Nazarene Clergy Responses to Homosexuality and Interactions with LGBT People

By Reginald Watson

The Church of the Nazarene claims that homosexuality is a perversion of human sexuality. The denomination and many of its members have also said same-sex sexual acts are sinful and subject to the wrath of God. Most Nazarenes maintain that the "homosexual lifestyle" is sinful and contrary to scripture.

• Language: English
• Publisher: SacraSage Press
• Release date: Oct 1, 2023
• ISBN: 9781958670163

Book preview

watson-nazarene-clergy-fc.jpg

Nazarene Clergy

Responses to

Homosexuality

and Interactions with

LGBT People

Reginald G. Watson

SacraSage Press

SacraSagePress.com

© 2023 SacraSage Press and Reginald G. Watson

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced in any form without written consent of the author or SacraSage Press. SacraSage Press provides resources that promote wisdom aligned with sacred perspectives. All rights reserved.

Print: 978-1-958670-15-6

Electronic: 978-1-958670-16-3

Printed in the United States of America

Library of Congress Cataloguing-in-Publication Data

Nazarene Clergy Response to Homosexuality and Interactions with LGBT People

Dedication

I dedicate this research to those who come to the Church seeking God’s love and grace, and leave more wounded than when they arrive. Imperfect people make an imperfect organization. One learns that God and the Church are not synonymous.

Table of Contents

Acknowledgements

Abstract

Chapter I: Introduction and Literature Review

Chapter II: Research Methods

Chapter III: Results

Chapter IV: Discussion

References

Acknowledgements

My heart overflows with gratitude to God the Father who inspired me to take the first step on a lengthy academic journey. I could not have completed it without Him.

I am indebted to my professors and colleagues at Regent University whose guidance and direction helped move this dissertation from idea to published manuscript.

My sincere appreciation to all the people who believed in me, supported me, and provided Godly counsel along my life’s path: family, friends, pastors, professors, colleagues, and parishioners.

I am deeply grateful to Andrea who offered her unconditional support and encouragement and provided the space for me to complete this work. Thank you!

Special recognition and admiration go to my sister Chris (Christina) Watson. She chose to share her story with me when it felt risky to share it with anyone. That moment became the catalyst for this research. It is an honor to be her brother.

Abstract

The Church of the Nazarene asserts that homosexuality is a perversion of human sexuality, and that homosexual acts are sinful and subject to the wrath of God. The denomination also states that all people should be treated with dignity, grace, and holy love—regardless of sexual ­orientation—while firmly maintaining its position that a homosexual lifestyle is sinful and contrary to scripture. Nazarene clergy experience a tension between the denomination’s position on homosexuality and ministering to LGBT people. This qualitative study explored the lived experiences of thirteen Nazarene clergy responses to homosexuality and their interactions with LGBT people. The resulting themes offer implications for Nazarene clergy, the Church of the Nazarene, LGBT people, counselor educators, and clinical practitioners.

This book is Reginald Watson’s doctoral dissertation presented to the Faculty of the School of Psychology & Counseling Regent University, March 2015. It was approved by the committee members that included Anita Neuer Colburn, Ph.D., Linda Leitch-Alford, Ed.D., Thomas Jay Oord, Ph.D., and Mark Newmeyer, Ed.D. Reg Watson died suddenly in 2022. With the approval of his family, Thomas Jay Oord has guided Watson’s important dissertation to be published by SacraSage Press.

Chapter I

Introduction and Literature Review

Few topics create as much controversy in the church as does the issue of homosexuality (Cadge & Wildeman, 2008). In 1992, a National Council of Churches official announced that the issue of homosexuality in the church was more divisive than slavery (Wilson, 1995). Since then others have made similar pronouncements. Sheler (2000) declared homosexuality is the most divisive social issue among American churches since slavery (p. 50). Research conducted during the 1950s and 1960s indicates that religion and religious involvement correlate with negative attitudes about homosexuality (Allport, 1954; Allport & Ross, 1967). Studies that are more recent produced similar results (Herek, 1994; Herek & Capitanio, 1996; Mak & Tsang, 2008; Rowatt et al., 2006; Tsang & Rowatt, 2007). The corporate Church’s disposition toward homosexuality and individual Christian’s response to homosexuals range from intolerance and rejection to tolerance and acceptance, and all points in between.

