A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF GLB INDIVIDUALS/COUPLES
AND HETEROSEXUAL INDIVIDUALS/COUPLES
A Project
Presented to the faculty of the Division of Social Work
California State University, Sacramento
Submitted in partial satisfaction of
the requirements for the degree of
MASTER OF SOCIAL WORK by
Mei Ling Ting
SPRING
2013

A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF GLB INDIVIDUALS/COUPLES
AND HETEROSEXUAL INDIVIDUALS/COUPLES
A Project by
Mei Ling Ting
Approved by:
__________________________________, Committee Chair
Serge Lee, PhD.
____________________________
Date ii

Student: Mei Ling Ting
I certify that this student has met the requirements for format contained in the University format manual, and that this project is suitable for shelving in the Library and credit is to be awarded for the project.
__________________________________, Graduate Coordinator, _________________
Dale Russell, Ed.D., LCSW Date
Division of Social Work iii

Abstract of
A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF GLB INDIVIDUALS/COUPLES
AND HETEROSEXUAL INDIVIDUALS/COUPLES by
Mei Ling Ting
Based on the national probability online survey “How Couples Meet and Stay Together,” this exploratory study focuses on the variables of socio-demographic characteristics, religiosity, and relationship quality in comparing heterosexual and non-heterosexual individuals and couples. Current literature contains limited empirical research on the gay men, lesbian, and bisexual populations. The studies available mostly rely on small convenience samples of qualitative design. Clearly, large random quantitative samples are needed for stronger generalizability. This secondary data analysis is an attempt to fill such gap. Findings suggest that same-sex couples and different-sex couples are more similar than different, except in the demographics of education and income. The results will inform the cultural competence of social workers who work with sexual minority groups.
____________________________, Committee Chair
Serge Lee, PhD.
_______________________
Date iv

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
A heartfelt thank you goes to my husband Ben who encouraged and affirmed me in this strenuous journey. Without your loving support, the completion of this project would not have been possible. v

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Acknowledgments......................................................................................................... v
List of Tables .............................................................................................................. ix
Chapter
1. STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM .......................................................................1
Background of the Problem ..............................................................................3
Statement of the Research Problem .................................................................. 6
Study Purpose…………………………….…………………………………....6
Theoretical Framework ......................................................................................7
Definition of Terms............................................................................................9
Assumptions .....................................................................................................11
Social Work Research Justification .................................................................11
Study Limitations ............................................................................................ 12
2. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE ...................................................................... 13
Themes ............................................................................................................ 14
Theme 1: Socio-demographic Characteristics .............................................. 15
Summary ..............................................................................................15
Limitations ...........................................................................................16
Theme 2: Religiosity .......................................................................................17
Summary ..............................................................................................18 vi

Limitations ...........................................................................................21
Theme 3: Quality of Relationships .................................................................22
Relationship with Partner .....................................................................22
Summary ..............................................................................................23
Limitations ...........................................................................................26
Relationship with Family of Origin .....................................................27
Summary ..............................................................................................28
Limitations ...........................................................................................29
Social Work Practice with GLB Communities ................................................30
3. METHODS ........................................................................................................... 32
Study Objectives ............................................................................................. 32
Study Design ...................................................................................................33
Sampling Procedures .......................................................................................34
Data Collection Procedures ..............................................................................35
Instruments .......................................................................................................35
Data Analysis ...................................................................................................36
Protection of Human Subjects ........................................................................37
4. STUDY FINDINGS AND DISCUSSIONS ......................................................... 39
Specific Findings .............................................................................................40
Interpretations to the Findings .........................................................................50 vii

5. CONCLUSION, SUMMARY, AND RECOMMENDATIONS …………... 57
Overall Summary .............................................................................................57
Implications for Social Work ..........................................................................60
Suggestions for Future Research ....................................................................64
Study Limitations .............................................................................................65
References .................................................................................................................. 68 viii

LIST OF TABLES
Tables Page
1.
Education .......................................................................................................... 41
2.
Household Income ............................................................................................ 42
3.
Race/Ethnicity ................................................................................................... 43
4.
Religion ............................................................................................................. 44
5.
Religion Today Same as Age 16 ....................................................................... 46
6.
GLB Quality of Relationship with Partner ....................................................... 47
7.
GLB Length of Relationship with Partner ........................................................ 47
8.
Parental Approval of Partner for GLB and Heterosexual Couples ................... 48
9.
Relationship Satisfaction GLB vs. Heterosexual ............................................. 49
10.
Calculated Length of Relationship GLB vs. Heterosexual ............................... 50 ix

1
Chapter 1
STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM
One of the highly politicized subjects of modern day is the topic of homosexuality. Homosexuality evokes strong feelings because it touches on a deeper level of one’s personal belief system - a set of values that guides individuals’ sense of
who they are and how they should live (Adamczyk & Pitt, 2009). Currently, two
dichotomous worldviews exist whose value systems seemingly oppose one another, the traditional worldview versus the progressive worldview (Hodge, 2005). In the traditional framework, values are rooted in religious teachings on morality while the progressive concepts espouse values that reflect current-day postmodern ethics. Nowhere is this clash more salient than in the political arena. The conflict arises because religion frequently sets the standards upon which social norms in general, and sexual behaviors in
particular, are deemed acceptable (Halkitis, Mattis, Sahadath et al., 2009). As the gay
rights movement picked up steam after the 1969 Stonewall Riots (Oldmixon & Calfano,
2007), religious traditionalism and liberal progressivism were headed for a collision
course.
Public opinions differ on a variety of issues related to sexual orientation. Some argue that the nature of homosexuality is innate and unchanging (Armour, 2010). Others
insist that same-gender preferences are by choice and changeable (Malony, 2005). The
implications of this debate can be seen by the policies proffered by the gay rights movement. Seeking to legitimize their status, the gay population advocates such legislations as anti-discriminatory practices in the work place (Mizrahi & Davis, 2008),

2 legal recognition of same-sex marriage (Herek, 2006; Oldmixon & Calfano, 2007), and stiffer penalties for hate crimes against non-heterosexuals (Mizrahi & Davis). Believing that being gay is inborn has been shown to increase support for gay rights (Lewis, 2009).
At the same time, religious affiliation is a strong predictor of opposition to same-sex
marriage rights (Sherkat, de Vries & Creek, 2010). When embroiled in legal wrangle, it
is easy to forget the faces behind the issues. Politics notwithstanding, gay men, lesbians, and bisexuals are individuals who deserve the same dignity and respect as heterosexuals.
Sexual minority groups in society are unduly defined by sexual orientation despite the fact that sexuality is but one aspect of selfhood. With the level of social contention surrounding the GLBT community, surprisingly little empirical data is available.
Quantifying the number of people who are self-identified as gay, lesbian, or bisexual in the general population has been challenging. No data exist that represent a definitive percentage of the population who are gay, lesbian, or bisexual. This is partly difficult because there is no universal nominal definition of what constitutes gayness.
Even the United Nations (UN) and the World Health Organization (WHO) do not have a uniform operational definition for the term gay. For example, in a research study conducted by Kring, Johnson, Davison, and Neale (2010), 30% of respondents claim they would not mind having a same-sex partner. Should society automatically presume these individuals as gay? Does having same-sex attraction or the perception of “don’t mind” qualify one as being gay? Furthermore, of those who experience same-sex attractions, how many actually live a gay lifestyle? Should only those who come out be considered gay since they have come fully into a gay or lesbian identity? Despite the lack of clarity,

3 statistics from general surveys suggest that 3% to 10% of the population in the United
States are considered gay (Ganzevoort, Mar 2011). Lofquist, Lugalia, O’Connell, and
Feliz (2012) analyzed the 2010 census and stated that the number of same-sex unmarried partner households doubled from 2000 to 2010, from 358,000 to 646,000, respectively, of all households (total 116.7 million households). This means that the percentage of samesex unmarried partner households in the United States constituted roughly 0.6% of all households in 2010, with most residing in the western region (Lofquist et al.) Clearly, more research is needed to gain adequate data regarding the gay and lesbian populations in the United States.
Background of the Problem
What dearth of information is known about gay and lesbian individuals tells a story of struggles. One of the areas of personal conflict lies in the sexual orientation development of gay and lesbian young people. A dominant theory often used to understand gay and lesbian sexual identity development is the Cass Model (Cass, 1979).
Cass outlines a six-stage model that postulates the sequential development of a gay or lesbian self-identity.
The first stage is Identity Confusion. This is the time when persons first become self-aware of their same-sex attraction. Confusion and turmoil are typical feelings of this phase. The second stage is characterized by Identity Comparison. Individuals at this juncture wrestle with acceptance of their sexual orientation. Those who reject it can experience self-alienation, while others who accept it may grieve for losses of what they give up by embracing their sexual orientation. The third stage is about Identity

4
Tolerance. In this period, a person becomes more committed to being gay or lesbian and actively seeks out other like-minded individuals for companionship. The fourth stage involves Identity Acceptance, whereby individuals self-identify as gay or lesbian and may come out to their friends and family. In the fifth stage of Identity Pride, persons will likely segregate the world into homosexual and heterosexual binary point of view, and immerse themselves heavily into the gay culture. The sixth stage is typified by Identity
Synthesis. One’s sexual identity is integrated as an aspect of the self, but it does not represent the whole self. However, anger toward heterosexism can still exist at this time.
It is difficult to determine the length of time it takes a person to go through this process, and whether everyone goes through this same process in the same sequence. Moreover, variations in development can be reasonably expected because of individual uniqueness.
In other words, depending on life circumstances and environmental influences, GLB individuals differ in their degree of self-acceptance and self-disclosure regarding their
sexual orientation ((Mohr & Fassinger, 2003). Per literature searches to support the Cass
Theory, the author of this Master’s Project cannot find any current theory that describes the identity development of bisexual or transgender persons.
Another area of difficulty that gay, lesbian, and bisexual (GLB) individuals may encounter is in the formation of a religious identity. Religious beliefs influence one’s sense of sexual identity (McMinn, 2005). Given the antagonism between the religious institutions and the gay communities, little is known about the importance and meaning
of spirituality and religion in the lives of GLBT adults (Halkitis, Mattis, Sahadath et al.,
2009). No one knows what percentage of the GLBT population would consider

5 themselves as spiritual or religious. However, surveys have suggested that as high as
70% of the general population indicates that religion plays an important part in their lives
(Halkitis, et al., 2009). Equally important, sexual identity development and religious
identity formation can happen simultaneously, and leave the individual with conflictual
feelings (Sherry, Adelman, Whilde, & Quick, 2010). These competing emotions can
wreak havoc in the person’s psychological health. Studies have shown that GLB youth have displayed significant mental health issues, such as attempted suicide, major depression, eating disorders, generalized anxiety disorders, poor self-esteem, substance abuse, and comorbid diagnoses (Elizur & Ziv, 2001). The increased risk for mental illness is often attributed to the stigma and social alienation of being gay in a predominantly heterosexual society (Hodge, 2005). Furthermore, GLB persons who are religious may experience harsher reactions in the gay community than in the religious
communities (Sherry, et al., 2010). Since being gay and religious is often interpreted as
antithetical, religiously affiliated gender-nonconforming individuals may experience rejection both in church and in the gay community.
Finally, gay, lesbian, and bisexual persons not only struggle with their sexual identity formation and religious identity, but also in their interpersonal relationships.
There is indication that GLB persons receive less family support compared to their heterosexual counterpart (Elizur & Mintzer, 2003). Although studies have suggested that family support makes it easier for youth to cope with their sexual identity, parents are
often the last persons that individuals would disclose their sexual orientation (Mohr &
Fassinger, 2003). Families have been known to reject and ostracize those who came out.

