Gender Sexuality and Religious Commitment in The

Home , Gender and religion

GENDER, SEXUALITY AND RELIGIOUS COMMITMENT IN THE UNITED STATES

A Thesis

Presented to the faculty of the Department of Sociology

California State University, Sacramento

Submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree of

MASTERS OF ARTS

Sociology

Joseph Manuel Maestas

SPRING 2015

GENDER, SEXUALITY AND RELIGIOUS COMMITMENT IN THE UNITED STATES

A Thesis

Joseph Manuel Maestas

Approved by:

______, Committee Chair Kevin Wehr

______, Second Reader Randall MacIntosh

______Date

Student: Joseph Manuel Maestas

I certify that this student has met the requirements for format contained in the University format manual, and that this thesis is suitable for shelving in the Library and credit is to be awarded for the thesis.

______, Graduate Coordinator ______Manuel Barajas Date

Department of Sociology

iii

Abstract

GENDER, SEXUALITY AND RELIGIOUS COMMITMENT IN THE UNITED STATES

Joseph Manuel Maestas

For quite some time researchers have studied gender differences in religious commitment trying to explain why women are more religious than men. More recently, related research has claimed that when controlling for certain socio-demographic variables gay males have similar levels of religious commitment to heterosexual females. Using data from the General Social Survey

(GSS) this study seeks to replicate and update research concerning religious commitment and sexual orientation. Additionally, this study explores more recent proposals explaining gender differences in religious commitment, those being risk-taking preferences and egalitarian household structure and upbringing. Results show continued support for female heterosexuals being the most religious group. Results are less conclusive for sexual orientation. Lesbian females supplant gay males as the nonheterosexual group with the highest levels of religious commitment. As for the possible factors explaining gender differences, neither risk nor egalitarianism proved to be meaningful.

______, Committee Chair Kevin Wehr

______Date

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to thank my advisors Kevin Wehr and Randall MacIntosh for their invaluable support and feedback throughout this process. I would also like to thank Amy Liu for being an incredible mentor since my days as an undergraduate. Finally, I would like to thank my mom,

Marilyn Maestas, because without her none of this would have been possible.

TABLE OF CONTENTS Page

Acknowledgments ...... v

List of Tables ...... vi

Chapter

1. INTRODUCTION...... 1

Purpose of the Study ...... 6

2. LITERATURE REVIEW...... 8

Identity Negotiation ...... 9

Sexual Politics of Religion ...... 13

Race, Sexual Politics and Religion ...... 16

Sexuality and Religious Commitment ...... 18

Gender and Religion ...... 20

Religion and Risk ...... 23

Physiology and Faith ...... 26

Power Control Theory ...... 29

Sociology of Risk ...... 31

3. DATA AND METHODS ...... 35

Religious Commitment ...... 36

Control Variables ...... 40

4. RESULTS ...... 43

5. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION ...... 56

Appendix ...... 62

References ...... 73

LIST OF TABLES Table Page

1. Sexuality and Religious Commitment in the General Social Survey: Unadjusted Means and

Percentages 1991-2000 ...... 44

2 Sexuality and Religious Commitment in the General Social Survey: Unadjusted Means and

Percentages 2002-2010 ...... 44

3. Adjusted Mean Church Attendance and Predicted Probability of Apostasy for Gender and

Sexuality Groupings Controlling for Sociodemographic Factors 1991-2000 ...... 49

4. Adjusted Mean Church Attendance and Predicted Probability of Apostasy for Gender and

Sexuality Groupings Controlling for Sociodemographic Factors 2002-2010 ...... 49

5. Gender and Religious Commitment among Those Who Lack a Belief in the After Life:

Unadjusted Means and Percentages ...... 50

6. Gender and Religious Commitment among Those Raised in an Egalitarian Household:

Unadjusted Means and Percentages ...... 51

7. Correlation between Religious Commitment Measures and Egalitarian Upbringing ..... 52

8. Non-Service Related Church Activity by Race: Unadjusted Means ...... 53

9. Confidence in Organized Religion by Race: Unadjusted Means ...... 53

10. Summary of Hypotheses ...... 55

vii 1

Gender, Sexuality and Religious Commitment in the United States

INTRODUCTION

Religious institutions have been the home to numerous debates involving several different sexual issues including infidelity, celibacy, and birth control. In recent times issues over homosexuality, lesbianism, bisexuality and other nonheterosexual orientations have grown to be quite prominent (Ellingson et al. 2001:4-5). There is a developing body of research that has attempted to analyze and address the issues that arise at the intersection of religion and homosexuality and other nonheterosexual orientations (Sherkat 2002:313). The shortcomings of such research are the exclusive focus on homosexuals and other nonheterosexuals that are already members of a religious institution. A focus on such a group is limiting because it does not take into account religious nonheterosexuals who are not members of a religious organization

(Sherkat 2002:313). Many nonheterosexuals shy away from churches because of the negative stances taken towards their sexuality (Garcia 2008:412). Additional limitations are probable but have otherwise been obscured given the use of such an approach.

Sherkat’s (2002) study of sexuality and religious commitment in the U.S. attempted to rectify that matter. In his study he proposed looking at the issue as it occurs in the general population by analyzing data found in the General Social Survey

(GSS), a biennial survey conducted in the U.S. By using GSS data it is possible to expand the analysis from a smaller group of church attending religious nonheterosexuals to a more broadly defined group of simply religious nonheterosexuals. By doing so brings to light the other factors affecting religious commitment. There have been

2 questions as to how reliable or valid quantitative survey data can be with regard to an issue that most deem to be a qualitative issue (Sherkat 2002:314). It should be pointed out that in the GSS homosexuals and bisexuals together comprise a sufficiently large group, a group bigger than “other races.”

As noted earlier, nonheterosexuals are often pushed away from religious organizations. Much of this push factor lies in the fact that these churches operate under an assumed heteronormativity, where nonheterosexual forms are considered deviant and stigmatized (Ellingson et al. 2001:6). Nonheterosexual forms would include various sexual orientations but would also extend to such things as familial structure, where a married man and women with children is preferred. In regard to sexual orientation, it is very common to be exposed to specific verses of religious texts that explicitly condemn homosexuality. Leviticus 18:22 which states “thou shall not lie with a man as with a woman; it is an abomination,” is a prime example (Thumma 1991:338). With churches holding such negative stances towards homosexuals it is no wonder that many religious gays, lesbians and bisexuals would refrain from involvement in these institutions. To be a part of such an institution is dangerous because it is threatening to a person’s psychological well-being. It is difficult for these individuals to reconcile the fact that two aspects of their self-concept conflict with one another and they experience great amounts of anxiety and stress, which become worse over time with extended exposure

(Rodriguez and Ouellette 2000:334; Thumma 1991:335).

In response, many nonheterosexuals develop their own reflective negative attitudes toward religion and church, even putting pressure on their partners to stay away

3 from religious institutions as well. There are some institutions that are GLBT affirming but the numbers are small comparatively (Rodriguez and Ouellette 2000:335). These institutions tend to be less stable and have short life spans for a number of reasons.

These churches are frequently torn ideologically and feel pressure to split their focus and resources between providing spiritual guidance and promoting social justice and activism (Lukenbill 1998:450). This fragments the congregation and it makes recruitment difficult. Longevity is also threatened by the lack of new members coming from offspring, which a traditional heterosexual church greatly benefits from (Ellingson et al. 2001:20). Social influences like spouses/partners, marriage and childrearing dramatically affects religious commitment.

Introducing key heterosexual issues like marriage and childrearing will also bring gender issues to the forefront. Studies show that women have historically been more religious than their male counterparts. It is believed that males would have even lower levels of religiosity if not for women. Men involved in a heterosexual marriage follow the lead of their more religious wives and attend religious services and functions at greater rates than they would otherwise (Iannaccone 1990:303). Church attendance is an important factor in evaluating religious commitment but is only one dimension.

Other indicators of religiosity like frequency of prayer and self-identification are equally important; women are more religious than men in these categories as well (Stark

2002:495). Numerous explanations have been offered to account for such gender differences but many are inadequate.

One explanation that seems to carry legitimacy is the theory of risk taking. The theory frames religious commitment within a risk-taking context. In other words, it is seen as risky to give in to sin and forgo the other-worldly benefits of salvation. In regard to other risk-taking behaviors, such as those associated with crime and delinquency, men are much more likely than women to be involved. Therefore, if it is risky to be unreligious, then men are more likely to be unreligious. The theory however can be applied on an even deeper level that looks specifically at masculinity and femininity, while not limiting itself to sex. Rather than risk-taking behavior being associated with males it is more accurately found to be associated with individuals who posses more masculine qualities, which could include both men and women. As it turns out, female lesbians and bisexual women score relatively high on the masculinity range of the bem sex role inventory. Conversely, homosexual and bisexual males score higher on femininity indicators, homosexuals scoring higher of the two (LaTorre and

Wendenburg 1983:95; Ross 1983:32). What this would indicate is that homosexual males may have similar risk-taking behaviors to that of heterosexual females and by extension similar religious commitment, as well.

Based on this theory and research Sherkat (2002) established these testable hypotheses regarding the relationship between sexuality and religious commitment:

Hypothesis 1: Nonheterosexuals will have lower levels of religious commitment compared to heterosexuals.

Hypothesis 2: Part of the relationship between nonheterosexuality and religious commitment will be explained by differences in social influences such as marriage and childrearing.

Additionally if it is true that women are more religious than males then we should expect that:

Hypothesis 3: Lesbians and bisexual women will have higher levels of religious commitment than male nonheterosexuals.

However, if risk preferences vary according to levels of masculinity-femininity, and if these correspond to homosexuality in a sex-specific pattern, then we should expect that:

Hypothesis 4: Gay men will be more religious than lesbians.

Sherkat’s (2002:321) results showed that heterosexual females did indeed have the highest levels of religious commitment. Without controls, heterosexual males displayed higher levels of religious commitment compared to other nonheterosexuals, but is less pronounced when compared specifically with male homosexuals. Controlling for various social influences, such as marriage and child-rearing, showed that male homosexuals have greater religious commitment than heterosexual males. This makes religious homosexuals the second most religious group behind only female heterosexuals. Homosexual males more actively seek out and engage in religion whereas heterosexual males are more passive, choosing to primarily follow the lead of

6 their female spouses. The distinction between heterosexual males and the remaining nonheterosexuals still persists, therefore the data failed to support Sherkat’s third hypothesis. The important finding of this study is that sexuality and gender roles have significant effects on religious commitment.

The similarities between heterosexual females’ and homosexual males’ religious commitment combined with gender roles indicated to Sherkat possible support for a risk-taking perspective on religious commitment. Heterosexual women and homosexual men have been shown to share similar risk-averse preferences in behavior, while heterosexual men and lesbian women share similar risk-taking preferences in their behavior (Miller and Hoffman 1995:63; Miller and Stark 2002:404; Stark 2002:501).

Sherkat’s (2002:321) findings suggest these risk based associations are maintained with regard to religious commitment. Finally, numerous risk based frameworks implicate biological components as determinants; therefore religious commitment may be biologically linked.

Purpose of the Study

The purpose of the current paper and research is to revisit the work of Sherkat (2002) and replicate the findings from his study. In addition this study will make additional contributions by updating the findings as well as expanding the findings with the inclusion of additional hypotheses based on newer research. Since the initial study took place, more than a decade’s worth of new data has been collected and has yet to be analyzed. Analysis of this additional data is thus sociologically significant because in

7 that time the landscape of our society has undergone noticeable changes in the area of sexual and religious politics. The LGBT civil rights movement has drastically changed in the last decade. We’ve seen three fourths of the states in the U.S. (37) legalize same- sex marriage with numerous others states engaged in court appeals to overturn bans on same-sex marriage (ProCon.org 2015). We have also recently seen the military policy

“Don’t ask, don’t tell,” be repealed, taking effect on September 20, 2011 (U.S.

