Chapter 1
STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM
Many individuals spend a part of their lives developing their religious identities,
which is greatly influenced by the religious frameworks that they encounter.
Furthermore, for most individuals their sexual identities flow on a continuum of
heterosexuality that is propagated and deemed ‘moral’ by and/or through religious
frameworks within society. These individuals, the majority of people, whose sexual
identities match the ‘morality’ of societies religious frameworks benefit from an easier
developmental process. Both, the individuals’ sexual identity and religious framework,
promote and preserve each other, and benefit from the dominance of the other.
Consequently, those who have sexual identities that do not fall on the continuum of
heterosexuality such as, lesbians, gays, bisexuals, transgender individuals, and/or queer
individuals (LGBTQ), experience difficulty in combining their religious identities with
their sexual identities (Buchanan, Dzelme, Harris & Hecker, 2001). The topic of this
study examines the extent to which religious frameworks act as an obstacle to the healthy
self-identity and self-disclosure of LGBTQ individuals.
Even with the benefits that religious frameworks offers individuals and societies,
there is still a great deal of damage done to LGBTQ individuals. First, many LGBTQ
individuals experience stress and have painful experiences trying to incorporate their
religious identity and their sexual identity into their full self (Lapinski & McKirnan,
2013). The inability to incorporate both religious and sexual identity together can lead to
many LGBTQ individuals either giving up their religious frameworks, which might have
2
been a significant part of their lives, or continue to struggle with and/or reject their own
sexual identity. Religious frameworks can also block or interfere with the necessary
supports that LGBTQ individuals need to establish healthy identities, such as family
support, peer acceptance, cultural identity, safety, and access to healthcare and protection
under the law (Kubicek, McDavitt, Carpineto, Weiss, Iverson, & Kipke, 2009).
Furthermore, the negative views that religious frameworks have towards LGBTQ
individuals adds to the negativity that society displays towards LGBTQ people; which in
turn can increase the likelihood of suicide, suicidal thoughts and other negative coping
strategies among LGBTQ individuals of all ages (Lapinski & McKirnan, 2013).
Background of the Problem
The problem that this study seeks to examine, is lesbian, gay, bisexual,
transgender, and/or queer (LGBTQ) individuals who have or had contact with religious
frameworks, have difficulty accepting and developing fully into their sexual identity.
This study also seeks to examine the obstacles that religious frameworks create or the
obstacles that arise due to religious frameworks when someone who is LGBTQ begins to
develop their sexual-identity and/or chooses to self-disclose. In essence, the problem
being studied within this study is how religious frameworks act, by their very definitions,
as a hindrance to the healthy self-identity and self-disclosure of LGBTQ people. Since
religious frameworks are a significant part of life for the majority of those in society, and
intersects with almost every facet and/or aspect of society (Meril, Steffen & Hunter,
2012), this study seeks to understand how that can influence or become an obstacle for
anyone who identifies as LGBTQ.
3
There are several themes throughout this research and are organized by the
following titles: religious frameworks in the United States, evolving frameworks of
identity development of LGBTQ individuals, social factors to healthy self-identity/selfdisclosure of LGBTQ individuals, and religious frameworks as an obstacle to healthy
self-identity/self-disclosure for LGBTQ individuals. Religious Frameworks are defined
by the author as being sets of beliefs and/or dogmas that describe, demand or dictate how
an individual or group of people should and must live their lives. And a religious
framework denotes a belief in the existence of a God(s) and/or deity(ies) that creates a
statement about reality and what it means to be human (Watson, 2008). Furthermore,
Mohr and Fassinger (2003) report that sexual identity development can be understood as
the process where LGBTQ individuals become aware of their sexual attractions, accept
them, and then integrate them into their full identity. Additionally, Lapinski and
McKirnan (2013), establish a model of sexual identity development that is more modern
and contains three specific, nonlinear processes that LGBTQ individuals normally can
process through: formation and conflict, acceptance, and integration.
Identity formation and conflict is when LGBTQ members become aware of the
idea of their own sexual orientation and begin to face this idea and how it interacts with
the rest of their lives (Lapinski & McKirnan, 2013). Acceptance occurs when LGBTQ
individuals begin to fluctuate between the two domains of identity formation/conflict and
full identity integration (Lapinski & McKirnan, 2013). Moreover, Identity Integration is
the process where LGBTQ individuals further their acceptance of their same-sex
attraction and begin to commit to their sexual orientations (Lapinski & McKirnan, 2013).
4
This stage is beyond mere acceptance and includes the actual incorporation of
commitment of one’s sexual identity to their life. Why is the topic of religious
frameworks as an obstacle to healthy self-identity/disclosure for LGBTQ individuals is
important? Many religious organizations condemn homosexuality and any form of samesex attraction and gender non-conformity, and describe them as a disorder, sinful,
aberrant, unnatural, and against God’s will. This can lead to many LGBTQ individuals
finding it difficult and/or suffer from attempting to integrate their sexual identity with
their religious frameworks. In addition to this, this study is important because religious
frameworks and sexual identity development could lead to splits between families, can
lead to depression and/or sucidical ideations or attempts, and may result in higher levels
of homonegativity; which are feelings of guilt, shame, and self-loathing of one’s own
sexual identity (Lapinski & McKirnan, 2013; Walker & Longmire, 2013). This
information shows that studying religious frameworks as an obstacle to healthy selfidentity and self-disclosure for LGBTQ individuals is an important endeavor that needs
additional scientific knowledge and interest.
Statement of the Research Problem
The research problem is centered on the extent to which religious frameworks
pose an obstacle to the healthy self-identity development and self-disclosure of LGBTQ
individuals. The rationale for this study is to observe if there is a correlation between the
level of a respondent’s religious identity and the level of their sexual identity
development and acceptance, and to note how religious frameworks act as an obstacle to
LGBTQ individuals developing healthy and complete identities. Furthermore, the scope
5
of this study is intended to add to the very limited knowledge on this subject and its
results should be taken within the limited frame that it is conducted. There is a lack of
spiritual or religious frameworks that offer an open and accepting atmosphere for
LGBTQ individuals, and due to this lack of acceptance and availability, many LGBTQ
individuals suffer the consequences and must live without the added benefits that
religious frameworks and spirituality can offer. As a result, this leads to a gap between
religious frameworks and LGBTQ identity development that should and must be bridged.
Some of the benefits that LGBTQ individuals could miss out on are that religious
frameworks offer individuals a range of “religious goods”, such as divine comfort, divine
guidance, and a sense of meaning, wellbeing and purpose in life (Callaway, 2011). It is
also pointed out by, Callaway (2011), that there are charitable organizations, that are far
reaching and that have been created and funded by religious frameworks throughout
society, and that LGBTQ individuals have difficulty access their assistance due to their
sexual identity..
Furthermore, Krause (2012) found in his study, that those who attended religious
congregations reported that they felt fellow church members valued their life experience,
that having others value their life experience helped them feel that they belonged, and
that those who felt they belonged had higher feelings of self-worth. In accordance with
this, it is reported in a multitude of studies that benefits from religious frameworks
include, being healthier, living longer, and having higher levels of subjective well-being
(Mochon, Norton & Ariely, 2011). Grayman-Simpson and Mattis (2013) discusses the
benefits that religious frameworks have offered in furthering the African American
6
tradition of helping and honoring the African American community through the civil
rights movement and dismantling obstacles towards progress for the Black community
and Latino community (Martini, 2012), and empowering individuals and families. Which
LGBTQ individuals cannot benefit from if those same religious frameworks reject them.
Lastly, Tan (2005), reports that spirituality, which can be considered a form of religious
frameworks, can be beneficial to LGBTQ individuals, by providing higher levels of selfesteem, helping them accept their LGBTQ orientation, and influencing their feelings of
being less alienated.
Study purpose. The purpose of this study is to examine if religious frameworks
act as an obstacle to the healthy self-identity development and self-disclosure of lesbian,
gay, bisexual, transgender and queer (LGBTQ) individuals. The author is attempting to
find if there is a correlation between the degree of religious orientation and the degree of
self-identity development of LGBTQ members. Additionally, the author is seeking to
find certain dimensions of religious frameworks that could represent an obstacle for
LGBTQ members from fully developing their self-identity.
Theoretical frameworks. Social constructionism is born from the belief that all
things in a society are socially constructed (Gibson & Hensley, 2013; Schilbrack, 2012).
Motyl (2010), defines social constructionism as a theory which states, that a certain
segment of all the things that exist in reality or the world is created by humans through
society or human social agents used to communicate as a human process. These
segments of reality can be defined as artifacts (Motyl, 2010). These artifacts become
socially constructed by humans and they cover everything that is not essentially part of
7
nature which include but are not limited to paintings, cars, stone axes, languages, culture,
games, sexuality, theory and even religion (Motyl, 2010). Motyl (2010), points out that
no matter what people use to define or describe an entity, it is impossible for those people
not to employ their own concepts, at some point, onto that entity and that is part of the
reason why many things are socially constructed.
Furthermore, Motyl (2010), breaks all components that could be socially
constructed into four main categories (1) theory, (2) discourse, (3) social facts and (4) the
natural world. Theory is the concepts and workings of scientists, philosophers and other
professionals that attempt or try to explain the world around them (Motyl, 2010). For
example, psychoanalysis would be considered a social construction because it attempts to
explain human action, thought, feelings and behavior in relation to the world people live
in. Discourse includes how any entity is thought and/or talked about in any given society
at any given time. This is where the social construction of sexuality and religion partly
lie in. Social facts are all human created institutions, organizations and behaviors ranging
from marriage to war and more (Motyl, 2010). Consequently, this is where the other half
of sexuality and religion is understood. Lastly, Motyl (2010), defines nature as things
that exists independently of human thought, such as trees, galaxies, animals and so forth.
Nature itself is not a social construct, but the concept of nature and how people describe
it, name it, feel it, express it and discuss it, are social constructions.
This concept can be taken to sexual identity and/or orientation. Humans engage
in sexual intercourse, rather it is with someone of the same sex or opposite sex and this is
a fact of nature and not a social construction. However, the concept of homosexuality,
8
bisexuality and even heterosexuality are socially constructed and defined by the society
that individuals live and participate in. People, as a society define these terms, how they
are viewed and the boundaries that constrain them. Humans having sex is a biological
drive, but how that sex is defined or viewed is socially constructed. Gibson & Hensley
(2013), support this idea by pointing out that there are possibilities of sexualities that are
different from that of heterosexuality which are constructed from different, or perceived
different, social values. Gibson & Hensley (2013), also argue that early studies on
homosexuality were more likely to view homosexual behavior with a negative bias,
therefore adding to the socially constructed view of LGBTQ identities.
Schilbrack (2012), postulates that even the concept of religion is a social
construction. That religion, like other human process including sexual orientation, are
created by the society that contains it and believes within it. This is an understandable
phenomena when considered through the lens of social constructionism. However,
Schilbrack (2012), takes it even a step further and argues that the concept of religion is
not a culturally universal, but a concept that was created by the West, through historical
and political conditions. This idea further supports the concept that much of human
reality is socially constructed. Many other cultures lack a concept for the word religion,
so the idea of religion that is held by Western standards does not exist and it wouldn’t
even have a comparable substitute because it is a Western concept (Schilbrack, 2012).
Furthermore, Schilbrack (2012), argues that if a culture does not recognize a concept
such as religious frameworks, then that concept does not exist within that culture. In
9
essence, religious frameworks are socially constructed by society by the way it is used
and interacts with societies various members and parts.
The second theoretical framework that is underscored in this study is, Feminist
theory. Feminist theory concerns itself with power and how and who holds and wields
that power within a given society. Additionally, Feminist theory looks at how those in
power control how concepts and ideas are viewed in order to add or keep control to their
power. Feminist theory began with view of power between men and women and began
to include the idea of gender (Basile, Hall & Walters, 2013). Furthermore, feminist
theory has a commitment to understand how knowledge is inquired, and involves (1) the
power of knowledge (epistemology), (2) boundaries (3) marginalization, and silence, and
(4) relationships and their power differentials (Ackerly & True, 2008). Ackerly & True
(2008), report that Feminist theory explores the absence, silence, difference, oppression
and the power of epistemology or knowledge. Ackerly & True (2008), define
epistemology as a system of thought that is created and/or used to separate facts from
opinions and/or beliefs. Many feminist theorist contends that the current epistemological
systems being used by society and/or religion, is one that is biased towards sustaining the
status quo of maintaining power for heterosexual men. Feminist theory seeks to look at
the gendered forces that are at play within organizations and at the base of knowledge
sets (Ackerly & True, 2008).
Basile, Hall & Walters (2013), argue that Feminist theory contend that patriarchal
societies, such as the United States, places more power with men than women, which
subordinates women and anything that viewed as feminine, such as gay men.
10
Additionally, these societies place greater empathies on masculinity, which supports
heterosexual men’s power and influence over society and organizations, such as religion,
that comprise society. Patriarchal societies are societies where men have and control
more political, economic and social power. Feminist theory states that societies with
hostile or negative views towards women, gender and/or non-traditional sexual
relationships are socialized in men by their society communities, families, and peers
(Basile, Hall & Walters, 2013). And that power between groups can lead some
internationalized power dynamics to be invisible to organizations and/or the larger
society (Ackerly & True, 2008).
Furthermore, Feminist theory has a number of specific approaches that provides a
contested understanding of both meanings of gender and sexuality (Richardson, 2007);
which removes the dated ideas of gender and sexuality that has propagated society by
religious institutions. Richardson (2007), argues that feminist approaches has shifted
emphasis from a binary view of sexuality and gender, from being fixed, coherent and
stable, to having a view that gender and sexuality is more plural and fluid. This takes the
meaning from simply feminine and masculine, male and female, gay or straight, to seeing
these concepts on a fluid continuum. This information supports the position that there
needs to be more understanding and knowledge surrounding the relationship between
sexuality and gender (Richardson, 2007) and the societal forces that surround them and
interact with them, such as religious frameworks. Richardson (2007), also brings up the
point that how gender and sexuality are (inter)related is different from how society
conceptualizes the relationship. Which, society’s conceptualization of gender and
11
sexuality is influenced by religious frameworks. Harrison (2007), discusses the
problematic relationship between knowledge and religious experiences, and express the
view that religious frameworks should not be practiced without consideration of the
effect those frameworks have on people. By feminist theory, religious frameworks build
and are interested in furthering fundamentally patriarchal societies that serve heterosexual
males and produce masculine views of the world (Harrison, 2007).
Queer theory was developed out of the fields of lesbian and gay studies and
women’s studies during the 1990’s and some of the key figures in developing this field
include Judity Butler, Eve Kosofisky Sedgwick and David Halperin (Clarke, Ellis, Peel &
Riggs, 2010). Motschenbacher and Stegu (2013), defines Queer theory as a discourse
analysis that takes the significance of words and the power of language extremely
seriously. Queer theory is comprised of a body of work that seeks to critique
heteronormativity, and define Queers not solely based on their sexual identities but by
their opposition to heteronormativity (Clarke, Ellis, Peel & Riggs, 2010).
Motschenbacher and Stegu (2013), define heteronormativity as a construction of
heterosexuality as natural, normal and/or preferable to any other forms of sexuality or
sexual identity. Minton (1997), argues that the word Queer is used because it is a term of
abuse used by heterosexuals when referring to non-heterosexuals and that by reclaiming
the word Queer, Queer activist and theorists invest the word Queer with positive, defiant,
and confrontational meanings (as cited in Clarke, Ellis, Peel & Riggs, 2010, p. 41)
Furthermore, Queer theory was built on feminist critiques of constructions concerning
gender and sexuality (Butler, 1990; Clarke, Ellis, Peel & Riggs, 2010). Within this
12
framework, gender is defined not as something people have or are, but as something that
they do or, more closely, what is done to them (Clarke, Ellis, Peel & Riggs, 2010).
