PDF

Published

2023-11-28

Issue

Vol. 9 No. 1 (2024)

Section

Research Articles

License

The journal adopts the Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International (CC BY-NC 4.0), which means that anyone can reuse and redistribute the materials for non-commercial purposes as long as you follow the license terms and the original source is properly cited.

Author(s) shall retain the copyright of their work and grant the Journal/Publisher rights for the first publication with the work concurrently licensed since 2023 Vol.8 No.2.

Under this license, author(s) will allow third parties to download, reuse, reprint, modify, distribute and/or copy the content under the condition that the authors are given credit. No permission is required from the authors or the publisher.

This broad license intends to facilitate free access, as well as the unrestricted use of original works of all types. This ensures that the published work is freely and openly available in perpetuity.

By providing open access, the following benefits are brought about:

  • Higher Visibility, Availability and Citations-free and unlimited accessibility of the publication over the internet without any restrictions increases citation of the article.
  • Ease of search-publications are easily searchable in search engines and indexing databases.
  • Rapid Publication – accepted papers are immediately published online.
  • Available for free download immediately after publication at https://esp.as-pub.com/index.php/ESP

 

Copyright Statement

1.The authors certify that the submitted manuscripts are original works, do not infringe the rights of others, are free from academic misconduct and confidentiality issues, and that there are no disputes over the authorship scheme of the collaborative articles. In case of infringement, academic misconduct and confidentiality issues, as well as disputes over the authorship scheme, all responsibilities will be borne by the authors.

2. The author agrees to grant the Editorial Office of Environment and Social Psychology a licence to use the reproduction right, distribution right, information network dissemination right, performance right, translation right, and compilation right of the submitted manuscript, including the work as a whole, as well as the diagrams, tables, abstracts, and any other parts that can be extracted from the work and used in accordance with the characteristics of the journal. The Editorial Board of Environment and Social Psychology has the right to use and sub-licence the above mentioned works for wide dissemination in print, electronic and online versions, and, in accordance with the characteristics of the periodical, for the period of legal protection of the property right of the copyright in the work, and for the territorial scope of the work throughout the world.

3. The authors are entitled to the copyright of their works under the relevant laws of Singapore, provided that they do not exercise their rights in a manner prejudicial to the interests of the Journal.

About Licence

Environment and Social Psychology is an open access journal and all published work is available under the Creative Commons Licence, Authors shall retain copyright of their work and grant the journal/publisher the right of first publication, and their work shall be licensed under the Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International (CC BY-NC 4.0).

Under this licence, the author grants permission to third parties to download, reuse, reprint, modify, distribute and/or copy the content with attribution to the author. No permission from the author or publisher is required.

This broad licence is intended to facilitate free access to and unrestricted use of original works of all kinds. This ensures that published works remain free and accessible in perpetuity. Submitted manuscripts, once accepted, are immediately available to the public and permanently accessible free of charge on the journal’s official website (https://esp.as-pub.com/index.php/ESP). Allowing users to read, download, copy, print, search for or link to the full text of the article, or use it for other legal purposes. However, the use of the work must retain the author's signature, be limited to non-commercial purposes, and not be interpretative.

Click to download <Agreement on the Licence for the Use of Copyright on Environmental and Social Psychology>.

How to Cite

Chavez, J. V., & Ceneciro, C. C. (2023). Discourse analysis on same-sex relationship through the lens of religious and social belief systems. Environment and Social Psychology, 9(1). https://doi.org/10.54517/esp.v9i1.1912

Discourse analysis on same-sex relationship through the lens of religious and social belief systems

Jason V. Chavez

Research Department, Zamboanga Peninsula Polytechnic State University

Collin C. Ceneciro

College of Teacher Education, Zamboanga Peninsula Polytechnic State University


DOI: https://doi.org/10.54517/esp.v9i1.1912


Keywords: LGBTQ, religious belief, religious people, same-sex relationship, social belief

Abstract

Religious beliefs and systems have a profound impact on shaping individuals' attitudes towards same-sex relationships. There is a diverse range of perspectives within religious communities, with some individuals adhering to traditional teachings that condemn homosexuality, while others engage in a process of reinterpretation to support and accept same-sex relationships. This qualitative study aims to analyze the different perspectives about same-sex relationship from the lenses of religious and social belief systems. Purposive sampling was used to select the participants (n=16) who identify themselves as a member of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer (LGBTQ) community (n=5) and religious people (n=11). Findings indicated the complexity of religious influence on social issues and emphasizes the role of individual engagement with faith in either hindering or facilitating acceptance to same-sex relationship. People who are inclined to their religious faith tend to condemn same-sex relationship. Notably, this study observed different interpretations of people about their religion and faith. While others believed it is against God’s will to engage in same-sex relationship, others interpret their belief in more holistic and inclusive way. Nevertheless, this study underscored the importance of understanding the evolving societal attitudes and the role of religion in fostering social discussion, tolerance, and inclusivity within diverse religious communities and society at large.