Department of Defense 2012). This is an indication that sexual rights issues are at the forefront of society and have garnered much national attention.

Religion continues to be one of the most impactful and divisive factors in the same-sex marriage debate (2009 Sacramento Quality of Life Survey). Therefore, this study is extremely intriguing because it looks at the intersection of two conflicting sides of an issue and brings to light a group of people whose lived experienced overlaps the two sides. A better understanding of this group could contribute to further progress in the sexual rights movement on the macro level. On the micro level a better understanding of this group can contribute to increased social and psychological well being for those individuals whose identities, self-concepts and self-esteem are all threatened.

LITERATURE REVIEW

The experience of religious homosexuals in many ways is unique, so much so that the perception of such individuals is thought by many to be an oxymoron. The institutional stances of numerous religious organizations play a significant role in establishing this oppositional dichotomy. Thus when confronted with the existence of such individuals it is difficult for most to comprehend. The ones who may have the most difficulty are the religious homosexuals themselves. The perceived contradiction in identities weighs heavily on them and is a threat to their well-being.

In response, numerous organizations, both within and outside of the religious community, have been formed to help such people. The problem is that the political nature of organizations can bring about mixed results. The concoction of religion and politics often makes the situation more convoluted and more difficult for those involved to get the help or support they seek.

Despite all the obstacles a significant number of homosexuals maintain a strong religious commitment. Homosexual males in particular display levels of religious commitment that are rather comparable to heterosexual women, who are often credited with the greatest levels of religiosity. It is possible that there is a connection between the two which some believe is rooted in shared gender traits. Many studies have shown that homosexuals possess more socially defined opposite gender traits than heterosexuals. One common gender trait is believed to be risk taking. Risk taking is linked to religious commitment by way of a cost-benefit analysis of supernatural

9 rewards and consequences. There are debates as to whether risk taking is a product of socialization or one that is more biological in nature.

Identity Negotiation

Most religious homosexuals engage in an identity negotiation process whereby the individual tries to mitigate tension felt by holding two opposing identities, a homosexual identity and a religious identity. A cognitive dissonance theoretical framework is best used in describing this identity negotiation process. Cognitive dissonance is described as holding two cognitive elements that are incongruent with one another (Thumma

1991:335; Walton 2006:2). The magnitude of the dissonance is dependent upon how important the elements are. Both Mahaffy’s (1996) study of lesbian Christians and

Thumma’s (1991) study of gay and lesbian Evangelicals employs this theoretical framework to explain the tension felt by their participants and the subsequent resolution strategies chosen to reduce said tension. The reason why a religious identity and a homosexual identity are often at odds with one another is because most Christian denominations, as well as other prominent religions, hold the view that homosexuality is sinful and immoral (Mahaffy 1996:393; Minwalla et al 2005:114; Pitt 2010:57; Thumma

1991:338). In addition, a homosexual identity is believed to be a false identity and the individual’s Christian identity is called into question should they come out as gay

(Thumma 1991:338). The validity of a homosexual’s Christian identity is called into question because homosexuality is perceived as a threat to the heteronormativity of

Christianity, which adheres to traditional gender roles and definitions of the family

(Ellingson et al. 2004:5-6; Garcia et al. 2008:5; Mahaffy 1996:393). The source of their tension are the feelings of guilt, shame, confusion and depression that are produced from their fear that their homosexuality has automatically condemned them to hell (Kubicek et. al. 2009:614). Despite this tension many individuals still try to hold both these identities because they believe them both to be core identities (Thumma 1991:335). If some measure isn’t taken to diminish the tension experienced by these individuals, it can be psychologically damaging (Heise 1999:5; Thoits 1994:143; 2006:315).

There are a number of different resolution strategies that can be applied. General resolution strategies would include changing the environment, changing behaviors, or changing cognitions. Depending on the types of strategies used the individuals would end up in one of four identity categories, which are outlined in Schnoor’s (2006) study of gay Jews and Rodriguez and Ouellette’s (2000) study of gay and lesbian Christians.

The first two identity categories are essentially opposites of one another where one or the other identity is rejected, thus the individual can either reject the gay identity or reject the religious identity (Garcia and Ouellette 2000:334; Schnoor 2006:49). Garcia’s

(2008) study of gay Latino Catholics and Wagner’s (1994) study of gay and lesbian

Catholics offer insight in predicting which identity is more likely to be rejected. It appears that chronological order of identity formation is significant because if a person’s religious identity is formed before a homosexual identity then they are more likely to reject their homosexual identity and vice versa (Garcia 2008:416). Religious commitment is a significant predictor as well and produces similar results. The greater levels of religious commitment in youth and adolescents the more likely they are to

11 reject the homosexual identity. Under these circumstances the developmental stages in a gay identity will be delayed (Wagner 1994:101). Additional features, sometimes associated with a maintained religious identity, are an intensification of religiosity and participation in heterosexual marriage. These serve as means of circumventing homosexual inclinations (Walton 2006:4). If the individual rejects the religious identity in favor of the homosexual identity this would typically involve the person leaving the church and/or abandoning of the religion. They may also acknowledge genetics and essentialism as justification for their gay identity. Most religious organizations believe that gay people are gay by choice whereas gay people believe they are gay because of biological reasons.

The third identity category discussed by Schnoor (2006) and Rodriguez and

Ouellette (2000) is compartmentalization. In this category neither identity is rejected, at least not entirely. Typically both identities are maintained but only in their appropriate contexts. The identities are to remain isolated from one another because if they should intersect or overlap feelings of tension will return. Therefore, if the individual goes to church or participates in some religious activity the religious identity will become salient and activate while the gay identity is suppressed. Conversely, if the individual is engaged in some aspect of the gay community the gay identity will activate and the religious identity will be suppressed (Rodruiguez and Ouellette 2000:334; Schnoor

2006:51).

The final identity category is integration where the two identities harmoniously coexist or fuse together to form one new identity. In order for this to occur the

12 individual must actively reconstruct and redefine aspects of his or her religion. This concept is known as religious individualism (Schnoor 2006:45). Yip’s (1997; 2002)

U.K. studies of gay, lesbian, and bisexual Christians utilize this concept although it is differently labeled as individual spirituality (2002:201). Using religious individualism a person need only incorporate those aspects of religion that are significant and meaningful to them. No longer must certain aspects be conferred upon them by religious institutions and authorities. In this circumstance many individuals take the opportunity to make the distinction between God and the church. They come to believe that God is perfect and churches are the imperfect institutions through which God works.

This is what leads many to become spiritual rather than religious and contributes significantly to the reconciliation of the two identities. Another aspect to this religious individualism is the reinterpreting of religious texts such as the Bible, Torah, and

Qur’an. This technique is used to combat those conservative religious institutions that have adopted literalist interpretations of religious texts resulting in the condemnation of homosexuality. Specific passages such as Leviticus 18:22 from the bible, which states

“thou shall not lie with a man as with a woman; it is abomination,” can be difficult to work around. What many religious homosexuals do is critically interpret the religious texts, acknowledging the historical and cultural context from which it came. Using such a critical interpretation, many determine that literalist interpretations are no longer relevant to the modern world. Similarly, some feel that passages condemning homosexuality should no longer apply considering other condemning passages regarding heterosexual behavior are no longer enforced. If nothing else, religious homosexuals

13 can choose to ignore condemning passages and instead focus on those passages that can be interpreted as more approving of homosexuality (Yip 1997:117-118).

Sexual Politics of Religion

The social movements of the 1960’s and 1970’s have significantly contributed to a liberal shift in U.S. social morality. This, in combination with the infusion of sexual politics into the realm of religion, has resulted in noticeable differences in the organizational structures of religious institutions (Wood and Bloch 1995:132). The sexual politics are numerous and diverse but perhaps the most impactful and controversial of the past several decades are those over homosexuality. Whether the matter is about same-sex marriage, the ordination of homosexual ministers or simply the churches official stance and/or acknowledgment of homosexuality, the discussions are often heated, provided there are discussions at all (Ellingson et al. 2004:4; Wood and

Bloch 1995:122).

The burden of dealing with these contentious sides within the church typically falls on congregational leaders because they serve as intermediaries between the local community and the religious doctrines of the larger denominational structure. A congregational leader must be in tune with the social politics and social needs of the local community. At the same time they must attempt to meet those needs in a manner that is consistent with the stance of the denomination as a whole (Ellingson et. al.

2004:5; Lukenbill 1998:446) . A failure to meet the obligations at either end of the spectrum can result in significant consequences. Failing the needs of the local people

14 will call into question one’s legitimacy as a community leader. This can drive people away and result in the loss of church membership, which is a significant risk to the long term sustainability of the religious organization (Sherkat 2002:315). Similarly, a failure to abide by denominational stance can leave a minister in a precarious situation. They may be faced with severe sanctions such as removal from their position. The occurrence of this appears to be rather infrequent despite examples of divergent practices on the part of congregational leaders. However, the looming possibility of potential sanctions is still believed to heavily influence their thoughts and actions (Ellingson et al. 2004:10).

When the composition of the local community is a more relevant factor than the overarching denominational stance, the individual stances of congregations seems greatly affected. For example, the focus and emphasis of church teachings for that specific community are often entirely different and unique in neighborhoods that have fewer traditional families and more single people and homosexual people. In such places church teachings would be less concerned with traditional values that emphasize family and marriage. Such values are based on the ideological connection sexual practices have with heteronormativity and procreation. The functions of such ideologies would be lost in these communities. In its place church teachings may focus on love and acceptance as a way to better fit the community’s sexual issues within a religious context. For example, the expression of sexuality and love in such a community may choose to emphasize its necessity to be situated within a committed and monogamous relationship, so as to maintain its validity and legitimacy within church doctrine

(Ellingson et al. 2004:17-18).

Many of the churches that are more accepting and liberal in their politics also seem to be much more involved in social activism (Lukenbill 1998:445). This is in contrast to those churches that are accepting of homosexual members but discourage them from being very open and expressive of it, similar to a “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy (Ellingson et. al. 2004:9). The more liberal and politically active churches are commendable in their activism efforts but their activities are also very risky at the same time. These churches have dual goals of providing for its members spiritually and to fight for equal rights. The problem is that it divides their attention and their resources making it difficult to allocate them adequately and to accomplish both of their goals

(Lukenbill 1998:450). When the political agenda is prioritized over spiritual needs the more orthodox members tend to leave the institution in favor of other more traditional churches. When you combine this loss of membership with the fact that the largely homosexual and single membership base lacks the ability to self-sustain its own membership though future generations of progeny, the longevity of such organizations is highly questionable (Ellingson et. al. 2004:20-22). This has long been an advantage of traditional churches because children are easily the most effective means of membership building (Sherkat 2002:315). Furthermore, churches are also aware of one another that are in close proximity and use each other as reference groups. Depending on the circumstances a church may model itself after or in contrast to other churches (Ellingson et. al. 2004:12). Both approaches are ultimately about increasing membership, however one aims to mirror the success of other churches while the other aims to present itself as an alternative so as to draw members away from other churches. Overall, these

16 push/pull factor are a critical point that churches consider when determining their stances and normative structures.