6
Therefore, full-disclosure to one’s family of origin may not happen for many years, during the time when individuals struggle alone with same-gender feelings. However, some families may change their mind after the initial shock. When families embrace their gay loved-ones, GLB individuals benefit greatly from a sense of well-being, feelings of self-worth, and attachment security (Elizur & Ziv, 2001). Furthermore, social support and attachment security has been linked to relationship quality for same-sex couples
(Elizur & Mintzer, 2003). The idea is that secure attachment is associated with relationship stability and relationship satisfaction. Conversely, negative attachment styles tend to create distrust, emotional distance, and fear of intimacy between same-sex couples. Clearly, sexual minorities experience an array of stressors unique to themselves.
Statement of the Research Problem
Currently, the literature review reveals scant information about same-sex couples as compared to heterosexual couples. Research that is available relied heavily on convenience samples. Moreover, most of the studies utilized qualitative methods that were conducted on small sampling sizes, which limits generalizability. This study exhibits several methodological improvements over prior research. First, it consists of a national probability sample. Second, it uses quantitative methods to collect a significant amount of data. Third, this is a longitudinal study. All of these factors strengthen the generalizability of the outcomes to the United States adult population.
Study purpose. This research is an exploratory study that focuses on the perspective of providing social services to GLB individuals/couples. The study hopes to determine whether there are significant differences between GLB individuals/couples and

7 heterosexual individuals/couples to justify differing approaches to treatment and/or case management. The study aims to gather data regarding the socio-demographic characteristics, level of religiosity, and quality of relationships among same-sex couples as compared to opposite-sex couples. The collected data hopefully will assist social workers to be culturally competent in serving the sexual minority groups.
Secondary analysis of the HCMST data set will seek to provide answers to the following questions: How alike and different are gay men, lesbians, and bisexuals from their heterosexual counterpart in terms of their education and household income, race/ethnicity and religiosity? Are there correlations between religion and relationship satisfaction and religion and length of relationship for GLB individuals? How do the approval rates of the couples’ relationships by their families of origin compare between heterosexual couples and non-heterosexual couples? How do the rates of relationship satisfaction compare for the same-sex couples and the different-sex couples? And how do the length of relationships compare between same-sex couples and different-sex couples? To answer these questions, descriptive statistics are presented based on the published data set of “How Couples Meet and Stay Together (HCMST),” Wave 1 which occurred in 2009; Wave 2 occurred in 2010, and Wave 3 occurred in 2011 in theo United
States.
Theoretical framework. Social constructionism (as cited by Greene, 2008) is a postmodern theory that assumes that truth is the product of social construction in which there are no absolutes. Values, traditions, and culture are all social constructs that heavily influence people’s cognitive schemata. Hence, individuals create their own

8 reality by the meaning they attribute to their subjective experiences. Further, the meaning given to experiences has an effect on how people behave. Regardless of age, human beings are constantly reconstructing their personal sense of self. Problems do not exist within individuals, but rather are identified within social and cultural, political and relational contexts. The role of the social worker is to support the clients in their deconstruction of negative meanings, to facilitate the restorying of clients’ narratives, and to draw on clients’ strengths and resources for solutions of change.
Social constructionism is an indispensable framework to the understanding of the intricate issues discussed in this research topic. Before postmodernity, gender roles and sexual identities were prescribed by cultural norms and generally accepted by social consensus. Children were brought up with gender-specific assumptions, among which was the expectation of eventually forming adult heterosexual partnerships. These cultural norms were inculcated and maintained by the traditional social institutions such as the political and legal systems. Not to be overlooked, however, is the influence of organized religion. To varying degrees, all major religious traditions united their respective adherents with a shared vision of reality and meaning – that is, a meta-narrative. To belong to a religion is to, at least implicitly, accept its spiritual and moral principles, including sexual ethics. In this way, religious affiliation served to enforce the traditional sexual and gender differences.
With the advent of postmodernity, shared social values gave way to subjectivism, and traditional notions about gender and sexuality steadily lost their hold. Consistent with postmodern thinking, social constructivism believes that a person’s sense of self is a

9 social construct which is open to deconstruction and recreation (Greene, 2008).
Liberated from the strictures of religious beliefs, sexual morality becomes a matter of self-determination. In this context, homosexuality is precisely about deconstructing traditional ideas about sex, sexual orientation, gender expression, and gender identity
(Wilchins, 2004).
Does the rejection of religious-sanctioned views concerning sexuality necessarily mean the rejection of the religion itself? From the view of most organized religions, the gay lifestyle is incompatible with traditional teachings. And from the gay population’s perspective, it stands to reason that they would not remain under spiritual authorities that condemn a very fundamental aspect of who they are. Judging by the on-going rancor in the social and political arenas, there indeed appears to be little wiggle room out of this conundrum of mutual rejection.
Surprisingly, research data shows otherwise. According to this study, a significant percentage of gay, lesbian, and bisexual individuals are found to be still religious. Arguably, a significant portion of GLB individuals is attempting to integrate both postmodern sentiments and traditional values.
Definition of terms.
Bisexual – A person who has both male and female organs or is sexually attracted to both men and women ( Webster’s New World College Dictionary , 2008).
Christian – A person professing belief in Jesus as the Christ, or in the religion based on the teachings of Jesus (
Webster’s New World College Dictionary
, 2008).

10
Christianity – The religion and followers that believe in the teachings of Jesus (
Webster’s
New World College Dictionary , 2008).
Gay - The term preferred by many people with a homosexual orientation, primarily males, in describing themselves and their sexual orientation ( The Social Work Dictionary ,
2003).
Heterosexual – of or characterized by sexual desire for those of the opposite sex
( Webster’s New World College Dictionary , 2008).
Heterosexuality - Association with and orientation toward sexual activity with members of the opposite sex ( The Social Work Dictionary , 2003).
Homosexual – of or characterized by sexual desire for those of the same sex as oneself
(
Webster’s New World College Dictionary
, 2008).
Homosexuality - The sexual or erotic orientation by some men and women for members of their same sex. This orientation is not considered to be a mental disorder. The term is used for men and women ( The Social Work Dictionary , 2003).
Lesbian - A woman whose sexual or erotic orientation is for other women ( The Social
Work Dictionary , 2003).
Religion – Any specific system of belief and worship, often involving a code of ethics and a philosophy (
Webster’s New World College Dictionary
, 2008).
Religious – Characterized by adherence to religion or a religion; devout; pious; godly
(
Webster’s New World College Dictionary
, 2008).

11
Spirituality - Devotion to the immaterial part of humanity and nature rather than worldly things such as possessions; an orientation to people’s religious, moral, or emotional nature ( The Social Work Dictionary , 2003).
Assumptions.
1.
All human beings are made up of body, mind, and spirit. Therefore, the physical, psychological, and spiritual components are essential parts of their self-identity.
2.
All human beings have an inherent need for connection with others regardless of their sexual orientation.
3.
Currently a cultural war exists at the intersection of homosexuality and law, sexuality and morality in the United States.
Social work research justification. Current literature review suggests that there is limited data regarding gay, lesbian, and bisexual populations. Social workers often are trained in issues and interventions pertaining to heterosexual clients but not gay consumers. Yet gay communities are known to be quite diverse in terms of their age, ethnicity, and religion, among others. Knowing how diversity among sexual minorities relates to identity and relationships is crucial to providing effective mental health services. This study attempts to fill the gap of knowledge regarding gay individuals because many of the heterosexual practitioners who work with GLB clients are not familiar with their clients’ identity and relational issues. Consequently, they do not feel competent in working with this population (Elizur & Ziv, 2001). It is the purpose of this study to explore the similarities and differences between gay persons and their heterosexual counterparts in order to know the extent to which interventions can be cross

12 applied or new treatments developed to meet the needs of various sectors of the population.
Study limitations. This research is an exploratory study of the gay community to better understand the socio-demographic characteristics, the level of religiosity, and quality of relationships with partners and family of origin. It is not a deliberation between politics and homosexuality nor an arbitration of the antipathy between traditional religion and homosexuality nor a comparison of attitudes toward homosexuality.

13
Chapter 2
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
The limited data concerning the GLB population is a well-known fact. The
existing research is typically about public opinion of homosexuality (Brown, Sep 2008;
Grov, 2006; Herek, 2006; Lewis, 2009; Olson, Jun 2006; Sherkat, de Vries, & Creek,
2010) and religious attitudes toward (Adamczyk & Pitt, 2009; Cadge, Mar 2007; Ellison,
Acevedo, & Ramos-Wada, 2011; Ford, Mar 2009; Punton, Summer 2008). In order to
gather critical information regarding the sexual minorities themselves, this literature review will address three themes related to the GLB community. Subsequent to the discussion of each theme, the limitations inherent in the research data will be considered.
In the first theme, research studies indicating the socio-demographic characteristics will be addressed. The second theme will focus on research studies about the religiosity of gay individuals. Finally, the third theme will discuss research related to relationship quality with same-sex partners and with family of origin.
The gay rights movement has made significant gains since the Stonewall Riots in
1969. The Stonewall Riots are considered by many to be the beginning of the contemporary gay rights movement (Mizrahi & Davis, 2008). Currently, the gay movement seeks equal participation in major segments of society and the right to redefine social norms on its own terms. Individuals in gay communities want the right to be married, have children, and participate in religious institutions – areas of which were once held as sacred ground by the heterosexual majority. Currently, most therapists are
utilizing their expertise with heterosexual clients to work with GLB individuals (Green,

14
2000). Such generalization of practice across populations may be inappropriate.
Therefore, the need to gain information about the unique characteristics of sexual minority individuals is more exigent than ever.
THEMES
Since so little research data is available on the GLB population, demographic data collection should be the first requisite. The information gathered will be a springboard for other research to expand in terms of social work impact. Hence, the first theme of socio-demographic data is strategic as well as foundational. Secondly, the highly politicized debate in the public arena has created an impression that homosexuality and religion cannot mix. Yet many in the GLB community are religious. However, what percentage of the GLB population is religious? And has their religious affiliations changed over time? These are a few of the questions this study will attempt to answer.
Thirdly, public perception of same-sex relationships portrays gay individuals as having hundreds of sexual partners over relatively a short time. Yet this research will show that a significant number of GLB persons are involved in long-term relationships. If so, how do same-sex couples compare to different-sex couples in terms of their relationship satisfaction and durability? Finally, practitioners frequently encourage self-identified gay persons to come out to their families because they believe that doing so promotes
psychological health (Green, 2000). When gay individuals reveal their sexual orientation
to their families of origin, do families tend to approve or disapprove of their children’s same-sex relationships? The answers to these questions will have significant implications for the way social workers serve their GLB clients.

15
Theme 1: Socio-demographic Characteristics
In an exploratory study of the GLB population, it is important to ascertain a clear picture of the socio-demographic characteristics of this subgroup. Statistical information of a population is used widely in the social sciences, such as social work, sociology, and psychology. In general, demographic profiles are useful in generating future research. In particular, these types of data are helpful in establishing and evaluating evidence-based best practices in social work. Collecting demographic data is especially relevant to the gay community because so little is known about them.
Summary. What little information is available indicates that the common perception that gay and lesbian individuals are wealthier and higher educated than the
general population may be true (Mizrahi, 2008). Same-sex male couples appear to have
higher average incomes than different-sex cohabitation couples and married couples
(Carpenter, 2004). Similarly, but not to the same degree, same-sex female couples have
average incomes that are between heterosexual cohabitation couples and married couples
(Carpenter, 2004). This suggests that gay couples have the highest income compared to
both heterosexual couples and lesbian couples. In California (where more than 15% of all same-sex couples in the United States reside), 41% to 44% of gay male couples make more than $100,000 as opposed to 29% to 40% of lesbian couples who earn more than
$100,000 (Carpenter & Gates, 2008). In addition, same-sex couples of both genders achieve higher levels of education than heterosexual couples (Carpenter, 2004). It does
make sense that higher level of educational completion often translates into more earning power.

16
Not surprisingly, income also appears to correlate with relationship quality
(Elizur, 2003). Lower income understandably adds financial stress to a relationship.
Furthermore, gay and lesbian couples that officially register as domestic partners demonstrate longer relationship duration (Carpenter & Gates, 2008). However, gay male partners experience longer relationships than lesbian couples (Carpenter & Gates, 2008).
Racially, registered gay and lesbian couples are more likely to be Caucasian, whereas both African American gay males and lesbians are very unlikely to register as domestic partnerships (Carpenter & Gates, 2008).
Limitations . However, no data is found that compares same-sex couples to nonpartnered gay men and lesbians. In the study by Carpenter and Gates (2008), couple status was defined as cohabitation, and couples who did not live together or who did not self-identify as unmarried partnerships were not considered for their research.
Furthermore, many of the aforementioned samples were small and consisted of mostly
Caucasian respondents. Hence, these studies needed to be replicated in different ethnic settings and with bisexual participants in order to generalize to a wider population. Even when the samples were large, as in the secondary data analysis of Carpenter and Gates
(2008), outcomes were limited to California. Equally important, several of the reviewed studies utilized measuring instruments that lacked detailed questions. Imprecise questions invariably can affect data quality. With the present study, the data set used is from a national random sample of over 4,000 respondents of both homosexual and heterosexual individuals and couples. As such, data analysis should yield substantially more accurate conclusions.