Interest in the study of sexual orientation dates back to the 1940s when Alfred Kinsey (1894–1956) developed the Kinsey Scale, also known as the Heterosexual-Homosexual Rating Scale. Using a Likert Scale, Kinsey attempted to measure degrees of sexual orientation ranging from 0 exclusively heterosexual to 6 exclusively homosexual. His research revealed that most individuals are neither exclusively heterosexual nor homosexual but rather span a continuum of sexual orientation (Kinsey, 1948).

Interest in and debate about sexual orientation continues today. Social scientists and researchers attempt to provide clarity about how sexual orientation develops. Two primary paradigms explain the development of sexual orientation: essentialism and social constructivism (Engle, McFalls, Gallagher, & Curtis, 2006; Halwani, 1998, 2008; Trail et al., 2008; Wilcox, 2002; Yarhouse & Burkett, 2002; Yarhouse, 2004). Embedded within these paradigms or worldviews are etiological (causal) theories about how a same-sex orientation develops. These theories suggest that precipitating factors, both internal and external, are the antecedents of homosexuality (Drescher, 2002, 2008; Sheldon, Pfeffer, Jayaratne, Feldbaum & Petty, 2007). These etiological theories include genetic/­biological factors (Yarhouse, 2004), environmental forces (Hughes, 2006) and personal choice (Marmor, 1998). Research indicates that one’s worldview, as well as one’s beliefs about the causes of sexual orientation impact one’s attitudes about homosexuality (Altemeyer, 2002; Engle et al., 2006; Hewitt & Moore, 2002; Sheldon et al., 2007).

Social, cultural, and demographic factors influence attitudes about homosexuality. Factors such as gender (male/female), heterosexuality, race and ethnicity, geographical location, age, educational level, and political affiliation affect individual’s thoughts and feelings about homosexuality (Brown & Henriquiz, 2008; Herek, 2002; Morrison & Morrison, 2003; Schulte & Battle, 2004). Religion and religious factors appear to influence attitudes about homosexuality and responses to homosexuals most dramatically (Adamczyk & Pitt, 2009; Olson, Cadge, & Harrison, 2006; Sherkat & Ellison, 1997). Research dating to the mid-1900s indicates that religion and religious involvement can incite sexual prejudice toward sexual minorities (Allport, 1954; Allport & Ross, 1967; Herek & Capitanio, 1996; Rowatt et al., 2006). Vocabulary has also developed to include words that describe sexual prejudice. Words such as homophobia, heterosexism, and homonegativity have emerged to indicate fear, dislike, disgust, discrimination, hatred, and hostility directed toward same-sex oriented individuals (Herek, 2004; Marsh & Brown, 2011; Schulte & Battle, 2004).

Within the context of religion, adherence to a specific set of religious and political beliefs increase the likelihood of developing negative attitudes about homosexuality. Right-wing authoritarianism, fundamentalism, Christian orthodoxy, and the Protestant Work Ethic are shown to influence attitudes (Burdette, Ellison, & Hill, 2005; Finlay & Walther, 2003; Ford, Brignall, VanValey, & Malcaluso, 2009; Jonathan, 2008; Malcomnson, Christopher, Franzen, & Keyes, 2006; Marsh & Brown, 2011; Olatunji, 2008; Rosik, 2007a; Rowatt & Tsang, 2006; Schwartz & Lindley, 2005; Stoever & Morera, 2007; Tsang & Rowatt, 2007; Whitehead, 2010; Whitley, 2009).

