

In a constantly reshaped universe mankind is confronted with metamorphoses of gigantic proportions. As technology breaches our outer frontiers what was once a figment of our imagination is realized in the form of speed and sound sensitive equipment, intelligent automobiles and magic potions. Yet aspirations from transformation have fallen short on fronts perceived unnatural to our belief system.

Whereas we often times rely on intuition to guide our judgment on a range of issues that result in the manifestation of change a contrast in conduct rejects the acceptance or adoption of some life altering lifestyles. In the complex case of homosexuality scholars, the clergy and laymen have forged conflicting worldviews primarily due to assessments of scientific data, spiritual literature or inbreed convictions thus embracing or inflaming respective constituents who in turn advocate ferociously to reverse a tide in motion, maintain the status quo or endorse an era of “enlightenment.”

Questions of a liberal or conservative nature have been examined by an increasing number of academics inclusive of sociologists who despite varying experiments and case studies have prioritized moral values and social issues, denominational affiliation and socio-demographics as decisive factors in the debate on homosexuality. A recent study published by the Casey Institute concludes matters of moral and social concerns are at the core of decision making processes on same sex intimacy. Said inquiry also shares data from a geographical context which purports rural Americans while not homogeneous are more likely to oppose homosexuality than urban and suburban dwellers due to an entrenched commitment to faith and associated establishments.

The aforementioned observation is not ignored by peers who in an evaluation entitled “Religion and Public Opinion about Same Sex Marriage” concur religious affiliation and further fanaticism sways disposition negatively towards same sex unions. In a similar vein another article made public by Social Science Research addresses cultural considerations particularly ethical concerns as paramount to the thought process defining indifferent deliberations on same sex marriage (Dillon, Savage, 2006; Olson, Harrison, Cadge, 2006).

There is likewise a strain of thought supported by literature that confirms denominational attachment impacts perception of homosexuality. Dillon and Savage in their contribution are of the opinion that religion resonates with rural America due to its persuasive presence and enlistment – a worldview highlighted by Schultz and Battle in a presentation that compares African-Americans and European American by virtue of association with the Black and Catholic church.

The authors’ observation of African-Americans and the black house of worship as conservative and rigid in comparison to European-Americans and the Catholic church is justified by the former’s long standing obligation to the social fabric of the community. To further such assumption parallels expressed a collaborative exercise between Burdette, Ellison and Hill indicating conservative protestants are more reluctant to endorse equal benefits for gays and lesbians as opposed to Catholics and moderate Protestants (Dillon, Savage; 2006 Schultz, Battle, 2004).

Curious minds have also explored the application of socio-demographics to acceptance or rejection of same sex marriage and have responded for the record in one accord. Olson, Harrison and Cadge strengthened their argument by referring to polls implying that education, gender and age play an increasing role dominating the dispute in the public square. This school of thought equates social status with lenience and therefore acknowledges the findings in “Conservative Protestantism and Tolerance and Tolerance Toward Homosexuals” signifying intolerance and its association to limited education, rural residence and low income.

Thus far the academic correspondents under scrutiny have struck a chord of unison nonetheless variations in emphasis are relevant to the discussion. Finly and Walther focus attention on a youthful population, university students when addressing homophobia and homosexuality and conclude such behavior is fuelled by conservative congregations as demonstrated by an anti-homosexual United Methodist statement in 1972. It reads as follows; “no board, agency, committee, commission or council shall give United Methodist funds to any gay caucus or group or otherwise use such funds to promote the acceptance of homosexuality.”

Following suit was the Presbyterian’s new rule in its book of order in 1996 mandating that ordained persons within the denomination live in fidelity within a heterosexual marriage or in celibacy if single – a declaration in stark contrast to the merits of the Methodist Episcopalian stances on blessings ceremonies. While the writers account for conflicting demeanor associated with generations young and old it is their conviction based on the evidence provided that college students share a distinction in perspectives only when their growth experiences in relation to religious affiliation, religiosity, gender and degree and type of contact with the subject in question are in conflict with those of their elders (Finly, Walther, 2003; Olson, Harrison, Cadge, 2006).

According to revelations in “The Relative Importance of Ethnicity and Religion in Predicting Attitudes Toward Gay and Lesbians,” there is some credence to ethnicity as a contributing factor to the equation on homosexuality but its significance is secondary or otherwise indirect in comparison to religion. The former creates a channel to cultural norms and creed encompassing religion which in turn formulates spiritual sentiments. In the end a widely perceived consensus upheld by the publication targets worshippers with frequent religious attendance, and church involvement as most likely to promote conservative religious ideals especially in poverty stricken enclaves (e.g., African-American neighborhoods) that are dominated by the presence of such civic organizations.