17
Theme 2: Religiosity
While growing up, most Americans have had religious or spiritual encounters.
This is true for GLB individuals as well. In one study, more than three quarters of the
498 gay participants were raised in religious households (Halkitis et al., 2009). Once
reached adulthood, 68% of the general population still identifies themselves as members of their original religious affiliation (Hodge, 2005). It is common knowledge that
people’s religious beliefs do influence their sexual identity formation (Ganzevoort, Mar
2011). And when their sexual identity is incongruous with their group membership, the
tension can become unbearable. To negotiate the incongruity, a sizable number of GLB individuals would change the way they describe themselves from being religious to being
more spiritual (Halkitis, et al., 2009). This distinction allows them to move beyond the
barriers to reach a level of cognitive consonance. In Halkitis et al. (2009), three quarters of participants had religious upbringing and of those, only one-fourth remained part of an organized religious institution after coming out.
Yet many GLB individuals persist in their faith because religion is a central part of the human experience. At the personal level, religion serves to provide a set of values and guiding principles that inform life’s decisions and purpose. Also, it is a source of strength for meeting life’s challenges. Communally, church-going individuals enjoy social support in their respective religious organizations, and they tend to have higher rates of volunteerism and activism (Garcia et al., 2008). For youth in general, religiosity provides a protective factor against a barrage of risky behaviors, such as alcohol and drug abuse (Rostosky et al., 2008). Likewise, many African Americans are closely involved in

18 religious congregations because these institutions have become their shelters from the
social oppression of society at large (Miller, 2007). Clearly, religion provides both
personal and social benefits.
Summary. Given the current research literature, religiosity has been studied based on gender, age, race/ethnicity, and specific religious affiliations. When comparing heterosexual men and women to gay men and women, heterosexual women are the most active in religious groups; they are also the most prayerful (Sherkat, 2002). Following heterosexual women, gay men and bisexual men are more active in religious organizations than heterosexual men. And lesbians and bisexual women are the least involved in church participation (Rostosky, 2008; Sherkat, 2002). Despite their involvement, homosexual men are the most likely to renounce their religion than heterosexual men and women, even lesbians (Sherkat, 2002). Overall, non-heterosexual individuals have been predicted to show more movement out of religion than their heterosexual counterparts.
When examining age, ethnicity, and religious affiliations of GLB individuals,
Halkitis et al. study (2009) is the most salient. The GLB individuals who belong to religious groups tend to be older as compared to gay non-attenders. Perhaps the older people get, the more they are faced with their own mortality and life after death.
According to Erikson’s Eight Stages of Man (Newman & Newman, 2009), old age precipitates a time of self-reflection on the meaning and contentment of one’s life.
Racially and ethnically, most Caucasians and Latinos profess to be Catholics, and most
African Americans claim to be Protestants. Also according to Halkitis et al. study

19
(2009), GLBT Catholics show a lower educational completion (of high school or less) than people of other religious affiliations. Conversely, gay Jewish respondents are the most likely to complete graduate degrees. Religious affiliation shifts also occur. A significant percentage of Halkitis’s respondents changed religious affiliations after reaching adulthood. Specifically, Christians and those from Eastern religions are the most likely to switch allegiance. This shift in religious affiliation is reflective of the intrapersonal struggles of being gay and religious.
Indeed, what is the nature of their intrapsychic struggles and how do gay men and lesbians resolve the tension? For those who were raised in or currently members of conservative religious contexts, the anxiety of trying to live dual identities of being gay and religious can be extremely challenging. The author of A Theory of Cognitive
Dissonance , Leon Festinger (as cited by Pitt, March 2010), posits that the inconsistency between beliefs and behaviors will cause persons to become so uncomfortable psychologically that they are driven to reducing this conflict. Festinger describes three modes that individuals use to alleviate such a stressor: First, they can change their sexual behavior; or second, they can change their religious affiliation; or third, if they choose to stay in the same religious environment, they can restructure their belief system to decrease the cognitive dissonance (Pitt, March 2010).
Consistent with Festinger’s theory, Ganzevoort and his team (2011) found that, in their research, the participants reported four strategies with which they used to negotiate the incompatibility in their sexual and religious identities. First, after struggling with the conflicting religious and homosexual elements, some individuals choose a religious

20 lifestyle. This means they will reject their same-sex attraction and embrace their religious orientation. Some go as far as to seek reorientation therapy, particularly those who found the gay lifestyle not to be emotionally satisfying or they are married men who
want to stay in their heterosexual marriages (Karten, Winter 2010). It is important to
note that reorientation therapy is condemned as unethical practice by the National
Association of Social Workers, the American Counseling Association, the American
Psychological Association, and the American Medical Association (Mizrahi & Davis,
2008). The implication for choosing the religious lifestyle is clear – they suppress their gay inclinations, which potentially can lead to mental health issues.
The second strategy for coping with the religious and sexual incongruity is to choose the gay lifestyle. This decision may come after a long struggle to overcome their same-sex attraction or after experiencing heartbreaking rejection by the religious community. For example, African American gay men with AIDS have reported a lack of support from their congregations (Miller, 2007). For these men and women, they give up their religious affiliation to fully live out their homosexual identity. The choice is clear, but it also comes at a great price. For many, it means the loss of family relationships and support of the religious community.
The third strategy is when homosexual individuals take the commuter approach to negotiate between two equally valued but conflicting identities. Identity commuters will switch between their homosexual self and religious self, depending on the social context.
They are careful not to reveal the other when operating in one social group.
Metaphorically, they have one foot in each boat, and these two worlds never merge. For

21 example, by compartmentalizing, Jewish gay men are able to be part of the gay
community and also participate in the Orthodox synagogue (Schnoor, Spring 2006).
Although the commuter strategy creates space for multiple personal identities, the toll of leading double lives is the risk of disintegration. Most people cannot be commuters for very long.
The fourth strategy for negotiating conflicting identities is called integration.
These persons have found a way to integrate their two identities by shifting to other religious groups, which are more gay affirming. One such group is the well-known
Metropolitan Community Church which has grown to international status (Gearhart,
1974). In other cases, such as Jewish gay men (Schnoor, Spring 2006) and African
American gay men (Pitt, March 2010), challenging the traditional theological perspectives on homosexuality has been a way to intersect their religious values with the gay world. In one study, 40% of the participants chose to abandon religion or change to a religious view that was more gay friendly (Sherry et al., 2010). In conclusion, there is a certain level of fluidity in these four modes of coping strategies because many gay people move in and out of these categories, depending on where they are in their life stage. In the end, most GLB individuals are able to reorganize their identities in ways that work for them (Sherry et al., 2010).
Limitations. Many of the discussed studies represented self-reported information that lent itself to possible bias (Rostosky et al., 2008, Karten & Wade, 2010).
Respondents might have exaggerated the extent of change due to social desirability factors. Equally important, for lack of a control group, no comparison could be made

22 between those who participated in the reorientation research and those who did not
(Karten, Winter 2010). In all the studies, correlations were found but no causal relationships could be drawn. Though both Halkitis et al. study (2009) and Sherry et al. research (2010) consisted of large samples of 498 and 422 respondents respectively, the samples offered limited generalizability because the participants were self-selected and homogenous - they have come out as gay, and they were predominantly White.
Additionally, Halkitis’s sample was recruited from the GLBT Pride Festival that happened in a large city, and Sherry’s sample was limited to those with Internet access.
Despite the limitations, these studies did proffer valuable contributions which shed light on the GLB population.
Theme 3: Quality of Relationships
Relationship with partner. Many gay men and lesbians find a long-term
romantic relationship with someone of the same gender to be desirable (Patterson,
November 2000). In fact, Peplau and Fingerhut (2007) found that 74% of gay men and
lesbians have expressed that they would like to marry a same-sex partner someday if same-sex marriages were legalized. Involvement in an intimate relationship has been
linked to a person’s overall well-being (Kurdek, 2004). Regarding relationship
formation, research suggests that all couples (both heterosexual and homosexual) value affection, dependability, shared interests, and similar religious beliefs (Peplau &
Fingerhut, 2007). As to relationship stability, the factors that cause heterosexual couples to stay together, such as love and relationship satisfaction, available alternative partners, and barriers to leaving the relationship, are applicable to same-sex couples as well

23
(Peplau & Fingerhut, 2007). However, it has been difficult to ascertain accurate estimates of the number of gay and lesbian couples for three primary reasons: First, some
GLB individuals are unwilling to reveal their sexual identity, much less their romantic relationships. Second, no equivalent public records of marriages and divorces are available for same-sex partners to indicate the nature of the relationships. Third, researchers have formulated differently worded questions, making comparisons difficult
(Peplau & Fingerhut, 2007). Nevertheless, research to date suggests more similarities than differences between same-sex couples and heterosexual couples.
Summary. Researchers have found similarities between same-sex couples and opposite-sex couples in the area of love and satisfaction. According to Gottman et al.
(2003), regardless of sexual orientation, couples that are engaged in romantic/sexual relationships operate on similar relationship principles. For instance, mutual partners consider relationships that show lower levels of conflict and higher levels of companionship more satisfying. Likewise, relationships that experience more positive interactions and less negative emotions are associated with higher levels of satisfaction.
In simpler terms, when couples perceive greater benefits and fewer costs, they are happier in their relationships. On a gender note, similar to heterosexual males, gay men prefer to display less emotion in their relationships than lesbians. Furthermore, men generally display more anger than women when initiating conflict resolution (Gottman, et al., 2003). Regardless of sexual orientation, women demonstrate more sadness when approached by their partners about a conflict. Clearly, gender differences persist among all types of relationships.

24
Like their heterosexual counterparts, same-sex couples tend to look for partners who possess similar backgrounds. This is called positive assortative mating. Two salient studies found that positive assortative mating occurs among all types of couples, including same-sex male couples, same-sex female couples, opposite-sex cohabiting
couples, and legally married heterosexual couples (Jepsen, 2002; Kurdek, 2003). And the
matching traits would include age and race, education and income. Any difference in matching pattern is a matter of degree rather than the type of variable. For example,
Jepsen (2002) found that married couples are most alike in characteristics than differentsex cohabiting couples, and different-sex cohabiting couples are more alike than both types of same-sex couples. The present study attempts to find similar matching patterns in regards to the demographic variable of religion. The hypothesis is that individuals seek partners who have similar religious beliefs.
Two other studies found interesting outcomes which are noteworthy. In one study, the finding suggests that income is correlated with relationship quality; that is, low income is associated with marital distress (Elizur & Mintzer, 2003). Although this study was addressing Israeli gay men, it is likely that similar results could be found in differentsex couples of other populations as well, since inadequate financial resources can strain any relationship. Furthermore, another study compares a sample of heterosexual married
couples to a sample of gay and lesbian cohabiting couples (Kurdek, 2004). Relative to
opposite-sex partners, the evidence indicates that GLB couples inherently are not more prone to relationship problems; that is, they are not more psychologically maladjusted nor do they possess personality traits that predispose them to relationship problems. Neither

25 do same-sex couples have maladaptive relationship styles and dysfunctional conflict resolution patterns that would create more problems in their relationships than heterosexual couples. As can be seen, the literature to date reveals several significant similarities between same-sex couples and different-sex couples.
Despite the similarities, certain differences still exist when comparing homosexual couples to heterosexual couples. Gay and lesbian partners dissolved their
relationships more often than opposite-sex couples (Kurdek, 2004). Further, more
lesbian couples than gay couples, at 18% and 13% respectively, terminated their relationship over an 18-month period in Kurdek’s study (2003). One possible reason for the relatively higher dissolution rate among same-sex relationships is that gay and lesbian couples have fewer barriers for leaving a relationship - barriers such as children and religious obligation to one’s partner (Peplau & Fingerhut, 2007). Given fewer barriers for same-sex dissolution, one wonders if this implicates fewer long-term relationships among homosexual couples as compared to heterosexual relationships. Future research on the longevity of same-sex relationships would be beneficial.
Another interesting contrast between same-gender couples and opposite-gender couples has to do with conflict resolution. In a seminal study on how couples argue, gay and lesbian couples present their disputes more positively and remain more positive throughout their disagreements than different-sex couples (Gottman, et al., 2003). One explanation for the more positive demeanor during a squabble could be that homosexual couples value equality far more than heterosexual couples (Gottman, et al., 2003).
Heterosexual relationships are more inclined toward gender power differential. In turn,