References

[1]. Adamczyk A, Pitt C. Shaping attitudes about homosexuality: The role of religion and cultural context. Social Science Research 2009; 38(2): 338–351. doi: 10.1016/j.ssresearch.2009.01.002

[2]. Jonathan E. The influence of religious fundamentalism, right-wing authoritarianism, and Christian orthodoxy on explicit and implicit measures of attitudes toward homosexuals. The International Journal for the Psychology of Religion 2008; 18(4): 316–329. doi: 10.1080/10508610802229262

[3]. Perry SL. Multiracial church attendance and support for same‐sex romantic and family relationships. Sociological Inquiry 2013; 83(2): 259–285. doi: 10.1111/soin.12005

[4]. Schulte LJ, Battle J. The relative importance of ethnicity and religion in predicting attitudes towards gays and lesbians. Journal of Homosexuality 2004; 47(2): 127–142. doi: 10.1300/J082v47n02_08

[5]. Baunach DM. Changing same-sex marriage attitudes in America from 1988 through 2010. Public Opinion Quarterly 2012; 76(2): 364–378. doi: 10.1093/poq/nfs022

[6]. Becker AB. What’s marriage (and family) got to do with it? Support for same‐sex marriage, legal unions, and gay and lesbian couples raising children. Social Science Quarterly 2012; 93(4): 1007–1029. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-6237.2012.00844.x

[7]. Whitehead AL, Perry SL. Religion and support for adoption by same-sex couples: The relative effects of religious tradition, practices, and beliefs. Journal of Family Issues 2014; 37(6): 789–813. doi: 10.1177/0192513x14536564

[8]. Perry SL, Whitehead AL. Religion and public opinion toward same‐sex relations, marriage, and adoption: Does the type of practice matter? Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 2016; 55(3): 637–651. doi: 10.1111/jssr.12215

[9]. Burdette AM, Ellison CG, Hill TD. Conservative protestantism and tolerance toward homosexuals: An examination of potential mechanisms. Sociological Inquiry 2005; 75(2): 177–196. doi: 10.1111/j.1475-682x.2005.00118.x

[10]. Haider-Markel DP, Joslyn MR. Beliefs about the origins of homosexuality and support for gay rights: An empirical test of attribution theory. Public Opinion Quarterly 2008; 72(2): 291–310. doi: 10.1093/poq/nfn015

[11]. Merino SM. Contact with gays and lesbians and same-sex marriage support: The moderating role of social context. Social Science Research 2013; 42(4): 1156–1166. doi: 10.1016/j.ssresearch.2013.02.004

[12]. Perry SL, Whitehead AL. Same-sex adoption as a welfare alternative? Conservatism, neoliberal values, and support for adoption by same-sex couples. Journal of Homosexuality 2015; 62(12): 1722–1745. doi: 10.1080/00918369.2015.1078209

[13]. Sherkat DE, de Vries KM, Creek S. Race, religion, and opposition to same‐sex marriage. Social Science Quarterly 2010; 91(1): 80–98. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-6237.2010.00682.x

[14]. Whitehead AL, Baker JO. Homosexuality, religion, and science: Moral authority and the persistence of negative attitudes. Sociological Inquiry 2012; 82(4): 487–509. doi: 10.1111/j.1475-682x.2012.00425.x

[15]. Cox, D., Navarro-Rivera, J., & Jones, R. P. (2014). A shifting landscape: A decade of change in American attitudes about same-sex marriage and LGBT issues. Washinton, DC: Public Religion Research Institute.

