Sexuality & Culture (2017) 21:719–740

DOI 10.1007/s12119-017-9417-y

ORIGINAL PAPER

The Religious Origins and Destinations of Individuals

Identifying as a Sexual Minority

Christopher P. Scheitle1 • Julia Kay Wolf1

Published online: 3 February 2017

 Springer Science+Business Media New York 2017

Abstract Religion has been, and continues to be, a source of external hostility and
internal struggle for many sexual minorities. This has potential implications for the
observed religious origins and current religious affiliations of individuals identify-
ing as a sexual minority. Regarding origins, self-identified sexual minorities might
be less likely than heterosexuals to have come from religious traditions that have
tended to be hostile to minority sexualities, as individuals raised within those tra-
ditions might be hesitant to identify as a sexual minority even if they have same-sex
attractions. Regarding destinations, self-identified sexual minorities might be more
likely than heterosexuals to switch away from religious traditions that have tended
to be hostile to minority sexualities. We examine these expectations using nationally
representative survey data from the 2008 to 2014 General Social Surveys. The
analysis shows that sexual minorities do not significantly differ from heterosexuals
by the religious traditions in which they were raised. Sexual minorities are, how-
ever, more likely than heterosexuals to move away from Christian traditions and
towards disaffiliation or reaffiliation with ‘‘other’’ traditions that include Judaism,
Buddhism, and liberal nontraditional religions such as Unitarian Universalism. For
gay and lesbian individuals, these patterns of disaffiliation and reaffiliation can be
attributed to higher on average education and lower likelihood of being married and
having children; however, these sociodemographic factors do not explain the dis-
affiliation and reaffiliation of bisexual individuals. Further research should explore
the different religious experiences of sexual minority sub-groups.

Keywords Disaffiliation
Identity conflict
LGB
Religious affiliation
Sexual

minorities

& Christopher P. Scheitle

cpscheitle@mail.wvu.edu
1
Department of Sociology and Anthropology, West Virginia University,
PO Box 6326, Morgantown, WV 25606, USA

123
720 C. P. Scheitle, J. K. Wolf

Introduction

Religion, especially its traditional or conservative forms, has long been a source of
antagonism for sexual minorities both in the United States and in other nations
(Adamczyk and Pitt 2009; Hooghe et al. 2010; Henshaw 2014). This religion-based
antagonism is expressed and experienced at multiple levels, from interpersonal
hostility (Herek 1988; Schwartz and Lindley 2005) to state-level policies and laws
(Scheitle and Hahn 2011). The population of sexual minorities, however, is not
entirely distinct from the population of religious individuals. Many sexual
minorities are raised within and continue to practice a religious tradition (Thumma
1991). This means that many religious communities have expressed hostility
towards those sitting next to them during worship. It also means that sexual
minorities may have felt or endured enmity from those with whom they share an
important identity component (i.e., religion). How have sexual minorities responded
to this apparent internal and external identity conflict?
The research presented here examines patterns of religious affiliation among
sexual minorities and how these patterns compare to heterosexuals. The analysis
uses nationally representative survey data produced from the 2008 to 2014 General
Social Surveys to ask two questions. First, do the reported religious tradition
upbringings or origins of self-identified sexual minorities significantly differ from
heterosexuals? Second, net of religious upbringing and other factors that are known
to shape religious switching and disaffiliation, are sexual minorities more likely to
switch to particular religious traditions or to disaffiliate from religion entirely?
Based on past research showing that Evangelical Protestant communities have been
particularly opposed to non-heterosexuality (Moore and Ovadia 2006; Whitehead
2010), this study focuses in particular on the representation of Evangelical
Protestantism among the childhood and current religious affiliations of sexual
minorities.