26 having less power generates more hostility among women, which could have a negative impact on conflict resolution for heterosexual couples.
This greater sense of equality between same-sex partners also implies another difference for opposite-sex couples. In heterosexual marriages, gender roles and division of household labor follow more traditional patterns. Men are known to be the breadwinners and women are typically the caretakers of the home. Since most gay couples and lesbian partnerships are both wage earners, they are apt to organize their family roles and housework more equitably (Solomon, et al., 2004; Peplau & Fingerhut,
2007). Findings so far indicate that same-sex couples are not bound as much by gender roles and division of household labor as different-sex couples.
Limitations. Studies about same-sex couples primarily have been performed in the United States through self-reporting methodology by volunteers whom self-identify as gay or lesbian. As such, those recruited tend to be younger, well-educated, middleclass, and white participants. Additionally, many studies have used the questionnaire research design, which is answered by only one of the two partners. More recently,
Gottman et al. (2003) have elevated relationship research to scientific respectability by conducting the first observational study of gay and lesbian relationships. Observations were coded, quantified, and subjected to mathematical analysis. Assuming that intercoder reliability was high, this study set the trajectory for future research to employ the experimental design which, according to Gottman, is in the planning stage in their laboratory. Moving beyond correlational data to causality would advance the attempt to improve couple relationships. Kurdek (2004) conducted another nascent research

27 precisely because of its longitudinal nature that involved 14 years of annual mail-in surveys. However, heterosexual married couples and gay and lesbian cohabiting couples were not matched on demographic variables in the current study. Generalizability is further restricted because data is based on people’s perceptions about their own relationships, which may be at variance from their actual interactions (Kurdek, 2004).
Nevertheless, the future of same-sex couples’ research is becoming more exciting as more innovative methods are employed.
Relationship with family of origin. In comparing couples, the primary difference between heterosexual couples and homosexual couples appears to be the extent of support couples receive from their family of origin (Kurdek, 2004).
Traditionally, practitioners have encouraged gay and lesbian individuals to come out to their families because the coming out process is perceived to promote psychological health, closeness to family, and differentiation from one’s family of origin. However, this assumption is based on generic therapeutic modalities extrapolated from working
with heterosexual individuals (Green, 2000). For sexual minorities, coming out incurs
the unique risks of rejection, denigration, even abandonment. In a national survey, 34% of lesbians and gay men reported that their family members had refused to accept them because of their sexual orientation (Peplau & Fingerhut, 2007). Therefore, the cost of coming out to family members appears to warrant serious consideration because disapproval by family may adversely impact a person’s psychological functioning.
However, the degree to which this is true has yet to be verified by research. There is also indication that gay men and lesbians compensate for the lack of family support by

28 enlarging their circle of friendships. In fact, Green (2000) has found that support from parents seems unrelated to the GLB persons’ mental health or the quality of their couples’ relationships. These individuals have chosen to adopt their friends as their family of choice. Without adequate data, the short-term and long-term consequences of coming out to parents are not yet known.
Summary. Whether to come out to parents and how parents will respond after disclosure depend on factors related to the closeness of the parent-child relationship before disclosure. Gay and lesbian individuals who have close contact with the family and less conflict at home will more readily disclose their sexual orientation, and less
likely to do so if the parent-child relationship was already strained (Green, 2000).
Conversely, parents who were sensitive caregivers while their children grew up are more likely to respond with sensitivity when told of their adult children’s sexual orientation
(Mohr & Fassinger, 2003). And family support is a strong predictor of self-acceptance.
On the other hand, parents are less accepting of the disclosure if the relationship was not
emotionally close in the first place (Patterson, November 2000).
Incidentally, individuals who have less secure attachment will report lower relationship satisfaction and longevity with their partners (Elizur & Mintzer, 2003). The formation of attachment security begins in childhood with one’s own parents. Hence, attachment styles of individuals could predict partner relationship quality. Several studies suggest that emotionally distant parent/child relationships and/or the trauma of childhood sexual abuse are correlated with later development of same-sex attraction.
(Yarhouse et al., 2005; Yarhouse et al., 2009; Rosik, 2004). By the same token,

29 individuals’ perceptions of low-level support from their mothers were associated with
high levels of fearful attachment (Mohr & Fassinger, 2003). Such attachment styles are
exhibited by high anxiety and high avoidance behaviors, which, in turn, correlate with high levels of negative identity. It is not surprising, then, that GLB persons would disclose their same-sex attraction to their friends before their parents (Yarhouse et al.,
2005).
Limitations . Many of the limitations related to the discussed research were methodological in nature. These limitations in methodology restricted generalizability.
One of the common characteristics reflected small sample sizes of a relatively young age group (Yarhouse et al., 2005; Yarhouse et al, 2009). Also, researchers used convenience sampling and criterion sampling of individuals who were quite open about their sexual orientation (Mohr & Fassinger, 2003; Yarhouse, 2005). Other studies needed replication and extension to a wider population because they were confined to a particular GLB subculture or primarily an African American study or Israeli focus (Yarhouse et al., 2009;
Elizur & Mintzer, 2003). Other problems revealed limited reliability and validity of evidence. Overall, the study of the GLB community needs to be repeated with different cultures and broader gay and lesbian subgroups.
After an extensive search for current data concerning GLB individuals and couples, results indicate that more research should be welcomed to augment the limited amount of studies currently available. This is the reason that the present researcher chooses to study the areas of socio-demographic characteristics, religious affinity, and relationship quality of gay men and women. With a randomized study of a large

30 magnitude, this study will yield important information that is more representative of the greater gay and lesbian populations.
Social Work Practice with GLB Communities
Social work practice among GLB communities must recognize that even among gay, lesbian, and bisexual individuals there are great diversity of race, ethnicity, gender expression, socioeconomic class, religion, and relationship preferences. This has been documented extensively by the above literature review. In working with diverse gay and lesbian individuals, social workers must be mindful of a number of important themes relevant to this research which are related to the social work field. First and foremost, social workers should reflect on their own biases and social conditioning regarding the gay community. An increased self-awareness will improve their effectiveness as they approach work with gay and lesbian clients. A basic competency of social workers includes viewing gay and lesbian persons as unique individuals, couples, and families who are empowered to define their own interests and strengths, challenges and needs. As the intent of this research project, social workers will serve these communities better if they seek to educate themselves about gay identity development, their lived experiences, and features of their cultures.
Other important themes are derived from the knowledge of the gay culture’s shared experiences. Another subject matter of concern is to help individuals reconcile the potential conflict across personal ethnicity, gender, and sexual orientation. Furthermore, the research literature indicates that many GLB individuals possess meaningful ties to religion and spirituality. Therefore, social workers must recognize the importance of

spirituality within the sexual minority culture, and religion’s relevance for personal beliefs about sexuality. In addition, understanding the nature and influence of family structures across these diverse communities will also be vital in addressing family systems challenges. At this point, further discussion of social work assessment and intervention will be detailed in chapter five.
31

32
Chapter 3
METHODS
Study Objectives
To reiterate, research suggests that empirical data pertaining to the gay, lesbian, and bisexual populations are scarce. Yet this is the population in need of social services as much as any other group. Without relevant data, it would be difficult to establish best practices based on empirical evidence. Therefore, the study objective is to better understand and gain knowledge of the GLB demographic group. This research is an exploratory study of secondary data analysis that is based on the longitudinal survey by
Stanford University “How Couples Meet and Stay Together (HCMST),” Wave 1 2009,
Wave 2 2010, Wave 3 2011. The aforementioned data set was obtained from Interuniversity Consortium for Political and Social Research (ICPSR). Specifically, HCMST is a nationally representative Internet survey of how Americans meet their spouses and romantic partners.
Secondary analysis of the HCMST data set sought to provide answers to the following questions: How alike and different are gay men, lesbians, and bisexuals from their heterosexual counterpart in terms of their education and household income, race/ethnicity and religiosity? Are there correlations between religion and relationship satisfaction and religion and length of relationship for GLB individuals? How do the approval rates of the couples’ relationships by their families of origin compare between heterosexual couples and non-heterosexual couples? How do the rates of relationship satisfaction compare for the same-sex couples and the different-sex couples? And how

33 do the length of relationship compare between same-sex couples and different-sex couples? The answers to these research questions are important when rendering social services to GLB communities. In future studies, service providers will need to determine to what degree their approach to therapeutic interventions need to be modified in order to accommodate the GLB differences? This research is only the beginning of the extensive work that is still ahead in the field of gay studies.
Study Design
Knowledge Networks, a survey firm, gathered the main data set (Wave 1, 2009) for the HCMST study between February 21 and April 2, 2009. Knowledge Networks used an Internet-based survey of a nationally representative probability sample that included panelists who had Internet access as well as those without Web access by providing WebTV devices in their homes. Respondents were recruited from Knowledge
Networks’ general pool of survey panelists who were initially approached through a random digit dialing national telephone survey. Random digit dialing enables the selection of people with listed and unlisted telephone numbers by generating telephone numbers at random. This method ensures that the HCMST sample is nationally representative since Knowledge Networks utilizes a sampling frame of residential listed and unlisted numbers and includes populations with and without the Internet in the
United States.
Additionally, the study oversampled self-identified gay, lesbian, and bisexual adults because researchers of HCMST wanted to gather the dissolution rates of traditional and non-traditional couples. Currently, HCMST have conducted two follow up surveys

34 in addition to the main survey. Additional follow up surveys are planned for the future.
Oversampling was achieved through three sources: self-identified GLB individuals who were active in the Knowledge Network pool; former panelists known to be GLB, who withdrew from the Knowledge Networks pool within the last three years; and those persons who declined to answer the GLB identification question on the profile survey.
All together, 4,002 adults responded to the survey, and 3,009 of those had a spouse or romantic partner.
Sampling Procedures
As mentioned previously, the original sample consisted of 4,002 English-literate adults living in the United States. Of the 4,002 respondents, 3,009 respondents were partnered. Initially, 6,928 Knowledge Networks panelists were contacted for the
HCMST survey. Those contacted included the 4,741 general population from the
Knowledge Networks pool plus the oversample of 932 on-panel GLB, 615 withdrawn
GLB, and the 640 initial identification refusal GLB. Four thousand and two panelists were selected at random to participate in the HCMST study. Those subjects with partners
(3,009 respondents in Wave 1) were the only ones surveyed in the follow-up Wave 2 in
2010, and Wave 3 in 2011.
The original researchers conducted interviews via telephone for all sampled telephone numbers. Telephone conversations soliciting panelists’ consent for participation usually lasted about ten minutes. Those who owned computers and online connections were told to use their own equipment for the surveys. If the individuals did not have a computer and/or access to the Internet, they were supplied with the necessary

35 hardware and free Internet connection. Furthermore, those who owned computers were given points, instead of free WebTV units, which can be redeemed for cash at a later time.
Data Collection Procedures
As reported by the original researchers, data collection method comprised of quantitative surveys that were gathered from a nationally representative sample in three waves. They stated that the first wave, or the main survey, was conducted in 2009, followed by the second wave implemented one year later in 2010, and the third wave another year later in 2011 to study how couples meet and the rate of relationship dissolution. The survey focused on respondents who answered that they were married, in a romantic or sexual relationship, and asked them a battery of questions about their partner, how they met, and the quality of their relationship. Survey questions were mostly answered online, but some follow-up surveys were conducted by telephone interviews. The researchers Rosenfeld and Thomas believed that answering questions online and at the respondents’ chosen time and pace were superior to telephone interviews because Web respondents can re-read the questions and take the time to produce more accurate and thoughtful answers. The response rate to the main survey was
71%; Wave 2 was 84.5%; and Wave 3 was 72.9%.
Instruments
The researchers who collected this data set stated that Wave 1 questionnaire comprised mainly of multiple-choice questions that gathered demographic information of the respondents and their partners, including such data as age, gender, race, education,

36 income, religion, relationship status, parents’ education, and political party affiliation.
They were also asked about which gender they were most attracted to, their sexual orientation, the length of their current relationship, and their living arrangements with their partner. Respondents were also queried about how often they visited with relatives, how their parents felt about their partner, and whether the respondents’ and their partners’ religion changed since age 16. Moreover, information was collected on the legal status of the relationship (marriage, domestic partnership, or civil union), the city/state where the partnership was recognized, and how many times the respondent had previously been married. Finally, respondents were asked to recall how, when, and where they met their partner and to describe the perceived quality of their relationship in a textbox. The few write-in answers supplemented the questionnaire by allowing for personal accounts of their stories. They also stated that Waves 2 and 3 followed up with respondents one and two years after the main survey to collect any changes in respondents’ relationship status, living arrangements, and reasons for separation, if applicable.
Data Analysis
The original research team coded the raw data of HCMST, and the ICPSR codebook included references to variable names and values found in the data. Although statistical weighting adjustments were made to the data to offset known selection deviations, such as oversampling of GLB individuals and survey non-response, the current research will be unweighted because the questions studied do not require weighting adjustments. In other words, this research primarily will use descriptive statistics that do not need to be weighted.

