Religion and Homophobia in Trinidad and Tobago Essay

As previously demonstrated, the data collected was diagrammatically represented in order to highlight trends or anomalies. shapeure 1 (Fig. 1) begins by showing that 36% of our experiment supported same wake up espousal, whilst 64% did not. Since non-support of same-sex marriage is used as our indicator of homophobia, some two-thirds (( 2)? (3 )) of our sample is considered prejudiced. Whilst this suggests that a substantial proportion of our creation is supportive of homosexuality, the majority is ostensibly homophobic.Thus, a standard was found, against which unmarried elements of the population can then be manipulated and analysed in a positivistic approach. take in 2 shows that the gender of the non-supportive population was almost come toly distributed, which suggests that perspective is gender neutral. This is surprising considering that gender unremarkably 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 only inculcate, Naparima College is proportionately equal to the female only schools, Naparima Girls High School (NGHS), ASJA Girls College (ASJA) and St. Josephs Convent (SJC). Further more(prenominal), Figure 4 shows that the average CSEC grades (which we will use as an indicator of education level) of the supporters approximately equalled that of the non-supporters. Therefore, n both gender, education level school has of import effect on our candidates perception of same-sex marriage.Continuing the search for f bringors that may act the development of homophobia, Fig 5 outlines four further dimensions of kindly life, showing that, support of the legalization of marijuana, alcohol consumption habits, history of altercations with the law, and family structure all had negligible cause because the proportions only slightly deviated from the norm. It is only when the dynamic of godliness is introduced that a nomalies become app arnt.As illustrated in Figure 6, there is little variance between the individual devotions, with Islam being marginally more homophobic, but, when devotion is removed, as in the slip-up of our secular candidates, the proportions are reversed and approximately two-thirds (( 2)? (3 )) of the secular candidates were supportive. Additionally, it was observed that, whilst Muslim candidates had the highest coefficient of correlation to homophobia within our sample, the candidates from the Islamic school, ASJAGirls College who would have been exposed to the institution for at least five years, a substantial portion of their lives-, had the lowest correlation to homophobia the difference being approximately 10%. This is pertinent because it is as well as common mood of secularisation by differentiation wherein the non- phantasmal sphere of life, education is separated from religion (Jose Casanova, 1994). In both instances of secularisation, homophobia was reduced. build on the investigation of the ascertain of religion, religiousism was then compared to opinion using three common measures of pietism. Figure 7 shows the relationship between frequency of visitation of place of worship and non-support, Figure 8 shows the frequency of private worship against non-support and Figure 8 shows the frequency of private study of religious texts versus non-support. All graphs yielded a positive gradient, began good below the average and ended well above it.This indicates, that as pietism increments, so too does homophobia. This contrasts our previous ceremonial that there were no trends amongst the various religions but verifies the implication that secularisation decreases homophobia. Careful consideration of the qualitative data compounds these assertions because, not only is religion openly and usually used as justification of homophobia, the candidates who were most fierily religious and enmeshed with their congregation were a good deal mos t blatantly homophobic.Additionally, if the view of the religious leaders is to be interpreted 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 using a functionalist perspective in which religion serves as a method of maintaining social order through increasing solidarity within a mostly straightaway population by segregating the homosexual, thereby providing a common enemy, and instilling a set of values and norms in society.Also, religion may be viewed as encouraging more productive marriages in which childbirth is possible, thereby component part to sustain the birth-rate, working to aid the system 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 Co nflict perspective may be used in hich religion serves to justify the construction of a sept society in which the heterosexuals are the bourgeoisie and the homosexuals are the proletariat. By mask the foundation of power and exploitation in divine ruling, the heterosexuals are allowed to legitimatize their position of superiority. When this illusion is removed and class consciousness attained, as in the case of secular candidates and candidates with little religiosity, the bourgeoisie can no lasting legitimize their position, and so homophobia is reduced.Alternatively, if one is to utilize Webers supposition of Rational Choice, one might suggest, that, perhaps candidates decided to follow the homophobic direction of their religious leaders, rationalizing that earning the support of the entire congregation was worth crafty against a minority. This theory as well as serves to explain why candidates supported same-sex marriage, because the prevailing justification was a ration alisation that their (homosexuals) private life did not affect me (the candidate) negatively and was therefore not a problem.This in any case explains the anomaly of the some 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 ascribed meanings of symbols embolden homophobia. For fashion model, 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, identify as a fol glower of the text, does not support homosexuality.Another example may be the use of song references in their justification, wherein, candidates interpret the music to disapprove of homophobia and therefore, as listeners, they should also disapprove. Lastly, the use of homophobic slurs such as fag 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 try how religion may affect social hange. He demonstrates a correlation between a decline in the sour of religion and an increase in the acceptance of homosexual relations suggesting that religion does therefore influence homophobia as determined from my research. Furthermore, he considered another form of discrimination, that is, racism in which again, religion resulted in the segregation of a minority, but also, where religion provided a powerful community through which resistance could grow.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 rel igion could affect social life, the article, Gays bash authorities on same-sex marriage, presents a scenario in which religion has clearly moulded the opinion of a prominent member of our g everywherenment to the point that it over-rode proper conduct.This crass act seems less surprising when it is observed that some candidates also paraphrased or quoted biblical passages in lieu of an explanation. The research 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 International Day Against Homophobia, also verifies this conclusion by using statistics which showed that 56% believed homosexuality and Christianity were incompatible and that 82% believed that it was immor al. This, second study was conducted in Jamacia and as such, it is also more pertinent to our research based in Trinidad it should come as no storm 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 significant 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, diarrhea a significant role in developing homophobia within the dishonor Six population of San Fernando.Additionally, three main generalizeences can be do Firstly, that religion may develop homophobia by presenting a community in which homophobia may be justified and advertised as the norm, through fundamental 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 survey consisting of over two hundred subjects. Adding to this difficulty was the statistical 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 wh ich the most co-operation was met. However, since Naparima College be to be a typical institution, for the purposes of our study, I believe that the integrity 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 of the recent, relevant research papers published were either costly, or restricted to members of certain institutions.Lastly, there may have been some, built-in instrument bias in my analysis of the qualitative data. Recommendations On uttermost of my research, certain recommendations have become apparent. The first being that a fatten up separation of the church and state must be accomplished in order to provide 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 tool for inspiring discrimination. Conclusion Although it has been a drawn-out 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. ?