Religion and Identity Conflict Among Sexual Minorities

Studies of sexual minorities who are raised in or remain in religious traditions,

especially more conservative traditions like Evangelical Protestantism, have shown
that experiences of cognitive dissonance are common (Thumma 1991; Mahaffy
1996; Robertson 2014). Trying to accept one’s sexuality while reconciling the
negative messages received from one’s religious community leads to powerful
identity conflicts (Schuck and Liddle 2001; Halderman 2004; Pitt 2009). Buchanan
et al. (2001) discuss the challenges endured by those who feel same-sex attractions
while being raised in a religious or spiritual environment, particularly noting the
discord that is generated between the two identities. In an exploration of how one’s
religious upbringing affects same-sex attracted individuals and their acceptance of
their sexual minority identity, Lapinski and McKirnan (2013) put forth a model
suggesting a nonlinear approach to understanding how identity formation, conflict,
acceptance, and identity integration may oscillate in response to social and personal
environments. Similarly, interviewing those with a Christian upbringing, Levy and

123
The Religious Origins and Destinations of Individuals… 721

Reeves (2011) indicate that reconciling the internal conflict between these two
opposing identities (i.e., sexual minority and religious) calls for a multi-step
process. Making peace with one’s sexual minority identity and religious identity is
not a simple accomplishment, as it typically requires one to reshape or even reject
their religious views in multiple progressions.
Sexual minorities will often internalize the homophobic messages they hear from
religious leaders and fellow congregants resulting in negative attitudes towards
themselves (Kubicek et al. 2009). Szymanski et al. (2008) examined the literature
involving internalized heterosexism/homophobia and found that it was higher
among sexual minorities who were members of religions that were nonaffirming of
lesbian, gay, and bisexual (LGB) individuals, as are many Evangelical Protestant
groups. It is not surprising, then, that research has suggested that the tensions
between sexual orientation and current or previous religious beliefs often result in
depression or other negative mental health effects (Jacobsen and Wright 2014).
Those who experience attraction to others of the same sex (or both sexes) while
also following a conservative religious tradition may have conflicting thoughts on
how to resolve the tension between these identities. Research that has examined
sexual minorities raised or remaining within hostile religious traditions has
generally highlighted two potential outcomes, at least as far as the religious identity
is concerned.1 The first outcome results from the individual finding a way to
accommodate his or her sexual identity within the framework of his or her existing
religious tradition, even if that tradition is hostile to that sexual identity. This
adaptation often involves a process of redefinition, negotiation, and innovation.
Thumma (1991) observed gay Evangelical Protestants and noted how such
individuals would engage in reinterpretation of scripture to emphasize some parts
(e.g., love and acceptance) and neutralize others (e.g., passages that appear to
condemn homosexuality). Pitt (2009, 2010) observed similar strategies among gay
men active in black churches.
The second option for sexual minorities experiencing a conflict between a
religious identity and a sexual identity is to resolve that conflict by abandoning one
of the identities. This study is particularly interested in the abandonment of the
original religious identity.

Resolving Conflict: Reaffiliation and Disaffiliation

A number of studies have suggested that the internal and external struggle that
sexual minorities experience with non-affirming religious traditions like Evangelical
Protestantism has implications for their patterns of religious reaffiliation and
disaffiliation. For instance, Levy and Reeves (2011) found that their participants
adjusted their religious devotion by either staying with their religion while
modifying their views of it or leaving organized religion to form a more
‘‘personalized faith’’ (63). Schuck and Liddle (2001) interviewed 66 gay, lesbian,
1
Rodriguez and Ouellette (2000) note four potential outcomes: (1) rejecting the religious identity; (2)
rejecting the homosexual identity; (3) compartmentalization; (4) identity integration. We have combined
the first two possibilities (rejection of an identity) and the second two (accommodation of both identities)
into our descriptions.