Gender is something that society does to people, and then something they do, with how
they behave and what they wear, etc.
Consequently, the drawback to Queer theory, is that Queer theory rejects the
formulation of sexual identities such as lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and such
(Clarke, Ellis, Peel & Riggs, 2010). Queer theory rejects these labels because it states
that these labels are limiting to the full expression of sexual desire that people should be
allowed to feel and express (Clarke, Ellis, Peel & Riggs, 2010). Furthermore,
Motschenbacher and Stegu (2013), argue that Queer theory uses the realm of sexuality
and the socially constructed sexual labels as the starting point for where it begins its
questioning practice. Queer theory attempts to conceptualize societies understanding of
gender and sexuality and deconstruct the dominant discourses, which have shaped
societies understanding of gender and sexuality (Motschenbacher & Stegu, 2013).
Continuing to follow feminist theory, Queer theory is also concerned with the idea of
power. Queer theory states that power operates between people and institutions (power
as relational), rather than a top-down model, and that power produces knowledge (power
as productive) rather than repressing it (Clarke, Ellis, Peel & Riggs, 2010).
Definition of terms. Bisexual. The term bisexual is used to represent a person
whose experiences sexual and emotional attraction/attachment to both women and men.
Development. Is the process of changing from an incomplete state to a much more
complete state. It is a process of an individual navigating through specific and/or non-
13
specific psychological, biological, and social tasks in comparison with the aging process.
This is most noted by Erikson’s model of identity development, which states specific
developmental tasks that people must navigate through from birth until death (i.e. Identity
Achievement vs. Role Confusion). This also includes biological development that
individuals progress through, for example, Adolescence.
Feminist. Feminist is a term used for individuals who ascribe to and or believe in
Feminist theory. Which is a theory that views power between men and women and how
that power is distributed within society.
Gay. The term gay is used to represent those who identify their gender as male and who
experience their primary sexual and emotional attraction/attachment to others who
identify their gender as male.
Homonegativity. A term that represents LGBTQ individuals who have internalized
negative thoughts/feelings in regards to their own same-sex sexual behavior or
attraction/attachment. Negative thoughts/feelings could range from self-hate and loathing
to despair, pity, embarrassment, depression, anxiety, fear, and humiliation.
Heteronormativity. A concept developed in queer theory that describes the social
privileging of heterosexuality and the assumption that heterosexuality is the only natural
and normal sexuality (Queer Book, year, p. 261).
Heterosexuality. The term heterosexuality is used to represent those whose experiences of
sexual and emotional attraction/attachment are to those who are of the opposite sex.
Homosexuality. The term homosexuality is used to refer to the phenomenon of same-sex
sexual and emotional attraction/attachment.
14
Lesbian. The term lesbian is used to represent those who identify their gender as female
who experience their primary sexual and emotional attraction/attachment to others who
identify their gender as female. It is noted here that some prefer the wording, “gay
women” (Queer book, year).
LGBTQ. The acronym, LGBTQ, is used as short hand to represent individuals who
identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and/or queer. LGBTQ is used mostly in
California to denote the second class nature that women face in society, while the
majority of the United States and other countries use the acronym GLBTQ. Additionally,
this acronym can be longer or shortened depending on the various gender and sexual
identities that one choose to add or drop (i.e. LGB, LGBT, LGBTQQI, and etc.).
Organized Religion. Is an institution that expresses a belief in a divine power, in which a
belief system and rituals are arranged and formally established, and is typically
characterized by an official doctrine or dogma. Examples would be Buddhism,
Christianity, and Taoism.
Queer. The term Queer (always spelt with a capital Q) is used as a generic term to
represent LGBTQ people, and it has also come to represent a group of people who view
their sexual and emotional attraction/attachment has evolved beyond the simple binary
sexual orientations of heterosexuality and homosexuality.
Religion. People’s beliefs and opinions concerning the existence, nature, and worship of
a divine power, and divine involvement in human life.
Religious Frameworks. Any set of beliefs and/or dogmas that describe, demand, or
dictate how an individual or group of people should live their lives, carries a belief in the
15
existence of a divine power, creates a statement about reality and what it means to be
human, and establishes what is of moral value. Furthermore, religious frameworks
adheres to the following attributes: (1) have an organized perspective to them, (2) have
organized beliefs that have an administrative structure to them, and (3) describe how
individuals and/or groups of people should live and/or behave.
Religious Goods. Are meta-physical, internal and external non-material gains that a
person can experience in a religious way throughout their lives such as, divine comfort,
divine guidance, a sense of meaning and purpose, and the joys of union with a divine
power.
Self-Disclosure. Is the process that LGBTQ individuals go through when discloses their
sexual identities to themselves, their family members, friends, and other within their
community and environment.
Self-Identity. The full and integrated identity and self of an individual that is comprised
of all of their conceptual identities or parts of who they are both biologically,
psychologically, physiologically, culturally, and socially.
Sex. In this study, the term sex represents the assigned sex (male or female) that is given
to a person at the time of their birth. Additionally, it can represent the act of intercourse
that individuals can engage in, rather it is oral, vaginal, anal, or between same-sex
individuals or opposite sex individuals.
Sexual Development. Is the complex and often difficult process of the formation and
integration of a lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and/or Queer identity.
16
Sexual Identity. This is a term derived from a mostly modern western understanding of
sexuality that views sexuality as a central part of the self and integral to a person’s full
identity. This term also organizes sexuality by type of people (homosexual, heterosexual),
rather than by people’s sexual behavior. Furthermore, sexual identity can be used as an
umbrella term for sexual orientation, gender identity, and gender role.
Sexual Orientation. Can be understood as the internal psychological and/or biological
structure that organizes and/or directs a person’s sexual behavior/attraction.
Spirituality. Is a complex concept that is noted as being predominantly spiritual in
character as shown in thought and life and notes a person who is aimed at personal wellbeing and personal development. Spirituality can also be conceived of the search for the
“sacred” which “sacred” is broadly defined as that which is set apart from the ordinary
and is worthy of reverence. Additionally, spirituality is a sensitivity to religious values.
Some see spirituality as a rejection of organized religion.
Transgender. The term transgender or transsexual is a term used to represent individuals
who experience a discrepancy between their assigned sex at birth and their gender
identity. Many of these individuals live outside the gender role of their assigned sex at
birth and/or undergo surgical procedures to change their assigned sex to match their
gender identity.
Assumptions. The first assumptions of this research project, is that all respondents
answered all of the study questions honestly and to the best of their ability. This is
assumed on the basis that the study offers and protects anonymity and confidentiality of
the respondents and that they may withdraw from the study at any time they deem
17
necessary without any type ramifications. Additionally, it is assumed that the instruments
used, the survey itself, is a practical and useful instrument that will deliver accurate
information that fits within the confines of the study. And that the survey is detecting
information relevant to the question that the study is posing. This assumption is made on
the grounds that surveys have been used for many decades in scientific research and has
substantial evidence to corroborate their validity. Moreover, the two specific surveys
used in this study, have been used by various studies throughout the years and have been
found to be valid for the use of researching religious orientation and/or LGBTQ identity
development.
Furthermore, the next assumption is that the respondents have all answered
honestly to identifying as LGBTQ and have had contact, within their lives, with religious
frameworks. It is also assumed that the definitions of the main terms are accurate
repersentations of those terms and are accepted by those who are respondents, the
researcher, and those who will read this study and use the information contained within.
Another assumption is that the theoretical frameworks discussed earlier are sound and are
an accurate reflection of the phenomena that is currently being studied in this research. It
is further assumed that the dimensions that are being studied, such as, religious
frameworks, and LGBTQ identity development, are clearly defined in this project and are
measurable phenomenon. The final assumption is that the methodology being used,
quantitative questions on a Likert scale, and qualitative questions are appropriate for the
problem being assessed by the study. This is being assumed because the quantitative
questions are being used to correlate the two dimensions under study and the qualitative
18
questions are used to address the underlying feelings, thoughts, and personal reasons as to
why religious frameworks could be an obstacle to healthy self-identity development of
LGBTQ individuals.
Social Work Research Justification. There are very many reasons why the author
wishes to study the topic of religious frameworks in regards to self-identity development
of LGBTQ individuals. The first reason is that this topic is very interesting and involves
multiple levels of intrigue that has far reaching ramifications. The study of how groups
of individuals develop and create their identities within certain societal forces always
pose a thought-provoking debate. Secondly, the results of this study could be used to
help create a bridge between LGBTQ individuals and religious institutions. Religious
institutions could use this information to better their religious frameworks and programs
to better appeal to LGBTQ members and become more inclusive organizations. This
study inquires of respondents to describe aspects of religious frameworks that have
caused them issues with in their lives, past and present and religious organizations will be
free to use this information.
A third reason why this research should take place, based on Social Work values,
is that this study is in accordance with the National Association of Social Workers
(NASW) values and ethics. From the Social Work code of ethics it is stated that, “Social
workers should act to prevent and eliminate domination of, exploitation of, and
discrimination against any person, group, or class on the basis of race, ethnicity, national
origin, color, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, or expression, age, marital status,
political belief, religion, immigration status, or mental or physical disability”. This
19
research study seeks to help limit the religious discrimination that many LGBTQ
members and their families report having to live with and endure. By focusing on
LGBTQ developmental hurdles, in regards to religious frameworks, remains in
accordance with NASW values and code of ethics stated above. The final reason why
this study meets Social Work Justification, is that social workers should empower
LGBTQ people and understand the evidence that spirituality supports in helping
individuals with facing many of life’s challenges. Spirituality as an effective means to
help individuals face the difficulties that life can offer is considered to be evidence based.
By helping to understand the ways that religious frameworks affect LGBTQ self-identity
development, this study can help social workers and other helping professionals, find
ways to bridge gaps between LGBTQ members and their spirituality.
Study limitations. Limitations within a study are the characteristics of the design
or methodology that is used that has impacted or influenced the application and/or the
interpretation of the results of a study. They are also potential weakness of the study and
have found to be outside of the researchers control. These are the constraints that the
study must been seen, viewed, interpreted, and understood within. There are three main
limitations that are inherent in this research project and in the completion of the study
that must be noted here. The first limitation of this study, is that lack of internal validity
of the data, due to the lack of a random sample. It is known that the random sample is the
most valid and empirically proven form to complete a study and/or survey for any topic
that has scientific interest. However, due to specific constraints, the author of this study
was unable to achieve a random sample. Additionally, the second limitation inherent in
20
the study, is that its findings cannot be generalized to other populations or the larger
LGBTQ population within any given area. Due to the limitations on validity, it would
not be scientifically ethical to use these results to make general statements in regards to
any population other than, the population that responded to the survey within the limited
area. Even with these limitations, the results of this study should not be ignored and
should be taken into account for what they represent, and be used for the purpose of
furthering research or people’s knowledge base.
21
Chapter 2
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
Religion is seen as an organization or body containing people’s beliefs, values,
attitudes, practices and opinions concerning the divine. Sanctioned by religion, religious
frameworks can also be used to define what composes and/or constructs the religious
practices and behaviors that are sanctioned by religion. The literature review for this
study on Religious Frameworks as an Obstacles to Healthy Self-Identity and SelfDisclosure for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and Queer (LGBTQ) individuals was
based on articles, books, national reports and study findings from independent scholars
and professionals. The literature review is organized by the following themes: Religious
Frameworks in the United States; The Role of Religious Frameworks in Identity
Development of LGBTQ Individuals, Self-Disclosure, and Obstacles to Healthy SelfIdentity/Self-Disclosure of LGBTQ Individuals.
Religious Frameworks in the United States
Religion is an important part of the majority of American lives and is a central
part of American culture. Merril, Steffen and Hunter (2012), state that 92% of
Americans have some kind of belief in God or some form of a God. With such a portion
of the American society professing a religious view, one could assume that it would have
an effect on almost every aspect of people’s lives. This paper hypothesizes that religious
frameworks can have negative effects on the healthy self-identity development and selfdisclosure of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer (LGBTQ) individuals.
However, this topic raises many questions, such as, what is a religious framework and
22
how can a religious framework act as an obstacle to healthy self-identity and selfdisclosure?
What is a religious framework? The author defines religious frameworks any set
of beliefs and/or dogmas that describe, demand or dictated how an individual or group of
people should and must live their lives. Moreover, a religious framework denotes a belief
in the existence of God or some form of a God or deity(ies) and it creates a statement
about reality and what it means to be human (Watson, 2008). Religious frameworks also
establish what is of moral value, what is morally right and wrong, and what values people
should hold (Watson, 2008).
Additionally, religious frameworks should confer with the following attributes:
(a) religious frameworks should have an organized perspective to them. In other words,
religious frameworks encompass a hierarchichal system that normally has a person of
great value and importance at the top and flows down to the bottom where the masses are
gathered. For example, one could look at the Catholic Church. At the top of the
hierarchy is the Pope, followed by Cardinals, then Bishops, Priests and then the masses.
(b) Religious frameworks also should have organized beliefs that have an administrative
structure to them. (c) Religious frameworks also describe how individuals and/or groups
of people should live and/or behave. Some authors or scholars, such as White (2004),
argue that people must engage in organized acts of worship to be considered to have a
religious framework (From the Watson Article). However, that is not included in the
definition here, because many individuals describe themselves as devote religious people
or consider themselves part of religion but do not engage in organized religious acts of
23
worship on a regular basis. These individuals who follow their religious teachings but do
not gather to worship should not be discounted as having a spiritual or religious
framework.
Furthermore, religious frameworks have a social agency or compartment to them.
This social aspect of religious frameworks push individuals or groups of people to adhere
to the dogmas that govern the religious framework. In essence, the masses of people
push and pull each other, using social means, to enforce their own rules and what
behaviors that they find acceptable. In addition, they also use social means to try and
remove undesired behaviors and/or beliefs. This social means to control behavior is part
of the aspect that can make it very difficult for LGBTQ individuals to develop healthy
self-identities and to self-disclose in safe and healthy ways. This social means can be
comprised of sermons by the priests or religious leaders, written text that are distributed
to its masses, workshops or groups, sanctioned actions, celebrations and get together, and
how the people interact with each other through all forms of communication.
How do different religious frameworks view sexual identities that differ from
heterosexual identity? To answer this, the main religious frameworks that dominate the
world stage and as such, American life must be examined. This review examines the
religious frameworks of Christianity, Islam, Hinduism and Buddhism, and sects of these
religious organizations. Because the United States is mostly represented by Christianity,
this literature review will focus mostly on that; however, this review will also discuss
Islam, Hinduism and Buddhism in the context of their role in identity development and
sexual identity disclosure of the members of LGBTQ population. In each of these
24
religious frameworks there are groups of people who are growing who support, accept or
are developing favorable views towards LGBTQ people and include them in their
religious frameworks. However, in any of these major religions frameworks those who
hold such a view are not close to holding a majority. The predominant views of religions,
which all hold power and dominance over society, hold negative views and perceptions
of LGBTQ people as part of their religious frameworks.
Buddhism. Buddhism has a complexity to its texts, history and cultures that
contradicts the mainstream idea of Buddhism towards homosexuality. Many nonBuddhists believe that Buddhism is benevolent towards homosexuality and the LGBTQ
population; however, for those that understand Buddhism, study it or live growing up in
the religion, they know that this belief is not always true (Numrich, 2009). For instance
there is a common Buddhist explanation for homosexuality that does not portray LGBTQ
individuals in a positive light but taints them with a negative tint to their existence. The
common belief is that homosexuality is the result of misdeeds that a person committed in
their previous lifetimes (Numrich, 2009). This conviction thrusts the connotation that
homosexuality is a punishment, not something that is different and equal to
heterosexuality. Additionally, Jackson (2008) argues that this belief leads Buddhists in
Thailand to treat homosexuals with compassion but in a disdainful condescending
context. Furthermore, Leonard Zwilling defines the Buddhist word, pandaka, to mean
males who do not conform to the ideal eminence of “maleness” or in today’s lingo, gay
men (as cited in Numrich, p.70, 2009). The Buddhist religion forbids pandakas or
homosexuals from ordination and the Vinaya Pitaka, the Buddhist regulatory framework,
25
condemns homosexual behavior in several sections (Numrich, 2009). Some additional
beliefs that Buddhism holds towards homosexuality is that LGBTQ people are incapable
of fully understanding the Buddha’s teachings, they are spiritually and morally deficient
and that LGBTQ individuals will endure varieties of punishments throughout their
lifetimes (Numrich, 2009). These beliefs, teachings and writings definitely contradict the
mainstream belief that Buddhism is benign to homosexuality. Furthermore, these beliefs
can lead to isolation, shame, fear, ridicule, and homonegativity among LGBTQ
Buddhists.
