Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
I.
Introduction
Most rely heavily on the findings of human sexuality researchers to help them
interpret biblical passages. Thus, when theologians study the Bible for guidance
on homosexuality, they generally look for applicable biblical themes, like those
advocating justice, love, monogamy, caring, etc.
Conversely, in other religion like Islam, homosexuality is banned for good. There
is no way for them to accept it. There is no such conflict in seeing and
interpreting Koran to judge homosexuality as an absolutely sinful behavior. So
why is it allowed to discriminate against people who have different sexual
orientation? Some may put forward arguments that being gay is immoral, that it is
illegal, that it is a sin against nature and violation of Gods law and, some people
consider homosexual variety [as a] proof of existence of Satan. Other religion like
Buddha has no explicit prohibition over homosexuality, though homosexuality
was known in ancient India; which is explicitly mentioned in the Vinaya 4
(monastic discipline) and prohibited. In this regard, we might say that Buddhist
scholars eventually agree to disapprove homosexuality.
Regardless the conflict within Christian, for the purpose of this research, we
might say that in general, all religions agree to prohibit homosexuality and
consider it as a sinful behavior. Since its respective Holy Book ban
homosexuality, therefore religion is more likely to reject homosexuality, which
becomes our basic idea to develop hypotheses regarding religion towards
homosexuality. Even though, we have to be aware of the issue. Homosexuality
has two different shapes; in the sense of homosexual sex relation, and in the
sense of institutionalizing homosexuality. Why is it different? The answer is that
acceptance of both behavior is different. Most of modern society in developed
country tends to accept homosexuality as part of their life, however when there is
a demand to institutionalize homosexuality into marriage, then the problems
come up.
Recently, in the United States the subject of homosexuality remains controversial.
For example, In Hawaii three homosexual couples asked the court to recognize
their right to get married and the court did. However, the state government
refused to legalize this marriage.
Consequently, a new amendment was introduced to the state Constitution. At the
same time, majority of the states are not even considering this option and
homosexuality itself is still illegal there. Still, not only authorities try to determine
the position they should take towards homosexuals, many common Americans
also have no clear understanding of how to react to homosexuality.
II.
4
Literature Review
http://www.buddhanet.net/homosexu.htm
http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Homosexuality
http://www.instant-essays.com/sexuality_issues/homosexual-issues.shtml
7
http://mpelembe.mappibiz.com/archives_04/mental_illness.html
8
A study conducted by SIUC graduate student at http://www.dailyegyptian.com/fall00/12-0100/homosex.html
9
Frank Worthen at http://www.geocities.com/keysmin_india/whatis.htm
6
outside factors in a person's life, his own personal choices have played a key role
in forming and shaping his homosexual identity, though few will recognize or
admit this.
Looking at there are so many interesting issue regarding homosexuality, either in
religions point of view, or non-religion standpoint, we believe that the study of
homosexuality acceptance should be sharpen to specific aims and efficacy. Get
back to the purpose of the research; we would like to find out the most influential
variable affecting attitude towards homosexuality sex relation10.
III.
Variables
Dependent
Variables:
Homosexual Sex
Relation
Aside to limit the scope of variable, every time we mention homosexuality means referring to
homosexual sex relation.
sometimes, or not wrong at all?. The ordinarily answers, in which the always
wrong answer is coded 1, almost always wrong is coded 2, wrong only
sometimes is coded 3, wrong at all is coded 4, and respondents who answer
dont know is coded 8 (treated as Missing Values).
IV.
Hypotheses
H1 :
H2 :
H3 :
H4 :
H5 :
H6 :
V.
Data
The data are from the 1998 General Social Survey (Davis and Smith
1998). The GSS is a full probability sample of English speaking persons 18
years of age or over, living in households in non-institutional arrangements within
the United States (General Social Surveys, 1972-1998 Cumulative Codebook, v).
The survey covered a total of 2,832 respondents and had response rate of 75.6
percent.
VI.
Data Analysis
From 2.832 respondents in which there are 1.232 males and 1.600
females, only 42.6% of male respondents and 57.4% female respondents answer
to the question regarding homosexual sex relations, thus, only 61.9% of total
respondents answer to the question. Based on frequency distribution, mostly
respondents reject homosexual sex relations, as shown by 58% of both male and
female respondent consider homosexual sex relations as always wrong attitude,
by contrast, only 29.4% of respondents accept it, while the least percentages
being modest in between.
To get further explanation, we conduct two different approaches; bivariate and
multivariate analysis. in the context of bivariate analysis, we conduct mostly
cross tabulation, due to few attributes attached to each variables, and to
measure the strength of association between each two variables. While in
multivariate analysis, we conduct multiple regression, in which dependent
variable examined by those independent variables at once, and logistic
regression in which we examine whether there is a different result wih multiple
regression, and eventually try to find out the causes of the differences.