123
722 C. P. Scheitle, J. K. Wolf

and bisexual individuals and found that a common response in dealing with conflicts
between participants’ religious upbringings and sexual identity was to reaffiliate to a
more welcoming religious tradition or to drop out of religion altogether. Wilcox
(2002) notes that some of their interviewees never went back to church after coming
out while others switched to a more understanding one. Regarding the option to
reaffiliate to a more welcoming tradition, it is noteworthy that many of the studies
(e.g., Wilcox 2002; Rodriguez and Ouellette 2000) examining sexual minorities
who are still practicing religion have focused on individuals who have joined the
Metropolitan Community Churches, which is a religious group that was founded to
primarily serve sexual minorities.
Studies have suggested that the disaffiliation option is also a common choice
among sexual minorities. For example, while Lapinski and McKirnan (2013) found
some same-sex attracted Christians were able to integrate both their sexual and
religious identities, a second larger group also emerged that chose to leave religion
and develop their sexual identity instead. Dahl and Galliher (2009) found in a
survey of 105 young (age 18–24) sexual minority individuals that, although only
14% of their respondents were raised without a religion, 55% were currently
unaffiliated. These apostates would seem to explain the finding that a sizable
number of internet communities serving individuals who have left their religion are
focused on serving sexual minorities (Swanson 2004). It also explains a large
internet presence for those who are trying to merge their religious and sexual
identity (Miller 2016).
Most of the studies looking at the religious affiliation patterns of sexual
minorities have utilized relatively small, non-probability samples. An exception is
Sherkat’s (2002) pioneering analysis of the 1991–2000 General Social Surveys
(GSS). Sherkat found that sexual minorities are more likely to disaffiliate from
religion entirely when compared to heterosexual women but not when compared to
heterosexual men. A potential limitation of Sherkat’s findings comes from the age
of his study. The legal and social context has changed dramatically since the years
represented by Sherkat’s data. In the 1991 General Social Survey, for example, over
70% of respondents stated that homosexuality is always wrong. This response had
dropped to less than 40% in 2014. The increased public acceptance corresponds to
the legalization of same-sex marriage in many states and, in 2015, legalization in all
states due to the Supreme Court’s Obergefell v. Hodges decision. Of course, none of
this is to say that all social, legal, or institutional hostility and barriers have
disappeared for sexual minorities.
Another potential limitation of Sherkat’s (2002) findings results from the
measure he used to identify sexual minorities. His analysis used a measure asking
whether the respondent had sex with individuals of the same sex in the past 5 years
to identify individuals as gay, lesbian, or bisexual. This criterion was the best he
could use since the GSS did not ask participants about their sexual identity at that
time. Research has shown, however, that identifying as a sexual minority is
theoretically and empirically distinct from having had any same-sex encounters in
the recent or distant past (National Research Council 2011; Beaulieu-Prévost and
Fortin 2015). Indeed, the internal conflict for sexual minorities with a religious
identity is not always connected to their same-sex attractions or even past same-sex

123
The Religious Origins and Destinations of Individuals… 723

behavior, but instead from their adoption of an identity as gay, lesbian, bisexual, or
other sexual minority identity (Beckstead and Morrow 2004).
In a more recent study, Herek et al. (2010) examined the current religious
affiliations within a national probability sample of individuals identifying as a
sexual minority. They found that 24.2% of their sexual minority participants
identified as ‘‘atheist, agnostic, or none.’’ This is only slightly higher than the
percentage of all US adults who were religiously unaffiliated at that time.2 Their
data also showed that 2.6% of their sexual minorities identified as Buddhist while
3.1% identified as Wiccan or Pagan. Both of these would be higher than what is
found among a general US adult sample. However, their survey and analysis did not
examine the religious origins or upbringings of their sexual minority participants,
nor did it examine whether their current religious affiliation patterns was a function
of their sexual identity or other associated characteristics, such as age or education.

Current Study

The research presented here builds upon this past work in several ways. First, this
study examines how the religious upbringing of individuals identifying as sexual
minorities compares to heterosexuals. On the one hand, one might assume that the
religious upbringing of sexual minorities would not differ from heterosexuals,
particularly if taking into consideration the idea that people are born with their
sexual orientation. On the other hand, it is possible that individuals that were raised
in religious traditions that are more hostile to sexual minorities would be more
hesitant to identify as a sexual minority even if he or she were to have same-sex
attractions. Adopting such labels, from the perspective of such an individual’s
religious tradition, would constitute a rejection of his or her religious identity and
community. In interviews with same-sex attracted Mormons, Beckstead and
Morrow (2004) found that many of these individuals were resistant to adopting
labels like lesbian, gay, or homosexual. Instead, these individuals would identify as
heterosexual while also acknowledging ‘‘a homosexual problem’’ or ‘‘same-sex
attractions’’ (657). The consequence of such a dynamic for survey data on self-
identified sexual minorities’ religious upbringings would be the underrepresentation
of religious traditions that have been more hostile to sexual minorities. The current
study focuses in particular on Evangelical Protestantism. Evangelicals represent a
substantial portion of the US population, and this tradition has been shown to have
higher levels of hostility towards sexual minorities (Finlay and Walther 2003;
Moore and Ovadia 2006) relative to Mainline Protestants and Catholics. In part, this
animosity is because Evangelical Protestants have been shown to be more likely
than other groups to believe that sexual minorities are making a choice rather than
following a biological force (Haider-Markel and Joslyn 2008; Whitehead 2010).
Second, this study examines whether self-identified sexual minorities are more
likely to have reaffiliated away from more traditional or conservative religious
traditions or more likely to have disaffiliated from religion entirely. These findings