Hinduism. In India, where Hinduism is widely spread and remains the main
religion, Parekh (2006) makes the argument that Indian Hindu medical educators and
practicing doctors display homophobic beliefs and believe that homosexuality is a mental
illness which should require treatment. Furthermore, Parekh (2006) points out that
homosexuality is still a criminal offence under section 377 of India’s penal code. In the
religious environment or Hindu communities homosexuality is viewed as anti-natural,
inhuman, grotesque and unlawful (Parekh, 2006). Additionally, Hindu religious
frameworks hold stigmatizing and negative attitudes towards homosexuality and
homosexual behaviors. Though homosexual behaviors and homosexuality exist through
all levels of Hindu communities and society, in the United States and India, it is highly
covert and closeted (Parekh, 2006). Hinduism, one of the world’s leading religions, holds
an oppressive and stigmatizing view of homosexuals, even those homosexuals who
consider themselves Hindu.
26
Islam. Iam Hendricks (2011), expressed the view that the religion of Islam is
constructed in a way that keeps people from questioning the religion or making changes
which forces its adherent to accept one of its four major schools of thought or be
concerned outside the fold of Islam. Additionally, Iam Hendricks (2011) makes the point
that this creates a problem of limiting the free thoughts of its adherents around many
social subjects including homosexuality, marriage and artificial insemination. This
construction of Islam can be linked to why homosexuality is widely perceived as a
“western disease” (Sanjakdar, 2013). Many Muslims believe that homosexuality is a
moral issue and is condemned by the Qu’ran (Sanjakdar, 2013). Sanjakdar (2013), argues
that movements toward the acceptance of homosexuality are viewed as an attempt to
remove heterosexuality from the norm and that the main response form Muslims is to
resort to Islamic doctrine. In turn, Islamic doctrine prohibits homosexuality and gives
rise to heterosexism and carries the perspective that homosexuality is a disease, western
punishment, anti-natural and morally wrong (Sanjakdar, 2013). In this sense it matches
the religious frameworks as many of the other main religions. However, Iam Hendricks
(2011) states that Islam and/or the Muslim community remains very silent on the topic of
homosexuality in public view but makes a lot of uproar about homosexuality in the
mosques and in their own inner circles. Furthermore, progressive Muslims who do
accept homosexuality in Islam also remain silent and not vocal about it due to fear of
backlash from Islamic communities (Hendricks, 2011). Even the Islamic religious
framework can negatively influence the development of its LGBTQ members.
27
Christianity. Not only is Christianity the largest religion in the world, but it is
also the largest religion in the United States (Robert, 2009) and just like many of the
other mainstream religions, Christianity condemns same-sex attraction (Lapinski &
McKirnan, 2013). Additionally, many Christian denominations perpetuate the view that
homosexuality is a disorder, unscrupulous, degenerative, aberrant and against God’s will
(Robinson, 1999). This negative view can lead Christian denominations to ostracize
LGBTQ members. For example, the Methodist Church views that homosexuality is so
incompatible with God’s will that no LGBTQ member can ever be certified as candidate,
ordained as ministers or appointed to serve in the Methodist Church in any fashion
(United Methodist Church Website, 2012). To further their rejection of LGBTQ people
the Methodist church states that no ceremonies that celebrate homosexual unions shall be
conducted in their churches, and that no Methodist funds will be given to any group or
caucus that supports LGBTQ people (United Methodist Church Website, 2012).
Following suite with the Methodist Church, the Southern Baptist denomination also states
that homosexuality is a sin and cannot be accepted as in what they call “an alternative”
life style ("Southern Baptist Convention," 2013). The Southern Baptist Church also
states that the Bible condemns homosexuality but believes that LGBTQ people can
become “new creations” by finding forgiveness by denouncing and giving up their
LGBTQ identities ("Southern Baptist Convention," 2013). Many other denominations
share this view that LGBTQ individuals will have to sacrifice their sexual identities to
become one with God or be accepted with their religions. This religious framework can
cause a rift in a young LGBTQ’s identity development.
28
Moreover, some Christian denominations don’t believe that being homosexual
itself is a sin, but the sin comes from practicing or participating in gay or lesbian
behaviors (Lapinski & McKirnan, 2013). For example, the Catholic Church tries to place
it emphasis of sin on homosexual sexual activity rather than LGBTQ identity (Maher,
2007). This still creates the rift between an LGBTQ individual from acting on their
feelings or adhering to their religious frameworks. Furthermore, Lapinski & McKirnan
(2013) point out that research is suggesting that religions, including Christianity,
oppresses both LGBTQ individuals and the LGBTQ community.
Evolving Frameworks of Identity Development
Mohr and Fassinger (2003) describe sexual identity development as the process
which LGBTQ members become aware of their sexual attractions, accept them and then
integrate their sexual attractions into their full identity (as cited in Bregman, Malik, Page,
Makynen & Lindahl, 2012, p. 417). Furthermore, identity development for any
adolescent or young adult is a highly important and centurial task of growing and finding
who one is and becoming to accept that (Bond, Hefner & Drogos, 2009). Developing an
identity that is integrated with all aspects of who a person is, is a difficult task under the
best of situations for any developing person. However, it is even more challenging of a
task for sexual minority groups such as lesbians, gays, bisexuals, transgenders and queers
(LGBTQ) (Bregman, Malik, Page, Makynen & Lindahl, 2012). Not only do LGBTQ
individuals have to focus their attention on developing their own personal identity, but
they must also contend with a society that ostracizes them and, most of the time, families
that reject them. A sub part of developing a full integrated identity youth must construct a
29
sexual identity, which can be even more challenging for LGBTQ individuals for a variety
of reasons. Identity development or sexual identity development for LGBTQ minorities
has been an understudied or under explored area in psychological or equivalent areas of
research (Bregman, Malik, Page, Makynen & Lindahl, 2012). However, Lapinksi and
McKirnan (2013), argue that empirical research into this area has been increasing and
gaining interest in many fields. Many researches from varies fields have sought to
examine genetic, environmental, and/or individual factors that could possibly play a role
in the identity formation process of LGBTQ individuals (Lapinski & McKirnan, 2013).
Through research and observations two types of models have been developed, one is an
older perspective that perpetuates a linear progress of identity development; while the
other is newer more modern perspective that portrays identity development as nonlinear
identity process. This more modern perspective allows and/or can take into account more
variety among LGBTQ people.
Cass (1979), proposed an identity development model for LGBTQ individuals,
that was comprised of six stages where LGBTQ people had to progress through each
stage, in its subsequent order, from identity confusion and comparisons, through
acceptance and pride, to finally ending in identity synthesis. Additionally, Troiden
(1989), argued for a model that assumed that LGBTQ members would go through a
linear stage model that began with them becoming "sensitized" to being different, work
through their identity confusion, and finally assume and commit to their LGBTQ identity
(as cited in Lapinski & McKirnan, 2013 p. 854). Though both of these older theories
have some differences in between them, mostly in the names of their stages, they both
30
assume and state that LGBTQ members must enter and work through various stages.
These varies stages are comprised of periods of confusion, exploration, and personal
turmoil, gradual acceptance of an LGBTQ orientation, and then fully integrating their
sexual identity into their full identity (Lapinski & McKirnan, 2013). Also, both of these
linear models, and others like them, share the belief that all LGBTQ members go through
these stages at the same time, the same way, and must enter each stage and work through
them in the prescribed order. Quintessentially, one must start at point A and then
progress through points B, C and etc. before developing a fully integrated identity. If a
LGBTQ member does not make it through a said stage, then they become stuck and are
unable to progress to a full integrated identity. However, Rosario et al., (2008), points
out that these hierarchical stage models are no longer suited to explain or characterize the
identity development that LGBTQ members progress through in their lives. In relation to
this, newer more modern perspectives on LGBTQ identity development have sprung
forward.
Recent studies have taken some aspects of these older stage type models and
incorporated them into the more modern models; however these studies suggest that a
linear model does not capture the full range of individual differences that LGBTQ
members encounter (Lapinski & McKirnan, 2013). Bregman et al., (2013) discuss that
not all LGBTQ individuals face and/or experience the same identity formations the same
way or even at the same time as other LGBTQ individuals. This suggests that LGBTQ
members are encountering their identity development and incorporating their sexual
identity into their full identity in varies ways at different times in their lives. Many
31
researchers are studying and developing more modern, nonlinear, processes of identity
development of LGBTQ members that tries to encompass the range of individual
differences. Lapinksi and McKirnan (2013), present a more modern model that
encompasses individual difference among LGBTQ members identity development and
their model consist of three major processes which include: formation and conflict,
acceptance, and integration. This model appears to be gaining acceptance through
research communities as many other authors add viable information to these three major
processes.
Identity Formation and Conflict. Identity formation consists of LGBTQ
members becoming aware of their own sexual orientation (Lapinski & McKirnan, 2013).
Identity formation also consists of an LGBTQ member becoming aware of or discovering
what it means to be gay or lesbian (Morris, 1997). Additionally, becoming aware of
having a same-sex attraction can yield a platitude of confusion, sense of puzzlement,
turmoil, fear, anxiety and/or alienation for many LGBTQ members (Levy & Reeves,
2011). During this time of the process many LGBTQ individuals might typically keep
their attractions secret, deny their same-sex attractions or use bargaining to cope with the
knowledge of their same-sex attractions (Levy & Reeves, 2011). Troiden (1989), defines
bargaining as an individual attempting to explain their same-sex sexual attraction and/or
desires as a transitory phase or attempt to rationalize them as purely platonic (as cited in
Lapinski & McKirnan, 2013 p. 855). As LGBTQ members progress through this process
they may start to identify and/or accept the labels of lesbian, gay, bisexual or queer
(Lapinski & McKirnan, 2013). However, this stage or process remains non-linear
32
because an individual may progress through their confusion and denial and might be meet
with positive social support, which in turn will lower their confusion, anxiety and denial.
But another individual might be meet with negative interactions and reactions and have a
substantial lack of social support, which in turn will lead them back to more denial,
anxiety, fear and confusion (Lapinski & McKirnan, 2013). Additionally, an individual
might have all the positive support they need but still will be unable to emerge from
confusion and denial, or they may move from the confusion and denial and then
encounter extreme negative reactions, from such areas as religious leaders, and then
revert back to confusion and denial. With a non-linear model, a LGBTQ member, can
move from one process to another rather it is forward, backwards or even side wards
where it is a composite of both or all process.
Acceptance. Acceptance is the process that lies between identity
formation/conflict and identity integration (Lapinski & McKirnan, 2013). Acceptance is
the crucial transitory stage between the internal and external conflict that LGBTQ
members face when they become conscious of their sexual identities and the final
integration of their sexual identities into their full identity. Lapinski & McKirnan (2013),
argue that acceptance is not just merely acknowledging one's own same-sex attraction,
but it also encompasses having a positive approval or attitude towards other LGBTQ
members. LGBTQ members gain acceptance by moving from confusion and negativity
about their sexual identity to a more positive affirmation of their identity. Of course this
process can be meet with challenges and setbacks as LGBTQ members interact with their
environments and are met with negative feedback. Through cultural variations,
33
acceptance can still be maintained, achieved or gained in cultures with negative views or
beliefs about same-sex attraction, including many religious organizations (Lapinski &
McKirnan, 2013). In a study by Bregman, Malik, Page, Makynen & Lindahl (2013), it
was shown that family support can help with the process of acceptance for LGBTQ
members and family, especially parental, rejection can increase identity confusion and set
youth back in their healthy identity development.
Identity Integration. The third process in Sexual Identity development for
LGBTQ members is Identity Integration. Identity Integration is where LGBTQ
individuals continue to grow in acceptance of their same-sex attraction and also begin to
commit to their sexual orientations (Lapinski & McKirnan, 2013). Included in the
process of identity integration, LGBTQ members, begin to "practice" their orientation by
engaging in same-sex or bisexual relationships, engaging in or becoming involved in the
LGBTQ community, and living their sexuality every day (Lapinski & McKirnan, 2013).
LGBTQ community is not one single large gay community but any social network of
other LGBTQ members, and additionally, living their sexuality every day is simply being
more true to who they are and not pretending to be something they are not, such as
heterosexuals. Rowan & Malcolm (2002), argue that it becomes easier and more
common place for LGBTQ members to disclose their sexual identity and to gain support
as they integrate their sexuality into their everyday lives (as cited in Lapinski &
McKirnan, 2013). Additionally, during this phase of integration LGBTQ members
continue to commit to their sexual identity and further imprint it onto their full identity
and their sense of self (Bregman et al., 2012). Rosario et al (2001), argue that this
34
continued commitment to their sexual identity is correlated to greater psychological
adjustment for many LGBTQ individuals.
These processes are not linear, but allow LGBTQ members the ability to ebb and
flow in response to personal or social changes. LGBTQ members can move from
Identity integration back to confusion or vice versa depending on where they are at in
their lives or what they face in their current environment. Moreover, not all LGBTQ
youth experience identity formation, acceptance, and integration in the same way and that
the same times in their lives (Bregman et al., 2012). Which is another reason why this
process development is a better fit to the sexual identity development for LGBTQ
members than the older stage versions. When discussing sexual identity development,
one must keep in mind that a person's sexual identity is but a facet or part of their true full
identity. LGBTQ members are not just LGBTQ, they are also minorities of color or
Caucasian, professionals, laborers, conservatives, liberals, male and or female, and a
multitude of varies other identities.
Self-Disclosure. Another important area of healthy self-identity for LGBTQ
individuals is self-disclosure. Self-disclosure is the process by which LGBTQ people
“come out” to themselves and to others (Bregman e al., 2012) Furthermore, this process
can contain a wide variety of stress, fear, anxiety and confusion; however, it plays a very
important role in ones eventually integration of their sexual identity into their full identity
(Savin-William 2001). Even though “coming out” can be riddled with stress, fear,
anxiety and confusion, it is also known to be conducive to personal growth and identity
congruence for LGBTQ individuals (Vaughan & Waehler, 2009). Hetrick and Martin
35
(1987), Sophie (1986), and Triiden (1993) maintain that many respondents in their
respective studies describe their process of “coming out” as being overall growthenhancing and highly important to their integrated identity. (as cited in Vaughan &
Waehler, 2009, p. 95). Benefits for self-disclosure is that LGBTQ individuals can gain
basic strength of fidelity, reflect a greater internal and external trust, commitment to
higher goals, a sense of purpose/direction, establishment of more authentic relationships,
and gains in self-esteem, self-efficacy, health and inner security (Vaughan & Waehler,
2009).
A large issue that the LGBTQ population encounter in “coming out” or disclosing
their sexual identity is the fear of not being accepted by those around them or close to
them (Bregman et al., 2013). Numerous LGBTQ individual who know that their religion
will not accept them, will ostracize them, oppress them and disregard them, due to that
religions religious frameworks, they decide not to disclose their orientation out of fear of
these negative consequences. Which would affect their sexual identity development.
Lapinski and McKirnan (2013), argue that disclosing ones orientation and living a life
that fits one’s own orientation is part of the final phase of sexual identity integration.