37
The statistical analysis for this Master’s Project was accomplished by using standard SPSS analytical methods to compare groups in the data, namely same-sex couples and different-sex couples. Also examined were GLB individuals and heterosexual individuals in terms of their frequency distributions and the relationship between demographic variables. The research also attempts to find possible correlation between religion and longevity of relationship as well as religion and relationship satisfaction among same-sex couples. Finally, calculation was performed to determine the longevity of relationship based on answers of current age and age when romantic relationship began.
Protection of Human Subjects
For the protection of human subjects, the Certification of Human Subject
Approval was granted for the HCMST study by Stanford University in 2010 for the period between 12/17/2010 through 12/16/2011. In order to utilize HCMST data set for the secondary data analysis of this research, a request for the review by the Sacramento
State Institutional Review Board was submitted in October 2012, by way of the Human
Subject Protocol Application. Initially, a draft of the application was completed by the research student and submitted to her thesis advisor Dr. Serge Lee for review. After Dr.
Lee’s approval, the application was in turn put forth to the Committee for the Protection of Human Subjects from the Division of Social Work. On October 24, 2012, the Division
IRB Committee approved the proposed research, “A Comparative Study of GLB
Individuals/Couples and Heterosexual Individuals/Couples” based on an “Exempt” risk

status. The approval letter was received by this researcher with the Human Subjects
Approval Number 12-13-015 and will expire 12-13-2017.
38

39
Chapter 4
STUDY FINDINGS AND DISCUSSIONS
The data set used for this master’s project came from Knowledge Networks. Prior to 2009, Knowledge Networks had assembled a pool of potential participants through a nationwide telephone selection method of random digit dialing of listed and unlisted telephone numbers. This selection method ensured that the HCMST sample was nationally representative; thereby, the results would be generalizable to the greater population. To gain higher representation of the gay population for the study, gay, lesbian, and bisexual individuals were further oversampled, making this one of the largest
GLB research to date at 919 participants, and 3,047 others who self-identified as heterosexuals. Each respondent was requested to answer a total of three quantitative measures, which were administered over a period of three years via the Internet to monitor their relationship changes. Online research participants have been shown to have wider sample diversity and greater honesty in their responses, given the privacy of their
responding (Sherry, Adelman, Whilde, & Quick, 2010).
Incidentally, the researchers’ best guess same-sex couple variable was used instead of the 464 self-identified same-sex couples because the best guess variable included 11 others who seemed to be a same-sex couple based on 1) gender of both partners, 2) sexual preference of the respondent, and 3) full text answers in questions 24 and 35 which asked about how couples met. It was believed that the frequency score for the best guess same-sex couple variable would be a little more accurate, as it was calculated based on other sexual orientation-related scores. Furthermore, the relationship

40 quality variable was analyzed for same-sex couples and different-sex couples. In order to obtain the length of relationship, the master’s project utilized the SPSS program to compute the relationship duration by subtracting the variable “age when romantic relationship began” from the current age at survey time.
For convenience and clarity, this master’s project also created a subset of only the relevant variables and revised the variable names before actual quantitative data analysis.
The specific statistical techniques used to analyze the data included descriptive statistics of frequency distribution, percentage, and chi-square. The results of which are delineated in the following section.
Specific Findings
Data analysis of the socio-demographic variables suggested certain similarities and interesting differences along the value spectrum. Specifically, GLB respondents appeared to have achieved higher education at higher rates than heterosexuals. To support this observation, Table 1 compared educational attainments of the GLB respondents (n = 919) and heterosexual participants (n = 3,047). Among the GLB respondents, none reported to have less than 6 th
grade education, while 11 (0.3%) of the heterosexuals reported to have less than grade 6 schooling. However, since there were
3,047 heterosexual participants (30% more than the GLBs), small discrepancies like this were expected to occur. Also, whereas heterosexual participants reported high school graduation at a higher rate 29.6% (n = 903) versus 8.8% (n = 81) for GLBs, the overall
GLB respondents graduated from Bachelor level of schooling or higher at a much greater proportion. Specifically, most heterosexuals received a high school education at 29.6%

41
(n = 3,047), while GLB individuals went on to higher education with 28.4% (n = 919).
Whereas 29.1% (n = 887) of the heterosexual participants reported earning Bachelor to
Doctoral degrees, over half (54.9%; n = 505) of the GLB respondents reported earning a
Bachelor or higher degree. As a result, the chi-square test of association showed that there was a significant difference between heterosexuals and GLB persons (chi-square =
393.315, df = 26, p < .000).
Table 1
Education (highest degree received)
No formal education
1 st to 4 th grade
5 th or 6 th grade
7 th or 8 th grade
9 th grade
10 th grade
11 th grade
12 th grade no diploma
HS graduate, diploma or GED
Some college, no degree
Associate degree
Bachelors degree
Masters degree
Professional or doctorate degree
Total
GLB
Frequency
81
241
71
261
174
4
2
8
5
70
919
0
0
0
2
Value
Percentage
8.8
26.2
7.7
28.4
18.9
.4
.2
.9
.5
7.6
100.0
0
0
0
.2 df
Pearson Chi-Square
Likelihood Ratio
Linear-by-Linear Association
N of Valid Cases
393.315
429.890
258.914
4001
Heterosexual
Frequency Percentage
44
69
90
113
903
652
229
595
203
89
3047
1
2
8
49
0
.1
.3
1.6
1.4
2.3
3.0
3.7
29.6
21.4
7.5
19.5
6.7
2.9
100.0
26
26
1
Asymp. Sig.
(2-sided)
.000
.000
.000
Regarding household income, the research revealed similar findings that GLB respondents generally earned more money than their heterosexual counterpart.

42
According to Table 2, most of the heterosexual participants (n = 3,047) earned less income than GLB individuals (n = 919). As many as 70.9% (n = 2,161) of the heterosexual group made below $75,000, and about half of that many earned less than
$40,000 (n = 1,152). On the other hand, a higher proportion of GLB wage earners made more than $75,000 than heterosexuals. For example, 42.1% (n = 386) of GLBs were above $75,000 as compared to 29% (n = 886) of heterosexuals. When looking at sixfigure incomes, twice as many GLBs (25.9%; n = 237) earned above $100,000 than heterosexuals (14%; n = 443).
Table 2
Household Income
Less than $5,000
$5,000 to $7,499
$7,500 to $9,999
$10,000 to $12,499
$12,500 to $14,999
$15,000 to $19,999
$20,000 to $24,999
$25,000 to $29,999
$30,000 to $34,999
$35,000 to $39,999
$40,000 to $49,999
$50,000 to $59,999
$60,000 to $74,999
$75,000 to $84,999
$85,000 to $99,999
$100,000 to $124,999
$125,000 to $149,999
$150,000 to $174,999
$175,000 or more
Total
GLB
Frequency
32
29
44
40
44
78
81
100
9
7
25
28
16
70
79
97
63
33
44
919
Percentage
7.6
8.6
10.6
6.9
3.6
4.8
100.0
3.5
3.2
4.8
4.4
4.8
8.5
8.8
10.9
1.0
.8
2.7
3.0
1.7
Heterosexual
Frequency Percentage
121
187
167
160
216
314
334
361
35
47
73
78
68
224
229
199
98
53
83
3047
7.4
7.5
6.5
3.2
1.7
2.7
100.0
4.0
6.1
5.5
5.3
7.1
10.3
11.0
11.8
1.1
1.5
2.4
2.6
2.2
When looking at race/ethnicity, both heterosexuals and GLBs exhibit a rather similar distribution across the represented racial groups. As can be seen in Table 3, 75%

43 of both groups of GLB participants and heterosexual respondents are Caucasian, with a little more for GLBs (78.3%; n = 720) and a little less (74.2%; n = 2261) for heterosexuals. The racial minority groups of African Americans and Hispanics, others and multi-racial groups made up the remaining 25% (GLB = 199; heterosexuals = 786).
It was clear that the proportion of those who self-identified as heterosexual or GLB was consistent across whatever racial group they belong to in the sample. And the chi-square test showed that the comparable data was statistically significant (chi-square = 15.563, df
= 8, p < .049). The higher p -value could be a reflection of the markedly fewer participants represented in non-Caucasian racial/ethnic groups.
Table 3
Race / Ethnicity
White, Non-Hispanic
Black, Non-Hispanic
Other, Non-Hispanic
Hispanic
2+ races, Non-Hispanic
Total
Pearson Chi-Square
Likelihood Ratio
Linear-by-Linear Association
N of Valid Cases
GLB
Frequency
Heterosexual
Percentage Frequency Percentage
720
56
31
73
39
919
78.3
6.1
3.4
7.9
4.2
100.0
2261
263
88
311
124
3047
74.2
8.6
2.9
10.2
4.1
100.0
Value
15.563
14.946
2.827
4001 df
8
8
1
Asymp. Sig.
(2-sided)
.049
.060
.093
Survey data about religion suggested that spirituality played an important role in respondents’ lives regardless of sexual orientation. To support this observation, Table 4 compared the religiosity of GLB respondents (n = 918) and heterosexual participants (n =

44
3,033). First, heterosexuals were more inclined to be religious than GLBs, as evidenced by 86.3% (n = 2,631) and 74.9% (n = 688), respectively. Even though the percentages for Christian-based religions (i.e., Baptist, Protestant, Pentecostal, Catholic, Mormon, and
Other Christian) were consistently lower for GLB respondents than heterosexual participants, more GLB individuals were Protestants (22.0%; n = 202) and Catholics
(18.6%; n = 171) than any other religious category. Second, more GLBs dabbled in non-
Christian forms of spirituality than heterosexuals. For example, there were almost three times as many GLBs who practiced Buddhism than heterosexuals (1.6%, n = 15 versus
0.6%, n = 18), and twice as many GLBs (4.2%, n = 39) chose the Jewish religion compared to heterosexuals (2.3%, n = 71). Likewise, four times as many GLBs were involved in “Other, non-Christian spirituality at 10% (n = 92) as opposed to only 2.5% (n
= 76) of the heterosexuals. The end result showed that chi-square test of association demonstrated that a significant difference did exist between heterosexual and GLB persons (chi-square = 256.752, df = 24, p < .000).
Table 4
Religion
Baptist
Protestant
Catholic
Mormon
Jewish
Muslim
Hindu
Buddhist
Pentecostal
Eastern Orthodox
Other Christian
Other non-Christian
GLB
Frequency
67
202
171
5
39
2
3
15
13
4
75
92
Percentage
7.3
22.0
18.6
.5
4.2
.2
.3
1.6
1.4
.4
8.2
10.0
Heterosexual
Frequency Percentage
452
707
720
60
71
6
10
18
97
10
404
76
14.8
23.2
23.6
2.0
2.3
.2
.3
.6
3.2
.3
13.3
2.5