2
The 2010 General Social Survey, for example, found that 18.3% of US adults were religiously
unaffiliated.

123
724 C. P. Scheitle, J. K. Wolf

have been suggested by some of the research reviewed above, but those previous
studies are also limited by their measures, age, and/or sample. Even if the current
study’s findings confirm the patterns of reaffiliation and disaffiliation seen in
previous studies, the current analysis goes further by examining whether those
patterns are a unique function of identifying as a sexual minority or whether the
patterns are connected to other factors known to cause religious reaffiilation and
disaffiilation, such as educational attainment, residential mobility, or family
formation.
The study’s hypotheses can be summarized as:
H1: Evangelical Protestantism will be underrepresented in self-identified sexual
minorities’ religious upbringings.
H2: Self-identified sexual minorities will be more likely than heterosexuals to
have moved away from Evangelical Protestantism and towards more accepting
religious traditions or towards religious disaffiliation, net of other social and
demographic factors.

Data

This study consists of an analysis of the 2008–2014 General Social Surveys (Smith
et al. 2015). Begun in 1972, the GSS is a repeated cross-sectional survey of U.S.
adults over age 18 conducted annually or biennially. The instrument consists of
consistent core questions and questions that rotate onto the survey for particular
years.

Sexual Minority Identity

In 2008 the GSS began to measure participants’ sexual identity.3 Specifically,

participants are asked ‘‘Which of the following best describes you?’’ with the
potential response options of: (a) gay, lesbian, or homosexual, (b) bisexual, or
(c) heterosexual or straight.4 This question is the one we use to identify sexual
minorities. Although the GSS on the whole is administered through a face-to-face
interview, the sexual identity question and other potentially sensitive questions are
collected through a computer-assisted self-administered questionnaire during the
face-to-face interview.

3
Prior to 2008 the GSS had asked about the sex of participants’ past and current sexual partners. Before
the inclusion of the sexual identity question, some research (e.g., Sherkat 2002) used these sex partner
questions to identify sexual minorities. However, comparing the identity question with the sex partner
question shows that they do not perfectly overlap. For instance, 31% of individuals who report a same-sex
sex partner in the last five years identify as heterosexual in the 2008–2014 GSS data.
4
Respondents could also offer the response of ‘‘don’t know’’ or refuse to answer. These cases (don’t
know n = 25, refused n = 113) are excluded from the analysis.

123
The Religious Origins and Destinations of Individuals… 725

Current and Childhood Religious Tradition

In creating indicators of participants’ religious upbringing and current religious

tradition, the current study relied on a common and widely-used classification
system based on the GSS’ measures of individuals’ religious affiliation (Steensland
et al. 2000). This system uses a series of questions in the GSS asking about broad
religious tradition and more specific denominational affiliation to classify individ-
uals into one of the following traditions: (a) Evangelical Protestant, (b) Mainline
Protestant, (c) Black Protestant, (d) Catholic, (e) Jewish, (f) other religion, or
(g) unaffiliated. The GSS asks parallel questions about participants’ religious
tradition and denominational affiliation at age 16, which the current study uses to
create additional measures representing the religious upbringing of participants.
This study, however, needed to make two adjustments to this existing system.
The system normally relies on a separate measure of frequency of religious service
attendance to categorize individuals who identify as Protestant but do not have or
did not provide a specific denomination. Specifically, Protestant participants who do
not provide a specific denomination and who report attending religious services
frequently are classified as Evangelical Protestant, while those who report rarely or
never attending religious services are classified as Mainline Protestant.5 Unfortu-
nately, there is no question representing participants’ frequency of religious service
attendance at age 16. This means that the current study could not use this method
when creating indicators of religious upbringing. To allow for the creation of the
religious upbringing measures while also maintaining consistency between the
upbringing and current religious tradition measures, the current study created an
additional religious tradition for ‘‘Protestant, no denomination’’ for both the age at
16 and current religious tradition.
The second adjustment results from initial analyses showing that there were not
enough Jewish respondents across the different sexual identity categories to allow
for estimates to be computed. Given this, this study combines the Jewish and other
religion categories. In sum, the present study classified respondents’ religious
tradition at age 16 and at the time of the GSS interview as either: (a) Evangelical
Protestant, (b) Mainline Protestant, (c) Black Protestant, (d) Protestant, no
denomination, (e) Catholic, (f) other religion, or (g) unaffiliated.