Race, Sexual Politics and Religion

Racial issues add another dimension the discussion of sexuality and religion and bring with it their own political component. The gay community has largely been portrayed as a white institution by mainstream media and stereotypes, despite there being gays from numerous racial and ethnic backgrounds (Han 2007:52). This perception can be attributed to white normativity. White normativity is comprised of cultural norms and practices that make whiteness appear natural, normal and right. White normativity has become a key component of gay and lesbian organizations because appealing to the dominant and prevailing culture (white), is ripe with rewards and benefits. In such cases rewards come in the form of donations from rich white people, both gay and straight.

This contributes to a trickle down effect of white hegemonic culture that pervades institutions that are supposed to be racially diverse yet are not (Ward 2008:570). Within these institutions, the problems that concern gay people of color go unaddressed while the organizations continue to bring in white members. This produces an environment that makes people of color rather uncomfortable while whites remain very comfortable in a setting that is racially “diverse” to their liking (Han 2007:52; Ward 2008:567).

Furthermore, these institutions are no longer properly equipped to serve the needs of all gay people in general, however they continue to promote themselves as such. So, gay people of color, who seek out these organizations for help, get white-gay issues

17 projected onto them that often have no relevance. The organizations that do serve the needs of gay people of color are often racially marked and suffer as a result (Han

2007:54; Ward 2008:583).

Blacks and Hispanic/Latinos are prime examples of such misappropriation.

Much of the prevailing thought on how to deal with conflicts over religion and homosexuality employ strategies that require certain resources that these groups tend to lack (Green 2007:769; Pitt 2010:59). It is often suggested that individuals surrounded by such conflict try to remove themselves from the situation by leaving the church.

What tends to be ignored is just how crucial the church is to Black and Hispanic communities as a whole. The church is a focal point and the central organizing feature of the community whose influence can be felt all throughout (Ellingson et al. 2004:23;

Green 2007:761). To remove oneself from this environment would mean a complete detachment from the community in its entirety, requiring large investments of financial resources for relocation. For those who lack these options and are forced to stay the possibility to fight from within is viable. However, to do so involves certain sets of cognitive skills that allow the individual to redefine the situation and critically challenge the dominant ideology. In places such as minority communities where educational opportunities and resources are lacking this is incredibly difficult to do (Green

2007:769; Pitt 2010:59).

It is also underestimated how difficult it can be to discuss homosexuality at all in these communities. In the black community, the church is seen as a positive symbol that challenges notions of racial prejudice and discrimination. Anything that is perceived as

18 a threat to tarnish the churches reputation is met with much antagonism. Also, because the community as a whole is very religious it makes it difficult for gay people to find others they can confide in (Pitt 2010:57). In the Hispanic and Latino communities recognition or acknowledgement of homosexuality as a legitimate concept is faint at best yet homosexual behavior itself is prevalent (Jeffries 2009:776). Explicit gender role expectations and the cultural notion of “machismo,” a type of hyper-masculinity, contribute to an explanation of such a phenomenon. A man’s primary role expectation is to provide for his family. Assuming he fulfills that expectation greater leniency is afforded for other wrongdoings, such as extramarital affairs (Ellingson et al. 2004:38).

Such acts of adultery under the guise of “machismo” are encouraged both covertly and overtly. Furthermore, if the man assumes the dominant or insertive role, homosexual relations are tolerated. However, in such a system homosexual females and subordinate/passive homosexual males are very much stigmatized (Jeffries 2009:766).

Sexuality and Religious Commitment

Despite the inherent difficulties involved, a number of homosexuals are religiously committed. A significant finding by Sherkat (2002:321) showed that this is indeed the case. While female heterosexuals are considered to be the most religious group, homosexual males follow closely behind as the second most religious group. These findings are important and intriguing for multiple reasons. Firstly, the notion that any homosexual group would rank high on religious commitment appears counterintuitive to conventional wisdom given the hostile nature between religion and homosexuality that

19 has previously been established. Challenges to conventional thought are often worthy of greater investigation. Secondly, the fact that a homosexual group (males) ranked lower than one heterosexual group (females) yet higher than another heterosexual group

(males) identifies a much more complex issue. Beyond religion and sexuality there is a gender component that is relevant to this discussion. Research has shown there is support for a relationship between sexual orientation and gender-related traits (Lippa and

Tan 2001:67). A prime example bringing these concepts together is Thompson’s (1991) study which found that feminine gender traits are specifically associated with higher levels of religious commitment, which holds true between the sexes as well as within the sexes. This means that women who possess more socially defined feminine characteristics will be more religious than those who possess fewer and/or than those who have more masculine defined characteristics. The same is true for men as well.

More effeminate males are more likely than masculine males to be religious (Stark

2002:501; Thompson:387).

The findings from both studies in conjunction build off of and show support for research done in the late 1970’s and early 1980’s that tested heterosexual and homosexual males’ and females’ gender identity based on the bem sex role inventory

(Hooberman 1979; LaTorre et al. 1983; Oldham et. al. 1982; Ross 1983). Homosexual males and lesbian females were shown to poses greater opposite-sex gender traits than their heterosexual counterparts. Homosexuals were also shown to score higher on androgyny scales as well, which indicate either possessing more gender neutral traits

(neither masculine nor feminine) or equal numbers of masculine and feminine traits

(Hooberman 1979:311). This breakthrough of the interrelatedness of sexuality, gender and religion serves to highlight the need for further investigation into the significance of gender and religious commitment.

Gender and Religion

It has become common place to proclaim that women are more religious than men without any consideration for the alternative. Numerous studies continue to show that there is a distinct gender difference of religious commitment all across the board however, what most studies fail to do is offer a durable explanation as to why this is the case. The lack of an adequate sociological explanation for such an extended period of times has caused some researchers to reduce the difference to an unquestionable fact of nature (Stark 2002:504).

The first attempts to explain gender differences in religious commitment were based on arguments of differential socialization. The claim was that women and men were exposed to different socialization patterns that caused them to develop distinct personality traits and gender role expectations that directly affected their levels of religious commitment. Women are socialized to be more passive, submissive and are geared towards filling the family’s role of primary caretaker. These characteristics have been shown to be strong indicators of religious commitment (Suziedelis and Potvin

1981:47). Conversely, men are socialized to be more aggressive, independent and are channeled into the role of the family breadwinner. Furthermore, as Cornwall

(1988:228) argues, religiousness is a learned behavior and parents are among the most

21 influential in this learning process because they are examples for their children of how to be good moral people. But, because women occupy the role of primary caretaker this religious educational obligation falls on them a great deal more than it does men. Under these circumstances women are subjected to a type of structural reproduction. Their socialized traits predispose them to be more religious and their role expectations of caretaker and moral arbiter serves to reinforce and strengthen religiosity.

This line of thought spurred further discussion on the significance of work structures and the gendered division of labor. The same qualities of submissiveness and passivity that affect women’s religious commitment are also believed to be what cause women to be subordinated in the workplace. These qualities engrained in women a learned helplessness that rendered them powerless. This was thought to be a factor in their underrepresentation in the labor force prior to the end of the 20th century. Women were thus confined to the household in greater numbers while men faced no such restrictions. It was argued that this disparity gave women more free time with which to devote to religious endeavors and would explain historical differences in religiosity between men and women (de Vaus and McAlister 1987:473). However, more current data suggest that the gap in workforce participation is narrowing yet differences in religious commitment persist (Bureau of Labor Statistics 2012). For those women, who are primarily restricted to the household, religion can constitute a source of personal identity and commitment (Miller and Hoffman 1995:64). This is significant because it can contribute greater meaning to their life and can offset some of the negative effects of inequality and subordination.

This echoes much of the research conducted by Iannaccone (1990) in which an economic approach to differentials in religious commitment is proposed. In the same way that commodities are produced by the labor force for consumption in the market place, so too are commodities produced for consumption in the household. This conceptualization is remarkable because it can be applied to many abstract forms such as love, relaxation, and even religion (Iannaccone 1990:298). All commodities require certain initial inputs that spur the production process such as time, materials and labor.

As has been established, women’s restriction to the private sphere gives them the time necessary to allocate resources to this production process. The materials in this sense can simply be thought of as the monetary donations made to the church or those materials necessary for religious participation like formal mass attire and transportation to and from church. The concept of labor is perhaps the most intriguing aspect of

Iannaccone’s approach. Labor, and more specifically the skill necessary for that labor, is the critical component that ultimately enhances the overall quality of the product.

This is referred to as the human capital approach to religion and suggests that greater fulfillment is derived from religion based on the accumulation of past experiences and familiarity with religion. Therefore it is a cyclical process whereby religious human capital is a prerequisite and consequence of religious participation (Iannaccone

1990:299). Because of their structural position and their role as caretaker women are seen as greater consumers of religion. Women’s greater religious capital makes them more able to extract religious rewards for themselves and their families. For example

23 women’s religiosity directly affects men’s religiosity. Married men have greater religious commitment than do unmarried men (Iannaccone 1990:303).

Religion and Risk

The socialization explanations in many respects are intriguing and compelling but they seem to be flawed in various ways which diminishes their validity when tested empirically. For example, Suziedelis and Potvin’s (1985) study that showed a relationship between childrearing, as it constitutes the fulfillment of a women’s role as caretaker, and religious commitment was contradicted by de Vaus and McAllister

(1987), who found no such association. However, their findings did indicate support for the negative effect of labor force participation on religiosity. When controlling for social power differentials in this respect, distinct gender differential in religiosity still persists. Career oriented women share similar levels of religious commitment with housewives and still report higher levels than their spouses and male peers (Cornwall

1988; de Vaus 1984).

This lack of empirical support has steered explanations in other directions. The socialization explanation to this point primarily focused on why women are more religious than men but failed to consider it from the other perspective. This led to breakthroughs by Miller and colleagues (Miller and Hoffman 1995; Miller and Stark

2002; Stark 2002) who ventured to ask, “Why are men less religious than women?”

Miller and Hoffman’s (1995) study of gender differences in religiosity proposed that the element of risk-taking be incorporated into the discussion of possible

24 explanations. The primary reason why Miller and Hoffman wanted to introduce risk into the equation was because risk taking is an important aspect within the area of crime and delinquency and is the other notable field of study that has such striking gender differences as religion. It was thought that these similar gender differentials were connected in some way and deserved further investigation. They note that women generally perceive greater risk in most facets of life and thus are risk adverse people.

Conversely, men perceive less risk and are comparatively greater risk takers (Miller and

Hoffman 1995:65). Men engage in a number of risky behaviors such as adultery, promiscuity, alcohol and drug use, truancy, unsafe driving practices and so on (Stark

2002:501). Men’s propensity to be greater risk takers makes them much more susceptible to participation in crimes of all sorts. Men have higher criminal numbers than women in crimes such as murder, assault, robbery, rape, and burglary (Hagan

1985:1172).

Directing the discussion back to religion; Miller and Hoffman believe that it was plausible and adequate to incorporate risk because religious participation can be framed within a risk-taking perspective. To be actively participating in a religious organization is seen as risk-adverse behavior while a lack of participation and a dismissal of religion are seen as risk-taking behavior (Miller and Hoffman 1995:64). Such a conceptualization is often attributed to the notion of Pascal’s wager which postulates that there is nothing to lose by believing in God and religion but there is much to be gained. This alludes to supernatural rewards such as salvation as well as supernatural costs of damnation in hell. The logical progression assumes four potential outcomes.

The first two assume God is non-existent. When both believers and non-believers die, they die and nothing else happens. However, under the assumption God does exist when believers die they are met with the rewards they are promised and are granted salvation.

On the other hand, when non-believers die they are subject to divine punishment and eternal damnation. Therefore, Pascal reasoned that it is wiser to believe than to not believe because there are no costs only rewards. A desire to attain such rewards is very influential and increases religiosity. This is especially heightened when risk perception is much more salient such as when an individual becomes more aware of their own mortality (Stark 2002:502).

