Religion and Homophobia in Trinidad and Tobago Essay

As previously demonstrated, the selective information smooth was graphic eithery represented in mold to highlight trends or anomalies. externalise 1 ( chassis. 1) begins by showing that 36% of our take in supported resembling sex marriage, whilst 64% did non. Since non-support of same-sex marriage is utilise as our index of homophobia, approximately two-thirds (( 2)? (3 )) of our test is considered homophobic. Whilst this suggests that a firm proportion of our state is supportive of oddity, the volume is appargonntly homophobic.Thus, a standard was found, against which close tobody elements of the population bear then be manipulated and analysed in a positivistic approach. digiture 2 shows that the gender of the non-supportive population was to the highest degree peerly distri plainlyed, which suggests that perspective is gender neutral. This is fall upon considering that gender comm all indicates differing perspectives, but whitethorn perhaps be attributed to the existence of homosexuality in both genders.Additionally, this is reflected in Fig 3. where the male barely school, Naparima College is proportionately contact to the female only schools, Naparima Girls High give instruction (NGHS), ASJA Girls College (ASJA) and St. Josephs Convent (SJC). Further much(prenominal), witness 4 shows that the middling CSEC grades (which we will exercise as an power of teaching level) of the supporters approximately equalled that of the non-supporters. Therefore, neither gender, discipline level school has important piece on our candidates perception of same-sex marriage. continuing the try for fixingss that whitethorn affect the development of homophobia, Fig 5 outlines four further dimensions of affable life, showing that, support of the legalisation of marijuana, alcohol consumption habits, history of altercations with the law, and family structure all had negligible effects beca function the proportions only passably deviated from t he norm. It is only when the dynamic of godliness is introduced that anomalies turn apparent.As illustrated in Figure 6, at that place is small-scale variance between the individualist devotions, with Islam creation marginally more(prenominal) homophobic, but, when religious belief is remote, as in the case of our worldly candidates, the proportions are reversed and approximately two-thirds (( 2)? (3 )) of the lay candidates were supportive. Additionally, it was observed that, whilst Muslim candidates had the highest correlativity to homophobia at bottom our sample, the candidates from the Islamic school, ASJAGirls College who would have been exposed to the knowledgeability for at least five years, a substantial portion of their lives-, had the lowest correlativity to homophobia the difference being approximately 10%. This is pertinent because it is too indicative of secularisation by diametriciation wherein the non-religious sphere of life, education is separate d from theology (Jose Casanova, 1994). In both instances of secularisation, homophobia was reduced.Building on the investigation of the run of godliness, religiousism was then compared to assent victimization three greens measures of religiosity. Figure 7 shows the relationship between frequency of trial of place of worship and non-support, Figure 8 shows the frequency of hugger-mugger worship against non-support and Figure 8 shows the frequency of private playing field of religious texts versus non-support. All graphs yielded a coercive gradient, began well below the average and cease well above it.This indicates, that as religiosity increases, so too does homophobia. This contrasts our previous card that there were no trends amongst the various worships but verifies the implication that secularisation decreases homophobia. Careful reflection of the qualitative data compounds these assertions because, not only is theology openly and usually used as justification of homophobia, the candidates who were close to fierily religious and enmeshed with their congregation were much most blatantly homophobic.Additionally, if the moot of the religious leaders is to be taken as the consensus of the congregation, it would appear that most justify discrimination. However, there were cases in which the fervently religious advocated positively for same-sex marriages. The phenomena observed can be explained use a functionalist perspective in which holiness serves as a method of briny(prenominal)taining societal arrange done increasing solidarity at heart a mostly heterosexual population by segregating the homosexual, thereby providing a common enemy, and instilling a set of value and norms in society.Also, religion whitethorn be viewed as encouraging more fecund marriages in which childbirth is possible, thereby destiny to sustain the birth-rate, working to aid the corpse of the family. When candidates are separated from the functions of religion , they are more likely to maintain a different set or norms, wherein homosexuals are equal to heterosexuals. Contrastingly, a Conflict perspective whitethorn be used in hich religion serves to justify the construction of a degree society in which the heterosexuals are the bourgeoisie and the homosexuals are the p parttariat. By masking the groundwork of power and exploitation in predict ruling, the heterosexuals are allowed to legitimize their position of superiority. When this fantasy is removed and class consciousness attained, as in the case of secular candidates and candidates with little religiosity, the bourgeoisie can no longstanding legitimize their position, and so homophobia is reduced.Alternatively, if one is to habituate Webers theory of sharp Choice, one might suggest, that, perhaps candidates opinionated to follow the homophobic direction of their religious leaders, balancenalizing that earning the support of the entire congregation was worthy discriminatin g against a minority. This theory withal serves to explain why candidates supported same-sex marriage, because the paramount justification was a rationalisation that their (homosexuals) private life did not affect me (the candidate) negatively and was therefore not a problem.This as well as explains the