Other Influences on Religious Reaffiliation and Disaffiliation

While this study is focused on how identifying as a sexual minority shapes patterns
of religious affiliation, reaffiliation, and disaffiliation, past research has shown that
there are several other factors that are important to consider as contributors to these
phenomena that could also be correlated with sexual identity. For example, family
formation events such as marriage, divorce, and childbearing have been shown to
influence the likelihood of switching religious traditions (Roof 1989; Hadaway and
Marler 1993; Musick and Wilson 1995; Smith and Sikkink 2003). To account for

5
The terms evangelical and mainline generally correspond to terms like ‘‘conservative’’ and ‘‘moderate-
liberal,’’ respectively.

123
726 C. P. Scheitle, J. K. Wolf

these findings, the analysis includes a group of dichotomous indicators representing

participants’ current marital status. The currently married category serves as the
reference group, with the other indicators representing the marital statuses of
widowed, divorced or separated,6 and never married. The analysis also includes a
measure for the number of children the participant has ever had. This measure
ranges from 0 to 8, with 8 representing eight or more children.
Research has shown that geographic mobility can shape changes in religious
involvement and affiliation (Bibby 1997; Smith et al. 1998; Smith and Sikkink
2003). Moving can introduce an individual to new social networks containing
different religious affiliations. This shift in social and religious capital can spur
changes in religious affiliation. With this in mind, the analysis includes a group of
dichotomous indicators from a GSS question asking participants, ‘‘When you were
16 years old, were you living in this same [city/town/county]?’’ Responses to this
question were: (a) same state, same city, (b) same state, different city, or
(c) different state. In the analysis the first response serves as the reference category.
Several demographic factors have been shown to shape individuals’ likelihood of
reaffiliation and disaffiliation. For instance, race has been found to be at least an
indirect predictor of the likelihood of moving away from a childhood religion
(Ellison and Sherkat 1990). For instance, Loveland (2003) found that African
Americans were less likely than whites to switch away from their childhood
religious tradition, an effect that appeared to be the result of more frequent family
contact into adulthood. Given this, the analysis includes a group of dichotomous
indicators representing participants’ race. The white category serves as the reference
group, with the other indicators representing the black and other race categories.
Gender has also been shown to shape patterns of reaffiliation and disaffiliation.
Some research, for instance, has shown that women are less likely than men to
switch to more conservative religious traditions (Sherkat and Wilson 1995). As a
result, the analysis includes a dichotomous measure representing the gender of the
participant with men serving as the reference category. Similarly, past research has
pointed to age as a factor in the likelihood of religious reaffiliation or disaffiliation
(Roof 1989; Sherkat 1991). The analysis includes a measure representing
participants’ age. This measure ranges from 18 to 89, with the 89 response
representing ‘‘89 and older.’’
Educational attainment has been shown to predict switching to more moderate or
liberal traditions compared to more conservative traditions, which is at least in part a
product of education’s negative affect on an individual’s likelihood of adhering to
biblical literalism and an exclusivist view of religious truth (Schwadel 2011). The
analysis below includes a measure representing educational attainment of partic-
ipants. The response categories were: (a) less than high school degree, (b) high
school degree, (c) junior college, (d) bachelor’s degree, or (e) graduate degree.
Descriptive statistics for all of the measures used in this research are shown in
Table 1. As seen in this table, the sample is 96.61% (n = 6965) heterosexual or
straight, 1.59% (n = 127) gay, lesbian, or homosexual, and 1.80% (n = 153)

6
The divorced and separated categories are distinct in the original survey question, but there were not
enough cases in the separated category in the multivariate analyses to keep it as a distinct category.