45
None
(missing)
Total
Pearson Chi-Square
Likelihood Ratio
Linear-by-Linear Association
N of Valid Cases
230
1
919
Value
256.752
241.254
71.605
3986
25.0
.1
100.0
402
14
3047 df
24
24
1
Asymp. Sig.
(2-sided)
.000
.000
.000
13.2
.5
100.0
When analyzing the data for religion at age 16, more than half of the participants did not answer this question concerning their religious affiliation as a child. Only 29.2%
(n = 268) of the GLB respondents answered the question and even less heterosexual participants responded at 14.5% (n = 441). Of those who answered, most were from a traditional religious background. Only 0.4% (n = 4) of GLBs grew up in religious households that were “other, non-Christian” and 0.1% (n = 3) of heterosexuals in that same category. Relative to heterosexuals, the GLBs had a higher percentage of individuals who were Baptist, Protestant, and Catholic: Baptist 3.8% to 2.4%, Protestant
9.4% to 3.2%, and Catholic 8.7% to 4.2%. Lastly, 2.9% (n = 27) of GLB individuals had non-religious backgrounds growing up as compared to 2.2% (n = 66) of heterosexuals.
After the low response rate to religion at age 16, the percentage of respondents who indicated their change of religion was surprisingly strong. Based on Table 5, the answer rate was 72.8% (n = 669) for GLBs and 76.8% (n = 2,311) for heterosexuals.
More heterosexual adults adhered to the same religious affiliation as children than GLB adults: 61% (n = 1,877) for heterosexuals and 44% (n = 404) of GLBs. And, twice as many GLBs explicitly stated that they changed religion when becoming adults, 28.8% (n

46
= 265) of GLB adults and 14.2% (n = 434) of heterosexual adults. The chi-square test was significant at 126.882, df = 4, and p < .000.
Table 5
Religion Today Same as Age 16
Refused
Yes, the same
No, I have changed religions
(missing)
Total
GLB
Frequency Percentage
3
404
265
247
919
.3
44.0
28.8
26.9
100.0
Value df
Pearson Chi-Square
Likelihood Ratio
Linear-by-Linear Association
N of Valid Cases
126.882
117.557
99.068
3010
Heterosexual
Frequency Percentage
7
1877
434
729
3047
.2
61.6
14.2
23.9
100.0
4
4
1
Asymp. Sig.
(2-sided)
.000
.000
.000
When looking at relationship satisfaction and relationship duration among GLB respondents who were religious versus GLB respondents who are non-religious, there seemed to be no correlation between religiosity and relationship quality. Supported by results in Table 6, the GLBs who were religious and those who were non-religious rated their satisfaction similarly. A little more than half would consider their relationship quality to be excellent, with religious GLBs at 54.5% (n = 181) and non-religious GLBs at 58.2% (n = 82). All the other categories were comparable as well. In terms of relationship duration, the percentage distribution, again, looked rather similar for these two groups. Please see Table 7 below.

47
Tables 6
GLB Quality of Relationship with Partner
Refused
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Very poor
Total
Frequency
2
181
117
26
5
1
332
Religious
Percentage
.6
54.5
35.2
7.8
1.5
.3
100.0
Tables 7
GLB Length of Relationship with Partner
Religious
0 – 4 years
5 – 9 years
10 – 14 years
15 – 19 years
20 – 24 years
25 – 29 years
30 – 34 years
35 – 59 years
Total
Frequency Percentage
13
13
11
330
93
61
59
45
35
28.2
18.5
17.9
13.6
10.6
3.9
3.9
3.4
100.0
Non-Religious
Frequency Percentage
0
82
49
9
1
0
141
0
58.2
34.8
6.4
.7
0
100.0
Non-Religious
Frequency Percentage
7
9
10
141
36
28
24
14
13
25.5
20.0
17.0
10.0
9.0
5.0
6.4
7.1
100.0
When determining the level of parental approval for their relationship, a higher proportion of different-sex couples enjoyed their parents’ approval than same-sex couples. Supported by Table 8, heterosexual couples had a 14% higher approval rating than same-sex couples. Specifically, 56.8% (n = 1,440) of different-sex couples reported that their parents approved of their partner, while 42.8% (n = 203) of same-sex couples stated the same. Conversely, more than twice as many same-sex couples (4.9%; n = 23) than different-sex couples (2.0%, n = 51) received disapproval from parents. Also, twice

48 as many same-sex couples did not know how their parents felt about their partner, 7.5%
(n = 36) for same-sex couples and 3.6% (n = 91) for heterosexual couples. The chisquare test of association demonstrated that there was a significant difference between same-sex and different-sex couples (chi-square = 73.196, df = 4, p < .000).
A follow up statistical test was conducted to see whether relationship duration affected parental approval. The result of this analysis suggested that there was no correlation, as evidenced by a random frequency distribution table that revealed no particular pattern.
Table 8
Parental Approval of Partner for GLB and Heterosexual Couples
Same-sex Couple Different-sex Couple
Refused
Approve
Neither approve nor disapprove
Disapprove
Do not know
(missing)
Total
Frequency
2
203
73
23
36
137
474
Percentage
.4
42.8
15.4
4.9
7.6
28.9
100.0
Frequency Percentage
4
1440
186
51
91
763
2535
.2
56.8
7.3
2.0
3.6
30.1
100.0
Value df
Pearson Chi-Square
Likelihood Ratio
Linear-by-Linear Association
N of Valid Cases
73.196
65.429
50.798
2109
4
4
1
Asymp. Sig.
(2-sided)
.000
.000
.000
Relationship satisfaction was another area that disclosed rather comparable findings. However, slightly more heterosexual couples rated their relationship as excellent than same-sex couples. Namely, Table 9 displayed heterosexual couples who

49 rated their relationship as excellent to be 59.4% (n = 1,507) and same-sex couples to be
55.7% (n = 264). While a slightly higher proportion of different-sex couples rated their relationship as excellent, more same-sex couples thought their relationship was good,
35% (n = 166) for same-sex couples versus 29.4% (n = 745) for heterosexual couples.
Those who evaluated their relationship as poor (GLB couples at 1.3% and heterosexual couples at 1.4%) were similar across the two groups. However, the chi-square test of association indicated that the p-value was greater than five percent, therefore, not a significant finding (chi-square = 7.611, df = 5, p = .179).
Table 9
Relationship Satisfaction GLB vs. Heterosexual
Refused
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Very poor
Total
Same-sex Couple
Frequency Percentage
2
264
166
35
6
1
474
.4
55.7
35.0
7.4
1.3
.2
100.0
Value
Pearson Chi-Square
Likelihood Ratio
Linear-by-Linear Association
N of Valid Cases
7.611
8.012
.031
3009
Different-sex Couple
Frequency Percentage
11
1507
745
217
36
19
2535
.4
59.4
29.4
8.6
1.4
.7
100.0 df
5
5
1
Asymp. Sig.
(2-sided)
.179
.156
.860
As far as relationship longevity, both groups had couples who had been in longterm relationships; however, overall heterosexual couples stayed together longer than same-sex couples. According to the figures in Table 10, there were four heterosexual couples who had been together for 70 to 79 years, while the longest same-sex couple was

50
50 to 59 years. A larger proportion of same-sex couples (42.2%; n = 199) had been together for less than 10 years as compared to different-sex couples (38%; n = 953). This trend continued for couples who were together from 10 to 19 years. However, after 30 years, heterosexual couples led the way in relationship longevity. This difference was statistically significant since the chi-square for association was 110.493, with df of 71 and p-value of .002.
Table 10
Calculated Length of Relationship GLB vs. Heterosexual (in years)
Same-sex Couple Different-sex Couple
0 – 9 years
10 – 19 years
20 – 29 years
30 – 39 years
40 – 49 years
50 – 59 years
60 – 69 years
70 – 79 years
Total
Frequency
199
162
68
36
5
2
0
0
472
Percentage
42.2
34.3
14.4
7.6
1.1
.4
100.0
Frequency
953
611
368
233
170
129
43
4
2511
Percentage
38.0
24.3
14.7
9.3
6.8
5.1
1.7
.1
100.0
Value df
Pearson Chi-Square
Likelihood Ratio
Linear-by-Linear Association
N of Valid Cases
110.493
156.183
57.549
2983
71
71
1
Interpretations to the Findings
Asymp. Sig.
(2-sided)
.002
.000
.000
This secondary analysis of the HCMST data set sought to answer several pertinent questions regarding the similarities and differences between GLB individuals and heterosexual persons as well as same-sex partners and different-sex couples. First of all, socio-demographic statistics appeared to suggest that GLB individuals were higher

51 educated and earned more income than their heterosexual counterpart. The mean education for GLBs was grade 11.35 (S. D. = 1.652) as compared to heterosexuals mean grade of 10.04 (S. D. = 2.033). More dramatic was in higher education, where GLBs reported nearly 10% more bachelor’s degrees than heterosexuals, and 2.8 times more master’s degrees, and 2.6 times more doctorate degrees than heterosexuals.
This high-achieving academic trend seemed to have translated into stronger earning power. Although the mode for both groups fell between the incomes of $60,000 to $75,000, the number of GLB workers who earned above $75,000 was consistently twice as high as heterosexual earners. In fact, a higher percentage of GLB professionals made six-figure salaries than heterosexuals, 15.4% and 9.2%, respectively. Thus far,
GLB persons clearly have outperformed heterosexuals in the areas of education and household income. And the reasons for this were not obvious. Conceivably, future qualitative interviews should be conducted to gather narrative data concerning motivation for academic achievement and career ambition.
Regarding race/ethnicity, the sample was overwhelmingly close to 75%
Caucasians for both GLBs and heterosexuals. Again, the distribution was quite even also for African Americans and Hispanics. That is, the percentage of African Americans and
Hispanics who were also GLB was comparable to the percentage of African Americans and Hispanics who were heterosexual in the general population. Beyond the race designations of Caucasian, African American, and Hispanic, the frequency distributions for other ethnicities were so small that it rendered the results insignificant. Consequently, race was not a predictor for sexual orientation.

52
Relative to heterosexual respondents, GLB participants were less religious. The research finding suggested almost twice as many non-religious GLBs as heterosexuals.
This was consistent with findings from existing research. However, 75% of GLBs did declare some form of religious affiliation, which indicated the importance religion played in their lives. More and more, they were emphasizing spirituality rather than organized religion. Under the “other non-Christian” category, the percentage for GLBs was 10%, which was 5 times higher than non-GLBs who registered at 2.5%. It would appear that this finding was proportional to the traditional Western religious doctrinal positions regarding homosexuality. In sum, church teaching was either a barrier or invitation to the
GLB community. From looking at the statistics, it was evident which religions were more gay-friendly by the rising membership, Buddhism for one, another was the Jewish religion. However, the Jewish religion might be more cultural and ethnic than religious.
When asked for their childhood religion (at age 16), two-thirds of the GLB respondents left the question blank, and even fewer heterosexual participants (at 14.5%) answered the question. One could only speculate why such low response rate when the question was not an emotionally charged one. One possibility was that one’s childhood religion was simply not an important enough question to recall. It seemed not to be as relevant as what their religious beliefs are now as adults. Growing up in religious homes notwithstanding, GLB individuals actually remembered more than their heterosexual counterpart by their twice as high response rate. Another possible reason for the lackluster response rate could be that their childhood religion did not have a major impact on them; therefore, they did not care to answer the question; or simply because they were

53 in non-religious homes. Perhaps, they were raised in religious homes, but religion was no longer relevant at the time they were answering the question. Lastly, could it be that the question was poorly designed? It was difficult to know whether another way of asking the question would have gotten a higher response rate.
By contrast, 73% of GLBs and 76% of non-GLBs answered the question whether their religion was the same today as it was at age 16. While 61.6% of heterosexuals’ religious commitments remained unchanged when they reached adulthood, only 44% of
GLBs stated the same. Twice as many GLBs changed religion now that they are adults.
Those who are now heterosexual adults have significant increase in the Christian religions, while the GLB adults lean toward self-help spirituality. The change to selfdescribed spirituality was consistent with the findings of Halkitis, et al. (2009) that suggested this as a way to reach a level of cognitive consonance of their sexual identity.
In addition, more people in general became non-religious growing up, but the heterosexual group jumped from 2.2% to 13.2% and the GLB group leaped even farther from 2.9% to 25%. Nevertheless, the general trend suggests that GLB individuals become more religious when they reach adulthood; this seems rather unexpected given the religious climate of today.
Yet, religion did not make a difference in their relationship satisfaction nor relationship duration. Both religious and non-religious GLB individuals were comparable in their rating of their relationship quality. Over half found their relationship to be excellent and over a third rated it as good. Strikingly, their relationship duration showed no significant pattern, either. Perhaps this implied a compartmentalization of