Miller and Hoffman’s results did indicate that risk has a significant effect on gender differences in religiosity but they lacked a concrete explanation as to why this is the case. They reverted to the many default socialization explanations but refined them within the risk-taking perspective. The passive and submissive female traits of women make them more risk adverse and the more aggressive and independent traits of men make them greater risk takers. As it relates to structural forces and the gender division of labor the labeling of jobs as masculine and feminine and the tracking of men and women into those jobs is very much influenced by how physically risky the occupation is (Miller and Hoffman 1995:66).

It is also suggested that role-modeling could be significant, where daughters and sons model their risk preferences after the same-sex parent. This is attributed to the notion that children are exposed to most risk-taking behavior through interaction with the father and are exposed to most risk-adverse behavior through interaction with the

26 mother. Their final explanation leaned on power-control theory and the argument that patriarchal structures in the household mirror those of the workplace. Gendered power differentials are reproduced in the household based on differential socialization that exerts greater control and restrictions on daughters than on sons (Hagan 1985:1172;

Miller and Hoffman 1995:66).

This left open the possibility for future research and was revisited by Miller and

Stark (2002). They conducted a comprehensive study that spanned multiple decades and numerous countries in an attempt to find a distinction between differential socialization and social power and risk taking. When controlled for, none of the socialization and social power explanations accounted for the gender differences in religious commitment.

However, when replaced with a risk based hypothesis results indicated support for a relationship between the two (Miller and Stark 2002:1413).

Physiology and Faith

In his review of the literature, Stark (2002) used the findings of Miller and colleagues

(Miller and Hoffman 1995; Miller and Stark 2002) which believed religious differences between men and women was associated with risk in combination with findings that connect risk with physiology to proclaim that religious commitment has a biological basis (Stark 2002:504). The argument for a universal biological component to risk and crime at first glance would appear to have a questionable basis. Men are undoubtedly overrepresented in certain types of violent crimes when compared to women. However, when controlling for the type of crime the contrast in numbers is less significant. Men

27 and women have more comparable numbers when the crime is of a “sedentary” or white collar nature, which would include such things as forgery, embezzlement, and credit card fraud (Stark 2002:501). This would indicate that both men and women are prone to crime but for Stark the type of crime is an essential component that can’t be overlooked.

The violent crimes that men are more likely to commit frequently require greater feats of strength and agility (Gove 1985). These physical attributes are much more common in men than in women and are what give men an advantage in the performance of such crimes. This would also correspond with the apparent age gap in crime, which skews it towards a younger population. The counterpoint to this is that the majority of crime is committed by a small minority of people. Thus, not all men would appear to be biologically compelled to commit crime despite being bigger, stronger, or faster.

This conflict would be addressed by breakthroughs in testosterone and steroid research.

When men are exposed to significant amounts of steroids they are much more susceptible to rapid mood changes, outbursts of violent behavior and rage as well as increased sexual appetite (Gove 1985).

Further indication of support for a biological component of risk and criminal behavior lies in twin studies. Studies conducted involving identical twins and fraternal twins showed that if one of the twins had a criminal record the identical twin counterpart was more likely than a fraternal twin counterpart to have a criminal record as well. The belief is that identical twins are more similar to one another genetically than fraternal twins and a biological component could explain the disparity in risky and criminal behavior. When extrapolated out to larger samples it was found that identical twins

28 were 30% more likely than fraternal twins to have a criminal record if their twin also had a criminal record (Christiansen 1977).

More recent studies have challenged the assertion that religious commitment is linked with risk and by extension physiology. One such study was conducted by Roth and Kroll (2007) and it called into question the validity of the risk argument proposed by

Miller and colleagues (Miller and Hoffman 1995; Miller and Stark 2002). Roth and

Kroll note the necessity to make the distinction between various forms of risk. The current theory of risk and religion focuses on risk as it pertains to supernatural risks while underscoring risks that are more tangible and less focused on an afterlife. It is this belief (or lack of belief) in an afterlife that must be highlighted to better understand a possible connection between religion and risk (Roth and Kroll 2007:209).

If a person believes in an afterlife, as well as the potential punishment or rewards associated with it, then a presumed risk component involved in religious commitment is not unreasonable. However, if one does not believe in an afterlife then there should be no aspect of risk assessment that would affect the individual’s religious commitment. This is thought to be a critically failing of Miller and Hoffman (1995) and

Miller and Stark’s (2002) work. Those with low levels of religious commitment are assumed to be greater risk takers, but if they don’t perceive risk in the first place, this would be a misrepresentation (Roth and Kroll 2007:206). This new refinement of risk assessment in religious commitment thus has implications for the assumed gender differential. Roth and Kroll assumed that risk perception would explain gender differences in religious commitment for those believers in an afterlife, which would fall

29 in line with previous work. However, they additionally hypothesized that this gender difference in religious commitment would be a non-factor for those non-believers of an after life. Stated differently, male and female non-believers will have similar levels of religious commitment (Roth and Kroll 2007:207.

The results of their study were startlingly contradictory. The gender gap in religious commitment for non-believers is not diminished and is consistent with general gender differences in religious commitment. The most interesting fact is that the gender differential is more pronounced within the group of non-believers than the group of believers. This is a contradiction to their hypothesis but also contradicts the findings of

Miller and Hoffman (1995) and Miller and Stark (2002). Rather than creating a greater disparity between men and women, risk actually accounts for greater convergence on religious commitment and more significantly it is men’s religious commitment that increase not women’s as it is previously believed (Roth and Kroll 2007:210).

Power Control Theory

Other critiques are less concerned with the usage of a risk based theory of religious commitment and are more resistant to Miller and Stark’s (Miller and Stark 2002; Stark

2002) reduction of gender differences to a matter of biology at the cost of socialization explanations. In response Collette and Lizardo (2009) seek to revisit possible socialization explanations. They believe that socialization and risk based theories can work in tandem to explain gender differences in religious commitment (Collette and

Lizardo 2009:214). To accomplish this goal a Power Control Theory (PCT) of gender

30 differences is utilized. This is a theory that is briefly touched on in Miller’s original work (Miller and Hoffman 1995). It is a theory that initially finds its origins in criminology and is an explanation of differential socialization that explains the effect of risk taking on criminal and delinquent behavior.

Power Control Theory focuses on the formation of power differentials within the household that mirror those of social positions men and women occupy outside of the household. When men have greater social power than women the household formation reflects this in its patriarchal form of male domination. When women have equal or greater social power than men, the household is more egalitarian in its formation. Under both circumstances the power structures are typically reinforced and reproduced which has a significant effect on child socialization. In a patriarchal household, girls will be socialized in an environment that places greater restrictions and controls on them. This results in the daughter developing greater risk adverse behavioral preferences. Sons on the other hand are encouraged, or not overtly discouraged, to be more adventurous, independent and aggressive whereby they develop risk-taking propensities. In egalitarian households less control is asserted on daughters therefore risk preferences are more similar to boys. A possible variation might see a more egalitarian household exert greater control over sons which would also explain decreased differences in risk-taking preferences for sons and daughters (Collette and Lizardo 2009:214)

To determine those individuals who came from patriarchal households and those who came from egalitarian households the authors used parental socioeconomic status

(SES) of fathers and mothers and compared them to one another. This variable is used

31 to identify class, an indication of power, as well as determine the economic dependency of the mother on the father, both strong indicators of patriarchy. The results showed that mothers’ SES had a significant effect on the religiousness of daughters. Mothers with higher SES have more irreligious daughters and mothers with lower SES have more religious daughters. Mother’s SES does not however have an effect on son’s religiousness. Furthermore, the SES of fathers had no effect on neither son’s nor daughter’s religiousness. These results breathe new life into socialization explanations of gender differences in religiosity.

Sociology of Risk

Applying a sociological perspective to risk taking is a more complicated matter than it may seem on the surface. The primary difficulty is identifying and categorizing all of the different occurrences of risk that people encounter in their everyday lives.

Numerous examples of risk may come to mind but consider having unprotected sex and rock climbing as two instances of actions or behaviors that involve risk. These two examples are quite different in circumstance and thus it makes it difficult to compare them adequately and appropriately. Previous research conducted by Bradley and

Wildman (2002) aimed to simplify matters by making key differentiations of risk. Their method for differentiation was based on whether the action or behavior was socially acceptable or not. Socially acceptable behaviors were labeled “risky behaviors” and encompassed things such as rock climbing and other thrill-seeking or sensation-seeking activities. Behaviors that were socially unacceptable were labeled “reckless behaviors”

32 and included things such as unsafe sex and promiscuity, drug use, and the carrying and use of violent weapons Bradley and Wildman 2002:254).

Although this would appear to offer some clarity on the matter, it ultimately does not because risk nor its social acceptability can be defined in a vacuum. The assessment of risk and its acceptability are socially constructed at multiple levels of society which include the individual, group and economic-political level (Wehr 2009:35-36).

Furthermore, each level can be influenced by a number of factors like gender, race and class (Bradley and Wildman 2002:254; Harris et al. 2002:1006). The perspective of

“nothing to lose” helps in better understanding this. Harris et al. (2002) conducted a study of adolescents which looked at their home and school lives and assessed how that affected their likelihood of participating in “reckless behaviors.” When children come from non-traditional and/or poorer socioeconomic families coupled with an unfavorable school setting, it was likely to negatively affect their evaluation of their surrounding environment and social context. This in turn also negatively affects their perception of their long-term future prospects. Thus, with a diminished outlook “reckless behaviors” in the present aren’t evaluated as being inherently risky when it doesn’t jeopardize future aspirations. Conversely, when children come from a more stable family structure and are immersed in a positive school environment that projects higher education and other successes, there is a greater tendency for higher valuations of risk in numerous “reckless behaviors” that are seen as threatening to these potential gains (Harris et al. 2002:1009).

Despite not typically involving a social acceptability component, “risky behaviors” themselves are not immune to the effects of social and structural forces.

Lyng (1990) wrote extensively on voluntary risk taking. He labeled it edgework and outlined several key aspects to edgework including its attributes, the skills required to perform it and the sensations produced by it. Edgework activities must constitute some type of threat to the participant’s well-being, whether physical, mental or otherwise.

Skill sets for edgework vary depending on the activity but conceptually they must demonstrate an innate mental toughness emphasizing an ability to control the seemingly uncontrollable. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, the sensations produced from edgework serve to heighten the overall sense of self (Lyng 1990: 7-10). This last component highlighted a significant micro-macro relationship pitting individual spontaneity against societal level constraint. It was proposed that people who participate in voluntary risk taking, can be seen as people combating alienation occurring at the structural level (Lyng 1990:14-15).

Lyng briefly touches on economic constraint as it affects voluntary risk taking but the discussion on constraint is expanded further by Wehr (2009) with his work on bike messengers. Bike messengering is a type of edgework because the workers actively put themselves in dangerous situations that may result in injury or death. What is different however is the idea that this is a totally voluntary endeavor. Bike messengering is a job and the assumption is that people will try to avoid such a job given the dangerous working conditions (Wehr 2009:35). These jobs can be options for voluntary risk takers who can’t afford the more expensive edgework activities (Lyng

1990:26). This is an economic constraint affecting voluntary risk takers but a similar economic constraint can affect people who may not be as prone to risk taking. People

34 who lack economic options may be constrained into taking edgework type jobs whether they want to engage in risky activities or not. So, although edgework is often associated with thrill-seeking, people don’t always seek these activities out entirely on their own volition and instead are influenced greatly by structural forces (Wehr 2009:35). The main take away from all of this is that risk is not static. Risk is fluid and is dependent on a number of factors and the perception, evaluation and engagement in that risk is influenced by the social context.