Cramers V for nominal data, such as the relationship between sex and
homosexual sex relations,
Gamma for ordinal data, such as the relationship between ages and
homosexual sex relations.
The ideal scale for bivariate relationships ranges between 1.000, which means
a perfect relationship, to 0.000, which means no relationships at all. However, in
the social sciences, we deal with probabilistic causal relationships. We do not
propose that the independent variable is the cause of the dependent variable but
merely a cause. Furthermore, according to Healey, J.F. et. al.11, in most social
science research situations, the following were adopted :
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
11
Values
between
-0.100
and
0.100
indicate
weak
and
uninteresting/insignificant relationship.
Values between 0.100 and 0.200 indicate weak but significant positive
relationship and values between -0.200 and -0.100 indicate weak but
significant negative relationship.
Values between 0.200 and 0.300 indicate moderate significant positive
relationship and values between -0.300 and -0200 indicate moderate
significant negative relationship
(iv)
Female
56.7%
5.4%
6.4%
31.6%
100%
1006
Total
58.0%
5.7%
6.9%
29.4%
100%
1753
In terms of sex, since the probability is too big this is more than 5%, which means
that statistically insignificant, thus there is no difference between men and
women attitude toward homosexual. One explanation can be assumed that, the
ratio of number between men and women is about the same. More over, further
calculation that use t-test to compare the average of men and women result is
insignificant. The other explanation of this might be that modern society from
developed countries tends to be equal in gender attitude.
Tabel 2. Ages towards Homosexual Attitudes
18-29
Always Wrong
42.3%
Almost Always Wrong
5.4%
Sometimes Wrong
8.2%
Not Wrong At All
44.1%
Total
100%
N
331
2
X = 106.962, Gamma = - 0.281
p< 0.05
Ages
Total
30-39 40-49 50-59 60-69 70 +
53.3% 58.4% 57.7% 75.1% 77.6% 58.0%
5.2% 6.7% 6.9% 4.1% 5.5% 5.7%
8.0% 8.4% 5.6% 3.6% 4.6% 6.9%
33.6% 26.5% 29.8% 17.2% 12.3% 29.4%
100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
426
358
248
169
219
1751
conservative since being grown up in older era when religion took place most in
every aspect of life. While younger generation is being grown up in quite different
situation, in which religion is no longer a tradition in shaping norms.
Tabel 3. College towards Homosexual Attitudes
No
College
Education
Always Wrong
63.3%
Almost Always Wrong
5.7%
Sometimes Wrong
5.5%
Not Wrong At All
25.5%
Total
100%
N
1313
2
X = 66.260, Gamma = 0.348*
p< 0.05
College
Educated
42.3%
5.7%
11.3%
40.7%
100%
435
Total
58.1%
5.7%
6.9%
29.3%
100%
1748
Religion
62.1%
5.7%
6.5%
25.6%
100%
1503
Total
58.0%
5.7%
6.9%
29.4%
100%
1743
Compare to respondents without religion, the ones who have religion (whatever
religion they believe) oppose exactly homosexual sex relations.
Thus, the ones who have religion tend to reject homosexual attitude, while the
ones who have no religion tend to be more permissive attitude toward
STRONG
Always Wrong
73.0%
Almost Always
4.3%
Wrong
Sometimes Wrong
5.1%
Not Wrong At All
17.6%
Total
100%
N
649
2
X = 152.720, Gamma = 0.359*
p< 0.05
NOT
NO
VERY
RELIGION
STRONG
62.1%
51.0%
31.8%
SOMEWHAT
STRONG
Total
58.0%
6.0%
6.8%
5.7%
5.6%
7.1%
24.7%
100%
182
7.5%
34.7%
100%
590
9.4%
53.1%
100%
245
6.8%
29.7%
100%
1666
In terms of strength of faith, the probability is very small (less than 1%), which
means that statistically significant, thus the stronger faith respondents have the
more intolerant attitude toward homosexual. In this regard, we assume that
strength of faith, basically, follow the logic of religion matter. Once one declares
him/her self strong, we can consider him/her as in religions side, and vice versa.
Therefore, the result will for sure show the same direction with the religion.