An extension of the investigation incorporates analysis initiated by The Casey Institute in which the General Social survey was utilized to compare rural and urban America hence varying points of view. The data outlines value based issues by religion and generation to determine contrasting outcomes. Albeit it re-enforced more Americans identify with religion it too conceded Americans are less opposed to homosexuality. The document classified southerners as less ambiguous and most likely to disapprove of same sex relationships. Besides despite tolerance thanks to a new generation its contents caution against anticipation of drastic shift in policy as many still consider the traditional family the protectorate of society.

The main thrust of the proposition presented in a submission to Sociological Inquiry as to the rationale behind the reluctance of conservative Protestants to extend civil liberties to deviant groups is extreme in interpretation. Literalists as they are sometimes called hold true passage in the bible and therefore oftentimes cite from the old testament the account of Sodom in Genesis 19 involving the destruction of the city by God because of sexual immorality particularity homosexuality. Mention is also made of Romans 1: 26-27 in which the scripture speaks of unnatural and preserve behavior and fear of contamination and the erosion of the family as the central institution within society abound (Burdette, Ellison, Hill, 2004; Dillon, Savage, 2006; Schultz, Battle, 2004).

Adamczyk and Pitt are cognizant of economics and its role in a dialogue in search of answers. They hypothesize that cross cultural differences in cultural familiarization contributes to attitudes towards homosexuality orientation. To this end the research identifies modernization/industrialization with acceptance and survival orientation with intolerance, and has hence concluded with the assistance of the world value survey that behavioral patterns exhibited by countries the likes of the United States characterized by a high level of self expression will most likely favor homosexuality tendencies. In contrast Zimbabwe a nation in survival orientation mode is a prime candidate to resist non traditional ideas and lifestyles.

The politics of change is the center piece of Olson, Harrison and Cadge’s discussion which illuminates with concentration on public opinion and its correlation to both sides of the religious spectrum. Despite acknowledgement of polls that favored increased liberalism toward homosexuality at the turn of the 21^st century open mindedness to transition with the landmark case of Goodridge vs the Department of Public Health became the catalyst for same sex marriage in Massachusetts and re-enforcer of the status quo elsewhere. An uproar raged throughout 11 states namely Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky, Michigan, Mississippi, Montana, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon and Utah to approve amendments protecting the sanctity of marriage and at the federal level resistance surfaced in the form of suggestions to amend the constitution.

Presidential election exit polls of 2004 illustrated the complexity of the matter by indicating 22% of the American electorate where driven by moral values. Furthermore adding insult to injury is a public opinion survey accompanying the review with 60.9% opposed or strongly opposed to gay marriage, a larger proportion opposed or strongly opposed to civil unions and 2 of 5 in favor of a federal marriage amendment (Adamczyk, Pitt, 2009; Olson, Harrison, Cadge, 2006).

As the inferno wrecks havoc proponents of homosexuality have gained inroads within US borders. Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa, Vermont and Maine endorse same sex marriage, New Jersey civil unions and California, Washington DC, Washington and Oregon domestic partnerships. This transformation owes credit to an inflation in American support from 45% in 2003 to 57% six years later and to the majority of Americans as well who favor extending to same sex couples most rights afforded married couples.

With only 39% of Americans supporting the legalization of same sex marriage in the face of strong dissent in New York, California and elsewhere a challenge to reverse the Massachusetts ruling and the feat and rate of progress nationwide remain speculative. Nevertheless like abortion this issue will be vigorously contested for the foreseeable future (Pew Research Center, 2009).

 

References

Adamczyk, Amy, and Cassady Pitt. 2009. “Shaping Attitudes bout Homosexuality: The Role of Religion and Cultural Context.” Social Science Research 38: 338-351. Retrieved September 17, 2009.

Burdette, Amy M., Christopher G. Ellison, Terrence D. Hill. 2005. “Conservative Protestantism and Tolerance Toward Homosexuals: An Examination of Potential Mechanism.” Sociological Inquiry 75: 177-196. Retrieved October 5, 2009.

Dillon, Michele, and Sarah Savage. 2006. “Values and Religion in Rural America: Attitudes Toward Abortion and Same Sex Relations.” Casey Institute Reports Brief 1: 1-10 University of New Hampshire. Retrieved September 17, 2009.

Finly, 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: 370-393. Retrieved September 17, 2009.

Olson, Laura R., Wendy Cadge, James T. Harrison. 2006. “Religion and Public Opinion about Same-Sex Marriage.” Social Science Quarterly 87: 340-360. Retrieved September 17, 2009.

Pew Research Center. 2009. “More back Civil Unions in Survey but not Same Sex Marriage.” Retrieved October 8, 2009.

Schultz, Lisa J., and Juan Battle. 2004. “The Relative Importance of Ethnicity and Religion in Predicting Attitudes Towards Gays and Lesbians.” Journal of Homosexuality 47: 127-142. Retrieved October 4, 2009.