DATA AND METHODS

In the original study Sherkat (2002) used data from the General Social Survey

(GSS), a biennial survey conducted in the United States. The analysis of sexuality and religious commitment spanned a decades worth of data utilizing the years from 1991-

2000. This replication and update to that study will expand the time frame to include the decade’s worth of new data that have been collected since (2001-2010). This new data will allow for the comparison of religious commitment between these two different time periods as well as a more accurate trajectory of religious commitment over the long term.

In order to analyze the relationship between sexuality and religious commitment these key concepts must first be operationalized within the context of the GSS.

Determining sexuality isn’t always a straightforward process, as the question of sexual orientation isn’t directly asked. Therefore, operationalization of sexuality, for the purposes of this study and the former, is based off the GSS question that asks about the sex of the respondent’s sexual partners in the last five years. Furthermore, based on the significance gender has on religious commitment it is combined here with sex of sexual partners for the purpose of identifying more distinct categories. From this, six categories are established: heterosexual females (exclusively male sexual partners), heterosexual males (exclusively female sexual partners), bisexual females (both male and female sexual partners), bisexual males (both male and female sexual partners), lesbian females

(exclusively female sexual partners), and gay males (exclusively male sexual partners).

Under these circumstances sexuality is purely an indication of behavior and lacks a self-identification component. This notes the possible limitation of this approach. For example, self-identified gays and lesbians may also have sex with opposite sex partners and therefore under this proposed system would be categorized as bisexual. Similarly, those who are bisexual behaviorally may self-identify as heterosexual. Unfortunately the issue of self-identification and its affect in religious commitment is beyond the scope of this study

Religious Commitment

There are a number of different questions in the GSS that concern the respondent’s religiosity and religious commitment. In the original study three specific questions were used as indicators. The first question was a measure of church attendance and was graded on a scale that ranged from never (0) to almost every day (8). Frequency of prayer was also asked and measured gradationally in descending order. For the purpose of consistency this was recoded in reverse categorical order to match the ascending gradation of religious commitment producing a scale that ranged from never (0) to several times a day (5). Mean gradational scores for both questions are then calculated and presented for each sexuality group.

The final question measuring religious commitment asked the respondent about their biblical beliefs and whether or not the bible is either the inspired or actual word of

God. This question is converted into a dummy variable where one (1) indicates a belief and zero (0) indicates a lack of belief or other alternatives. A fourth indicator of

37 religious commitment is also used and is labeled apostasy. Apostasy is an indication that one has left or abandoned their faith. To measure apostasy an additional dummy variable is created. This variable indentifies those respondents that claimed a religious affiliation while growing up but claim no religious affiliation at the time of the interview and are scored as one (1); all others are scored as zero (0). Means for both biblical belief and apostasy will be reported based on percentage for each sexuality group.

Based on the work of Roth and Kroll (2007), it seems appropriate to add belief in an afterlife as a fifth indicator of religiosity (207). As with biblical belief and apostasy, belief in an afterlife will be made into a dummy variable where zero (0) indicates no belief in an afterlife and one (1) indicates a belief in an afterlife. This will also be reported via percentages. The purpose of measuring belief in an afterlife is to directly challenge the risk-taking perspective. A lack of belief in the afterlife potentially severs the connection between risk and religious commitment, and by extension the connection between gender and religious commitment. Therefore, a set of testable hypothesis are:

Hypothesis 1a: There will be no gender differences in church attendance among those who lack a belief in the afterlife.

Hypothesis 1b: There will be no gender differences in frequency of prayer among those who lack a belief in the afterlife.

Hypothesis 1c: There will be no gender differences in rate of apostasy among those who lack a belief in the afterlife.

Hypothesis 1d: There will be no gender differences in biblical belief among those who lack a belief in the afterlife.

For the current study an additional variable will be tested. Collette and Lizardo

(2009) propose mother’s socioeconomic status (SES) as a significant indicator explaining gender differences in religious commitment (219). The use of mother’s SES challenges explanations based exclusively on biology such as those adopted by Miller and Stark (Miller and Stark 2002; Stark 2002) and instead bring socialization based explanations back into the fold. In egalitarian households, where mother’s SES is equal to or grater than father’s SES, children are socialized differently as compared to traditionally patriarchal households, where father’s SES is greater. Differential socialization affects both children’s risk preferences and religious commitment. In a patriarchal household daughters are socialized with greater restrictions placed on them that result in the development of risk adverse behavioral patterns which correlate with higher levels of religious commitment. Sons face less restrictions and as result are less risk adverse which correlates with lower levels of religious commitment (Collette and

Lizardo 2009:214). In an egalitarian household restrictions are more equal and it is expected that risk preference and religious commitment are more similar between sons and daughters (Collette and Lizardo 2009:219). To measure differences in mother’s

SES the variables mother’s education and father’s education will be compared. This

39 will be recoded as a dummy variable with egalitarian (1) and patriarchal (0). Therefore, a set of testable hypotheses are:

Hypothesis 2a: There will be no gender differences in church attendance among those raised in an egalitarian household.

Hypothesis 2b: There will be no gender differences in frequency of prayer among those raised in an egalitarian household.

Hypothesis 2c: There will be no gender differences in rate of apostasy among those raised in an egalitarian household.

Hypothesis 2d: There will be no gender differences in biblical belief among those raised in an egalitarian household.

However, if there are differences in religious commitment we should expect that:

Hypothesis 2e: Church attendance is negatively correlated with mother’s educational attainment.

Hypothesis 2f: Frequency of prayer is negatively correlated with mother’s educational attainment.

Hypothesis 2g: Rate of apostasy is negatively correlated with mother’s educational attainment.

Hypothesis 2h: Biblical belief is negatively correlated with mother’s educational attainment.

Control Variables

A number of different control variables will be utilized in an attempt to account for additional factors affecting religious commitment. Such variables originally included are: education, age, marital status, number of children and race. Marital status and race both require dummy variables. Marital status is recoded as married (1) and not married

(0). Race is recoded into two new variables as Blacks {Blacks (1) Whites and Other

Races (0)} and Other Races {Other Races (1) and Whites and Blacks (0)}.

Although GSS data is limited on racial minorities (individually identifying only blacks) it seems prudent to make contributions to the analysis of race whenever possible.

Additional analysis for blacks can be made by measuring non-service related church participation, which will be recoded to range from never (0) to multiple times per week

(5). As Pitt (2010), Ellingson et al. (2004) and others have noted the centrality and entrenchment of the church in black communities has far-reaching effects on its members. Also, they assert the difficulty sexual minority members face in cognitively combating negative church doctrines (Pitt 2010:59). Therefore, a set of testable hypotheses are:

Hypothesis 3a: There will be no difference in non-service related church participation between whites and other races.

Hypothesis 3b: Blacks are more likely than whites to participate in non-service related church activities.

Hypothesis 3c: Blacks are more likely than other races to participate in non-service related church activities.

Additional analysis for other races can be made by measuring whether they have confidence in organized religion. This variable will be recoded to range from hardly any

(0) to a great deal (2). Statistics show that 78.4% of people in the U.S. claim some form of Christian affiliation. Other religious affiliations ( Judaism, Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu, etc.) account for 4.7% of people in the U.S. Other races are more likely than whites/blacks to claim a non Christian religious affiliation (The Pew Forum on Religion

& Public Life 2012). Being a member of a minority religious group is likely to affect other races confidence in organized religion. Therefore a set of testable hypothesis are:

Hypothesis 4a: There will be no difference in confidence in organized religion between blacks and whites.

Hypothesis 4b: Other races are less likely than blacks to have confidence in organized religion.

Hypothesis 4c: Other races are less likely than whites to have confidence in organized religion.

The significance of all control variables will be calculated using OLS and logistic regression models.

RESULTS

Both female heterosexuals and male heterosexuals saw almost no change in mean church attendance from time 1 (1991-2000) to time 2 (2002-2010) with both dropping slightly (-0.08). The only gain in mean church attendance occurred within nonheterosexual females. Bisexual females’ mean church attendance increased by 0.25 while lesbian females’ mean church attendance increased by 0.35. Nonheterosexual males accounted for greater changes in mean church attendance; rather than increasing the change resulted in a decrease in mean church attendance. Mean church attendance dropped by 0.53 for gay males and 0.86 for male bisexuals. However, none of these changes in mean church attendance between time 1 and time 2 were statistically significant for the different sexuality groupings. The grouping of male bisexuals is noteworthy though. Their drop in mean church attendance was close to a full point and while it failed at the 0.05 significance level it was off only slightly with a p-value of

0.06.

There was an interesting occurrence in gender differentials among nonheterosexuals. In the earlier time frame gay males and bisexual males had greater levels of church attendance than their female counterparts yet in the more recent time frame this is reversed. This result means that all female groups have greater mean church attendance than their male counter parts in time 2, which falls in line with previously assumed gender differentials.

In time 2 female heterosexuals again have the highest mean church attendance and are statistically significant from all other groupings. Male heterosexuals are again

Table 1. Sexuality and Religious Commitment in the General Social Survey: Unadjusted Means and Percentages 1991-2000 Female Male Hetero Hetero Female Bi Male Bi Lesbian Female Gay Male Church 3.90 3.28A 2.36AB 2.86A 2.84A 3.21A Prayer 3.48 2.75A 2.79A 2.84a 3.16 3.20b Apostasy 6.9% 11.1%A 15.7%A 15.1%ab 19.2%Ab 18.8%Ab Bible 85.6% 77.9%A 68.6%A 60.4%AB 69.3%A 69.3%Ab N 5620 4713 102 73 99 149

Table 2. Sexuality and Religious Commitment in the General Social Survey: Unadjusted Means and Percentages 2002-2010 Female Male Female Lesbian Gay Hetero Hetero Bi Male Bi Female Male Church 3.82 3.20A 2.61Ab 2.00AB 3.19aD 2.68Ab 1.87ABCEF Prayer 3.58T 2.73A 3.15ab t 3.32B 2.81A Apostasy 9.2%T 14.6%AT 21.3%A 25.0%a 16.3%a 18.7%A Bible 83.7%t 74.4%AT 72.2%a 50.0%ABc 74.0%d 68.3%A N 4485 3963 94 44 101 123 A Difference from female heterosexual significant at .01 level, two tailed a Difference from female heterosexual significant at .05 level, two tailed B Difference from male heterosexual significant at .01 level, two tailed b Difference from male heterosexual significant at .05 level, two tailed C Difference from female bisexual significant at .01 level, two tailed c Difference from female bisexual significant at .05 level, two tailed D Difference from male bisexual significant at .01 level, two tailed d Difference from male bisexual significant at .05 level, two tailed T Difference from time 1 significant at .01 level, two tailed t Difference from time 1 significant at .05 level, two tailed

45 second highest and significantly different from all other groups except lesbian females.

This would make sense given male heterosexuals (3.20) and lesbian females (3.19) near identical mean church attendance. In time 2 lesbian females are comparable to male heterosexuals in a similar way that gay males were comparable to male heterosexuals in time 1.

In regards to frequency of prayer there were difficulties encountered trying to replicate the original data. It appears that a different coding system was used for this variable than was stated in the original methods. For the purpose of this analysis, the data was gathered using the methodology as stated in the original article. In an attempt to be comprehensive it should be noted that the original data suggested that the only statistically significant difference was between female heterosexuals and male heterosexuals. The newer data for time 1 indicates that there were more statistically significant differences. Female heterosexuals had the highest mean frequency of prayer

(.3.48) which was statistically significant when compared to both female (2.79) and male

(2.84) bisexuals in addition to male heterosexuals (2.75). Gay males (3.20) also had significant differences when compared to male heterosexuals.