Within traditional Christianity, specifically Protestant Christianity, homosexuality is an emotionally charged and contentious issue (Tate, 2003; Van Geest, 2007b). This is due in part to the belief that homosexuality is in direct conflict with sacred Christian traditions and biblical proscriptions (Duffield, 2004; Rodriguez, 2010; Trevino et al., 2012). Unfortunately, the church has all too often been an unwelcoming and hostile environment for same-sex oriented individuals (Barnes & Meyer, 2012).

Denominational affiliation and theological views also affect attitudes about homosexuality. Denominations that adhere to more liberal theological positions and advocate for social justice tend to be more accepting of same-sex oriented individuals while theologically conservative denominations, emphasizing personal holiness, often demonstrate negative attitudes toward LGBT people (Loftus, 2001; Olson et al., 2006). Evangelical denominations and evangelical Christians tend to demonstrate the most negative and least accepting attitudes about homosexuality describing it as sinful and willful perversity (Adamczyk & Pitt, 2009; Cadge & Wildeman, 2008; Halwani et al., 2008). Gays and lesbians often feel ostracized and rejected by conservative, evangelical denominations (Subi & Geelan, 2012; Yarhouse, 2011). Jay Bakker (2010) states that, Just as former generations had to overcome their supposedly ‘God-endorsed’ racist and sexist attitudes, so we [the Church] have to overcome our narrow-mindedness on this issue in order to experience (and share) the full potential of God’s love (p. 50). With Bakker, there are those who advocate that the Church begin to develop more compassionate responses to same-sex oriented persons (McGinniss, 2010; McMinn, 2005; Merritt, 2009; Tate, 2003; Yarhouse, 2012; Yarhouse & Carr, 2011; Zahniser & Cagle, 2007).

Despite denominational differences and conservative Christian’s negative attitudes about homosexuality the Church of the Nazarene, an evangelical denomination, has taken measures to address how its constituency and its clergy respond to the issue of homosexuality in the current cultural climate. While the Church of the Nazarene does not endorse or condone homosexual relationships, it does acknowledge that for some individuals a homosexual orientation develops early in life although there is no conclusive scientific evidence to support this (Diehl et al., n.d.). The Church of the Nazarene makes a distinction between sexual orientation and sexual behavior. Orientation is amoral while behavior is moral; homosexual behavior is immoral and sinful.

Even though the Church of the Nazarene holds fast to its position that homosexual behavior is wrong, it readily acknowledges that the church must not resort to ridicule or condemnation. Denominational leaders maintain that every person should be treated with dignity, grace, and holy love whatever their sexual orientation (Diehl et al., n.d., p. 2). The Nazarene church encourages its pastoral leadership to respond to same-sex oriented individuals in Christlikeness, with unconditional love and hospitality (Diehl et al., n.d.; Porter et al., 2011). At the denominational level, the Church of the Nazarene indicates that same-sex individuals may attend and participate in its fellowship as long as long as the person remains celibate. The church acknowledges that if a same-sex oriented person maintains celibacy he or she may enjoy full participation in the life and ministry of the local church (Diehl et al., n.d.). To date there is a lack of research on the church’s ministry and outreach efforts to the LGBT population. There is no extant research that answers the question: What are Nazarene clergy responses to homosexuality and their interactions with LGBT individuals?

Statement of the Problem

An investigation of the literature revealed a wealth of information concerning attitudes about homosexuality and responses toward homosexual persons. While social and cultural factors presented, the bulk of my investigation revealed that the Church and Christians possess the most negative attitudes. Although typically the Church’s foundational tenants are love, grace, and forgiveness, it has often demonstrated negative attitudes and has been decidedly unreceptive—even rejecting—of homosexual individuals (Larsen, Reed, & Hoffman, 1980). For the Church to become a positive influence for Christ with the LGBT population, it will need to let go of its fear, prejudice, and judgment toward LGBT people and begin to demonstrate compassion and love to this often marginalized group (Yarhouse & Carr, 2011; Zahniser & Boyd, 2008).

