Gender Sexuality and Religious Commitment in The
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
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 In Sociology by Joseph Manuel Maestas SPRING 2015 GENDER, SEXUALITY AND RELIGIOUS COMMITMENT IN THE UNITED STATES A Thesis by Joseph Manuel Maestas Approved by: _________________________________, Committee Chair Kevin Wehr _________________________________, Second Reader Randall MacIntosh ____________________________ Date ii 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 of GENDER, SEXUALITY AND RELIGIOUS COMMITMENT IN THE UNITED STATES by 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 iv 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. v 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 vi 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).