anomaly of the few candidates who were enmeshed in non-supportive congregations but still supported same-sex marriages. Continuing the interpretivistic trend, Meads theory of Symbolic Interactionism may be applied in which the set apartd meanings of symbols instigate homophobia. For example, candidates who studied their holy texts daily were most likely to be non-supportive. They may ascribe that the text determines their values and that the text does not support homosexuality, therefore, they, identified as a follower of the text, does not support homosexuality.an different(prenominal) example may be the use of song references in their justification, wherein, candidates interpr et the medicinal drug to disapprove of homophobia and therefore, as listeners, they should alike disapprove. Lastly, the use of homophobic slurs such(prenominal) as butt end in the language of the non-supporters suggests that homosexuality is unwanted, and communicates this to others who may interpret it as such, and develop the same opinion.Discussion of Findings In, Invitation to the sociology of religion, Zuckerman presents a functionalist approach in which we see how religion may affect social hange. He demonstrates a correlation between a decline in the decide of religion and an increase in the acceptance of homosexual relations suggesting that religion does indeed regularize homophobia as resolute from my explore. Furthermore, he considered another form of discrimination, that is, racism in which again, religion resulted in the sequestration of a minority, but in addition, where religion provided a powerful community through with(predicate) which defense could gro w.The strength and influence of these churches echoes the observation that the more enmeshed our subjects were in their religious congregations, the more homophobic they tended to be. Building on the methods by which religion could affect social life, the article, Gays free-for-all government on same-sex marriage, presents a scenario in which religion has clearly moulded the opinion of a prominent member of our government to the tear down that it over-rode proper conduct.This crass act seems slight surprising when it is observed that some candidates also paraphrased or quoted biblical passages in stance of an explanation. The search paper, Religion and public opinion of same-sex marriage, also adds validation to our research because their results were strikingly similar to our own. They discovered, as I did, that a persons religiosity and not their specific religion was the prominent factor in influencing their view of same-sex marriage.Additionally, the article entitled, J-FLAG Issues Statement on planetary Day Against Homophobia, also verifies this conclusion by using statistics which showed that 56% believed homosexuality and Christianity were dissonant and that 82% believed that it was immoral. This, second study was conducted in Jamacia and as such, it is also more relevant to our research based in Trinidad it should muster up as no surprise that their sample yielded a homophobic rate only marginally lower than our own at 59% as opposed to 64%.Finally, in relation to our final aim, the research paper, Religion and public opinion of same-sex marriage, also proves handy because they validate that no other standard demographic holds world-shaking influence on a candidates opinion of same-sex marriage besides religiosity. Considering these observations, my main finding appears to be that religion does, in fact, play a significant role in developing homophobia within the humble Six population of San Fernando.Additionally, three main inferences can be made Firstly, that religion may develop homophobia by presenting a community in which homophobia may be justified and advertised as the norm, through interaction with the institution of government, or through symbolic interaction wherein the religious texts are interpreted as encouraging homophobia. Secondly, that religiosity is a much more significant factor than religious affiliation in developing homophobia, with religious affiliation being almost powerless in our study.Thirdly, we may infer that, whilst exposure to the media did have some effect on the development of homophobia as reflected in our qualitative data, by and large, religion is the major influence with no significant alternative factors appearing in our study. ? Limitations Whilst conducting my study, certain limitations were confronted. Chief amongst these was the cost effectiveness of conducting such a relatively large-scale perspective consisting of over two hundred subjects. Adding to this worry was the stat istical analysis in which a spreadsheet was necessary.Additionally, in order to balance the ratio of male to female respondents, the strata of Naparima College was over-represented since that was the school in which the most co-operation was met. However, since Naparima College prove to be a typical institution, for the purposes of our study, I believe that the wholeness of the data was no compromised. Difficulty was also met in collecting and analysing secondary data sources as inquisitions at our public libraries proved fruitless and many another(prenominal) of the recent, relevant research papers published were either costly, or restricted to members of certain institutions.Lastly, there may have been some, inherent instrument bias in my analysis of the qualitative data. Recommendations On completion of my research, certain recommendations have change by reversal apparent. The first being that a gross(a) separation of the church and state must be accomplished in order to pr ovide the allocation of same-sex marriages, and the second being that the institution of religion should be removed from society as it, in its many forms may a dangerous irradiation for inspiring discrimination. Conclusion Although it has been a lengthened road, it was a straight one, and, in summation, we can determine that there is indeed a clear relationship between religion and homophobia in which religion inspires the other through various ways. Furthermore, a persons religiosity was shown to be the determining factor in influencing homophobia with no other influence being significant. ?