While the Christian ideal of unconditional love is essential, responding to same-sex oriented persons with compassion and grace may be most effective and meaningful within the context of the local church. Pastors serving in the local church may be more likely to interact with LGBT people than denominational leaders. Consequently, clergy may be the best resource for discovering how they balance the denominational position of the church with their personal convictions and how they minister to people who identify as LGBT.

Purpose of the Study

A thorough review of the literature revealed no in-depth qualitative analysis of the lived experiences of Nazarene pastors and their interactions with the LGBT persons. The purpose of this study was to discover the essential experience and its meaning of Nazarene clergy’s responses to homosexuality and interactions with LGBT people. Utilizing the qualitative research tradition, this study proposed an in-depth phenomenological investigation into the lived experiences of ordained Nazarene clergy who serve as senior/lead pastors within the local church context.

Review of the Literature

In this literature review, I provide an overview of the various factors that contribute to attitudes about homosexuality and responses to same-sex oriented persons. The information begins broadly with an explanation of the paradigmatic or worldviews of sexual orientation. This is followed by an overview of the etiology of homosexuality. Next, I address the social, cultural, demographic, and religious factors that affect attitudes about same-sex orientation. This is followed by an examination of sexual prejudice. Narrowing the focus, I investigate Christian denominational positions about homosexuality. The information becomes more specific with a description of the Church of the Nazarene’s disposition toward homosexuality and its response to LGBT people. The literature review concludes with a rationale for discovering the lived experiences of Nazarene clergy as they interact with same-sex oriented individuals.

Paradigms of the Etiology of Homosexuality

Etiological factors underlying same-sex orientation may inform beliefs about how a homosexual orientation develops, and thereby, can influence attitudes about gay men and lesbian women (Altemeyer, 2002; Engle et al., 2006; Hewitt & Moore, 2002; Sheldon et al., 2007).

Antecedents of homosexuality are viewed through two primary paradigms: the essentialist model and the social constructionist model (Engle et al., 2006; Halwani, 1998, 2008; Trail et al., 2008; Wilcox, 2002; Yarhouse, 2004; Yarhouse & Burkett, 2002). These two paradigms differ in their hypotheses regarding the origins of homosexuality (Stein, 1998).

Essentialism

Essentialism presents homosexuality as an essential feature of humankind, and claims that homosexuality is evident, at least theoretically, in all cultures and at all times throughout human history (Halwani, 1998; Stein, 1998; Trail et al., 2008; Yarhouse, 2004). Essentialists maintain that homosexuality is neither time, nor culturally dependent; rather, it is objective, intrinsic and culturally independent (Halwani, 1998, p. 6). In other words, regardless of time or culture, homosexuality has existed throughout history and within all cultures. Moreover, the essentialist model posits that individuals have a true core sexual self or true sexual essence that does not change (Duncan & Kemmelmeier, 2012). This core sexual self is rooted in a biological predisposition and/or results from familial childhood experiences (Engle et al., 2006). The essentialist paradigm argues that sexual orientation is a naturally occurring and fixed state (Stein, 1998). Individual’s attitudes about same-sex orientation are more positive when they believe that sexual orientation is not a matter of choice (Sheldon et al., 2007). Recent research has demonstrated that essentialist views of sexual orientation affect attitudes about homosexuality (Duncan & Kemmelmeier, 2012; Haider-Markel & Joslyn, 2008; Haslam & Levy, 2006).

The essentialist model rests on three assumptions: (a) homosexuality and heterosexuality each have underlying true essences, (b) both homosexuality and heterosexuality are separate and distinct from one another and not simply points along a continuum, (c) these true essences are consistent across time and culture (Stein, 1998; Engle et al., 2006).

Embedded within the essentialist paradigm are biogenetic theories and environmental and psychodynamic theories as determinants of sexual orientation (Engle et al., 2006, p. 69). Essentialists believe that a biological predisposition and/or childhood experiences occur during the developmental process that produces a sexual self, resulting in a core sexual orientation and/or identity (Engle et al., 2006). Essentialist research during the past 20 years has focused on the biological/genetic predisposition of homosexuality (Engle et al., 2006; Stein, 1998). Later, I will present a more thorough analysis of how the biological/genetic theory of homosexuality may influence attitudes toward the LGBT population. For now, I continue by comparing the social constructionist theory with the essentialist theory.