Similar to church attendance, the lapse in time didn’t account for much change in frequency of prayer among heterosexuals. Male heterosexuals remained virtually the same (-.02) for mean frequency of prayer while female heterosexuals increased slightly

(.10). Although the change is small for female heterosexuals it is statistically significant.

Male bisexuals also saw a statistically significant change, dropping by 0.97. The remaining groups of lesbian females, bisexual females and gay males all had moderate

46 changes that were not significant. Lesbian females and bisexual females increased mean frequency of prayer by 0.16 and 0.36 respectively, while gay males decreased by 0.39.

Unlike church attendance, there was no apparent gender gap within bisexuals and within lesbians and gay males in the earlier time frame for frequency of prayer. Males in both categories did record higher values but the difference compared to the females was almost negligible. In the more recent time period the gains by nonheterosexual females and losses by nonheterosexual males has created noticeable gender differences.

Once more females have greater values than men all across the board.

In terms of differences between groups within time 2, heterosexual females and heterosexual males are significantly different from each other and all other groups except for their respective lesbian and gay male counterpart. Additionally, male bisexuals are significantly different from all other groups.

The rate of apostasy for gay males went virtually unchanged (-0.1%) over the time span. Lesbian females are the only group with a noticeable drop in apostasy, falling 2.4% yet this change is not statistically significant. All other groups saw some increase in apostasy. Among heterosexuals, females’ rate of apostasy increased by 2.3% while males’ rate of apostasy increased by 3.5%, both of which were statistically significant. Bisexuals saw the largest gains overall in apostasy rate, females increasing by 5.6% with males increasing by nearly 10%, however these gains did not prove to be statistically significant. These gains have caused bisexuals to overtake gay males and lesbian females as the group with the highest levels of apostasy. This reversal is quite noticeable as gay males and lesbian females had about a 4% advantage over bisexuals in

47 apostasy initially. Now bisexuals have about a 5%-6% edge over gay males and lesbian females. In the latter time frame males in general have higher rates of apostasy than females. In time 2 female heterosexuals are significantly different from all other groups and no other groups differentiate themselves in any statistically significant way.

Similar to frequency of prayer, there were problems encountered trying to replicate the original numbers measuring biblical belief. This time though the numbers were off by a very small amount, primarily less than a hundredth of a point (<.01). It would seem that the most likely explanation is that a weighted variable was used that altered the values but was not disclosed in the original methods. Again, analysis will be based on values obtained using the original methods as stated. There is only one addendum, and that would be there is a significant difference between male heterosexuals and female bisexuals in time 1.

Nonheterosexual females are the only group to record an increase in belief that the bible is the actual or inspired word of god. Lesbian females account for a slightly higher increase of 4.7%, while bisexual females increased by 3.6%. All other groups recorded varying degrees of decreased biblical belief. Gay males and female heterosexuals had slight decreases in biblical belief (-1.0% and -1.9% respectively).

Male heterosexuals had a more moderate decrease of 3.5% in biblical belief. The biggest decrease came from male bisexuals with over 10%. The change from time 1 to time 2 was statistically significant for female and male heterosexuals but not for the other sexuality groupings. In all orientation groupings females have higher values than their male counterparts for biblical belief. In time 2, female heterosexuals are

48 significantly different from all other groups except for lesbian females. Additionally, male bisexuals significantly differentiate themselves from all groups except gay males.

Table 3 is the adjusted mean church attendance and predicted probability of apostasy for time 1. These numbers are different than the original study most likely as a result of the continued error in methodology and coding as previously stated. The current data suggest that all groups are significantly different from one another with the exception of gay males and other nonheterosexuals for both church attendance and rate of apostasy. Table 4 is the adjusted mean church attendance and predicted probability of apostasy for time 2.

From time 1 to time 2 adjusted mean church attendance drops for all groups.

Female heterosexuals (-0.053) and gay males (-0.078) decline the least, with both dropping less than a tenth of a point. While the change in female heterosexuals is statistically significant the change in gay males is not. Both male heterosexuals (-0.117) and sexsexmis (-0.152) drop by over a tenth of a point and both are statistically significant. Other nonheterosexuals (-0.237) saw the largest decrease in mean church attendance with more than 2 tenths but this is not statistically significant.

From time 1 to time 2 predicted probability of apostasy increases for all groups.

Gay males (2.6%), other nonheterosexuals (2.5%) and sexsexmis (2.0%) all increased by

2% or more. Female (1.6%) and male (1.7%) heterosexuals’ predicted rate of apostasy increased by slightly more than 1.5%. Changes from time 1 to time 2 were statistically significant for all groups. Just as in time 1, in time 2 all groups are statistically significant from one another except for gay males and other nonheterosexuals for both

Table 3. Adjusted Mean Church Attendance and Predicted Probability of Apostasy for Gender and Sexuality Groupings Controlling for Sociodemographic Factors 1991-2000 Female Hetero Male Hetero Gay Male Other Nonhetero Sexsexmis Church1 3.783 3.607A 3.156AB 3.160ABF 3.837aBFG Apostasy2 .083 .087A .111AB .107AB .072ABFG

Table 4. Adjusted Mean Church Attendance and Predicted Probability of Apostasy for Gender and Sexuality Groupings Controlling for Sociodemographic Factors 2002-2010 Female Hetero Male Hetero Gay Male Other Nonhetero Sexsexmis Church1 3.730t 3.490AT 3.078AB 2.923AB 3.685BFGT Apostasy2 .099T .104AT .137ABT .132ABT .092ABFGT 1 Calculated from OLS regression model, controlling for age, education, race, marital status, no religious affiliation, and number of children 2 Calculated from logistic regression model, controlling for age, education, race, marital status and number of children A Difference from female heterosexual significant at .01 level, two tailed a Difference from female heterosexual significant at .05 level, two tailed B Difference from male heterosexual significant at .01 level, two tailed b Difference from male heterosexual significant at .05 level, two tailed F Difference from gay male significant at .01 level, two tailed f Difference from gay male significant at .05 level, two tailed G Difference from other nonheterosexuals significant at .01 level, two tailed g Difference from other nonheterosexuals significant at .05 level, two tailed T Difference from time1 significant at .01 level, two tailed t Difference from time 1 significant at .05 level, two tailed

50 church attendance and rate of apostasy.

Table 5 shows the unadjusted means and percentages for the various religious measures among those who lack a belief in the afterlife. For each measure in each time frame there are statistically significant gender differences all at the .01 level. Females have higher levels of mean church attendance, mean frequency of prayer and biblical belief than males. Males have higher rates of apostasy than females. Church attendance and frequency of prayer are both very consistent. For each, females score more than a full point higher than males at all times. Biblical belief is also consistent over time. The difference between female and male biblical belief is right around 20% in favor of females. The biggest disparity is in rate of apostasy. Males are almost twice as likely as females to apostate. Church attendance, frequency of prayer and biblical belief all decrease from time 1 to time 2 for both males and females. Rate of apostasy increases from time 1 to time 2 for both males and females. With these results we reject the null hypotheses that there are no gender differences in the various religious measures among those who lack a belief in the afterlife.

Table 5. Gender and Religious Commitment among Those Who Lack a Belief in the After Life: Unadjusted Means and Percentages Attend Prayer Apostasy Bible 1991-2000 Male 2.19 1.94 22.9% 54.5% Female 3.21M 3.08M 9.9%M 74.9%M 2002-2010 Male 1.98 1.70 27.4% 47.9% Female 3.05M 2.85M 15.1%M 70.2%M 1991-2010 Male 2.08 1.80 25.2% 51.1% Female 3.14M 2.96M 12.1%M 72.8%M M difference from male significant at .01 level, two-tailed

Table 6 shows the unadjusted means and percentages for the various religious measures among those raised in an egalitarian household. For each measure and in each time frame there are statistically significant gender differences all at the .01 level.

Females have higher levels of mean church attendance, mean frequency of prayer and biblical belief than males. Males have higher rates of apostasy than females. There are similar disparities for church attendance and frequency of prayer between males and females with both being about 20% higher for females. Biblical belief is much narrower with a difference of about 7% between males and females. Rate of apostasy is relatively low for both males and females but comparatively, males are about 60% more likely to apostate then females. With these results we reject the null hypotheses that there are no gender differences in the various religious measures among those raised in an egalitarian household.

Table 6. Gender and Religious Commitment among Those Raised in an Egalitarian Household: Unadjusted Means and Percentages Attend Prayer Apostasy Bible 1991-2000 Male 3.48 2.80 9.8% 80.0% Female 4.17M 3.56M 5.9%M 86.2%M 2002-2010 Male 3.37 2.83 13.5% 76.3% Female 4.11M 3.65M 7.9%M 84.9%M 1991-2010 Male 3.43 2.82 11.6% 78.1% Female 4.14M 3.61M 6.8%M 85.6%M M difference from male significant at .01 level, two tailed

Table 7 shows the correlation between the different religious measure and being raised in an egalitarian household. Because there are noticeable gender differences it was hypothesized that an egalitarian upbringing would correlate negatively with religious commitment. Church attendance and biblical belief are rather constant

52 showing a statistically significant positive correlation with egalitarian upbringing.

Prayer tends towards a slight negative correlation that is significant in time 1 but is not in time 2 and the joint time frame. Apostasy is unusual. It is negatively correlated with egalitarian in time 1 and is significant. However in time 2 it is positively correlated which is also significant. The negative correlation in time 1 and positive correlation in time 2 are identical and cancel each other out when looking at the joint time frame which results in there being no correlation. With these results we reject the hypotheses that the various religious measures correlate negatively with mother’s educational attainment.

Table 7. Correlation between Religious Commitment Measures and Egalitarian Upbringing Attend Prayer Apostasy Bible 1991-2000 .047E -.026e -.019e .012 2002-2010 .045E .004 .019e .020e 1991-2010 .047E -.008 .000 .015e E significant at .01 level, two tailed e significant at .05 level, two tailed

Table 8 shows non-service related church participation by race. It was hypothesized that there would be no difference between whites and other races for non- service related church participation however the data suggests otherwise. In time 1 other races have slightly higher participation than whites but this difference is not statistically significant. In time 2 and the cumulative time frame whites have higher levels of participation than other races and both of these differences prove to be statistically significant, therefore we reject the null hypothesis. The data supports the hypothesis that blacks are more likely than whites to engage in non-service related church activities.

Blacks are generally about 30% more likely than whites to participate in non-service

53 related activities, which is statistically significant. The data also supports the hypothesis that blacks are more likely than other races to participate in non-service related church activities. Blacks are about 40% more likely than other races to participate in non- service related church activities, which is statistically significant. All racial groups saw large drop offs in non-service related church participation from time 1 to time 2. Whites dropped about 15%, blacks dropped about 20% and other races dropped about 30%.

Table 8. Non-Service Related Church Activity by Race: Unadjusted Means 1991-2000 2002-2010 1991-2010 White 1.2105 1.0295 1.0815 Black 1.836W 1.4542W 1.5458W Other 1.2652BL .8477WBL .9098WBL W difference from white significant at .01 level, two tailed BL difference from black significant at .01 level, two tailed

Table 9 shows confidence in organized religion by race. It was hypothesized that there would be no difference between blacks and whites when it comes to confidence in organized religion, but there is a clear difference. In all time frames blacks are more likely than whites to have confidence in organized religion, all of which are statistically significant. Blacks are approximately 25% more likely than whites to have confidence, therefore we reject the null hypothesis. Other races have lower levels of confidence than blacks at all times which is consistent with our hypothesis. Comparing other races with

Table 9. Confidence in Organized Religion by Race: Unadjusted Means 1991-2000 2002-2010 1991-2010 White 1.0413 .9633 1.0112 Black 1.1401W 1.0832W 1.1169w Other 1.0316BL .9755BL 1.0000BL W difference from white significant at .01 level, two tailed w difference from white significant at .05 level, two tailed BL difference from black significant at .01 level, two tailed

54 whites is less straight forward. Other races have higher confidence in time 1 and the cumulative time frame but lower levels in time 2. Furthermore these differences are not statistically significant. These results are not consistent with the hypothesis that other races are less likely than whites to have confidence in organized religion.