However, if an LGBTQ member is afraid to come out and disclose his/her sexual identity
due to the religious frameworks that encompass their lives, then that member’s sexual
identity development can be stalled or jeopardized.
Other Social Frameworks as Obstacles to Healthy Self-Identity/Disclosure
There are many obstacles that humans must face as they grow to solidify a healthy
self-identity. However, many LGBTQ individuals face specific challenges that hinder
36
their ability to develop a healthy self-identity simply because of their sexual orientation
or sexual identity. These obstacles can be internal and personal or external and
environmental. The obstacles that LGBTQ members face can either be Micro, on a
relational level with those in their environment, Meso, how organizations interact with
them, or even macro, which can be laws and policies that effect their lives.
Stigmatization and Marginalization are two very strong factors that hinder LGBTQ
individuals from developing healthy identities and disclosing their sexual identity to the
larger society or those close to them (Bregman et al., 2012).
Social Relationships. Rosario, Schrimshaw, Hunter & Braun (2006), state that
negative social relationships are obstacles to LGBTQ people developing a healthy selfidentity or self-disclosure. Negative social relationships, which include people in a
LGBTQ persons work environment, school, and neighborhood and family members can
disrupt their self-identity and cause them to feel negative about themselves. Additionally,
these negative social relationships can cause LGBTQ members to be confused, anxious,
and afraid and conflicted about their sexual identity.
Family. One of the most important component for the healthy identity
development of LGBTQ individuals is families (Bregman et al., 2012). In a study
conducted by Bregman, Malik, Page, Makynen, and Lindahl (2013), the authors found
that rejection from parents of LGBTQ individuals was correlated and linked to their
sexual identity development. With family rejection, LGBTQ people can find it harder to
develop a healthy self-identity compared to their heterosexual counterparts. Additionally,
their study found those who are struggling with their sexual identities reported much
37
higher levels of internalized homonegativity, concerns about how well they are accepted,
and that the coming out process was and/or is extremely difficult (Bregman et al., 2012)
However, their study highlighted that parental acceptance becomes a shield for LGBTQ
youth; a critical protective resource for LGBTQ members as they develop and integrate
their sexual identities with their full identity (Bregman et al., 2012) A fascinating note
was found in the study by Brgman et al., (2013), in that individuals who had recently
self-disclosed their sexual identity to family members were more likely to identify
themselves as struggling with their sexual identity in relation to their full identity. This
also shows that the process of identity development for LGBTQ members is more of a
fluid process than a stage process. Members can begin integration, but then revert back
to confusion and anxiety after coming out to their own family members. This can happen
at any time, no matter the age of the individual (Bregman et al., 2012) However, coming
out to one’s family is an important step in identity development for many LGBTQ
individuals.
Following this trend with negative social relationships, studies have shown that
LGBTQ individuals can develop negative views and attitudes towards their own
homosexuality (Szymanski, Kashubeck-West & Meyer 2008). This negative self-view
can become internalized homophobia and increase other psychosocial stressors.
Internalized homophobia has been linked and/or correlated with many issues surrounding
sexual identity development, such less disclosure of one's sexual orientation, increased
conflict regarding one's own sexual orientation, increased "passing" as heterosexual or
38
bisexual and decreased or lowered involvement with the LGBTQ community (Lapinski
& McKirnan, 2013).
No Involvement. When many of these obstacles combine, it can leave LGBTQ
members feeling alone and isolated from those around them and with no connections to
other LGBTQ individuals. These LGBTQ individuals face a struggle without a
community to rely on or a group consciousness to feel a part of. Newcomb and
Mustanski (2010), state that when LGBTQ members are connected to or feel part of a
community, then they will adjust better to their lives and develop a stronger and more
concrete self-identity.
Religious Frameworks as Obstacles to Healthy Self-Identity
As discussed in the previous sections pertaining to various religions, religion and
religious frameworks can been seen as another major obstacle for LGBTQ identity
development and self-disclosure. With many religious organizations condemning
homosexuality and same-sex attraction and referring to it as a disorder, sinful, aberrant,
unnatural and against God's will it can lead to many LGBTQ individuals to find it
difficult to integrate their sexual identity with their religious framework. Buchanan,
Dzelme, Harris & Hecker (2001), state that many denominations within many religions
believe and preach that participating in gay or lesbian behaviors is sinful (as citied in
Lapinki & McKirnan, 2013 p. 857).
Several studies indicate that many religions, especially conservative religions
oppose the identity of LGBTQ community and LGBTQ population as whole or as a
single member (Lapinski & McKirnan, 2013). For example, many religious institutions,
39
such as the Mormon Church and the Catholic Church, oppose marriage equality and
denounce it as sinful and unnatural. This can alienate LGBTQ members and make them
feel as though they are less than their heterosexual counter parts. Furthermore, religion
can create a split between family members on LGBTQ issues, especially if a family
member identifies as LGBTQ. Schuck and Liddle (2001) argue that previous research
that looked into religious affiliation and LGBTQ identity development, shows that
religion can hinder the healthy self-identity development and self-disclosure of LGBTQ
individuals.
Membership in religions, that have negative views towards LGBTQ individuals,
has been shown to result in higher levels of homonegativity, feelings of guilt and shame,
self-loathing, depression, suicidal ideation and have a more difficult time reconciling
their sexual identities with their religious frameworks (Lapinski & McKirnan, 2013).
Walker and Longmire-Avital (2013) define homonegativity as a LGBTQ member who
has internalized negative thoughts regarding their own same-sex sexual behavior or
same-sex attraction. Negative thoughts could range anywhere from self-hate and loathing
to despair, pity, embarrassment and humiliation. Religious frameworks can be
considered a pillar, unifying and cornerstone of morality and values for the
Black/African-American community (Griffin, 2006).
Concepts related to multiple levels of oppression relate to experiences of racism
and homonegativity. Religious tenets in the Black/African-American community hold
religious frameworks that have pervasive negative views and images of LGBTQ
members and LGBT sexual behavior. Which Walker and Longmire-Avital (2013) argue
40
may have a negative effect on healthy identity development for Black/African-American
LGBTQ individuals and that this negative effect on their healthy identity development
comes from the internalized homonegativity that they develop through membership to
these religious frameworks (Walker & Longmire-Avital, 2013). Malcomnson,
Christopher, Franzen & Keyes (2006) also present that previous research suggests that
homonegativity is highly impacted by increases in religiosity, especially if the religious
frameworks are conservative in their orientations and ideology..
Resiliency is an important component of a strong and healthy identity for almost
any group of people, especially any group that can be considered a minority group.
Resiliency is defined by the Merriam-Webster Dictionary (2011) as the ability to recover
and/or adjust to misfortune, stress, struggles or change. Nonetheless, Walker and
Longmire-Avital (2013) report that research suggests that LGBTQ individuals can have
lower levels of resiliency because of the negative and demeaning messages that they
receive in their churches. In Miller’s (2005) case study, he suggested that many religious
leaders use religious frameworks and text to decry same-sex identity and the sexual
behavior of LGBTQ individuals. Resiliency can be limited by the amount of
homonegativity that an LGBTQ person is experiencing. Homonegativity can influence
and can have many negative side effects such as depression, anxiety, fear and suicide or
suicidal ideations. In Walker and Longmire’s (2013) study of Black/African-American
LGBTQ members they found that LGBTQ members who experienced conflict and/or
reject from their religious community had high levels of internalized homonegativity and
low levels of resiliency. Interestingly, they also found that an absence of religious faith
41
played a significant part in their coping strategies and abilities and lower levers of
internalized homonegativity.
Levy & Reeves (2011) suggest that LGBTQ members will have a difficult time
and experience high levels of conflict between their sexual identities and their religious
identities if they are raised with a Christian upbringing. This religious obstacle to healthy
self-identity and self-disclosure can lead to several different outcomes. Many LGBTQ
people sometimes will begin to consider themselves as spiritual rather than religious,
reinterpret religious teachings to be more supportive and accepting and/or begin to
participate in more LGBTQ positive churches (Schuck & Liddle, 2001). A final negative
reaction is that many LGBTQ individuals will choose to leave their faith when faced with
the conflict between their sexual identity and their religious framework (Lapinski &
McKirnan, 2013); however, this leaves LGBTQ individuals without a faith. Walker and
Longmire-Avital (2013) also support the notion that some LGBTQ individuals will leave
their faith and seek a new faith elsewhere or give up on faith and spirituality all together.
Once, these LGBTQ individuals had a faith that meant something to them, but have been
forced to walk away from that faith and that can leave an empty space in a person who
once valued having faith. In a study conducted by Lapinski and McKirnan, they found
that LGBTQ members who were former Christians were more likely to view God more
hostile than did current LGBTQ Christians. Additionally, they found that former
LGBTQ Christians were more likely to be liberal in their views, than current LGBTQ
Christians, which suggests they harbor more views and beliefs that go against many
Church doctrine.
42
Furthermore, Arnett (2004) argues that since identity development mostly takes
place during adolescence and into young adulthood, young individuals begin to challenge
the ideologies of their parents. Arnett (2004) continues that, young LGBTQ individuals
are no different and some will challenge their parent’s religious frameworks, causing
strife in their interpersonal family relationships and also begin to disassociate themselves
from their previous religious frameworks (as cited in Wlaker & Longmire-Avital, 2013,
p. 1723). Malcomnson, Christopher, Franzen & Keyes (2006), found in his study that
many LGBTQ individuals found religion and spirituality to be important pillars in their
lives and struggled to find ways to integrate their religious frameworks with their sexual
identity, even though this process caused a great deal of stress. Many of the respondents
in the study, decided to stay with the religious framework they were raised in even
though this presented a struggle for them (Malcomnson, Christopher, Franzen & Keyes,
2006).
A major obstacle to healthy self-identity and self-disclosure for LGBTQ members
is a lack of research and understanding from the professional community into the
development of LGBTQ individuals (Bregman et al., 2012). Studies that look to identify
and examine LGBTQ individual’s sexual development is rare and is lacking within the
professional fields rather those fields be in psychology, social work, anthropology or
sociology. Furthermore, there is little to no explorations or comparisons related to
religious frameworks with regards to the health of LGBTQ members’ sexual identity
development. This study seeks to fill this gap and add knowledge to the understanding of
how religious frameworks can affect the healthy identity development of LGBTQ
43
individuals. Additionally, this study seeks to examine if and how religious frameworks
prevents or influence maintenance and self-actualization of LGBTQ members. Lastly,
this study seeks to look at the level of integration of sexual identity and religious identity
of LGBTQ individuals. It’s the hope of this author that this information can facilitate the
reappraisal and active consideration that are required of religious organizations into the
generally prevalent assumptions regarding LGBTQ groups in the context of the
rationalizations used to prevent the healthy and holistic sexual identity development of
LGBTQ members.
44
Chapter 3
Methods
This chapter presents the methods and techniques used in completing this study
and it is organized into the following sections: Study design, study questions, the study
sample, human subjects’ protocol, the process of data collection, and the methods used
for analyzing the data.
Study Objectives
There are two main study questions that this research is centered on, and the first
is how religious frameworks interfere with and/or impact the healthy identity
development of LGBTQ individuals. This questions focuses on the ways that religious
frameworks can/may impact and/or influence the development of an LGBTQ identity.
The second main question is how religious frameworks interfere with and/or impact
healthy self-disclosure of LGBTQ individuals. Self-disclosure is the process of an
LGBTQ individual disclosing their sexual identity to themselves, their close inner circles,
their family, and then the greater society. These questions are at the heart of this research
and are inferred in the data collected by this researcher. Furthermore, minor study
questions that are developed through the essence of this research adds to the knowledge
base of what defines religious frameworks and the sexual identity development of
LGBTQ individuals.
Study Design
Descriptive, exploratory, and explanatory research designs are three main
research designs that are part of the scientific method used to study and analyze
45
phenomenon, and to further the understanding of human behavior and the environment
that humans encompass. Exploratory research design is the basis of this study, because it
seeks and focuses on gathering information about religious frameworks and the process
of self-identity development/self-disclosure of LGBTQ individuals.
According to Rubin and Babbie (2010) exploratory research seeks to gather
information on a topic to further that knowledge within the literature and provide
significant insight into almost any given situation or phenomenon. Still, exploratory
research seeks to further define a topic that does not have a clear definition within the
scientific/research fields, and add a deeper scope to its validity by assisting researchers in
developing hypotheses to be tested. Additionally, exploratory research is used to help
generate further research designs, data collection methods, and selection of subjects for
future research that is aimed more towards explanatory means. By the basis of this
information, this current study meets the qualifications for exploratory research.
This study seeks to increase and add to the knowledge base about how religious
frameworks affect the healthy self-identity development/self-disclosure of LGBTQ
individuals. Through research, this study added more depth and insight into the
definition of religious frameworks and the development process that LGBTQ individuals
go through as they further conceptualize their full identity. Furthermore, this research
uses both qualitative and quantitative research techniques to understand the concept of
religious frameworks and its effects on LGBTQ identity and disclosure.
46
Sampling Procedures
This research study used a non-probability purposive sample. According to Rubin
and Babbie (2010), non-probability samples are considered so, because they do not
involve a full random selection of participants. Instead, this study specifically seeks out
individuals from a specific location to obtain its results, which colludes the randomness
that is most prized in research studies. Furthermore, non-probability samples are not
completely representative of the full population that is being study, but it is used because
circumstances have made random selection unfeasible. When random selection is
unfeasible, then a non-probability sample is recommended to be used. Additionally, this
non-probability sample is purposive because the sample of respondents were chosen with
a specific purpose in mind. The study is specifically seeking out LGBTQ individuals
from the general population.
Data Collection Procedures
The study utilizes a survey instrument, questionnaire, to collect data. The
questionnaire is comprised of both qualitative and quantitative questions, with the
quantitative questions using a 5 to 6 point Likert scale. The questionnaire seeks to further
understand how religious frameworks act as an obstacle to the healthy self-identity
development/self-disclosure of LGBTQ individuals. The questionnaire has 12
quantitative questions that are used to describe a person’s religious/spiritual development
and 25 quantitative questions in regards to the respondents’ sexual identity development
in order to determine if there is a correlation between the level of an LGBTQ individual’s
religious identity and their sexual identity. There are also four qualitative questions that
47
allow respondents to give specific ways in which their past/present religious/spiritual
background affects their sexual identity/self-disclosure. Furthermore, all questions are
developed for neutrality and to limit researcher bias. Each questionnaire contained an
informed consent form that respondents will have to read and sign, giving their consent to
take the survey.
Instruments
The researcher developed the questionnaire through considerable research.
Through researching the literature that covered the theme of religious orientation and the
theme of LGBTQ identity development, the researcher was able to develop questions that
seek to find results pertinent for the research study. Additionally, the researcher obtained
many questions from two pre-existing questionnaires that were found within the public
domain. The first questionnaire was the Religious Orientation Scale, previously
developed by Gorsuch and McPherson (1989), and the second was the Lesbian, Gay, and
Bisexual Identity Scale, originally developed by Mohr and Fassinger (2000). There are
three main sections within the questionnaire: (1) religious orientation, which is designed
to determine the depth of the respondents religious/spiritual orientation and how
integrated it is to their full identity; (2) sexual orientation scale, which seeks to
understand how concrete an individual’s LGBTQ identity is and how developed it has
become; (3) personal views of how respondents religious orientations have affected their
LGBTQ identity development/self-disclosure. Furthermore, the second section of the
questionnaire, the sexual orientation scale, has minor themes that cover identity
48
development, self-disclosure, heteronormativity and internalized homophobia of LGBTQ
individuals.