Social Constructionism

Whereas the essentialist model adheres to biology and environment as antecedents to a same-sex orientation, the social constructionist model argues that homosexuality is a personal choice and a social role (Engle et al., 2006; Stein, 1998). When individuals believe that sexual orientation is self-selected, they tend to demonstrate more homonegative attitudes (Sheldon et al., 2007).

The social construction paradigm does not support the notion of a true essence to sexuality; rather, homosexuality is a phenomenon that is socially constructed within a specific culture, at a particular time, using that culture’s language and informed by its institutions (Engle et al., 2006). Social Constructionism asserts that homosexuality exists only within certain cultures and at certain times in history (Halwani, 1998). In other words, homosexuality is both culture-specific and time-bound. Social constructivism posits that sexuality changes as the culture and society evolve; that is to say, the concept of homosexual orientation found in our current culture did not exist prior to the nineteenth century (Halwani et al., 2008).

Social constructionists argue that words like heterosexuality, homosexuality, and bisexuality are linguistic constructs that capture certain meanings about sexual behavior (Yarhouse, 2004, p. 243). The word homosexual is a term devised during the nineteenth century to describe a form of sexual behavior; according to Halwani (1998), prior to this no such word existed. Constructionists argue that before the nineteenth century individuals did not have any knowledge of homosexuality; before that time people could not conceive of a person whose primary sexual orientation was directed toward someone of the same gender/sex (Halwani, 1998). Moreover, social constructionist’s also argue that prior to a certain point in history there were no homosexuals. Homosexuality became evident at a certain period in history, and this is both time-specific and culture-bound (Halwani, 1998).

Researchers have not agreed on which theory—essentialism or social construction—is more accurate. However, Halwani (1998) points out that many scholars tend to subscribe to the social constructionist view, although he is an advocate of the essentialist model. He argues that given historical evidence, both positions are plausible. This suggests that neither essentialism nor social constructionism thoroughly accounts for a same-sex orientation (Sayer, 1997; Yarhouse, 2004). Recently, a hybrid model has emerged that integrates both theories to better understand and describe the development of sexual orientation (Engle et al., 2006). This hybrid model provides a more complete picture of the development a same-sex identity.

Couched within the essentialist and social constructionist paradigms are causal theories about how sexual orientation develops. These theories include biology/genetics, environmental/childhood influences and personal choice. Some research suggests that the theory to which one subscribes influences one’s attitudes toward same-sex oriented individuals (Sheldon et al., 2007).

Etiology of Homosexuality

Although researchers have attempted to identify the roots of homosexuality, empirical evidence isolating a specific cause for homosexuality remains unidentified (Ashley, 2013; Childs, 2009; Drescher, 2002; Jones & Kwee, 2005). Of the various causal explanations suggested, no single theory has won the favor of the scientific community (Sheldon et al., 2007, p. 114). Moreover, many researchers and mental health professionals believe that a variety of factors, rather than a single etiological theory, account for developing a same-sex orientation (Childs, 2009; Hewitt & Moore, 2002).

The origins of the development of a same-sex identity seem to divide into three basic categories: biology, environment, and personal choice (Drescher, 2006, 2008; Sheldon et al., 2007). Although these categories appear discrete, literature suggests that some combination of these factors—biological (genetics), psychosocial (environment), and personal choice—may influence the development of same-sex oriented persons (Hughes, 2006).