123
The Religious Origins and Destinations of Individuals… 727

Table 1 Descriptive statistics

N Weighted % Mean Linearized s.e.

Sexual identity
Heterosexual or straight 6965 96.61 – –
Gay, lesbian, or homosexual 127 1.59 – –
Bisexual 153 1.80 – –
Religious tradition at 16
Evangelical Protestant 1507 19.90 – –
Mainline Protestant 1204 16.06 – –
Black Protestant 651 8.49 – –
Protestant, don’t know 404 5.64 – –
Catholic 2393 34.91 – –
Other faith 478 6.65 – –
Unaffiliated 608 8.34 – –
Current religious tradition
Evangelical Protestant 1331 17.93 – –
Mainline Protestant 988 12.93 – –
Black Protestant 525 6.77 – –
Protestant, don’t know 703 9.55 – –
Catholic 1705 25.38 – –
Other faith 547 7.56 – –
Unaffiliated 1446 19.89 – –
Marital status
Currently married 3343 53.45 – –
Widowed 539 4.91 – –
Divorced/separated 1364 14.53 – –
Never married 1999 27.11 – –
Number of children – – 1.83 .02
Geographic mobility since age 16
Same state, same city 2785 38.73 – –
Same state, different city 1825 24.75 – –
Different state 2635 36.52 – –
Highest educational degree
Less than high school 895 12.35 – –
High school 3641 51.03 – –
Junior college 549 7.70 – –
Bachelor’s 1364 18.40 – –
Graduate 796 10.52 – –
Age – – 45.91 .22
Sex
Male 3275 46.30 – –
Female 3970 53.70 – –
Race
White 5548 75.97 – –

123
728 C. P. Scheitle, J. K. Wolf

Table 1 continued

N Weighted % Mean Linearized s.e.

Black 1029 13.54 – –

Other 668 10.49 – –

Data: General Social Survey, 2008–2014; N = 7245; weighted by wtssnr

bisexual. The mean age of the sample is 45.91. In terms of race, the sample is
75.97% white, 13.54% black, and 10.49% other race. Women represent 53.70% of
the sample. As would be expected for a probability sample of US adults, the
demographics of the GSS sample closely mirror Census data on US adults. For
instance, according to the Current Population Surveys during the time being
observed here, the mean age of US adults 44.78, the racial distribution was 79.77%
white, 12.27% black, and 7.96% other race, and the sex distribution was 51.67%
female and 48.33% male (Census Bureau 2016).

Analysis

We began our analysis by examining descriptive cross-tabulations between the

sexual identity measure and the religious tradition measures. After examining these
cross-tabulations we conducted a multinomial logistic regression analysis in which
we predict respondents’ current religious affiliation using their sexual identity,
childhood religious affiliation, and other socio-demographic measures as predictors.
Analyses were conducted in Stata 13.1. The data were weighted using the
recommended WTSSNR weight using Stata’s svyset command. This accounts for
the sample structure of the GSS and patterns of non-response (General Social
Survey 2017).
Starting with the descriptive cross-tabulations, Table 2 shows the current and age
16 religious traditions of the participants by their self-reported sexual identity. The
differences in age 16 religious traditions across the sexual identities appear slight.
For example, just under 20% of straight participants state that they were raised in
the Evangelical Protestant tradition. This compares to 14.08% of gay or lesbian
participants and 20.98% of bisexual participants. In fact, there are no statistically
significant differences between the straight and sexual minority groups in religious
tradition at age 16. There does not appear to be support for hypothesis 1 that
Evangelical Protestantism will be underrepresented in self-identified sexual
minorities’ religious upbringings. Self-identified sexual minorities do not signifi-
cantly differ from heterosexuals in their religious origins.
There are, however, significant differences in the current religious traditions
across sexual identity groups. Just over 18% of straight respondents currently
belong to the Evangelical Protestant tradition. This compares to 8.37% of gay or
lesbian respondents and 8.12% for bisexual respondents; both of these are
significantly different from the straight percentage. There are no significant
differences in the rate of adherence to Mainline Protestant, Black Protestant, or the