Data Analysis
The data analysis for this research study contained both qualitative and
quantitative questions. Quantitative questions are created from systematic empirical
investigations of social phenomena that uses statistical, mathematical, or numerical
data/techniques that represent subject’s responses. Quantitative questions are usually
closed ended questions that provide respondents with a list of multiple choice responses,
Likert scale responses, or simply yes or no responses (Rubin & Babbie, 2010). The
quantitative data were entered into a computer program, Statistical Package for the Social
Sciences (SPSS) by the researcher, and using SPSS, the researcher also examined the
associations, correlations, and cross tabulations of the quantitative data, and estimated the
statistical significance of the relationships and differences. Moreover, Qualitative
questions are used to gather an in-depth understanding of a phenomenon and usually
employs the use of open-ended questions that allow respondents to explain their
responses in-depth (Rubin & Babbie, 2010). This research study used four qualitative
questions that allowed respondents to give in-depth responses about the various ways
their sexual identity development/self-disclosure was or was not affected by religious
frameworks they encountered. Furthermore, the researcher examined patterns and/or
major themes that arose from the responses within the questionnaire and entered this
information into SPSS.
49
Protection of Human Subjects
As a Social Worker, the author is held to the highest standards and ethics of the
social work profession, and these standards and ethics are spelled out in the National
Association of Social Workers Code of Ethics (NASW). Within the NASW code of
ethics, it is stated that social workers should and must attempt to protect human subjects
within their research to the best of their abilities. By failing to adhere to this standard any
social worker is placing their legality of practicing in jeopardy. The author has taken
every step to adhere to the NASW code of ethics in the best spirit possible and has taken
every step to respect and protect the rights and dignity of all respondents. Additionally,
the author has followed the guidelines of the University’s Institutional Review Board, of
California State University, Sacramento. By following the guidelines laid out by the
Institutional Review Board, this research study has been found to be exempt (Exemption
45 CFR 46.101(b)(2)), and given the human subjects protocol number #13-14-046, due to
the fact that the survey seeks only anonymous information from respondents and because
the questions are derived in a way that it does not seek any information that could have
legal or criminal consequences for the respondents. Furthermore, answering the
questions in the questionnaire will not have any impact on the respondent’s employment
or services that they might seek or receive.
50
Chapter 4
STUDY FINDINGS AND DISCUSSIONS
This chapter presents the findings from the study on how Religious Frameworks
act as Obstacles to Healthy Self-Identity Development/Self-Disclosure for LGBTQ
Individuals, with a sample of twenty-five (25) respondents, comprised of undergraduate
and graduate level students from California State University, Sacramento. All the
subjects self-identified as either lesbian, gay, bisexual transgender, and/or Queer
(LGBTQ). Due to the small non-probability sample size limits the internal validity of the
data, thus limiting the generalizability of the findings.
Overall Findings
Even though the questionnaire offered respondents the option of choosing a sex
other than male or female, none of respondents identified outside of the norm of
male/female. Out of the 25 respondents, seven (28%) self-identified as female and 18
respondents (72%) self-identified as male. This adherence to the norm of gender could be
partly explained by two factors. First, being that only one of the respondent’s selfidentified as transgender and that all the rest identified within their ‘natural’ norm, since
the transgender individual identified themselves as male to female they were counted as
female in order to respect their self-identity. Secondly, Feminist theory discusses the
socialization and forced adoption of gender roles and identities within them. By feminist
theory those who have the sex of male benefit from identifying as male and are socialized
to wield that benefit, and those whose birth sex fit that of female, are socialized to accept
that role and frame of reference (Ackerly & True, 2008).
51
Table 1
Demographics of Gender
Gender
Female
Male
Total
Frequency Percent
7
28
18
72
25
100
Table 2
Demographics (Race/Ethnicity)
Ethnicity
Black/African
American
Latino/Hispanic
Asian/Asian
American
White/Caucasian
Mixed /Biracial
Not Answered
Total
Frequency
Percent
4
16
11
44
3
12
5
1
1
25
20
4
4
100
Latino/Hispanics comprised the vast majority of the respondents (11, 44%),
followed by White/Caucasians who comprised 20% of all respondents (5). Additionally,
there were only 4 (16%) Black/African-American respondents and 3 (12%) Asian/AsianAmericans. One (1) respondent identified the ethnicity/race as mixed/biracial, and one
(1) respondent declined to self-identify the ethnicity/race.
Table 3
Self-Identified Sexual Orientation
Orientation
Lesbian
Gay
Bisexual
Transgender
Queer
Total
Frequency
1
10
3
1
10
25
Percent
4
40
12
4
40
100
52
Interestingly, 40 percent of respondents self-identified as Queer, rather than
choosing to identify as either gay or lesbian. Queer theory postulates that using the term
Queer reclaims it from the negative and hurtful meaning it once had by the
‘heteronormative’ majority of society, and places a positive and affirming meaning to it
(Mostschenbacher & Stegu, 2013; Minton, 19997). Additionally, by Minton (1997),
Queer theory puts that using the word Queer can show an individual’s defiance and
confrontation with the religious frameworks of society. Moreover, 40 percent of
respondents self-identified as Gay, while only one respondent identified as Lesbian, and
one individual self-identified as Transgender. Transgender individuals are a minority
within a minority, because they are a minority within the LGBTQ community and face
discrimination not just from the heterosexual majority, but also from some LGB
individuals, which makes it difficult to survey Transgender individuals. Taking this into
consideration, this could tilt the responses and data to being more valid in regards to gay
men and/or queer individuals.
Specific Findings
This section will discuss the specific findings related to the research topic and will
either support or not support the hypotheses that were discussed in this study. For reader
convenience the results related to the study’s quantitative data (the Likert scaled
questions) will be discussed first, and then followed by the qualitative data (the more
open-ended questions). The results of the quantitative data will be comprised of Pearson
product-moment correlations, cross-tabulations, and t-test, while the qualitative analysis
is comprised of various themes that were analyzed throughout the respondents responses.
53
Table 4
Religious Framework Scores of Respondents
N
Minimum
Maximum
25
12
49
Mean
35.6
SD
8.5
Note. N = number of respondents and SD = stands for standard deviation
The purpose of this study was to see if religious frameworks had any effect on
LGBTQ individual’s identity development and/or self-disclosure. All respondents were
given a questionnaire that assessed the individual’s religiosity, their inclination towards
religious frameworks and its impact on their lives, and their sexual identity including
self-disclosure. Each respondent was given two separate scores from their questionnaire,
the first was noted as their religious framework score, regarding their pull towards
religious frameworks. A low score would indicate that an individual had no affiliation
towards a religious framework and/or religious frameworks had no significance in their
lives. On the other hand, an individual obtaining a high score would indicate an
individual with a strong affiliation with religious frameworks and that religious
frameworks play an important part in their life. For this study, the lowest religious
framework score that an individual would be able to obtain was a 12 and the highest was
a 60. It must be noted here, that the quantitative survey did not separate or make a
difference between the terms religion, faith, and/or spirituality. For the 25 respondents in
this research study, the minimum religious framework score was 12 and the maximum
religious framework score was 49. The average, mean, score of the respondents was 35.6
(SD=8.5). An average score of 35.6 could be expected since most estimates place that
54
92% of Americans have some kind of idea and/or belief in God or some spiritual being
(Merril, Steffen & Hunter, 2012).
Table 5
Sexual Identity Scores of Respondents
N
25
Minimum
31
Maximum
107
Mean
60
SD
19
Note. N = number of respondents and SD = stands for standard deviation
The second score that the respondents were given was a sexual identity score;
which covered a variety of components including, respondents acceptance of their own
identity, identity confusion/conflict, homonegativity, self-disclosure, and negative or
positive feelings towards their own identity. The lowest score possible in this category
would be 22 and the highest would be 132. The sexual identity score is inversed
compared to the religious framework score, meaning that the lower the score the more
attuned the respondent is with their sexual identity, and the higher the score, the more
conflict there is. For the 25 respondents, the minimum score was 31 and the maximum
score was 107 (M = 60, SD = 19).
55
Table 6
Correlations of Sexual Identity Score/Religious Score and Various Variables
Variables
Sexual
Identity
Score
Religious
Score
Careful
Control
Private
Matter
Think
Carefully
Pearson
Correlation
Sig. (2tailed)
N
Pearson
Correlation
Sig. (2tailed)
N
Sexual
Identity
Score
Religious
Score
Careful
Control
Private
Matter
Think
Carefully
1
0.083
.491*
.622**
.612**
0.699
0.015
0.001
0.001
24
24
24
24
24
0.083
1
.458*
0.21
0.394
0.021
0.314
0.052
0.699
24
25
25
25
25
.491*
.458*
1
.407*
.814**
0.015
0.021
0.043
0
24
25
25
25
25
.622**
0.21
.407*
1
0.326
0.001
0.314
0.043
24
25
25
25
25
Pearson
Correlation
.612**
0.394
.814**
0.326
1
Sig. (2tailed)
0.001
0.052
0
0.112
N
24
25
25
25
Pearson
Correlation
Sig. (2tailed)
N
Pearson
Correlatio
n
Sig. (2tailed)
N
0.112
25
Note: *. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
A Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient was computed to assess the
relationship between respondents’ sexual identity score and other key variables, such as,
keeping careful control over who knows about their sexual identity, keeping their sexual
56
identity a private matter, and how carefully respondents think about disclosing their
sexual identity before they “come out”. These three variables are associated with the
phenomena of self-disclosure. The sexual identity score (SIS) was found to have a
statistically significant positive correlation with keeping careful control over who knows
about one’s sexual identity (r (24) = .491, p < .05). There was also a statistically
significant positive correlation between respondents sexual identity score and believing
that their sexual identity was a private matter (r (24) = .622, p < .01). Additionally, the
sexual identity score was found to have a strong positive correlation with thinking careful
before disclosing ones sexual identity to others (r (24) = .612, p < .01).
This data shows that there is a correlation between keeping ones identity a secret
and one’s sexual identity score. An increase in sexual identity score correlated with an
increase in keeping ones identity a secret and/or believing ones sexual identity is a private
matter. According to Rosario, Schrimshaw, Hunter & Braun (2006) many LGBTQ
individuals could want to keep their sexual identities secret because of various reasons
such as, fear of negative social relationships, family rejection (Bregman et al., 2012),
discrimination, fear of being physically/emotionally hurt, rejection by their religious
institutions (Lapinski & McKirnan, 2013) and/or learned homonegativity (Szymanski,
Kashubeck-West & Meyer 2008). Queer theory sheds light into this correlation by
reporting that many LGBTQ individuals can develop homonegativity (feelings of hate or
secrecy of one’s own sexual identity) because society is very heteronormative, such as
constructing that heterosexuality is natural, normal and preferable to LGBTQ sexual
identities (Mostschenbacher & Stegu, 2013). Additionally, Richardson (2007), puts that
57
society is constructed to propagate masculinity and uses heterosexuality to enforce
masculinity, which could place fear on others to not challenge this system by selfdisclosing.
Furthermore, the same key variables were computed to assess if there was a
relationship towards respondents religious framework score. The data showed that there
was a positive correlation (r (25) = .458, p < .021) between respondents religious
framework score and their keeping careful control of who knows about their sexual
identity. However, there was a weak positive correlation of .210 between respondents’
religious framework score and keeping their identity a private matter, which was not
statistically significant as indicated by a p value of more than .05. And thinking careful
before coming out to someone had a weak to moderate positive correlation that was
statistically significant (r (25) = .394, p < .052) This data shows that there is a correlation
between the strength of a person’s religious frameworks and their wanting to keep careful
control over the individuals who know about their sexual identity. But, the data also
shows that religious frameworks has a weak correlation that is not statistically significant
with believing ones sexual orientation is a private matter or believing that an LGBTQ
individual should think carefully before coming out. This can show that there are other
considerations in a LGBTQ person’s life that takes presidents over religious frameworks
in identifying that a person should not self-disclose their sexual identity. Since sexual
identities and how they are viewed within a society is socially constructed by the
participants within that society, there can be a multitude of other contributing factors,
such as the negative social constructions of homosexuality (Gibson & Hensley, 2013).
58
Interestingly, there was a positive correlation between the two variables of
respondents keeping careful control over who knows about their sexual identity and
believing that one’s sexual identity is a private matter (r (25) = .407, p < .043). There was
also a statistically significant strong positive correlation between keeping careful control
over who knows about one’s sexual identity and thinking carefully before coming out to
someone (r (25) = .814, p < .000).
59
Table 7
Correlations Between Religious Constructs and LGBTQ Identity
Variables
Pearson
Correlation
Enjoy
Reading
Enjoy
Reading
Sense of
God
Approach
To Life
Fulfilling
Thankful
Proud
1
.546**
.891**
0.16
-0.063
0.073
Sig.
Sense of
God
Approach
To Life
0.005
0
0.446
0.77
0.729
N
25
25
25
25
24
25
Pearson
Correlation
.546**
1
.451*
-0.044
-0.375
-0.166
Sig.
0.005
0.024
0.833
0.071
0.426
N
25
25
25
25
24
25
Pearson
Correlation
.891**
.451*
1
0.294
0.029
0.213
Sig.
0
0.024
0.154
0.893
0.307
N
25
25
25
25
24
25
Pearson
Correlation
0.16
-0.044
294
1
.810**
.915**
Sig.
0.446
0.833
0.154
0
0
N
25
25
25
25
24
25
Pearson
Correlation
-0.063
-0.375
0.029
.810**
1
.894**
Sig.
0.77
0.071
0.893
0
N
24
24
25
24
24
24
Pearson
Correlation
0.073
-0.166
0.213
.915**
.894**
1
Sig.
0.729
0.426
0.307
0
0
N
25
25
25
25
24
Fulfilling
Thankful
0
Proud
25
Note: *. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
Moreover, a Pearson’s product-moment correlation coefficient was computed to
assess the relationship between additional variables such as, the amount of enjoyment
60
respondents get from reading about their religion/spirituality, respondents sense of
God/Spiritual beings’ presence, their approach to life based on their religion/spirituality,
the feeling that LGBTQ relationships are as fulfilling as heterosexual relationships, being
thankful for their sexual identity, and that respondents are proud of their sexual identity.
It was found that there was a correlation between respondents enjoy reading about their
religion/spirituality and their sense of God/spiritual being’s presence within their lives (r
(25) = .56, p < .01) and a strong positive correlation between respondents enjoy reading
about their religion/spirituality and their approach to life being based on their religious
frameworks (r (25) = .891, p < .01). This shows that there is a correlation between
individuals enjoy reading about their religious framework and individuals basing their
approach of their life on their religious framework and sensing a presence of their
God/spiritual being. There was also a correlation between respondents sense of
God/spiritual being presence and their approach to life being based on their religious
framework (r (25) = .45, p < .024). The higher a respondent rates their sense of
God/spiritual beings presence draw a parallel with them placing their approach to life on
their religious framework.
Furthermore, the correlation between respondents being thankful for their sexual
identity and being proud of their sexual identity was positive, strong, and statistically
significant (r (25) = .894, p < .01). There was also a statistically significant positive
correlation between being thankful for one’s sexual identity and finding LGBTQ
relationships as fulfilling as heterosexual relationships (r (25) = .810, p < .01). This data
presents that higher rated positive views of sexual identity formulations correlate with
61
other positive views of sexual identity formulations. According to Lapinski and
McKirnan (2013), as LGBTQ individual’s process the integration of their identity they
will continue to grow in acceptance of their identity in various components. This goes to
back up the presented data that positive feelings towards one’s sexuality is positively
correlated with more positive feelings. Once acceptance begins in one area it begins to
help the integration process and inevitably spills over to other areas of acceptance within
identity framework. Though many concepts are socially constructed by society (Motyl,
2010), individuals also can begin to construct their own meanings to certain phenomenon,
which can aid in the positive construction of their own identity. Becoming part of and
participating in a community, such as the LGBTQ community, can also help this process;
because as a community LGBTQ individuals can socially construct their own positive
meanings to their sexual identities.