Biology/genetics/nature. The biological or genetic theory is one of the more recent theories associated with the etiology of homosexuality (Yarhouse, 2004). Among the scientific studies addressing the etiological causes of homosexuality of late, genetic influence theories have received the most attention (Sheldon et al., 2007). Some researchers divide biological theories of homosexuality into three or more subcategories: (a) genetic inheritance, (b) prenatal hormone development and, (c) hypothalamic structure and brain organization (Engle et al., 2006). The idea behind these theories is that due to direct genetic influence and/or prenatal influences during pregnancy (e.g., excessive hormone secretions) a fetus may develop a predisposition toward homosexuality (Yarhouse, 2004).

Some researchers have demonstrated that positive attitudes toward people who identify as homosexual result from a belief that same-sex orientation is genetically derived (Kahn & Fingerhut, 2011; PEW Research Center, 2003; Sheldon et al., 2007; Wood & Bartkowski, 2004). Individuals who believe that homosexuality is genetic are less negative toward LGB T people than are individuals who believe that homosexuality is a learned or acquired behavior or a personal choice (Hewitt & Moore, 2002). When individuals believe that homosexuality is a genetic predisposition, a same-sex orientation seems more natural and immutable. Consequently, proponents of this view demonstrate positive attitudes toward homosexual people (Mitchell & Dezarn, 2014; Sheldon et al., 2007; Whitehead & Baker, 2012).

The implications of this are important for both LGBT people and conservative religious groups. Since most conservative Protestants believe homosexuality is sinful and unnatural, the possibility of linking homosexuality to a genetic origin may counter the fundamentalist view that homosexuality is a sinful condition. This in turn may help to promote more positive attitudes toward gay and lesbian people. Nevertheless, skepticism remains that proving a genetic link to same-sex orientation will improve attitudes toward gays and lesbians (Sheldon et al., 2007).

Environment/childhood experiences/nurture. Some etiological theories of homosexuality suggest that external forces impinge on the individual to create a same-sex orientation. Such external forces may include environmental agents, childhood experience(s), and nurture (including parental involvement). Environmental theories of homosexuality posit that outside influences, e.g., a close-binding mother, distant father, trauma, and/or childhood sexual abuse acts upon the individual to cause him or her to adopt a homosexual orientation (Bieber, 1965; Drescher, 2002; Hughes, 2006; Marmor, 1998).

Psychoanalytic theories of homosexuality—Freudian and neo-Freudian—typically account for a homosexual orientation by citing one or more of these external causes (Drescher, 2002; Yarhouse, 2004). Moreover, the psychoanalytic community typically describes homosexuality occurring in one of three ways: (a) a normal variant of human sexuality, (b) pathological or (c) a demonstration of immaturity (Drescher, 2008). The normal variant theory posits that homosexuality is naturally occurring like left-handedness, meaning that same-sex oriented persons are born gay or lesbian. The pathological theory argues that homosexuality is a disease; it is a deviation from normal heterosexuality. External (pathogenic) agents or forces—e.g., familial relationships, abuse, trauma, etc.—impinge upon the individual to create a pathological response which results in a homosexual orientation (Trail et al., 2008). The immaturity theory, drawn from Freudian psychosexual stages, maintains that homosexuality can be a normal developmental step toward heterosexuality (Drescher, 2002). However, this theory also argues that if an individual continues with one’s same-sex attraction that individual has experienced a developmental arrest or fixation at an earlier psychosexual stage (oral/anal) of sexuality and has not progressed to the more mature, genital stage of normal adult heterosexuality (Drescher, 2002; 2008).

Family of origin theories (e.g., close-binding, overly protective, seductive mother and distant, unloving father) were prevalent during the 1960s; however, they are now generally refuted on the basis that just as many heterosexual individuals come from families that exhibit similar parent-child relationships (Marmor, 1998). Studies dating back to the mid-1970s (Siegelman, 1974) indicate that there is no consistent relationship between the nature of the family constellation and subsequent sexual orientation (Marmor, 1998, p. 22).