54 religious beliefs that did not inform the way they did relationships. In short, being religious did not seem to enhance their relationship satisfaction or longevity for GLB respondents.
Overwhelmingly, the data analysis suggests that most parents did approve of their children’s current partner, which was indicative of the approval of the relationship.
Contrary to common notion, more than 60% of same-sex couples did enjoy the approval and acceptance of their parents. Previous literature claimed that parental approval was the hardest to obtain. And GLB individuals suffered from alienation and ostracism because their families could not accept that they were gay. However, this data indicate that over half of today’s parents would approve of their children’s same-sex relationships.
Still, different-sex couples enjoyed a 20% higher approval rate than same-sex couples.
In addition, twice as many same-sex couples than heterosexual couples marked that their parents neither approved nor disapproved of their relationship. For this group, could it be that parents were not comfortable being explicit about their feelings for fear of jeopardizing their relationship with their children? Or the relationship simply had not been long enough, and the parents were reserving judgment. Contrary to another national survey (Peplau & Fingerhut, 2007) in which 34% of lesbians and gay men reported disapproval by family members because of their sexual orientation, this study only showed 6.8% of disapproval rate for same-sex couples. Overall, the disapproval rate was very low compared to the approval rate for both types of couples.
For the 10.7% same-sex couples who claimed not to know what their parents thought about their relationship, most of them only have been in relationship for less than

55 three years. One wonders if they failed to tell their parents for fear of rejection and alienation. Or perhaps their parents were no longer living. And if alive, the parent-child relationship might have been strained already, making this sort of conversation unattractive. As expected, a higher number of different-sex couples than same-sex couples knew how their parents felt about their partner and enjoyed their approval.
In a follow up question to parental approval, this researcher wanted to know whether the length of relationship for all couples made a difference in parental approval.
After statistical analysis, the frequency distribution was random and without pattern, which gave no indication that the longer the couples were in relationship, the better the parents’ approval. Incidentally, the frequency distribution for approval and disapproval dropped off significantly after the couples have been together for 30 years, which may suggest that the longer a couple stays together, the less important it is to know that their parents approved or not, or perhaps the parents were deceased.
Consistent with findings from existing research, both same-sex couples and heterosexual couples shared comparable data in regards to relationship satisfaction. The majority of couples rated their relationship as excellent or good. Similarly, both groups exhibited a wide range of relationship longevity. Specifically, 50.4% of the same-sex couples have less than 10 years of relationship, whereas heterosexual couples’ relationships tended to spread out a little more. This could be because same-sex couples experience the unique problem of social stigmatization that heterosexual couples do not.
Nevertheless, this disproves the myth that same-sex couples are not as committed to stay in relationship and work through their challenges. The reasoning goes that since they are

56 not free to marry, there is less to keep them together, and their relationships are easier to dissolve. If this notion were true, the fact that many are in long-term relationships suggests that their relationships are more satisfying and stronger than anticipated. The final outcome suggests that same-sex couples and heterosexual couples are more similar than different in their relationships.

57
Chapter 5
CONCLUSION, SUMMARY, AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Overall Summary
The secondary data analysis of HCMST accomplished its explorative goal of gaining greater knowledge and understanding of the GLB individuals and couples relative to heterosexual individuals and couples. In this study, the indication of sexuality was by self-identification and partner’s gender. Respondents were surveyed about their sexual orientation and whether they were coupled with a same gender or opposite gender partner. Variables related to socio-demographic characteristics, religious beliefs and upbringing, and relationship quality with parents and partner were analyzed and outcomes recorded.
Socio-demographically, the results were consistent with previous findings by
Carpenter (2004) and Carpenter and Gates (2008) that same-sex couples of both genders achieve higher levels of education and income than heterosexual couples. High achieving couples could experience more relationship satisfaction because of lesser financial stress. This correlation was found in Elizur and Mintzer (2003) and corroborated by the high ratings of relationship satisfaction in this sample. In both the
GLB and heterosexual groups, respondents were overwhelmingly Caucasian. For
African Americans and Hispanics, the percentages were comparable. The substantially lower rate of self-identified GLB in ethnic minority groups could have been the greater fear of stigmatization and social ostracism in their respective cultures.
Overall, the available research in the literature suggested that most GLB

58 individuals place an importance on both their spiritual and sexual identities (Ganzevoort,
2011; Sherry et al., 2010; Halkitis et al., 2009; Hodge, 2005). This study attempted to ascertain the percentage of GLB population who would consider themselves religious or spiritual. As one of the few in gay religion research, the outcome of the study suggests that three quarters of the GLB participants considered themselves religious, despite the tension between sexual orientation and religion. This substantiates the common impression that religion is still important in the general American psyche.
However, a number of respondents who were willing to answer the religion questions were unwilling to identify their sexual orientation. It might be that these were
GLBs who did not want to disclose; therefore, more likely than not, the religiosity of
GLBs are undercounted by a small margin. Asking for their religious affiliation at age 16 was a way to find out whether the respondents were raised in religious homes.
Nonetheless, it was possible that a person was raised non-religious and converted at age
16. Eighty-two percent of all respondents left this question unanswered. Quite likely, respondents who were raised in religious homes answered the question, but not those whose religion was not that important to them. Despite the lower response rate, this question still revealed a number of important findings.
Consistent with existing research (Hodge, 2005), over 60% of the heterosexual respondents retained their original religious affiliation after reaching adulthood, while only 44% of the GLB adults did the same. The statistics indicated that twice the number of GLBs changed their religion. Could it be that their childhood religion could not accommodate their gay sexual identity? The increasing number of those who shifted

59 from organized religion to personalized spirituality appeared to reflect the integration of their sexual and religious identities by switching to more gay friendly spirituality.
Finally, religion did not seem to affect one’s relationship satisfaction or relationship longevity. The reason for this was not clear; it is possible that religion was compartmentalized and had no significant influence on romantic relationship.
Outcomes for relationship quality were rather consistent with prior research. The results suggested that heterosexual couples did have as much as 20% higher approval rating from parents for their relationship as the same-sex couples at the time of the survey. However, the disapproval rate was phenomenally low at 6.8% for same-sex couples, contrary to 34% from a previous national survey reported by Peplau and
Fingerhut (2007). Green (2000) suggested that the decision to come out to parents and how parents would respond were influenced by parent-child attachment. Simply stated, parents who were emotionally close to their children were more accepting of their children’s relationship choices. The fact that 82% of the respondents’ parents either approved or were neutral suggests that GLB couples enjoy notably better relationship with parents than commonly thought.
As previously mentioned, all couples, regardless of sexual orientation, desire similar values of affection, companionship, and positive interaction in relationships
(Peplau & Fingerhut, 2007; Gottman et al., 2003). From the respondents’ perspective, relationship satisfaction was comparably rated between opposite-gender couples and same-gender couples in this study. Further, there was no marked difference in the relationship duration between these two groups. Hence, these two results substantiated

60
Gottman et al.’s conclusion (2003) that couples who are engaged in romantic relationships operate on similar relationship principles. It would have been informative to compare the dissolution rate of these two groups, but the current data did not lend itself to provide such answers. In the future, HCMST Wave 4 and Wave 5 hopefully will contribute to greater understanding of the couples’ dissolution rate. Once again, the findings indicate that same-sex couples and heterosexual couples are more similar than different in their relationships.
Implications for Social Work
There is mounting evidence that GLB communities are highly diverse. Social workers must be mindful of the key findings from this research which inform the treatment of psychosocial and relationship issues surrounding the GLB communities.
One of the goals in providing culturally appropriate care to meet the needs of this population involves synthesizing an integration of their religious and sexual identities.
The other goal is to help same-sex couples address the unique challenges they encounter in same-sex relationships.
It is clear from the current research outcome that religion is still an influencing aspect of people’s lives. Consistent with available research, most GLB individuals do place an importance on both their spiritual and sexual identities. Conflict between religious and sexual identity has been associated with emotional distress of shame, guilt, depression, and suicidal ideation. By developing a sense of spirituality separate from formal religious institutions, GLB people can construct an individualized spiritual self that is congruent with their sexual and religious identities, thereby promoting the

61 psychological health of GLB individuals. Psychotherapy is frequently at odds with religion and spirituality when it collides with issues of sexuality. This is especially apparent when the client and therapist hold different value systems. In honoring the
National Association of Social Workers’ guiding principles of client engagement, social workers must be sensitive to cultural diversity and clients’ self-determination in regards to personal religious beliefs and sexual orientation.
Consistent with the theoretical framework of social constructionism, therapy becomes an exploration of the process of meaning making of what it means to be gay or what it means to be religious in the personal construct of the self. The negotiation of the religious and sexual identities is best done in a highly affirming therapeutic relationship.
The practical implication is to develop psychotherapy approaches that do not pathologize a person’s particular religious beliefs or sexual orientation. Conversely, a therapist should be careful not to make assumptions that a client who identifies as both religious and GLB is automatically dealing with a conflict of negotiating their religious and sexual identities. As this research has suggested, many GLB people have successfully negotiated their religious and sexual identity constructs by moving toward a more affirming spirituality.
On the other hand, it is likely that those who are not able to negotiate such conflicts on their own are the ones who come for psychotherapy. Since research indicates that the ability to integrate spirituality and sexuality promotes one’s mental health (Elizur & Ziv, 2001; Hodge, 2005; Sherry et al., 2010), counselors should develop competence in helping clients reconcile such identity conflicts and process any

62 psychological trauma from prior negative experiences. Social isolation can result from prejudicial attitudes toward religious gays from their unwelcoming church community as well as from within the GLB culture which views religion as antithetical to the gay movement. In short, clinicians who engage in self-reflection, know the rudiments of the major religious beliefs, and aware of personal feelings concerning sexual orientation are the best equipped to provide effective mental health services to religious and spiritually inclined GLB clients.
In addition, an assessment of the benefit and cost of coming out to parents is an important step in the deliberation process. The current finding that only 6.8% of the parents disapprove of their children’s same-sex relationship implies that coming out to parents might not be as difficult as it once was. This increasing acceptance by family members may be part of society’s changing social attitude. As practitioners evaluate with their clients the decision to disclose, a discussion about the parent-child relationship should take place. As stated previously, parents who are emotionally close to their children are probably more accepting of their children’s relationship choices. Persons with less secure attachments with parents must come to terms with the risk of rejection and alienation. Family therapists should respect client’s decision and not promote which path is best. Social work interventions with couples can include helping them process the decision to disclose to family members. On the one hand, family support is a source of aid and comfort in times of stress. On the other hand, they can be a powerful source of conflict and disappointment that create stress. A further consistent finding implies that
GLB persons compensate for lack of family support by establishing closer ties with

63 friends. A relevant social work intervention would be to connect these clients with validating social support resources in the community.
The findings of this research is consistent with the few previous studies that suggest same-sex relationships do not differ significantly in quality from opposite-sex relationships. That is, same-sex couples report similar levels of satisfaction and commitment to their relationships as heterosexual couples. However, GLB couples do experience the unique challenges of being in the sexual minority group. The chronic stress from perceived homophobia, victimization and internalized feelings of negative self-image and low self-esteem are commonly voiced in clinical settings. Therefore, practitioners need to acquire a thorough understanding of these potential barriers to intimacy when working with same-sex couples. Furthermore, relatively few counselors are aware of the prevalence of domestic violence in same-sex relationships or the effect of mental illness, childhood trauma, and substance abuse on couples’ relationships. The professional education and training of social workers in academic institutions need to fill the gap of knowledge and skill set necessary in working effectively with this sexual minority population.
On the macro level, a hallmark of social work practice is advocacy for the rights of socially marginalized groups. In adhering to the social work value of social justice, it is imperative that social workers seek to validate GLB individuals, couples, and families, as well as to provide them services that are equitable to services rendered to heterosexual clients. Moreover, research on evidence-based interventions should be more inclusive of
GLB samples in order to establish more appropriate therapeutic methodologies that can

64 better serve the GLB population. Likewise, institutional and political advocacy must address ways to make laws and policies that are more equitable to sexual minority groups.
Suggestions for Future Research
Recent literature indicates that studies on GLB issues are gaining momentum.
This means that the task of laying the groundwork for future research will be a vital contribution to the field. Recommendations for launching the next line of studies include delving deeper into the areas of religion and spirituality and relationship quality.
True to its goal, this research was only able to survey the broad contour of religion and spirituality. To fill the gap that still exists in the literature, further studies would be beneficial to examine the possible effects of religion and spirituality on the well being of GLBT persons. This would include how religion was emphasized in their childhoods and its impact on the formation of sexual development. There is a need for longitudinal studies to explore the conceptualizations of the meanings of religious beliefs and how the course of their development is shaped by their readings of the sacred texts and their view of ultimate meaning. Qualitative inquiry would be appropriate to gather data on personal narratives and individual experiences of faith life. Importantly, this should be conducted for more diverse samples of differing age groups and people of other ethnic minority groups.
Although research findings suggest significant similarities in the quality of relationships for same-sex and different-sex couples, few studies address the unique stressors that GLBT people experience and the impact that they have on relationship

