Religion and Homophobia in Trinidad and Tobago Essay Example for Free

Religion and Homophobia in Trinidad and Tobago EssayAs previously demonstrated, the data collected was diagrammatically represented in tell to highlight trends or anomalies. Figure 1 (Fig. 1) begins by showing that 36% of our sample allowed same sex marriage, whilst 64% did not. Since non-support of same-sex marriage is used as our indicator of homophobia, most two-thirds (( 2)? (3 )) of our sample is considered homophobic. Whilst this suggests that a substantial proportion of our population is supportive of homosexuality, the majority is appargonntly homophobic.Thus, a measuring was found, against which individual elements of the population can then be manipulated and analysed in a positivistic approach. Figure 2 shows that the gender of the non-supportive population was almost equally distri thated, which suggests that perspective is gender neutral. This is surprise considering that gender commonly 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 manly only school, Naparima College is proportionately equal to the female only schools, Naparima Girls High School (NGHS), ASJA Girls College (ASJA) and St. Josephs Convent (SJC). Furthermore, Figure 4 shows that the average CSEC grades (which we will use as an indicator of education take aim) of the supporters round equalled that of the non-supporters. Therefore, neither gender, education level school has significant effect on our candidates perception of same-sex marriage.Continuing the search for constituents that may affect the increase of homophobia, Fig 5 outlines four further dimensions of social life, showing that, support of the legalisation of marijuana, alcohol spending habits, history of altercations with the law, and family structure all had negligible effects because the proportions only slightly deviated from the norm. It is only when the dynamic of devotion is i ntroduced that anomalies become apparent.As illustrated in Figure 6, there is little variance between the individual faiths, with Islam organism marginally more homophobic, but, when religion is removed, as in the case of our secular candidates, the proportions are reversed and slightly two-thirds (( 2)? (3 )) of the secular candidates were supportive. Additionally, it was observed that, whilst Muslim candidates had the highest 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 beingness approximately 10%. This is pertinent because it is in addition indicative of secularisation by differentiation wherein the non- ghostly sphere of life, education is scattered from religion (Jose Casanova, 1994). In both instances of secularisation, homophobia was reduced.Buildin g on the investigation of the persuade of religion, religiousism was then compared to feeling using three common measures of religiosity. Figure 7 shows the relationship between frequency of visitation of spot of worship and non-support, Figure 8 shows the frequency of surreptitious worship against non-support and Figure 8 shows the frequency of private study of religious schoolbooks versus non-support. All graphs yielded a positive gradient, began surface below the average and ended well above it.This indicates, that as religiosity increases, so too does homophobia. This contrasts our previous reflection that there were no trends amongst the diverse 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 fervently religious and enmeshed with their assembly were of ten most blatantly homophobic.Additionally, if the view of the religious leaders is to be taken as the consensus of the congregation, it would bet 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 heterosexual population by segregating the homosexual, thereby providing a common enemy, and instilling a tack of values and norms in nightspot.Also, religion may be viewed as encouraging more productive marriages in which childbirth is possible, thereby helping to sustain the birth-rate, working to forethought 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 Conflict perspective may be used in hich religion serves to justify the construction of a class society in which the heterosexuals are the middle class and the homosexuals are the proletariat. By masking the foundation of power and exploitation in divine ruling, the heterosexuals are allowed to legitimize their repose 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 longer legitimize their position, and so homophobia is reduced.Alternatively, if one is to utilize Webers system 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 discriminating against a minority. This theory also serves to explain why candidates back up same-sex marriage, because the prevailing justification was a rationalisat ion that their (homosexuals) private life did not affect me (the candidate) negatively and was because not a problem.This also explains the anomaly of the few candidates who were enmeshed in non-supportive congregations but still support same-sex marriages. Continuing the reckonivistic trend, Meads theory of Symbolic Interactionism may be applied in which the ascribed meanings of symbols encourage homophobia. For deterrent example, candidates who study 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.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-supporte rs suggests that homosexuality is unwanted, and communicates this to others who may interpret it as such, and develop the same intellection.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 influence of religion and an increase in the acceptance of homosexual relations suggesting that religion does indeed 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 religion could a ffect social life, the article, Gays bash g overnment on same-sex marriage, presents a scenario in which religion has brightenly moulded the opinion of a prominent member of our government 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 domain 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 souls 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 immoral. This, second s tudy was conducted in Jamacia and as such, it is also more relevant to our research based in Trinidad it should come 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 exam aim, the research paper, Religion and public opinion of same-sex marriage, also proves handy because they validate that no other beat demographic holds significant influence on a candidates opinion of same-sex marriage as well as religiosity. Considering these observations, my main finding appears to be that religion does, in fact, play a significant role in developing homophobia within the Lower Six population of San Fernando.Additionally, three main inferences can be make Firstly, that religion may develop homophobia by presenting a community in which homophobia may be warrant and advertised as the norm, through interaction with the institution of government, or through symbolic interaction wherein the relig ious 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 equilibrium 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 proved to be a true 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 inessential data sources as inquisitions at our public libraries proved fruitless and many of the recent, relevant research text file published were either costly, or restricted to members of certain institutions.Lastly, there may have been some, inherent means bias in my analysis of the qualitative data. Recommendations On completion of my research, certain recommendations have become apparent. The starting time being that a complete 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 lengthy road, it was a straight on e, 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. ?