Table 10. Summary of Hypotheses Hypothesis Result There will be no gender differences in church attendance among those H1a who lack a belief in the afterlife. Reject There will be no gender differences in frequency of prayer among those H1b who lack a belief in the afterlife Reject There will be no gender differences in rate of apostasy among those H1c who lack a belief in the afterlife. Reject There will be no gender differences in biblical belief among those who H1d lack a belief in the afterlife. Reject There will be no gender differences in church attendance among those H2a raised in an egalitarian household. Reject There will be no gender differences in frequency of prayer among those H2b raised in an egalitarian household. Reject There will be no gender differences in rate of apostasy among those H2c raised in an egalitarian household. Reject There will be no gender differences in biblical belief among those raised H2d in an egalitarian household. Reject Church attendance is negatively correlated with mother’s educational H2e attainment. Reject Frequency of prayer is negatively correlated with mother’s educational H2f attainment. Reject Rate of apostasy is negatively correlated with mother’s educational H2g attainment. Reject Biblical belief is negatively correlated with mother’s educational H2h attainment. Reject There will be no difference in non-service related church participation H3a between whites and other races. Reject Blacks are more likely than whites to participate in non-service related Fail to H3b church activities. Reject Blacks are more likely than other races to participate in non-service Fail to H3c related church activities. Reject There will be no difference in confidence in organized religion between H4a blacks and whites. Reject Other races are less likely than blacks to have confidence in organized Fail to H4b religion. Reject Other races are less likely than whites to have confidence in organized H4c religion. Reject

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

This study aimed to look at religious commitment based on gender and sexuality in addition to updating preexisting data on the mater. Furthermore, it looked to explore possible explanations that had been previously present to explain the persistent gender differences evident in religious commitment research. The update to the initial study shows that from the 1990s to the 2000s there are general drop offs in religiosity. This is consistent with research that suggests America is experiencing a decline in religious affiliation (Schwadel 2013:17). The religious measure that is less consistent is frequency of prayer. Breaking it down by gender and sexuality shows that some groups decrease while others increase. This could be an indication of religious individualism whereby individuals accommodate the religious practices that are fitting of their needs

(Schnoor 2006:45; Yip 2002:201).

When comparing these results to Sherkat’s (2002) initial results there are a number of claims about gender and sexuality that appear to have changed over time.

Previously, gay males had the highest levels of religious commitment among other nonheterosexuals. This was believed to be particularly relevant when compared to lesbians and female bisexuals. The reason cited was that religious institutions and religious doctrines that condemned homosexuality, often did so with a male frame of reference, e.g., thou shall not lie with man as with woman; it is abomination (Leviticus

18:22). However, in the 2000s there were shifts made by lesbians and female bisexuals that changed the outlook of religious commitment among nonheterosexuals. While changes in gay males’ religious commitment is consistent with the general drop in

57 religiosity, lesbians and female bisexuals trend towards the opposite, increasing in a majority of religious measures. This has served to narrow the gap or reverse it entirely between gay males and lesbians and female bisexuals. What also emerges from these changes is the reaffirmation of the basic gender differences in religious commitment.

Within each sexuality grouping females have higher levels of religious commitment than their male counterparts.

The original study also highlighted comparisons between heterosexual males’ and gay males’ religious commitment. Heterosexual males were stated to have greater levels of religious commitment in all categories except frequency of prayer; however this was before controlling for various demographic variables. A variable such as marital status was considered very important in explaining these differences. This was based off of research that suggested heterosexual males’ religious tendencies were strongly linked to the tendencies of their female spouses (Iannaccone 1990:303). Once this and other variables were controlled for in the initial study, the comparisons favored gay males as being more religious than heterosexual males. Overall, they were second most religious group behind only female heterosexuals. Data collected from the present study produced contradictory results which showed heterosexual males maintaining an edge in these religious measures. More clarity on the matter is certainly needed in the future to resolve this discrepancy.

Moving forward in time the disparity between heterosexual males’ and gay males’ religious commitment is more apparent. While both groups see a drop off, it is marginal for heterosexual males and more substantial for gay males. This puts the

58 possibility of gay males being the second most religious group further out of reach. In fact, the group that appears to be more likely to supplant heterosexual males as the second most religious group is lesbian females. Their numbers trend inversely to that of gay males. They started out comparatively low in the 1990s but saw sizeable gains in the 2000s. When compared with heterosexual males their numbers for church attendance are nearly identical in the 2000s even before controlling for other variables.

Although it wasn’t explored here this deserves further investigation. Perhaps what links heterosexual males and lesbian females is the presence of a female partner or spouse in a relationship scenario. As has been pointed out, in a heterosexual relationship the males’ religious tendencies are influenced by the females’ religious tendencies, therefore something similar could be possible in a lesbian relationship. Given that such a relationship would clearly consist of two females as well as the general notion that females continue to be more religious than males, the presence and influence of religion in at least one partner seems probable in such a relationship. Research in this area will be greatly aided in the near future. With the legality of gay marriage continuing to expand to the vast majority of states, it will soon be possible to analyze marital variables by gender and orientation more precisely.

To address gender differences in religious commitment a couple of explanations were proposed related to risk. One explanation dealt with patriarchal issues involving power, socialization and structural reproduction. Under such circumstances females are socialized differently which affects risk preferences and predisposes them to be more religious (Collett and Lizardo 2009:214). Additionally, they typically hold the role of

59 primary caretaker and are responsible for imparting values, religious and otherwise, onto their children (Miller and Hoffman 1995:64). It is suggested that in an egalitarian household these structural limitations would not exist. Men and women would share the division of labor both outside and inside the home. This would not confine women or men to one set of roles and would break a cycle of reproduction. Breaking this cycle is what should eliminate gender differences in religious commitment and more specifically the religious commitment measures are believed to correlate negatively with mother’s education (Collette and Lizardo 2009:219).

This however isn’t exactly how it turns out. In all religious measures gender differences are present and still favor females over males as being more religious. As for how egalitarian correlates with the religious measures, there is a small negative correlation with church attendance as well as biblical belief. As for frequency of prayer and rate of apostasy, their correlation with egalitarian is inconsistent over time. It is possible that the measure used for an egalitarian family structure can be refined and improved upon to obtain better results. Determining egalitarianism based on comparisons between mother’s and father’s education level alone could be flawed. For instance a comparison of education might not accurately speak to actual living situations. While a mother may have an equal to or greater level of education than the father, the mother may still be a primary caretaker staying at home. This could cause patriarchal structures to be maintained. Additionally, it is possible that the child’s parents weren’t always together during their upbringing and the use of this measure could cause an inaccurate assessment as well.

The second risk-based explanation drew on a concept known as Pascal’s wager.

This concept created a direct link between religion and risk. It suggested that not believing in God and religion is in and of itself inherently risky. This is because a nonbeliever would forfeit any spiritual benefits potentially bestowed upon them (Stark

2002:502). Identifying males and females who had similar risk-based preferences like this was thought to eliminate gender differences in religious commitment. A lack of belief in the after life was used to assess this type of risk. However, results ultimately showed that sizeable differences still remained between males and females in all religious measures.

There are potential shortcomings using belief in the afterlife to assess risk in this way. Belief in the afterlife is a concept that is already entrenched in religious circumstance. This may bias and undermine results expounding on the relationship between risk and religion. Hence, it could be better to measure risk using something that falls out of the realm of religion itself. Furthermore, belief in the after life is an abstract concept of risk that lacks tangible and imminent consequences. This was a key point distinguishing it from previous research, but neither it nor tangible risk explains gender differences.

Perhaps what is needed is a sociological approach to the assessment of risk. A sociological perspective acknowledges that risk isn’t the same for all people in all situations. Risk is socially constructed based on the individual’s social context and can be influenced by gender, race, class and other significant factors (Bradley and Wildman

2002:254; Harris et al. 2002:1006; Wehr 2009:35-36). This means that risk is fluid

61 rather than static. With this in mind, it may not be possible to project risk onto a stagnant variable after the fact. A better assessment of risk likely would require a more overt and explicit component specifically designed to measure risk from the outset.

Finally, the biggest limitation of this study is sample size. There are significantly fewer nonheterosexuals than heterosexuals that can be identified through the GSS. This makes it increasingly difficult to compare the various groups. Being able to combine the data from the 1990’s and the 2000’s was beneficial because it offered a larger sample to work from. This gives us a better understanding on a macro level but less so on the micro level. With so much changing culturally on the matter from one decade to the next it is unfortunate that a more detailed assessment could not be made. So in the future, it would be ideal to use a data set with a larger nonheterosexual sample.