Before 1973, homosexuality was classified as a disorder in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. In 1973 the American Psychological Association (APA) made a decision to remove homosexuality from the DSM II as a sexual disorder. As a result, homosexuality is now more widely recognized as a normal variant of human sexuality (Drescher, 2008, p. 443). Despite the APA’s decision to remove homosexuality as a disorder from the DSM, people who believe homosexuality is chosen way of life demonstrate more homonegative attitudes toward gay and lesbian people than do individuals who believe people are born gay (Drescher, 2008; Hewitt & Moore, 2009; Trail et al., 2008).

Personal choice. Some individuals adhere to the notion that homosexuality is a matter of personal choice, i.e., people choose homosexuality rather than heterosexuality. Proponents of choice theory believe that since one chooses a sexual orientation, one can also un-choose it (Marmor, 1998). Heterosexuals who believe that sexual orientation is a choice demonstrate less tolerance toward homosexuals than do proponents of inborn or genetic trait theory (Hewitt & Moore, 2009; Sheldon et al., 2007; Whitehead & Baker, 2012). In their study of lay theories of homosexuality, Hewitt and Moore (2009) found that negative attitudes toward homosexuals were associated with the belief that people choose their sexuality. Further, Stoever and Morera (2007) found an increase in homonegative attitudes when it is believed that LGBT persons choose a same-sex identity.

Although each of the aforementioned areas have been discussed as separate categories, recent research suggests a hybrid or combination model to best describe the development of a homosexual orientation; this model is gaining popularity as well as endorsement from scientists and scholars alike (Engle et al., 2006).

Cultural and Demographic Influences that Shape Attitudes about Homosexuality

Cultural influences shape attitudes about sexual orientation (Adolfsen, Iedema, & Keuzenkamp, 2010; Barringer, Gay, & Lynxwiler, 2013; Brown & Henriquiz, 2008; Butler, 2005; Gentry, 1987; Glick & Golden, 2010; Herek, 2000a, 2000b, 2002; Kite, 1984; LaMar & Kite, 1998; Lewis, 2003; Meaney & Rye, 2010; Schope & Eliason, 2000; Schulte & Battle, 2004; Steffens, 2005; Steffens & Wagner, 2004; Stoever & Morera, 2007; Sullivan, 2003; Wilcox & Jelen, 1990; Whitley, 1988). These influences issue from several factors including gender and heterosexuality, race and ethnicity, and geographical location. Socio-demographic factors also influence attitudes about homosexuality (Brown & Henriquiz, 2008; Glick & Golden, 2010; Herek, 2002; Hewitt & Moore, 2002; Lewis, 2003; Mitchell & Dezarn, 2014; Morrison & Morrison, 2003; Schope & Eliason, 2000; Schulte & Battle, 2004; Shackleford & Besser 2007; Stoever & Morera, 2007; Sullivan, 2003; Walch, Orlosky, Sinkkanen, & Stevens, 2010). Socio-demographic factors include age, education level, personal contact, and political affiliation. In this section, I will detail the manner in which these cultural and demographic factors may affect attitudes toward people who identify as homosexual. I discuss religion as a cultural influence in a later section.

Gender correlates with negative attitudes toward same-sex oriented individuals (Barringer et al., 2013; Herek, 2002; LaMar & Kite, 1998; Schope & Eliason, 2000; Steffens, 2005). Males are more likely to hold negative attitudes toward all homosexuals than are females, while both males and females are more likely to possess negative attitudes toward homosexual persons of the same-sex (Herek, 2000a, 2000b, 2002; LaFave, Helm, & Gomez, 2014; LaMar & Kite, 1998; Meaney, 2010; Stoever & Morera; 2007; Walch et al., 2010). In general, men demonstrate greater intolerance and are less accepting of gay men than they are of lesbians (Steffens, 2005). Women, on the other hand, are more accepting and less condemning of both gay men and lesbians than men (Herek, 2002). Women are also more accepting of same-sex relationships than are men (Barringer et al., 2013).