Tabel 6. Religiosity towards Homosexual Attitudes
Very
Moderate
religious religious
Always Wrong
79.4%
60.2%
Almost Always Wrong
4.2%
7.1%
Sometimes Wrong
2.4%
6.3%
Not Wrong At All
13.9%
26.4%
Total
100%
100%
N
165
379
2
X = 65.904, Gamma = 0.352*
p< 0.05
Slight
Not
religious religious
48.4%
41.2%
5.5%
3.1%
7.8%
9.9%
38.4%
45.8%
100%
100%
219
131
Total
58.1%
5.6%
6.5%
29.9%
100%
894
In terms religiosity, the probability is very small (less than 1%), which means that
statistically significant, thus the more religious respondents are, the more
intolerant their attitude toward homosexual will be. Although this variable were
asked and answered by respondent who has religion only, the trend or direction
is just the same with other personal beliefs variables. It is straightly can be
understood that there is no way for religious person to accept homosexuality, and
conversely there is big possibility for non religious person to accept it.
Model I
Model II
t
5.950
-5.400
-5.978
6.674
0.620
3.216
3.778
-0.169**
-0.190**
0.210**
0.025
0.150**
0.152**
Adjusted R
N
**p < 0.01
0.178
845
-0.104**
-0.178**
0.181**
-0.049
0.239**
-
t
11.261
-4.544
-7.677
7.969
-1.664
7.998
0.157
1.654
Based on this table result (model I), we can bring to a close that all sociodemographic variables are significant in shaping attitude towards homosexuality,
while religion has fewer; only strength of faith and religiosity variables
significantly influence attitude towards homosexuality, and leave religion being
insignificant.
In this regard, education is the most influential variable, meaning that the higher
education respondents have, the more tolerant they are in attitude towards
homosexuality. Ages variable takes the second rank which mean the more older
respondents are, the more intolerant their attitude towards homosexuality is. It
also means that if the number of ages moves one step to higher interval, the
attitude towards homosexuality in creases on average by 0.158. Religiosity, sex
and strength of faith variables follow in the third, fourth and fifth places.
Model II shows approximately the same result in which religion variable is not
significant. The other variables show the same trend of linearity. I the case of
religion it is probably because of the gap of number between respondents with
religion and no religion shown in frequency distribution is big enough; 85%
against 14%. We cannot recode the variable since our argument based on basic
principle between religion and no religion in attitude towards homosexuality.
However, to enrich analysis, we conduct logistic regression to find out the
difference results and different possibilities, whether one variable is insignificant
in multiple regression, and might be significant in logistic regression.
VI.2.1. Logistic Regression
10
eB
SE
Male
Education
Religion
0.426**
-0.894**
1.465**
0.119
0.129
0.163
1.531
0.409
4.327
Constant
Nagelkerke R2 = 0.122
-2 Log likelihood = 1791.120
-0.506**
0.165
0.603
We can conclude that there is the same trend or direction of each independent
variable in influencing attitude toward homosexuality. Based on output, 69.7%
correctly classified. For instance, Male tends to be intolerant than female
regarding their attitude toward homosexuality, and education variable shows that
the lower education respondents have, the more intolerant they are. Surprisingly,
in the case of logistic regression, religion has the biggest influence on the DV,
shown by 4.327, compared with male variable which has only 1.531, and
education with 0.409.
In general, logistic regression shows similar direction of linearity. The only
difference is that religion variable becomes significant, and shows the strongest
independent variable influencing dependent variable.
VII.
Conclusion
11
(2) In multiple regressions, both models prove that religion is not significant
variable, while in logistic is significant. It is strengthened in bivariate analysis
that religion is also significant. We suspect that the main factor creating this
inconsistent result is that in terms of number within the ratio of religion and no
religion there is a huge gap, in which religion accounts for almost 85%, while
no religion is only 14%. So this huge gap probably causes the inconsistent
result.
(3) The other variables show consistent result among bivariate, multiple
regression, and logistic regression. All of them prove the hypothesis is true.
Our concise conclusion would be that both personal beliefs and sociodemographic factors affecting attitude toward homosexuality, in which both
factors show significant influences. If we stick to consistency of result, ages,
education, religiosity variables are the most influential factors.
**
References
1998 General Social Survey (Davis and Smith 1998).
Healey, J.F.,Babbie,E.& Halley Fred (1997) Exploring Social Issues:Using SPSS for
Windows, Pine Forge Publishing Company, Thousand Oaks, California.
Lectures hands-out mostly taken out from these reading materials below;
(i)
(ii)
Nourusis, marija J. 2000. SPSS 10.0 Guide to Data Analysis. Upper Saddle
River: Prentice Hall.
Brace, Nicola, Richard Kemp, and Rosemary Senelgar.2000. SPSS for
Psychologist : A Guide to Data Analysis using SPSS for Windows. New
York:Palgrave
http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bibl.htm
http://www.instant-essays.com/sexuality_issues/homosexual-issues.shtml
A study conducted by SIUC graduate student at http://www.dailyegyptian.com/fall00/1201-00/homosex.html
Frank Worthen at http://www.geocities.com/keysmin_india/whatis.htm
***
12