Appendix

Independent Variables

Sex: Respondents Sex

1 Male

2 Female

SexSex5: Sex of Sex Partners in Last Five Years

1 Exclusively Male

2 Both Male and Female

3 Exclusively Female

0 NAP

8 DK

9 NA

Orient: Sexual Orientation Variable Recoded from Sex and SexSex5

1 Female Heterosexual

2 Male Heterosexual

3 Female Bisexual

4 Male Bisexual

5 Lesbian

6 Gay Male

T2Orient: Recode of the Variable Orient

1 Female Heterosexual

2 Male Heterosexual

3 Female Bisexual

4 Male Bisexual

5 Lesbian

6 Gay Male

Dependent Variables

Attend: How Often R Attends Religious Services

0 Never Several Times a Day

1 LT Once a Year

2 Once a Year

3 Several Times a Year

4 Once a Month

5 2-3x a Month

6 Nearly Every Week

7 Every Week

8 More Than Once a Week

9 DK NA

Pray: How Often Does R Pray

1 Several Times a Day

2 Once a Day

3 Several Times a Week

4 Once a Week

5 LT Once a Week

6 Never

0 NAP

8 DK

9 NA

PrayNew: Recode of the Variable Pray

0 Never

1 LT Once a Week

2 Once a Week

3 Several Times a Week

4 Once a Day

5 Several Times a Day

Relig: R’s Religious Preference

1 Protestant

2 Catholic

3 Jewish

4 None

5 Other(Specify)

6 Buddhism

7 Hinduism

8 Other Easter

9 Moslem/Islam

10 Orthodox-Christian

11 Christian

12 Native American

13 Inter-Nondenominational

0 NAP

98 DK

99 NA

Relig16: Religion in Which Raised

1 Protestant

2 Catholic

3 Jewish

4 None

5 Other(Specify)

6 Buddhism

7 Hinduism

8 Other Easter

9 Moslem/Islam

10 Orthodox-Christian

11 Christian

12 Native American

13 Inter-Nondenominational

0 NAP

98 DK

99 NA

Apostasy: Recoded Variable Combining Relig and Relig16

0 Other

1 Apostate

Bible: Feelings About the Bible

1 Word of God

2 Inspired Word

3 Book of Fables

4 Other

0 NAP

8 DK

9 NA

BibleNew: Recoded Variable Bible

0 Other

1 Inspired or Actual Word of God

Postlife: Belief in Life After Death

1 Yes

2 No

0 NAP

8 DK

9 NA

PostlifeNew: Recoded Variable Postlife

0 No

1 Yes

Relactiv: How Often Does R Participate in Non-Service Related Church Activities

1 Never

2 Less Than Once a Year

3 About Once Or Twice a Year

4 Several Times a Year

5 About Once a Month

6 2-3 Times a Month

7 Nearly Every Week

8 Every Week

9 Several Times a Week

10 Once a Day

11 Several Times a Day

0 NAP

98 DK

99 NA

Relactivnew: Recoded Variable Relacitv

0 Never

1 Less Than Once a Month

2 Once a Month

3 Less Than Once a Week

4 Every Week

5 Multiple Times a Week

Conclerg: Confidence in Organized Religion

1 A Great Deal

2 Only Some

3 Hardly Any

0 NAP

8 DK

9 NA

Conclergnew: Recoded Conclerg

0 Hardly Any

1 Only Some

2 A Great Deal

Control Variables

Childs: Number of Children

8 Eight or More

9 No Answer, Don’t Know

Educ: Highest Year of School Completed

Ranges from 0-20

97 Not Applicable

98 Don’t Know

99 No Answer

Age: Age of Respondent

Ranges from 18-88

89 Or Older

98 Don’t Know

99 No Answer

Race: Race of Respondent

1 White

2 Black

3 Other

0 Not Applicable

RaceBlack: Recoded Variable Race

0 Other

1 Black

RaceOther: Recoded Variable Race

0 Black and White

1 Other

Marital: Marital Status

1 Married

2 Widowed

3 Divorced

4 Separated

5 Never Married

9 No Answer

Married: Recoded Variable Marital

0 Other

1 Married

Maeduc: Highest Year of School Mother Completed

Ranges from 0-20

97 Not Applicable

98 Don’t Know

99 No Answer

Paeduc: Highest Year of School Father Completed

Ranges from 0-20

97 Not Applicable

98 Don’t Know

99 No Answer

Egalitarian: Recode Combining Variables Maeduc and Paeduc

0 Patriarchal

1 Egalitarian

Year: GSS Year(s)

Ranges from 1972-2010

References

Bradley, Graham and Karen Wildman. 2002. “Psychological Predictors of Emerging

Adults’ Risk and Reckless Behaviors.” Journal of Youth and Adolescence

31(4):253-265.

Bureau of Labor Statistics 2012. “Civilian Labor Force Participation Rates by Age, Sex,

Race, and Ethnicity.” Washington, DC: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Website

accessed June 1, 2012 (http://www.bls.gov/emp/ep_table_303.htm).

Christiansen, Karl O. 1977. Biological Bases of Criminal Behavior. New York: Gardner

Collett, Jessica L. and Omar Lizardo. 2009. "A Power-Control Theory of Gender and

Religiosity." Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 48(2):213-231.

Cornwall, Marie. 1988. “The Influence of Three Agents of Religious Socialization.”

Pp. 207–31 in The Religion and Family Connection, edited by D. Thomas.

Provo, Utah: Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University.

de Vaus, David A. 1984. “Workforce Participation and Sex Differences in Church

Attendance.” Review of Religious Research 25(3):247-256.

74 de Vaus, and Ian McAllister. 1987. “Gender Differences in Religion: A Test of the

Structural Location Theory.” American Sociological Review 52(4):472-481.

Ellingson, Stephen, Martha Van Haitsma, Edward O. Laumann and Nelson Tebbe. 2004.

"Religion and the Politics of Sexuality." Pp. 309-348 in The Sexual Organization

of the City, edited by E.O. Laumann, S. Ellingson, J. Mahay, A. Paik, and Y.

Youm. Chicago, Illinois: University of Chicago Press.

Garcia, Dalia I., Jennifer Gray-Stanley and Jesus Ramirez-Valles. 2008. "The Priest

Obviously Doesn't Know that I'm Gay: The Religious and Spiritual Journeys of

Latino Gay Men." Journal of Homosexuality 55(3):411-436.

Gove, Walter R. 1985. “The Effect of Age and Gender on Deviant Behavior: A

Biopsychosocial Perspective. Pp 115-134 in Gender and the Life Course, edited

by A.S. Rossi. New York: Aldine

Green, Adam I. 2007. "On the Horns of a Dilemma: Institutional Dimensions of the

Sexual Career in a Sample of Middle-Class, Urban, Black, Gay Men." Journal of

Black Studies 37(5):753-774.

Hagan, John. 1985. “The Class Structure of Gender and Delinquency: Toward a Power-

Control Theory of Common Delinquent Behavior.” American Journal of

Sociology 90(6):1151-1178.

Han, Chong-suk. 2007. "They Don't Want to Cruise Your Type, Gay Men of Color and

the Racial Politics of Exclusion." Social Identities 13(1):51-67.

Harris, Kathleen Mullan, Greg J. Duncan and Johanne Boisjoly. 2002. “Evaluating the

Role of ‘Nothing to Lose’: Attitudes on Risky Behavior in Adolescence.” Social

Forces 80(3):1005-1039.

Heise, David R. 1999. "Controlling Affective Experience Interpersonally." Social

Psychology Quarterly 62(1):1-16.

Hooberman, Robert E. 1979. “Psychological Androgyny, Feminine Gender Identity and

Self-Esteem in Homosexual and Heterosexual Males.” Journal of Sex Research

15(4):306.

Iannaccone, Laurence R. 1990. "Religious Practice: A Human Capital Approach."

Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 29(3):297-314.

Jeffries, William L. 2009. "A Comparative Analysis of Homosexual Behaviors, Sex

Role Preferences, and Anal Sex Proclivities in Latino and Non-Latino Men."

Archives of Sexual Behavior 38(5):765-778.

Kubicek, Katrina, Bryce McDavitt, Julie Carpineto, George Weiss, Ellen F. Iverson and

Michele D. Kipke. 2009. “ ‘God made Me Gay for a Reason’: Young Men Who

Have Sex with Men's Resiliency in Resolving Internalized Homophobia from

Religious Sources." Journal of Adolescent Research 24(5):601-633.

LaTorre, Ronald A. and Kristina Wendenburg. 1983. “Psychological Characteristics of

Bisexual, Heterosexual and Homosexual Women.” Journal of Homosexuality

9(1):87-97.

Lippa, Richard A. and Francisco D. Tan. 2001. "Does Culture Moderate the

Relationship between Sexual Orientation and Gender-Related Personality

Traits?" Cross-Cultural Research 35(1):65-87.

Lukenbill, W. B. 1998. "Observations on the Corporate Culture of a Gay and Lesbian

Congregation." Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 37(3):440-452.

Lyng, Stephen. 1990. “Edgework: A Social Psychological Analysis of Voluntary Risk

Taking.: American Journal of Sociology 95(4):851-886.

Mahaffy, Kimberly A. 1996. “Cognitive Dissonance and Its Resolution: A Study of

Lesbian Christians.” Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 35(4):392-402.

Miller, Alan S. and John P. Hoffmann. 1995. “Risk and Religion: An Explanation of

Gender Differences in Religiosity.” Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion

34(1), 63-75.

Miller, Alan S. and Rodney Stark. 2002. "Gender and Religiousness: Can Socialization

Explanations be Saved?" American Journal of Sociology 107(6):1399-1423.

Minwalla, Omar, D.R. Simon Rosser, Jamie Feldman, and Christine Varga. 2005.

“Identity Experience Among Progressive Gay Muslims in North America: A

Qualitative study within Al-Fatiha.” Culture, Health & Sexuality 7(2):113-128.

Oldham, Sue, Doug Farnill, and Ian Ball. 1982. “Sex-Role Identity of Female

Homosexuals.” Journal of Homosexuality 8(1):41-46.

Pitt, Richard N. 2010. "'Killing the Messenger': Religious Black Gay Men's

Neutralization of Anti-Gay Religious Messages." Journal for the Scientific Study

of Religion 49(1):56-72.

ProCon.org 2014. “Gay Marriage.” Santa Monica, CA: ProCon.org. Website accessed

July 2, 2014 (http://gaymariage.procon.org).

Rodriguez, Eric M. and Suzanne C. Ouellette. 2000. "Gay and Lesbian Christians:

Homosexual and Religious Identity Integration in the Members and Participants

of a Gay-Positive Church." Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion

39(3):333-347.

Ross, Michael W. 1983. “Femininity, Masculinity, and Sexual Orientation: Some Cross-

Cultural Comparisons.” Journal of Homosexuality 9(1):27-36.

Roth, Louise M. and Jeffrey C. Kroll. 2007. "Risky Business: Assessing Risk Preference

Explanations for Gender Differences in Religiosity." American Sociological

Review 72(2):205-220.

Schnoor, Randal F. 2006. "Being Gay and Jewish: Negotiating Intersecting Identities."

Sociology of Religion 67(1):43-60.

Schwadel, Philip. 2013. “Changes in Americans’ Strength of Religious Affiliation,

1974-2010.” Sociology of Religion 74(1):107-128.

Sherkat, Darren E. 2002. “Sexuality and Religious Commitment in the United States:

An Empirical Examination.” Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion

41(2):313-323.

Stark, Rodney. 2002. “Physiology and Faith: Addressing the ‘Universal’ Gender

Difference in Religious Commitment.” Journal for the Scientific Study of

Religion 41(3):495-507.

Suziedelis, Antanas and Raymond H. Potvin. 1981. “Sex Differences in Factors

Affecting Religiousness among Catholics Adolescents.” Journal for the

Scientific Study of Religion 20(1):38-50.

Thoits, Peggy A. 1994. "Stressors and Problem-Solving: The Individual as

Psychological Activist." Journal of Health and Social Behavior 35(2):143-160.

Thoits, Peggy A. 2006. "Personal Agency in the Stress Process." Journal of Health and

Social Behavior 47(4):309-323.

The Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life 2012. “U.S. Religious Landscape Survey.”

Washington, DC. Website accessed August 13, 2012

(http://religions.pewforum.org/reports/)

Thumma, Scott. 1991. "Negotiating a Religious Identity: The Case of the Gay

Evangelical." Sociological Analysis 52(4):333-347.

U.S. Department of Defense 2012. “Report Shows Success of ‘Don’t Ask Don’t Tell’

Repeal.” Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Defense. Website accessed July

2, 2014 (http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=116291).

Wagner, Glenn, James Serafini, Judith Rabkin, Robert Remien and Janet Williams.

1994. “Integration of One’s Religion and Homosexuality: A Weapon Against

Internalized Homophobia?” Journal of Homosexuality 26(4):91-108.

Walton, Gerald. 2006. " ‘Fag Church’: Men Who Integrate Gay and Christian

Identities." Journal of Homosexuality 51(2):1-17.

Ward, Jane. 2008. "White Normativity: The Cultural Dimensions of Whiteness in a

Racially Diverse LGBT Organization." Sociological Perspectives 51(3):563-586.

Wehr, Kevin. 2009. Hermes on Two Wheels: The Sociology of Bicycle Messengers.

Lanham, MD: University Press of America.

Wilcox, Melissa M. 2006. "Outlaws Or in-Laws? Queer Theory, LGBT Studies, and

Religious Studies." Journal of Homosexuality 52(1-2):73-100.

Wood, James R. and Jon P. Bloch. 1995. “The Role of Church Assemblies in Building a

Civil Society: The Case of the United Methodist General Conference's Debate on

Homosexuality.” Sociology of Religion 56(2):121-136.

Yip, Andrew K.T. 1997. "Attacking the Attacker: Gay Christians Talk Back." The

British Journal of Sociology 48(1):113-127.

Yip, Andrew K. T. 2002. "The Persistence of Faith among Nonheterosexual Christians:

Evidence for the Neosecularization Thesis of Religious Transformation." Journal

for the Scientific Study of Religion 41(2):199-212.