Studies suggest that both males and females are less tolerant of contact with a homosexual individual of the same-sex while each is more tolerant of a homosexual person of the opposite sex (LaMar & Kite, 1998; Whitely, 1988). Moreover, both male and females experience increased discomfort when in proximity to a homosexual individual of the same gender as the heterosexual person (Gentry, 1987). Gender is also associated with derogatory or prejudicial verbalizations. For example, males are more likely to make derogatory remarks to same-sex identified individuals whereas females are less likely to comment (Schope & Eliason, 2000). These same authors found that men experience tremendous social pressure to express negative attitudes toward homosexual individuals (p. 74).

Males also show greater anxiety around gay men than around lesbian women (Schope & Eliason, 2000). One of the reasons for this anxiety may be the fear of becoming a target of unwanted advances by a person of the same-sex (Whitely, 1988). Moreover, in an attempt to prove their masculinity and avoid a gay label, heterosexual males may also express aggression toward homosexual males (Herek, 2000a, 2000b). Some researchers suggest that negative attitudes and feelings such as intolerance, anxiety, and aggression toward same-sex oriented individuals issue from one’s own repressed/latent homosexual desires and/or urges (Herek, 2000a, 2000b; LaMar & Kite, 1998; Mitchell, 2002).

In addition to gender’s effect on attitudes, research has investigated the influence of heterosexuality on attitudes about homosexuality (Herek, 2002; Kite, 1984; Schulte & Battle, 2004; Whitley, 1988). Heterosexuals demonstrate more negative attitudes toward homosexuals of the same gender than they do toward homosexuals of the opposite gender (Kite, 1984; Whitley, 1988). Herek (2002) found that heterosexual men consistently demonstrate more negative attitudes toward same-sex individuals than do heterosexual women. Moreover, heterosexual males express stronger negative attitudes toward gay males than they do lesbian women (Steffens, 2005). Heterosexual females on the other hand, express fewer negative attitudes toward both lesbian women and gay men than do heterosexual males (Herek, 2002; Kite, 1984; Steffens, 2005; Whitley, 1988).

Both heterosexual males and heterosexual females appear to have negative feelings and attitudes about advances from same-sex identified individuals; which may in part be due to a fear of being approached by a homosexual person (Whitley, 1988). Interestingly however, both heterosexual males and females demonstrate fewer concerns about contact with a homosexual person of the opposite sex (Whitley, 1988, p. 290). Herek (2000) discovered that not only are heterosexual men less likely to harbor negative attitudes toward lesbians, but their attitudes are also as favorable toward homosexual women as they are toward heterosexual females (p. 58–59).

Research focused on the effect of race on attitudes toward same-sex oriented individuals has produced mixed results (Glick & Golden, 2010; Lewis, 2003; Mitchell, & Dezarn, 2014; Schulte & Battle, 2004; Walch et al., 2010). A survey study conducted by Lewis (2003) found that blacks tend to have more disapproving attitudes about homosexuality than do their white counterparts. Glick and Golden (2010) conducted a study of attitudes about homosexuality using data collected from the 2008 General Social Survey (GSS), reporting race-specific trends in the United States toward homosexuality. Their findings revealed that 72% of African Americans believe that homosexuality was always wrong whereas only 52% of Caucasian Americans felt it was wrong. They concluded, U.S. attitudes toward homosexuality are characterized by persistent racial differences (Glick & Golden, 2010, p. 516). Brown and Henriquez (2008) suggested that race is a significant predictor of attitudes toward gay and lesbian individuals; however, their work did not indicate a specific race or ethnicity as results were coded White and non-White. Their results did suggest, however, that white respondents demonstrate fewer negative attitudes toward homosexuals than did non-white participants (Brown & Henriquez, 2008).

Although these studies revealed that blacks are generally more disapproving of homosexuality than whites, religious involvement may be a significant mediating variable. A data analysis conducted by Lewis (2003) shows that African Americans are more likely to attend religious services than are whites. Moreover, many African Americans attend churches that promote conservative attitudes about sexuality. These factors may account for perceived racial differences in negative attitudes regarding homosexuality. Schulte and Battle (2004) found that