However, there were no correlations between any of the religious frameworks
factors noted above with the sexual identity factors also listed above. This data does not
support the hypothesis that religious frameworks acts an obstacle to the healthy selfidentity development of LGBTQ individuals. The data shows these religious framework
concepts are not correlated with the positive self-view that the respondents have of their
own sexual identity. This could be indicative that many of the respondents have reached
the level of identity integration within their personal sexual identity developments, and
either begun to or already have integrated their past/present religious frameworks with
their sexual identities.
62
Table 8
Correlations of Religious Variables and Identity Variables
People
See Me
Insignificant
Careful
Pearson
Correlation
.546**
.484*
-
Sig. (2tailed)
0.005
0.014
-
N
25
25
-
Pearson
Correlation
.421*
.410*
-
Sig. (2tailed)
0.036
0.042
-
N
25
25
-
Pearson
Correlation
-
-
.400*
Sig. (2tailed)
-
-
0.047
N
-
-
25
Pearson
Correlation
.609**
294
1
Sig. (2tailed)
0.001
0.154
N
25
25
Variables
Enjoy
Reading
Time In
Prayer
Sense of
God
Trying
Hard
25
Note: *. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
Additionally, a Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient was also
computed to assess the relationship between various other religious framework variables
and sexual identity/disclosure variables in order to ascertain if there was any other
statistically significant correlations. Respondent who enjoy reading about their
religion/spirituality was found to have a positive correlation with wondering if people
judge them based on their sexual identity (r (25) = .529, p < .007) and those who feel
63
their sexual identity is an insignificant part of their full identity (r (25) = .484, p < .014).
Feeling that it is important to spend private time in prayer was correlated with worrying
with how other people might see them based on their sexual identity (r (25) = .421, p <
.036) and their feeling that their sexual identity is an insignificant part of their identity (r
(25) = .410, p < .042). Additionally, having a sense of God/spiritual beings presence was
found to have a positive correlation with believing one would get hurt if they are not
careful about who they ‘come out’ to (r (25) = .400, p < .047), a variable that signifies
fear of ‘coming out’. Trying hard to live one’s life according to their religious
frameworks was also found to have a strong positive statistically significant correlation
with wondering if people judges them based on their sexual identity (r (25) = .609, p <
.001).
These sexual identity variables specifically deal with the outward expression of
one’s sexual identity and their belief of the negative reaction or fear of the negative
reaction that they might receive from others, especially others who have faith in religious
frameworks. This data supports the notion that the closer an individual is with religious
frameworks the more they could fear self-disclosing and/or others knowing their sexual
identity for fear of the judgments others will pass on them. LGBTQ individuals, even
those who have positive feelings towards their own sexual identity, could have fear or
worry of rejection or being hurt from their social relationships (Rosario et al, 2006), their
families (Bregman et al., 2013), and rejection from their religious frameworks (Lapinski
& McKirnan, 2013). Moreover, the negative social constructions developed by religious
64
frameworks and the larger society in regards to homosexuality could hamper individuals
desire to come out to others.
Table 9
Correlations Between Going to Church Variable and Sexual Identity Variables
Variable
Going To
Church
Pears
on
Sig.
N
Be
Straight
Ashame
Control
Feeling
Accept
BeingProud
Thankful
A
Gift
Fulfilling
.518**
.456*
.511**
.411*
.628**
.451*
.453*
.571**
0.008
0.022
0.009
0.041
0.001
0.027
0.023
0.003
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
Note: *. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
Furthermore, there was one religious frameworks variable, going to church or
religious/spiritual gatherings, that was found to have a positive statistically significant
correlation with eight (8) separate sexual identity variables. Going to church or
religious/spiritual gatherings had a positive statistically significant correlation with
wanting to choose to be straight if it was possible (r (25) = .518, p < .008), feeling
ashamed of one’s own sexual identity (r (25) = .456, p < .022), wishing they could
control their feelings of attraction toward people of the same sex (r (25) = .511, p < .009),
never be able to accept one’s sexual identity without the acceptance of those close to
them in one’s own life (r (25) = .411, p < .041), being proud to be LGBTQ (r (25) = .628,
p < .001) (strong correlation), feeling thankful for one’s sexual identity (r (25) = .451, p <
.027), seeing one’s sexual identity as a gift (r (25) = .453, p < .023), and believing that
LGBTQ relationships are as fulfilling as heterosexuals (r (25) = .571, p < .003).
The variable going to church or religious/spiritual gatherings was found to be
correlated with both internalized homonegativity (negative feelings towards one’s own
65
sexual orientation) and positive feelings towards ones sexual orientation. For these
respondents going to church or religious/spiritual gathering either influenced them to
have negative views of themselves or supported their integration of their identity. Social
constructionism places the meaning of phenomenon on the social construction of those
meanings, and if respondents find a religious institution that is either positive or negative,
then they could end up adopting those views of that institution. Which they then can be
influenced to either have negative or positive views of themselves. Taking feminist
theory into account, religious frameworks that have a more equal footing and conception
of masculinity/feminist would benefit the positive identification for LGBTQ individuals;
while religious frameworks that partake in upholding a patriarchal society would
influence an internalized homonegativity.
Most importantly, for the two variables, respondents’ religious framework scores
and sexual identity scores, a Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient was
computed to assess the relationship between them to determine if there was correlation.
However, there was found to be no correlation between respondents religious framework
score and respondents sexual identity score (r (25) = .027, p > .05). Though certain
religious frameworks variables were correlated with certain negative or positive sexual
identity variables, overall an individual’s religious framework is not correlated with the
integration of their sexual identity within this study. This data does not support the
hypothesis that religious frameworks acts an obstacle to healthy self-identity
development/disclosure for LGBTQ individuals. However, this must be taken within the
confines of this non-randomized small sample.
66
Figure 1. Scatterplot of Religious Framework Score and Careful Control of LGBTQ Identity
Figure 1 is a scatterplot of the respondents’ religious framework score and the
religious framework variable of keeping careful control over who knows about their
sexual identity. The scatterplot shows that as the religious framework score increases,
showing a higher inclination towards religious frameworks, so does a respondents desire
to keep careful control over who knows about their sexual identity. Furthermore, the
scatterplot shows that respondents religious framework score predicts the change in the
variable of respondents’ amount of careful control 21% of the time.
67
Figure 2. Distribution of Religious Score
Figure 3. Distribution of Sexual Identity
Figure 2 is a histogram of all respondents’ religious framework scores and
attempts to show the bell curve to show the normal distribution of the scores. Though the
scores are normally distributed the bell curve is not significant and skewed with Kurtosis
of the sexual identity distribution. Additionally, figure 3 is a normal distribution of
respondents sexual identity score. As can be seen, respondents sexual identity scores are
more normally distributed then the religious frameworks scores.
Cross-Tabulations
To test certain associations, a cross-tabulation and Pearson chi-square was
calculated between respondents’ sexual orientation and various key variables, such as,
having a sense of God/spiritual beings presence, feeling proud of their sexual identity,
keeping careful of control of who knows about their sexual identity, and if they found
LGBTQ relationships as fulfilling as heterosexual relationships.
68
Table 10
Cross-Tabulation Between Sexual Orientation and Sense of God
Sense of God
Sexual
Orientation
Lesbian
Gay
Bisexual
Transgender
Queer
Total
Count
Percent
Count
Percent
Count
Percent
Count
Percent
Count
Percent
Count
Percent
1
2
3
4
5
Total
0
0%
1
50%
0
0%
0
0%
1
50%
2
100%
0
0%
1
20%
1
20%
0
0%
3
60%
5
100%
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
1
33%
2
66%
3
100%
0
0%
4
66%
1
33%
0
0%
1
16%
6
100%
1
11%
4
44%
1
11%
0
0%
3
33%
9
100%
1
4%
10
40%
3
14%
1
4%
10
40%
25
100%
There was an association between the variables of a respondents’ sexual
orientation and their sense of God/spiritual beings presence, as evidenced by phi of .773.
Although, there is a strong association between these two variables, their association is
not statistically significant.
69
Table 11
Cross-Tabulation Between Sexual Orientation and Being Proud of Sexual Identity
Sense of God
Sexual
Orientation
Lesbian
Gay
Bisexual
Transgender
Queer
Total
1
2
3
4
5
Total
Count
0
0
0
0
1
1
Percent
0%
0%
0%
0%
100%
100%
Count
6
1
2
1
0
10
Percent
60%
10%
20%
10%
0%
100%
Count
2
0
1
0
0
3
Percent
66.70%
0%
33.30%
0%
0%
100%
Count
1
0
0
0
0
1
Percent
100%
0%
0%
0%
0%
100%
Count
5
2
2
1
0
10
Percent
50%
20%
20%
10%
0%
100%
Count
14
3
5
2
1
25
Percent
56%
12%
20%
8%
4%
100%
With 50% of those who self-identified as Queer, 60% of those who self-identified
as gay reported being very proud of their sexual identity and the majority of lesbian’s
reporting that they are not proud of their sexual identity, there was a significant
association between respondents sexual orientation and their feeling proud of their sexual
identity (χ2 (1, N = 25) = 27.4, p = .037), with self-identifying as Queer or gay being more
associated with feeling proud of ones’ sexual identity. However, due to the fact that more
than 60% of the cells had expected counts less than 5, the chi square test cannot be used.
70
Figure 4 Histogram 1
Figure 5 Histogram 2
Interestingly, a cross-tabulation showed that there was no statistically significant
association between a respondents sexual orientation and their degree of careful control
they take in who knows about their sexual identity (χ2 (1, N = 25) = 26.67, p = .145). One
sexual identity was not more closely associated with wanting to take more careful control
over who knows about their sexual identity. Additionally, there is no association
between a respondents sexual orientation and their believing that LGBTQ relationships
are as fulfilling as heterosexual relationships (χ2 (1, N = 25) = 16.019, p = .190).
T-Test
The researcher conducted a t-test to find if there was any significance between the
religious framework score of respondents and their ethnicity/race. The respondents were
separated into two groups based on their self-expressed ethnicity/race with, (1) white, N
= 5 and (2) non-white, N = 20. For the respondents who self-identified as white there was
a mean of 38.2 for their religious framework score (SD = 11.95), and a mean of 34.9 (SD
= 7.73) for those who self-identified as non-white. There was no significant difference in
71
religious frameworks score for those who self-identified as white (M= 38.2, SD = 11.95)
and those who identified as non-white (M = 34.9, SD = 7.73) (t (23) = .77, p > .05).
Qualitative Content
The first question was used to assess if religious frameworks contributed to the
development of the respondents’ personal identity in any way, both negatively and/or
positively. The question was as follows: how does traditional religious/spiritual values
contribute and/or define your personal identity both negatively and positively. The
respondents portrayed six (6) significant themes throughout their responses with the first
theme being that some of the respondents developed a strong sense of themselves to
define their personal identities, rather than relying on traditional religious frameworks.
This theme was marked by the fact that the respondents rejected their religious
frameworks and focused on developing their sense of self as a foundation to reach a level
of identity integration. Lapinski and McKirnan (2013), make a point of detailing that
some LGBTQ individuals, when faced with rejection and/or condemnation from religious
frameworks, will choose to leave their faith and proceed on a journey of self-acceptance
based more on their own personal inner strength. The respondents seem to support and
share in this experience, one respondent wrote: “I am not religious or spiritual so
traditional religious/spiritual values do not contribute or define my identity as a Queer
person. I define my own identity as a Queer person of color”.
Interpretation of the Findings
Another important theme that appeared throughout the responses, was that many
individuals were forced to go through a transition from traditional religious values to a
72
more self-attuned spirituality. This respondent’s response helps to shed light on this
theme: “Growing up Catholic, I learned to hate myself and my sexual orientation. Right
before I turned 18, I realized that religion was just a means for people to cope with their
lives and so I decided to make my own religion, although, I’d call it spirituality. Now I
am okay with myself and proud of who I am.” The literature supports this kind of change,
reinterpretation of religious frameworks, or move to spirituality. This offers many
LGBTQ individuals the needed help and assurance to process through the identity
conflict within themselves, and come to a clearer more integrated self (Schuck & Liddle,
2001). Furthermore, what is also significant about these two themes are that they relate
with Queer theory and oppose heteronormativity. Queer theory backs the idea that many
sexual identities are formed as a rejection or opposition to heteronormativity, which is the
normalizing of heterosexuality to the neglect of any other sexual identity (Clarke et al.,
2010), and since most religious frameworks center on maintaining this idea of
heteronormativity, many LGBTQ individuals would either reject fully their religious
frameworks or move towards a more spiritual approach; which normalizes all sexualities
and not just heterosexuality. Queer theory, following along with feminist theory, also
deals with the idea of power, especially power between religious institutions and
individuals. There is a power struggle among LGBTQ individuals who want to define
themselves and the religious frameworks that wants to define them instead, and a way to
end that power struggle can be either rejection or transition to a more power balanced
belief system, such as spirituality.
73
The next theme is that nine respondents (36%) conveyed that religious
frameworks offered them negative messages about themselves and that contributed to
negative aspects of their personal identity. “Traditional, like Christian values (what I was
raised with), does not seem to support LGBTQ identities, and has given me negative
messages about my choices of coming out. I also think knowing about how many people
are influenced by these same messages makes me feel scared to show my true identity…”
This very much adds to the knowledge that religious frameworks can add to an LGBTQ
individuals own internal homonegativity and fear to self-disclose. Following feminist and
social constructionist theory, society grants a tremendous amount of authority and power
to religious frameworks to construct meanings and ideas around the concepts of gender
and sex to uplift ‘ideal’ identities and relationships (heterosexuality), and demean and
weaken others (LGBTQ). This offers a great deal of control to religious frameworks. The
theme that religious frameworks offer negative views/messages of other people from
different life styles, cultures, and religions, showed up in the responses of three
respondents. Offering more substance to the theme above statement.
Another theme, portrayed by seven (28%) respondents, was that religious
frameworks/spirituality offered positive and healthy integration to of their full identity.
For these respondents they used the words religion and/or spirituality without differing
between them. Without this difference in definition for this question, it is difficult to
estimate or discuss what led to it, or what kind of effect it really had on respondents.
However, Mochon, Norton and Ariely (2011), make the point that religion and in affect
spirituality can offer individuals higher levels of subjective well-being. Especially, if
74
those individuals find religious/spiritual organizations that have positive and accepting
views towards LGBTQ individuals and sexual orientations. Many religious/spiritual
organizations are becoming more inclusive towards others and this fact could be what
supports this data. However, another major theme (32% of respondents) was that
respondents had no affiliation with religious frameworks and/or spirituality, and that they
had no relation and/or effect on their personal identity development.
The second question posed to the respondents was: ‘do you believe/feel that there
is conflict between your faith/spirituality and your sexual identity’. There were four main
themes found throughout the respondents answers, such as, there is no conflict because
respondents spirituality supports their sexual identity (6 respondents), that they find there
is no conflict between their religious framework and their sexual identity (11
respondents), that there is tremendous conflict between their sexual identity and religious
framework (12 respondents), and lastly, that there is transitional conflict as they move
from there past religious framework to a more spiritual outlook on life (3 respondents).
The theme that there is no conflict between respondent’s self-identified sexual orientation
and their faith/spirituality was supported by some very strong responses: “No, I find my
spirituality in meditation, mindfulness, and Buddhist beliefs, so feel very comforted and
accepted. I don’t identify with old religious beliefs when I was a kid.” “My form of
spirituality supports my sexual identity, and since those I choose to surround myself with
those that mirror my beliefs I have not have had negative interactions. I do not feel or
believe there is conflict between my faith and sexual orientation”. Spirituality offers it’s
adherence a more open experience and grants them the ability to shape their own spiritual
75
beliefs, and this could account for respondents identifying no conflict between their
faith/spirituality, because if there were conflict they could simply change their spirituality
to accommodate their sexuality, though this is an oversimplification of spirituality and
the spiritual process.