[16]. Olson LR, Cadge W, Harrison JT. Religion and public opinion about same‐sex marriage. Social Science Quarterly 2006; 87(2): 340–360. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-6237.2006.00384.x

[17]. Sherkat DE, Powell-Williams M, Maddox G, de Vries KM. Religion, politics, and support for same-sex marriage in the United States, 1988–2008. Social Science Research 2011; 40(1): 167–180. doi: 10.1016/j.ssresearch.2010.08.009

[18]. Van Geest F. Changing patterns of denominational political activity in North America: The case of homosexuality. Review of Religious Research 2007; 49(2): 199–221.

[19]. Cochrane C. The effects of Islam, religiosity, and socialization on Muslim-Canadian opinions about same-sex marriage. Comparative Migration Studies 2013; 1(1): 147–178. doi: 10.5117/CMS2013.1.COCH

[20]. Glas S, Spierings N, Lubbers M, Scheepers P. How polities shape support for gender equality and religiosity’s impact in Arab countries. European Sociological Review 2019; 35(3): 299–315. doi: 10.1093/esr/jcz004

[21]. Triadafilopoulos T, Rasheed J. A religion like no other: Islam and the limits of multiculturalism in Canada. Available online: https://canadacommons.ca/artifacts/1759927/a-religion-like-no-other/2491574/ (accessed on 25 October 2023).

[22]. Sherkat DE, Powell-Williams M, Maddox G, de Vries KM. Religion, politics, and support for same-sex marriage in the United States, 1988–2008. Social Science Research, 40(1), 167-180.

[23]. Astillero FG, Balderama AJG, Galias ABS, Lacsi WC. Acceptance of homosexuals and legalization of same-sex marriage. Research and Analysis Journal 2022; 5(4): 1–8. doi: 10.18535/raj.v5i4.290

[24]. Tabora RC, Tee KRR, Villanueva JD, Bernarte RP. The religious practices of youth and its relation to their attitude on same-sex marriage. Asia Pacific Journal of Multidisciplinary Research 2016; 4(2): 57–64.

[25]. Rae S, Wong KL. Beyond Integrity: A Judeo-Christian Approach to Business Ethics. Harper Collins; 2009.

[26]. Morales B. Same-Sex Marriage and Christian Ethics: Seeking Truth Among Opposing Cultures and Theologies. Azusa Pacific University; 2015. pp. 1–27.

[27]. Kronen JD, Reitan EH. Homosexuality, misogyny, and God’s plan. Faith and Philosophy 1999; 16(2): 213–232. doi: 10.5840/faithphil199916216

[28]. Pietkiewicz IJ, Kołodziejczyk-Skrzypek M. Living in sin? How gay Catholics manage their conflicting sexual and religious identities. Archives of Sexual Behavior 2016; 45(6): 1573–1585. doi:10.1007/s10508-016-0752-0

[29]. Shoko T. “Worse than dogs and pigs?” Attitudes toward homosexual practice in Zimbabwe. Journal of Homosexuality 2010; 57(5): 634–649. doi: 10.1080/00918361003712087

[30]. Barringer MN, Gay DA, Lynxwiler JP. Gender, religiosity, spirituality, and attitudes toward homosexuality. Sociological Spectrum 2013; 33(3): 240–257. doi: 10.1080/02732173.2013.732903

[31]. Ford TE, Brignall T, VanValey TL, Macaluso MJ. The unmaking of prejudice: How Christian beliefs relate to attitudes toward homosexuals. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 2009; 48(1): 146–160. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-5906.2009.01434.x

[32]. Rule S. Religiosity and quality of life in South Africa. Social Indicators Research 2007; 81(2): 417–434. doi: 10.1007/s11205-006-9005-2

[33]. Gay DA, Lynxwiler JP, Smith P. Religiosity, spirituality, and attitudes toward same-sex marriage: A cross-sectional cohort comparison. Sage Open 2015; 5(3): 2158244015602520. doi: 10.1177/2158244015602520

[34]. Gay DA, Lynxwiler JP. Cohort, spirituality, and religiosity: A cross-sectional comparison. The Journal of Religion & Society 2013.

[35]. Taylor P. The Next America: Boomers, Millennials, and the Looming Generational Showdown. PublicAffairs; 2016.

[36]. Arnett JJ. Adolescent Psychology Around the World. Psychology Press. 2012.