65 quality. Such research about the variety of risks and protective factors in intimate gay relationships would be very useful in clinical practice. In order to extend the findings that were produced in this study, other measurement instruments such as behavioral observations in controlled settings, experimental designs, and in-depth ethnographies can provide rich augmentation to self-reported survey questions about relationship quality.
Descriptions of the daily lives of same-sex couples within diverse cultural and social class backgrounds would fill an important gap in the existing literature. Also, there is a need for longitudinal assessments to compare the rate of dissolution for same-sex couples and heterosexual couples, thereby extending the current research.
Study Limitations
The HCMST study consists of a probability sample based on web surveys that inherently contains both advantages and disadvantages. The advantages of the
Knowledge Networks (KN) survey are unique: a large sample size that allows for the oversampling of the GLB people group and longitudinal panel study design which enables follow-up surveys at low marginal cost. Like all studies, however, some inherent limitations also exist in this research.
Most notable are the structural limitations. Random digit dialing (RDD) has potential for non-responder bias. Non-response bias can be a problem if responders differ from non-responders for the measured variables. Because recruitment into the KN panel requires more steps, opportunities for attrition and attrition bias increase. From the initial
RDD phone contact, agreement to join the panel, receipt of the WebTV to online response to multiple waves of surveys, the increased attrition can rendered the random

66 sample not truly representative of the general population. Another potential structural limitation of the KN panel is panel conditioning. Those who answered the survey were part of the panel of participants who have answered multiple surveys in the past, making them somewhat of professional survey respondents for the two years that they have been on the KN panel. Given the private nature of online surveys, it is also possible that respondents may not have been who they purport to be. However, this is a limitation that exists with mail-out surveys as well. Arguably, these are the selection limitations that can contribute to responder bias.
In addition, the design of the measuring instrument contributes to certain limitations. The data set was from self-report; therefore, respondents’ answers were vulnerable to possible response bias, reactivity, and random responding. Furthermore, typical of the survey format, there was no opportunity for probing questions to obtain clarification for answers. For example, unknown is the category of individuals who engage in same-sex behaviors but do not identify themselves as gay. Similarly, the data set was not able to pinpoint respondents’ attitudes in the religious data. The only indicator of religious commitment was by self-report. Other factors of church attendance and spiritual practices were not examined. Likewise, there was only one question regarding parental approval, as perceived by the responder. No additional questions were asked to corroborate the approval or disapproval rating. Although the quantitative survey questions met the exploratory nature of the study, definitive conclusions cannot be drawn because causal relationships between variables cannot be established. Overall, these

limitations should be considered as trade-offs for the advantages of using a large secondary data set with broad aims.
67

68
References
Adamczyk, A., & Pitt, C. (2009). Shaping attitudes about homosexuality: The role of religion and cultural context. Social Science Research, 38 (2), 338-351.
Agnes, M. E. (2008). Webster's new world college dictionary (4 th
ed.). Hoboken:
Wiley, John & Sons, Incorporated.
Armour, E. T. (Dec. 2010). Blinding me with (queer) science: religion, sexuality, and
(post?) modernity. International Journal for Philosophy of Religion, 68 (1-3), 107-
119.
Barker, R. L. (2003). The social work dictionary (5 th
ed.). Washington D. C.: National
Association of Social Workers Press.
Brown, M. J. H., Ernesto. (Sep 2008). Socio-Demographic predictors of attitudes towards gays and lesbians. Individual Differences Research, 6 (3), 193-202.
Cadge, W. D., Heather; Wilderman, Christopher. (Mar 2007). Bridging the denomination-congregation divide: Evangelical Lutheran Church in America congregations respond to homosexuality. Review of Religious Research, 48 (3),
245-259.
Carpenter, C. (2004). New evidence on gay and lesbian household incomes.
Contemporary Economic Policy, 22 (1), 78-94.
Carpenter, C., Gates, G. J. (2008). Gay and lesbian partnership: Evidence from
California. Demography, 45 (3), 573-590.
Cass, V. C. (1979). Homosexual identity formation: A theoretical model. Journal of
Homosexuality, 4 , 219-235.

69
Elizur, Y. & Mintzer, A. (2003). Gay males' intimate relationship quality: The roles of attachment security, gay identity, social support, and income. Personal
Relationships, 10 , 411-435.
Elizur, Y. & Ziv, M. (2001). Family support and acceptance, gay male identity formation, and psychological adjustment: A path model. Family Process, 40 (2),
125-143.
Ellison, C. G., Acevedo, G. A., & Ramos-Wada, A. I. (2011). Religion and attitudes toward same-sex marriage among US Latinos. Social Science Quarterly, 92 (1),
35-56.
Ford, T. E. B., Thomas; VanValey, Thomas L.; Macaluso, Michael J. (Mar 2009). The unmaking of prejudice: How Christian beliefs relate to attitudes toward homosexuals. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 48 (1), 146-160.
Ganzevoort, R. R., van der Laan, M.; Olsman, E. (Mar 2011). Growing up gay and religious. Conflict, dialogue, and religious identity strategies. Mental Health,
Religion & Culture, 14 (3), 209-222.
Garcia, D. I., Gray-Stanley, J., & Ramirez-Valles, J. (2008). "The priest obviously doesn't know that I'm gay": The religious and spiritual journeys of Latino gay men.
Journal of Homosexuality, 55 (3), 411-436.
Gearhart, S. & Johnson, W. R. (1974). Loving women/loving men: Gay liberation and the church . San Francisco: Glide Publications.

70
Gottman, J. M., Levenson, R. W., Gross, J., Frederickson, B. L., McCoy, K., Rosenthal,
L., Ruef, A. Yoshimoto, D. (2003). Correlates of gay and lesbian couples' relationship satisfaction and relationship dissolution. Journal of Homosexuality,
45 (1), 23-43.
Green, R. J. (2000). Lesbians, gay men, and their parents: A critique of LaSala and the prevailing clinical wisdom. Family Process, 39 (2), 257-265.
Greene, R. R. (Ed.). (2008). Human behavior theory & social work practice (3 rd ed.).
New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers.
Grov, C., Bimbi, D. S., Nanin, J. E., Parsons, J. T. (2006). Race, ethnicity, gender, and generational factors associated with the coming-out process among gay, lesbian, and bisexual individuals. The Journal of Sex Research, 43 (2), 115-121.
Halkitis, P. N., Mattis, J. S., Sahadath, J. K., Massie, D., Ladyzhenskaya, L., Pitrelli,
K., . . . Cowie, S. A. E. (2009). The meanings and manifestations of religion and spirituality among lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender adults. Journal of
Adult Development, 16 (4), 250-262.
Herek, G. M. (2006). Legal recognition of same-sex relationships in the United States.
American Psychologist, 61 (6), 607-621.
Hodge, D. R. (2005). Spirtiual ecogram: A new assessment instrument for identifying clients' strengths in space and across time. Families in Society: The journal of
Contemorary Social Services, 86 (2), 287-296.
Jepsen, L. K., Jepsen, C. A. (2002). An empirical analysis of the matching patterns of same-sex and opposite-sex couples. Demography, 39 (3), 435-453.

71
Karten, E. Y., Wade, J. C. (Winter 2010). Sexual orientation change efforts in men: A client perspective. Journal of Men's Studies, 18 (1), 84-102.
Kring, A. M., Johnson, S. L., Davison, G. C., Neale, J. M. (2010). Chapter 13: Sexual and gender identity disorders Abnormal Psychology (11th ed.). Danvers: John Wiley
& Sons, Inc.
Kurdek, L. A. (2003). Differences between gay and lesbian cohabiting couples.
Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 20 , 411-436.
Kurdek, L. A. (2004). Are gay and lesbian cohabiting couples really different from heterosexual married couples? Journal of Marriage and Family, 66 (4), 880-900.
Lewis, G. B. (2009). Does believing homosexuality is innate increase support for gay rights? Policy Studies Journal, 37 (4), 669-693.
Lofquist, D., Lugaila, T., O'Connell, M., Feliz, S. (2012). 2010 census briefs: Households and families 2010 . 1-20.
Malony, H. N. (Winter 2005). Pastoral counseling and sexual identity. Journal of
Psychology and Christianity, 24 (4), 361-367.
McMinn, L. G. (Winter 2005). Sexual identity concerns for Christian young adults: practical considerations for being a supportive presence and compassionate companion. Journal of Psychology & Christianity, 24 (4), 368-377.
Miller, R. L. (2007). Legacy denied: African American gay men, AIDS, and the black church. Social Work, 52 (1), 51-61.
Mizrahi, T. & Davis, L. (2008). Encyclopedia of social work (20th ed.). New York:
NASW Press & Oxford University Press, Inc.

72
Mohr, J. J., & Fassinger, R. E. (2003). Self-acceptance and self-disclosure of sexual orientation in lesbian, gay, and bisexual adults: An attachment perspective.
Journal of Counseling Psychology, 50 (4), 482-495.
Newman, B. & Newman, P. (2009). Development through life: A psychosocial approach
(10th ed.). Belmont: Wadsworth Cengage Learning.
Oldmixon, E. A., & Calfano, B. R. (2007). The religious dynamics of decision making on gay rights issues in the US House of Representatives, 1993-2002. Journal for the
Scientific Study of Religion, 46 (1), 55-70.
Olson, L. R., Cadge, W., & Harrison, J. T. (2006). Religion and public opinion about same-sex marriage. Social Science Quarterly, 87 (2), 340-360.
Patterson, C. J. (November 2000). Family relationships of lesbians and gay men.
Journal of Marriage and Family, 62 (4), 1052-1069.
Peplau, L. A., Fingerhut, A. W. (2007). The close relationships of lesbians and gay men.
Annual Review of Psychology, 58 , 405-424.
Pitt, R. N. (March 2010). "Killing the messenger": Religious Black gay men's neutralization of anti-gay religious messages. Journal for the Scientific Study of
Religion, 49 (1), 56-72.
Punton, D. (Summer 2008). Homosexuality in the psychology of spirituality: Comment on "Homosexuality in world religions" from a Catholic-Adlerian perspective.
Journal of Individual Psychology, 64 (2), 161-167.

73
Rostosky, S. S., Danner, F., & Riggle, E. D. B. (2008). Religiosity and alcohol use in sexual minority and heterosexual youth and young adults. Journal of Youth and
Adolescence, 37 (5), 552-563.
Schnoor, R. F. (Spring 2006). Being gay and Jewish: Negotiating intersecting identities.
Sociology of Religion, 67 (1), 43-60.
Sherkat, D. E. (2002). Sexuality and religious commitment in the United States: An empirical examination. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 41 (2), 313-
323.
Sherkat, D. E., de Vries, K. M., & Creek, S. (2010). Race, religion, and opposition to same-sex marriage. Social Science Quarterly, 91 (1), 80-98.
Sherry, A., Adelman, A., Whilde, M. R., & Quick, D. (2010). Competing selves:
Negotiating the intersection of spiritual and sexual Identities. Professional
Psychology-Research and Practice, 41 (2), 112-119.
Solomon, S. E., Rothblum, E. D., Balsam, K. F. (2004). Pioneers in partnership: Lesbian and gay male couples in civil unions compared with those not in civil unions and married heterosexual siblings. Journal of Family Psychology, 18 (2), 275-286.
Wilchins, R. (2004). Queer theory, gender theory: An instant primer . Los Angeles:
Alyson Publications.
Yarhouse, M. A., Brooke, H. L.; Pisano, P., Tan, E. S. (Winter 2005). Project inner compass: Young adults experiencing sexual identity confusion. Journal of
Psychology & Christianity, 24 (4), 352-36.

Yarhouse, M. A., Nowacki-Butzen, S., & Fredrica Brooks, D. (Oct. 2009). Multiple identity considerations among African American Christian men experiencing same-sex attraction. Counseling & Values, 54 (1), 17-31.
74