For the theme that there is tremendous conflict between respondent’s sexual
identity and their religious frameworks, this respondent’s comment summoned this theme
up very well: “There has always been conflict between my faith and my sexual identity. I
truly believe in the word of God. But because my sexual identity goes against the word of
God, my life has always been in turmoil. I sometimes with I were straight so everything
would be easier.” This response and theme supports the hypothesis that religious
frameworks are obstacles to healthy self-identity development/self-disclosure of LGBTQ
individuals. Moreover, the theme that the conflict between respondent’s sexual identity
and their religious frameworks leads them to acquire a more spiritual outlook on life is
supported by three respondent’s comments. This type of transition from religion to
spirituality is evidence in the literature. Key in point, Walker and Longmire-Avital
(2013), discuss the process that LGBTQ youth go through as they start with conflict
between their sexual identity and their religious frameworks, move to questioning their
religious frameworks and the validity of their doctrine, and then will either embrace a
more spiritual view of life or completely reject their former religious frameworks.
Six important themes appeared through analysis of the next qualitative question,
‘how do you cope with the conflict between your sexual orientation and
religious/spirituality’. This question was to simply gather information on how LGBTQ
76
individuals handle conflict that arise from the integration of their religious frameworks
and their sexual identity. The focus of this question does not add to the evolution of this
studies main question. However, it adds to the transition of identity integration that
LGBTQ individuals process through. The themes found will be briefly described here.
The top two themes, which were both found within 5 respondent’s comments, were that
they found no conflict between their sexual identity and their religious
framework/spirituality and that they processed to acceptance of their sexual identity or
found a greater sense of their self. In addition, many respondents expressed that they just
ignore the conflict between their sexual identity and religious framework. Importantly,
another subject that made itself known through the respondent’s answers, was that to
cope with the conflict between their sexual orientation and religious framework was to
remove themselves out of their religious frameworks and another theme was to transition
to spirituality. Interestingly, a final theme was to actually turn towards their religious
frameworks for answers and comfort in dealing with their sexual orientation.
‘How has religion impacted your desire/choice to come out’ was the final
question asked to the respondents, and six themes were found. From eight of the
responses, family issues created by religious frameworks impacted respondents ability to
come out. Many respondents were afraid to loose, hurt, disappoint, or be hurt by their
family members. Since families are social entity of their own, families can add to their
own social construction of the meaning of homosexuality and can add to the negative and
painful messages that LGBTQ individuals already receive from society. Furthermore, in
their study Bregman et al., (2012), found that individuals families is one of the key and
77
most important components for healthy identity development for LGBTQ individuals and
without family support, or with family rejection, LGBTQ individuals face higher levels
of internalized homonegativity, which can greatly impact their identity development.
With the fear of family rejection many LGBTQ individuals hide who they are, live life in
secret, or deny and try to block their same-sex attractions at the detriment of their healthy
identity development. Furthermore, religious frameworks having no impact on
respondents desire/choice to come out was a major theme (7 respondents). Very
concerning, fear to come out to those who identify as Christian was a major theme and
backed by many of the respondents (6). Another valid theme was that religious
frameworks impacted their desire/choice to come out by cultivating negative feelings
toward themselves (5 respondents). One minor theme that showed was that a respondent
decided to reevaluate their religious framework before deciding to come out.
Summary
It must be pointed out that the sample size of this study was not random and was
also very small, comparative to other national or state wide studies. This study is based
on the response of 25 self-identified LGBTQ individuals from the same common area,
California State University Sacramento, and this should be taken into account and
understood within that context. These results cannot and should not be generalized to the
greater population. However, these result can add to the discussion, debate, and further
research into this fascinating field of study. Overall, and to the point, the hypothesis that
religious frameworks, as a whole, acts as an obstacle to the healthy self-identity
development/self-disclosure of LGBTQ individuals was not supported by the data.
78
However, there were specific components of individual’s religious frameworks that was
correlated with having an effect on LGBTQ individual’s healthy self-identity
development/self-disclosure.
As the results showed the effects and/or interaction with religious frameworks as
a whole did not have a statistically significant impact on the identity development and/or
coming out process for these LGBTQ individuals. Religious frameworks as a whole takes
into account all aspects of religious frameworks into one single phenomenon. This can
include, but is not limited to, being raised in different religious frameworks, interacting
with religious frameworks on a societal level, going to church, reading about
religion/spirituality, and interacting with religious frameworks on a personal level. By the
respondents answers to religious based questions they were given a religious frameworks
score, though the average score was not highly religious, it was still a significant level.
Following that, respondents were also given a sexual identity score based on the
formulation of their sexual identity. Though the average score was did not show a
significant level of full acceptance it was still low enough to indicate that the respondents
had a significant level of acceptance. These two scores were not correlated and/or
associated with each other.
Furthermore, individual concepts from religious frameworks was found to be
associated and correlated with important aspects of respondent’s sexual identity
development and self-disclosure. Certain religious aspect had an effect on the negative
views and aspects of respondent’s sexual identity and self-disclosure. For example, the
sexual identity variables that specifically dealt with LGBTQ individual’s outward
79
expression (self-disclosure) and feeling of judgment and fear were associated with
significant religious framework variables such as enjoy reading about
religion/spirituality, finding private time in prayer as important, having a sense of
God/spiritual beings presence, and trying to live one’s life according to religious
frameworks. For respondents who scored high in these areas, they also scored high in the
areas of not wanting to or having fear to self-disclosure. Though religious frameworks as
a whole is not significant to a person’s sexual identity, these four concepts are. The more
an individual spends on these four concepts is correlated with higher levels of conflict
when it comes to self-disclosure, but not positive views of their own sexual identity.
Second example, is the religious framework concept of going to church. Going to
church and time spent in church was correlated with both positive and negative concepts
of respondents sexual identity score. LGBTQ individuals who spent a great deal of time
in church was correlated and associated with having negative concepts and views of
themselves and their sexual identity. These negative concepts include, but not limited to,
wanting to be straight rather than LGBTQ, feelings of shame associated with their sexual
identity, wanting to control their same-sex attractions, and not being able to accept their
own sexuality until those close to them can accept it. These negative concepts run into the
area of social rejection and family rejection, which have been found to be highly
correlated with conflict over one’s LGBTQ identity. However, going to church is also
correlated with positive views of oneself and sexual identity such as, being proud to be
LGBTQ, feeling thankful for one’s sexual identity, believing one’s sexual identity is a
gift, and believing that LGBTQ relationships are a fulfilling as heterosexuals. Since not
80
all of the religious framework concepts are not correlated and/or associated with negative
or self-disclosure aspects of respondent’s sexual identity, religious frameworks are not an
obstacle, by this studies definition, on LGBTQ individual’s self-identity development.
81
Chapter 5
CONCLUSION, SUMMARY, RECOMMENDATIONS
This study examined religious frameworks as an obstacle to healthy self-identity
development/self-disclosure of LGBTQ individuals. This study utilized a sample of 25
self-identified LGBTQ undergraduate/graduate students at California State University,
Sacramento. There were several important/primary findings that were found within the
context of the research question.
Summary of Study
The primary finding of this study was that respondent’s religious framework
scores were weakly correlated with respondents sexual identity score, and were not
statistically significant. Additionally, individual religious frameworks concepts were
found to be associated and statistically significantly correlated with important aspects of
respondents sexual identity, such as, religious framework variables of reading about
religion/spirituality, finding private time in prayer as important, having a sense of
God/spiritual beings presence, and trying to live one’s life according to religious
frameworks being associated and correlated with negative views towards one’s sexual
identity, and towards self-disclosure. It was also found that the religious framework of
going to church was found to be correlated with homonegativity, but also correlated with
some respondents having positive views and pride towards their sexual identity.
Furthermore, it was found that individuals religious framework score predicted the
amount of carefully control over ‘coming out’ 21.0% of the time. And respondent’s sense
82
of God/religious beings presence was also associated with respondent’s self-reported
sexual identity.
Implications for Social Work
Many of the recommendations presented so far, and the evidence of the research
presented, can and will have many implications for the field of Social Work and the
application and practice of it. Many of the implications will be minimal, affecting some
social workers only at the micro practice level, while others will be far reaching and have
implications for all social workers through the macro level. Though these implications
are written based on the recommendations and the results of this studied, they should be
taken in this same context. The implications are for concepts within the practice,
behaviors, policy, and research of social workers at the micro, mezzo, and macro level.
Considering the basis for these implications, the author of this study has used the Council
on Social Work Education’s (CSWE), the accrediting body for all social work education,
competencies for all social work education. These competencies represent the skills and
knowledge that all social workers should possess. There is no better area to discuss
implications for social work then within the educating body of all future social workers.
Micro Level Implications
The CSWE’s educational policy 2.1.4 states that social workers must engage with
diversity and difference within their practice; meaning that social workers must
understand that diversity is a part of and greatly shapes an individual’s identity.
Furthermore, social workers should be knowledgeable that diversity is comprised of
interactions of various multiple factors, including, but not limited to, gender, gender
83
identity, sexual orientation, and religion. Part of the extent that these factors, including
religious frameworks, impacts and oppresses individuals. Social workers, in order to
practice, will have to further understand and study how religious frameworks impacts the
different areas and development of identity and self-disclosure for LGBTQ individuals.
Additionally, the CSWE’s educational policy 2.1.1 stating that social workers should
identify as a professional social worker and conduct themselves accordingly, addresses
the implication on the behaviors of social workers. By this policy, social workers are
representatives of the profession and must demonstrate professional demeanor in
behavior by being career long learners. This means that social workers will have to adjust
their behavior, curriculum, policy, and research to ensure they work to the full spirit of
this policy and allow their clients, including LGBTQ individuals, to lead and teach them.
Based on the micro level policy recommendation, and the results of this study,
policy regarding marriage equality for LGBTQ individuals should be recognized by each
individual social worker. Social workers should advocate for their LGBTQ clients
marriages and beliefs towards marriage be recognized and recognize them, even if the
policy of their state does not. Religious frameworks are a very strong part of society and
influences not just the sexual identity development of individuals, but also policy towards
certain social traditions, such as marriage. And this why social workers should recognize
and advocate for the marriage equality of LGBTQ individuals. This implication is backed
by the CSWE’s educational policy 2.1.5, which states that social workers must advance
human rights, social, and economic justice for their clients, engage in practices that
advance social justice, and importantly understand the forms and mechanisms of
84
oppression and discrimination. Furthermore, CSWE’s educational policy 2.1.6 addresses
research on the micro level by informing that social workers should engage in researchinformed practice and practice-informed research. This research informs that additional
research is needed in the area of how religious frameworks affect LGBTQ individual’s
identity development and self-disclosure. Social workers should invest in pushing the
boundaries of already established research protocols of their agencies, organizations, and
universities so that they can engage in research in this topic with younger individuals.
Universities that have social work programs will have to open their human subject
protocols to allow social workers to engage in research with younger LGBTQ individuals
to truly assess the effects that religious frameworks have on them.
Mezzo Level Implications
At the organizational and/or family level, social workers will have to expand
knowledge on the ways that religious frameworks impact families and how family
increase and/or reinforce the impacts of religious frameworks on LGBTQ individuals.
Social workers will have to face the reality that families with religious frameworks push
the impacts found in this study onto LGBTQ youth and will have to develop ways of
interacting with families that lessens this impact. This will ensure that social workers
meet the CSWE’s standard of educational policy 2.1.7 and educational policy 2.1.10 of
applying knowledge of human behavior and the social environment and interacting with a
range of systems and organizations that individuals interact with. Moreover on a
behavioral approach, CSWE’s educational policy 2.1.9 dictates that social workers must
respond to the contexts that shape practice, and that social workers are informed,
85
resourceful, and proactive in responding to changing organizational, community, and
societal contexts at all levels of practice. This also implies, within the context of the
recommendations and results of this study, that social workers take this educational
policy and imply it to ensure that the agencies and organizations and they engage with
clients in a way that does not push or reinforce the impacts of religious frameworks.
In regards to policy at the mezzo level, social workers will have to reevaluate
their own policies that have to deal with religion and spirituality. Religious frameworks
impact LGBTQ sexual identity development in different ways, and many social service
agencies are backed by religious organizations and have policies that can be considered
as oppressive and aiding in the impact that religious frameworks have. Social work as an
organization will have to evaluate these policies and advocate to change them to respect
the developmental and self-disclosure process of LGBTQ individuals. This will also aid
in meeting the standards of CSWE’s educational policy 2.1.8; which requires that social
workers engage in policy practice to advance social and economic justice and advocate
for policies that advance social well-being. In Addition to the recommendations and
results of this study, an implication for social workers is that agencies and organizations
will have to be researched to understand and bring to light the impact that religious
frameworks has on those organizations and how those impacts are then subjected to their
LGBTQ clients through those agencies and organizations. This implication follows suit
with CSWE’s educational policy 2.1.7.
Macro Level Implications
86
The CSWE’s educational policy 2.1.6 conditions that social work much engage in
research-informed practice and practice-informed research, meaning that social workers
should engage in practices that are evidenced based and found to be beneficial by
research. However, some social workers and other professional helpers engage in a
practice called conversion therapy and other practices that diminish LGBTQ identity, and
these practices have been found to be harm, not effective, damaging, and only back by
discriminatory religious frameworks. Conversion therapy and other diminishing practices
should be reevaluated and banned as a common practice. Assessment of social workers is
an integral component for competency based education and practice (CSWE’s
educational policy 4.0), and all social workers will have to be evaluated on their
understanding of how religious frameworks impact society and LGBTQ individuals both
on the individual level and within the family structure. This form of assessment should
not only be at the educational level, but within the licensure and job related levels.
Since diversity, and a commitment to diversity, is a main part of social work, by
CSWE’s educational policy 3.1, an implication would be for social workers to recognize
and advocate for a national policy change for marriage equality that will allow LGBTQ
individuals to marry. Acknowledging that religious frameworks has an impact on the
sexual identity development of LGBTQ individuals, ensuring diversity within the frame
of marriage will assist in lessoning the impact that religious frameworks wiled. CSWE’s
educational policy 3.5 reports that social workers should have adequate resources for
creating, maintaining, and improving the well-being of others and fighting for social
justice. Universities will have to continually do research on how religious frameworks
87
impacts sexual identity development, allowing new generations of researchers to learn
from this information and add to it as they go through these rigorous programs.
Recommendations
After reviewing the research data of this study and the review of literature
pertaining to this topic, there were several recommendations to be made in the areas of
practice, behavior, policy, and research on multiple levels including micro, mezzo, and
macro.
Micro Level Recommendations
One of the first recommendations for the micro level pertains to practice, and it is
recommended that all social workers receive additional training in regards to sexual
identity development, the ‘coming out process’, and how religious frameworks influence
and affect the identity development of LGBTQ individuals. Religious frameworks play
an essential part in the lives of individuals and society, especially in the social
construction of values and meanings of terms and identities, and social workers would
benefit from having additional training in how religious frameworks operate within the
larger society, and on the individual level within identity development. A behavioral
recommendation is that social workers and other professionals approach towards LGBTQ
identity development should be one as a learner, rather than an expert, and allow their
clients to lead them on the journey and importance of identity development. On a policy
level, this author recommends that marriage equality should be recognized by all social
workers and professionals. Due to the social construction and power differential that
marriage has on society and individual’s identity, marriage recognition becomes an
88
important aspect to policies that influence the micro level interaction of social workers
and their clients. Furthermore, it is recommended that further research is done on
identifying how religious frameworks affects the sexual-identity development/selfdisclosure of younger LGBTQ individuals beginning at the average age of ‘coming out’
(16 years or younger), so as to tap into the actual process of identity integration as it
happens.
Mezzo Level Recommendations
Mezzo level recommendations are aimed at the organization level, which can
include but are not limited to, agencies, organizations, and families. On the mezzo level,
it is recommended that social workers assess and engage families about their religious
frameworks and the affects that it has on the whole family system, especially in regards
to sexual identity development of the young adults. Behaviorally, organizations, such as
agencies should ensure that the way they engage LGBTQ individuals does not impose
religious ideas on their LGBTQ clients, and can act as buffers between the religiousness
of society and their LGBTQ clients. In this case, agency can ensure that religious
frameworks engage with LGBTQ individuals in a respectful and empowering way.