[37]. Chavez JV, Adalia HG, Alberto JP. Parental support strategies and motivation in aiding their children learn the English language. Forum for Linguistic Studies 2023; 5(2): 1541. doi: 10.59400/fls.v5i2.1541

[38]. Chavez JV, Lamorinas DD, Ceneciro CC. Message patterns of online gender-based humor, discriminatory practices, biases, stereotyping, and disempowering tools through discourse analysis. Forum for Linguistic Studies 2023; 5(2): 1535. doi: 10.59400/fls.v5i2.1535

[39]. Calaro MF, Vicente MB, Chavez JV, et al. Marketing campaigns leading to the purchase of accommodation products: A content analysis. Journal of Namibian Studies: History Politics Culture 2023; 33: 4221–4236. doi: 10.59670/jns.v33i.2696

[40]. Mendoza DV. Analysis of the Filipino brand of customer service in the accommodation sector. Journal of Namibian Studies 2023; 33: 4685–4704.

[41]. Aguirre JKC, Vicente MB, Chavez JV, et al. Content analysis of consumer reviews on preferred characteristics of accommodation products. Journal of Namibian Studies: History Politics Culture 2023; 33: 4264–4286. doi: 10.59670/jns.v33i.2717

[42]. Duhaylungsod AV, Chavez JV. ChatGPT and other AI Users: Innovative and creative utilitarian value and mindset shift. Journal of Namibian Studies 2023; 33: 4367–4378. doi: 10.59670/jns.v33i.2791

[43]. Suen YT, Wong EMY, Chan RCH. Relationship between religion and public attitudes toward same-sex marriage: Examining the role of traditional Chinese religions through a case study of Hong Kong. Sexuality Research and Social Policy 2023. doi: 10.1007/s13178-023-00836-w

[44]. Coleman E. Bisexual and gay men in heterosexual marriage: Conflicts and resolutions in therapy. Journal of Homosexuality 1982; 7(2–3): 93–103. doi: 10.1300/j082v07n02_11

[45]. Ortiz ET, Scott PR. Gay husbands and fathers: Reasons for marriage among homosexual men. Journal of Gay & Lesbian Social Services 1994; 1(1): 59–72. doi.org/10.1300/J041v01n01_04

[46]. Asyraf Zulkffli M, Rashid RA. Discursive strategies employed by homosexual Malaysian Muslim men in talking about homosexuality in Islam. Discourse & Society 2019; 30(3): 307–320. doi: 10.1177/0957926519828032

[47]. Kissil K, Itzhaky H. Experiences of the marital relationship among orthodox Jewish gay men in mixed-orientation marriages. Journal of GLBT Family Studies 2015; 11(2): 151–172. doi: 10.1080/1550428x.2014.900659

[48]. Haidt J, Graham J, Joseph C. Above and below left-right: Ideological narratives and moral foundations. Psychological Inquiry 2009; 20(2–3): 110–119. doi: 10.1080/10478400903028573

[49]. Haidt J, Graham J. When morality opposes justice: Conservatives have moral intuitions that liberals may not recognize. Social Justice Research 2007; 20(1): 98–116. doi: 10.1007/s11211-007-0034-z

[50]. Pargament KI, Saunders SM. Introduction to the special issue on spirituality and psychotherapy. Journal of Clinical Psychology 2007; 63(10): 903–907. doi: 10.1002/jclp.20405

[51]. Coulter MJ. Spiritual care of gay men in committed relationships: An evidenced-based intercultural approach. Electronic Theses and Dissertations 1907.

[52]. Diamant J. How Catholics around the world see same-sex marriage, homosexuality. Available online: https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2020/11/02/how-catholics-around-the-world-see-same-sex-marriage-homosexuality/ (accessed on 10 July 2023).

[53]. Perry SL, Whitehead AL. Religion and public opinion toward same‐sex relations, marriage, and adoption: Does the type of practice matter? Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 2016; 55(3): 637–651. doi: 10.1111/jssr.12215

[54]. Elie JE, Mathevon N, Vignal C. Same-sex pair-bonds are equivalent to male-female bonds in a life-long socially monogamous songbird. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 2011; 65(12): 2197–2208. doi: 10.1007/s00265-011-1228-9

[55]. Whitton SW, Weitbrecht EM, Kuryluk AD. Monogamy agreements in male same-sex couples: Associations with relationship quality and individual well-being. Journal of Couple & Relationship Therapy 2015; 14(1): 39–63. doi: 10.1080/15332691.2014.953649



21 Woodlands Close #02-10 Primz Bizhub Singapore 737854

Email:editorial_office@as-pub.com