On a policy aspect, it is recommended that organizations and agencies reevaluate
their policies in regards to religion and spirituality to respect and acknowledge the
overwhelming impact that religious frameworks have on society, individuals, and
LGBTQ individuals. Also, to ensure their policies respect the developmental process,
both sexual and spiritual, of LGBTQ individuals. Furthermore, this research recommends
that more research is needed to be conducted to identify the impact that the religious
89
underpinnings of social agencies have on LGBTQ individuals that might interact with
those agencies, such as homeless shelters and other social welfare agencies.
Marco Level Recommendations
Macro level recommendations are aimed at the national level including all social
workers, organizations (NASW, universities), policy, and research aimed at the national
and governmental level. Based on the information gleamed from this study, it is
recommended that there is a reevaluation of conversion therapy and any
therapy/intervention that devalues an individual’s sexual identity. The government,
originations, and other state regulatory bodies should follow the example of the State of
California and ban the use of conversion therapy for anyone under the age of 18, and
should be expanded to fully ban it due to its harmful effects, and the evidence that
religious frameworks can cause harm to the sexual identity development/self-disclosure
of LGBTQ individuals. It is recommended that LGBTQ marriages become recognized as
legal and given the same level of respect and acceptance as those of heterosexual
marriages to ensure that macro level policies help limit the effects of religious
frameworks on the sexual identity development of LGBTQ individuals. It is
recommended that all research geared towards LGBTQ individuals be respectful and
cognizant of the implications for LGBTQ individuals that religious attitudes can and do
have on them.
Limitations
This study must be considered and understood within the context of its
limitations. There were several limitations within this study. One of the main limitations
90
of this research study was the small sample size. There are two general problems
connected to having a small sample size, the first being that statistical tests normally
require a large sample size to find significant relationships within the data. Secondly, a
larger random sample is required in order to generalize information to the larger
population, but since this study had such a small sample size, it cannot be generalized to
the larger LGBTQ population and cannot be considered to be representative of the larger
population.
Additionally, since this is a non-random purposive sample it lacks internal
validity and is susceptible to threats to its internal validity. Threats to this study’s internal
validity include, but not limited to, history, maturation, instrumentation, and selection.
The history of the respondents and the changes that affect them are very important
influences on the data collected from this study; additionally, maturation or the natural
change of the respondents during this research study could affect the results. Both of
these phenomenon are threats to the internal validity of this study because they could
count as alternative explanations for many of the results found. Furthermore, the selection
process of the respondents was not as random or varied as it could have been, and that
could lead to explain the differences in the results.
Additionally limitations to this research study is that (a) all respondents were over
the age of 18,(b) measures used to collect the data, and (c) all respondents were college
students at California State University, Sacramento. With the national average age of
coming out for LGBTQ people resting at 16 years of age, this study was limited by only
surveying individuals over the age of 18. The average age of respondents in this study
91
was 25 years old, many of these individuals had years to contemplate and process any
conflicts that could have existed between their sexual identities and their religious
frameworks. Furthermore, many of these individuals could have gone through multiple
changes of identity and/or faith before taking part in this survey. The limitations within
the measures were based on the fact that the questions posed were very present tense, and
framed in a way to inquire about respondents’ sexual identity development status in the
present time, rather than questioning the development of their sexual identity over a
period of time. The questions asked respondents to look at themselves now, rather than
over their life span, which could have given different results. Moreover, since the
respondents were only from California State University, Sacramento, it further limits the
scope of the research study. CSU Sacramento is a limited geographical area that could
not possibly contain all the views and life experiences indicative of the larger population.
Moreover, two additional areas of limitations is the lack of prior research studies
on this topic and the self-reported data of the respondents. There was not an exhaustive
level of research and literature on this subject of analyzing religious frameworks as an
obstacle to the healthy self-identity development/self-disclosure of LGBTQ individuals.
Though research and literature reviewed discussed religion, sexual orientation, and/or the
combination of both, rarely did it look for the effects or study the effects of religious
frameworks on self-identified LGBTQ individuals and their self-disclosure process.
Furthermore, self-reported information can rarely be independently verified and the
information provided by the respondents must be taken at face value. Since this research
92
study is based on self-reported information that self-reported information cannot be
indecently verified as accurate and must be taken at face value.
There are two limitations that are present due to the researcher. The status of
being a graduate student limits the researchers’ capabilities by being confined by the
confines of the human subjects committee at California State University, Sacramento,
and is limited by the constraints of time. This research study was to be completed in a
limited amount of time (one academic year) rather than being given a more broad scope
of time to be fully developed and tested across groups of individuals. Furthermore, the
human subjects’ protocol limited the researcher access only to individuals from the Queer
Center on the school’s campus.
Conclusion
Researcher initiated this research project with the study question regarding
religious frameworks as an obstacle to the healthy self-identity development/selfdisclosure of LGBTQ individuals. The researcher was able to review prominent literature
on subjects regarding religion, spirituality, religious frameworks, sexuality, sexual
identity development, self-disclosure of LGBTQ individuals, and the many different
ways that the interact with each other. The researcher also studied and presented
theoretical frameworks, such as social constructionism, feminism, and Queer theory, as
means of explaining and creating a foundation for this research and the concepts within
them. Moreover, the researcher collected data in regards to further understanding the
impacts that religious frameworks have on LGBTQ individual’s self-identity
93
development and self-disclosure. Lastly, major findings were presented in the research
context.
94
References
(2011). Merriam-webster dictionary. (Revised ed.). Merriam Webster Mass Market.
Ackerly, B., & True, J. (2008). Reflexivity in practice: Power and ethics in feminist
research on international relations. International Studies Review, 10, 693-707.
Arnett, J. (2005). The developmental context of substance use in emerging adulthood.
Journal of Drug Issues, 35, 235-254. Doi:10.1177/002204260503500202
Basile, K. C., Hall, J. E., & Walters, M. L. (2013). Expanding resource theory and
feminist-informed therory to explain intimate partner violence perpetration by
court-ordered men. Violence Against Women, 19(7), 848-880. doi:
10.1177/1077801213497105
Bond, B. J., Hefner, V., & Drogos, K. L. (2009). Infromation-seeking practices during the
sexual development of lesian, gay, and bisexual individuals: The influence and
effects of coming out in a mediated environment. Journal of Sexuality & Culture,
13, 32-20. doi: 10.1007/s12119-008-9041-y
Bregman, H. R., Malik, N. M., Page, M. J. L., Makynen, E., & Lindahl, K. M. (2012).
Identity profiles in lesbian, gay and bisexual youth: The role of family influences.
Journal of Youth Adolescence, 42, 417-430. doi: 10.1007/s10964-012-9798-z
Butler, J. (1990) Gender trouble: feminism and the subversion of identity. New York:
Routledge.
Callaway, C. A. (2011). Keeping score: The consequential critique of religion.
International Journal for Philosophy of Religion, (70), 231-246. doi:
10.1007/s11153-011-9311-8
95
Cass, V. C. (1979). Homosexual identity formation: A theoretical model. Journal of
Homosexuality, 4(3), 219-235.
Clarke, V., Ellis, S. J., Peel, E., & Riggs, D. W. (2010). Lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans &
quuer psychology: An introduction. (1st ed.). New York, NY: Cambridge
University Press.
CSWE (2008). Educational policy and accreditation standards. Retrieved from Councsil
on Social Work Education website: http://www.cswe.org/File.aspx?id=41861
Gorsuch, R. L., & McPherson, S. E. (1989). Intrinsic/Extrinsic measurement: I/E-revised
and single-item scales. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 28(3), 348–
354.
Gibson, L. E., & Hensley, C. (2013). The social construction of sexuality in prison. The
Prison Journal, 93(3), 355-370. doi: 10.1177/0032885513490503
Grayman-Simpson, N., & Mattis, J. S. (2013). If it wasn't for the church:
Organizational religiosity and informal community helping among afrian
american adults. Journal of African American Studies, 17, 243-252. doi:
10.1007/s12111-012-9213-6
Griffin, H.L. (2006). Their own receive them not: African American lesbian and gays in
Black churches. Cleveland, OH: Pilgrim Press. Doi:
10.1177/135583580000601206
Harrison, V. S. (2007). Feminist philosophy of religion and the problem of
epistemic privilege. Heythrop Journal, 685-696.
96
Hendricks, M. (2011, May 29). Interview by B Krondorfer []. Diversity of sexuality in
Islam., Retrieved from www.echoinggreen.org/fellows/muhsin-hendricks
Jackson, P.A. (1998). Male homosexuality and transgenderism in the Thai Buddhist
tradition. Queer Dharma: Voices of Gay Buddhists, 1, 78-83.
Krause, N. (2012). Valuing the life experience of old adults and change in depressive
symptoms: Exploring an overlooked benefit of involvement in religion. Journal of
Aging and Health, 24(2), 227-249. doi: 10.1177/0898264311412598
Kubicek, K., McDavitt, B., Carpineto, J., Weiss, G., Iverson, E. F., & Kipke, M.
D. (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(601), 601-633. doi: 10.1177/0743558409341078
Levy, D. L., & Reeves, P. (2011). Resolving identity conflict: Gay, lesbian, and queer
individuals with a christian upbringing. Journal of Gay & Lesbian Social
Services, 23, 53-68.
Lapinski, J., & McKirnan, D. (2013). Forgive me father for I have sinned: The role of a
Christian upbringing on lesbian, gay, and bisexual identity development. Journal
of Homosexuality, 60(6), 853-872. doi: 10.1080/00918369.2013.774844
Maher, M. J. (2007). Gay and lesbian students in catholic high schools: A qualitative
study of alumni narratives. Catholic Education: A Journal of Inquiry and
Practice, 10(4), 449-472.
97
Malcomnson, K.M., Christopher, A.N., Franzen, T., & Keyes, B.J. (2006). The Protestant
work ethic, religious beliefs, and homonegative attitudes. Mental Health,
Religion, & Culture, 9, 435-447. Doi:10.1080/13694670500264068
Martini, N. F. (2012). "la iglesia" in politics? Religion and Latino public opinion.
Social Science Quarterly, 93(4), 988-1006. doi: 10.1111/j.15406237.2012.00867.x
Merril, R. M., Steffen, P., & Hunter, B. D. (2012). A comparison of religious orientation
and health between whites and hispanics. Journal of Religious Health, 51, 12611277. doi: 10.1007/s10943-010-9432-x
Miller, R.L. (2005). An appointment with God: AIDS, place, and spirituality. Journal of
Sex Research, 42, 35-45. doi:10.1080/0022449050955225
Minton, H. L. (1997). Queer theory: Historical roots and implications for psychology.
Theory and Psychology, 7(3), 337-353.
Mochon, D., Norton, M. I., & Ariely, D. (2011). Who benefits from religion?. Social
Indicators Research, 101, 1-15. doi: 10.1007/s11205-010-9637-0
Mohr, J. J., & Fassinger, R. E. (2000). Measuring dimensions of lesbian and gay male
experience. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 33,
66-90.
Morris, J. J., (1997). Lesbian coming out as a multidimentional process. Journal of
Homosexuality, 33(2), 1-22.
Motschenbacher, H., & Stegu, M. (2013). Queer linguistic approaches to disourse.
Discourse & Society, 24(5), 519-535. doi: 10.1177/0957926513486069
98
Motyl, A. J. (2010). The social construction of social construction: Implications
for theories of nationalism and identity formation. Nationalities Papers, 38(1),
59-71. doi: 10.1080/00905990903394508
Newcomb, M. E., & Mustanski, B. (2010). Internalized homophobia and internalizing
mental health problems: A meta-analytic review. Clinical Psychology Review,
30(8), 1019-1029.
Numrich, P. D. (2009). The problem with sex according to Buddhism. Dialog: A Journal
of Theology, 48(1), 62-73.
Parekh, S. (2006). Researching lgb youths in India: Still a distant dream. Journal Of Gay
& Lesbian Issues In Education, 3(2/3), 147-150.
Richardson, D. (2007). Patterned fluidities: (re)imagining the relationship
between gender and sexuality. Sociology, 41(3), 457-474. doi:
10.1177/0038038507076617
Robert, D. L. (2009). Christian mission: How christianity became a world
religion. (1st ed.). New York, NY: Wiley-Blackwell.
Robinson, B.A. (1999). Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance: Policies of
religious groups towards homosexuals and homosexuality. Ontario, Canada:
Kingston
Rosario, M., Hunter, J., Maguen, S., Gwadz, M., & Smith, R. (2001). The
coming-out process and its adaptational and health related associations among
gay, lesbian, and bisexual youths: Stipulation and exploration of a model.
American Journal of Community Psychology, 29(1), 113-160.
99
Rosario, M., Schrimshaw, E. W., & Hunter, J. (2008). Predicting different
patterns of sexual identity development over time among lesbian, gay, and
bisexual youths: A cluster ananlytic approach. American Journal of Community
Psychology, 42(3-4), 266-282.
Rosario, M., Schrimshaw, E. W., Hunter, J., & Braun, L. (2006). Sexual identity
development among lesbian, gay, and bisexual youths: Consistency and change
over time. Journal of Sex Research, 43, 46-58.
Rowan, C.J., & Malcolm, J. P. (2002). Correlates of internalized homophobia and
homosexual identity formation in a sample of gay men. Journal of
Homosexuality, 43(2), 77-92.
Rubin, A., & Babbie, E. (2010). Research Methods in Social Work (7th ed.). New
York, NY: Cengage Learning.
Sanjakdar, F. (2013. Educating for sexual difference? Muslim teachers’ conversations
about homosexuality. Sex Education, 13(1), 16-29.
Doi:10.1080/14681811.2011.634154
Savin-Williams, R. C. (2001). A critique of research on sexual-minority youths. Journal
of Adolescence, 24(1), 5-13.
Schilbrack, K. (2012). The social construction of "religion" and its limits: A critical
reading of timothy fitzgerald. Method and Theory in the Study of Religion, 24, 97117. doi: 10.1163/157006812x634872
Schuck, K. D., & Liddle, B. J. (2001). Religious conflicts experienced by lesbian, gay,
and bisexual individuals. Journal of Gay & Lesbian Psychotherapy, 5(2), 63-82.
100
Southern baptist conventon position statement: Sexuality. (2013). Retrieved from
http://www.sbc.net/aboutus/pssexuality.asp
Szymanski, D. M., Kashubeck-West, S., & Meyer, J. (2008). Internalized
heterosexualism: Measurement, psychosocial correlates, and research direction.
Counseling Psychologist, 36, 525-574.
Tan, P. P. (2005). The importance of spirituality among gay and lesbian individuals.
Journal of Homosexuality, 49(2), 135-144. doi: 10.1300/J082v49n02_08
Troiden, R. R. (1989). The formation of homosexual identities. Journal of
Homosexuality, 17(1-2), 43-73.
Vaughan, M. D., & Waehler, C. A. (2010). Coming out growth: Conceptualizing and
measuring stress related growth associated with coming out to others as a sexual
minority. Journal of Adult Development, 17, 94-109. doi: 10.1007/s10804-0099084-9
Walker, J. J., & Longmire, B. (2013). The impact of religious faith and internalized
homonegativity on resiliency for black lesbian, gay, and bisexual emerging adults.
Developmental Psychology, 49(9), 1723-1731. doi: 10.1037/a0031059
Watson, J. (2008). Can children and young people learn from atheism for spiritual
development: A response to the national framework for religious education.
British Journal of Religious Education, 30(1), 49-58. doi:
10.1080/01416200701711717
101
What is the denomination's position on homosexuality?. (2012). Retrieved from
http://www.umc.org/site/apps/nlnet/content3.aspx?c=lwL4KnN1LtH&b=4746363
&ct=3169111