123
The Religious Origins and Destinations of Individuals… 729

Table 2 Religious tradition at age 16 and currently by current sexual identity

Religious tradition at age 16 Current sexual identity

Straight or Gay, lesbian, Bisexual

heterosexual or homosexual

Evangelical Protestant 19.98% 14.08% 20.98%

Mainline Protestant 16.04% 15.57% 17.62%
Black Protestant 8.47% 10.18% 8.32%
Protestant, don’t know 5.62% 5.97% 6.76%
Catholic 35.0% 37.20% 28.5%
Other faith 6.62% 5.12% 9.17%
Unaffiliated 8.28% 11.87% 8.65%
Total 100% 100% 100%
N 6965 127 153
Chi square (df = 12) = 8.13, p = .84

Current religious tradition Current sexual identity

Straight or Gay, lesbian, Bisexual

heterosexual or homosexual

Evangelical Protestant 18.27% 8.37%* 8.12%*

Mainline Protestant 13.02% 11.22% 9.70%
Black Protestant 6.77% 7.88% 6.15%
Protestant, don’t know 9.55% 11.21% 8.12%
Catholic 25.58% 22.91% 16.63%*
Other faith 7.31% 11.77% 16.98%*
Unaffiliated 19.51% 26.65%  34.30%*
Total 100% 100% 100%
N 6965 127 153
Chi square (df = 12) = 55.37, p \ .01

Data: General Social Survey, 2008–2014; N = 7245; weighted by wtssnr

 
p \ .08; * p \ .05; ** p \ .01 percentages significantly different from straight percentage within the
same row

Protestant-no denomination traditions. Bisexuals, on the other hand, are signifi-

cantly less likely than straight participants to currently belong to the Catholic
tradition. Bisexuals are significantly more likely than straight participants to
currently belong to ‘‘other’’ religious traditions and to be unaffiliated. There is also
evidence that gay or lesbian participants are significantly (p \ .08) more likely than
straight participants to be currently unaffiliated with any religious tradition. In sum,
there appears to be more support for hypothesis 2 that self-identified sexual
minorities will be more likely than heterosexuals to have moved away from
Evangelical Protestantism and towards more accepting religious traditions or
towards religious disaffiliation, net of other social and demographic factors.
However, these patterns could be the result of other influences identified above that

123
 Table 3 Changes in religious tradition from childhood to now between sexual minorities and heterosexuals
730

Current religious tradition Religious tradition raised in (sexual minorities, N = 280)

Evangelical Mainline Black Protestant, Catholic Other Unaffiliated

123
Protestant Protestant Protestant don’t know

Evangelical Protestant 34.02% 10.60% 0.00% 0.00% 0.68% 0.00% 3.23%

Mainline Protestant 11.94% 37.29% 2.11% 3.01% 2.38% 0.00% 9.68%
Black Protestant 0.00% 0.00% 63.87% 10.57% 1.27% 0.00% 0.00%
Protestant, don’t know 14.28% 6.76% 9.14% 40.26% 6.46% 0.00% 3.23%
Catholic 0.73% 2.66% 6.73% 2.56% 55.39% 0.00% 3.23%
Other 10.93% 5.57% 8.61% 19.83% 9.70% 82.30% 3.23%
Unaffiliated 28.10% 37.11% 9.54% 23.77% 24.13% 17.70% 77.42%
Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
N 48 46 29 18 91 17 31

Current religious tradition Religious tradition raised in (heterosexuals, N = 6965)

Evangelical Mainline Black Protestant, Catholic Other Unaffiliated

Protestant Protestant Protestant don’t know

Evangelical Protestant 63.57% 9.64% 5.03% 11.70% 5.10% 2.30% 12.11%

Mainline Protestant 7.39% 58.29% 1.38% 4.57% 3.53% 1.97% 5.51%
Black Protestant 0.74% 0.03% 72.23% 3.31% 0.49% 0.26% 1.49%
Protestant, don’t know 11.53% 5.45% 6.82% 55.33% 4.58% 5.18% 8.90%
Catholic 2.60% 4.62% 1.38% 1.31% 67.55% 2.14% 4.18%
Other 2.69% 3.18% 3.14% 2.84% 3.11% 65.63% 4.85%
Unaffiliated 11.49% 18.80% 10.01% 20.94% 15.63% 22.52% 62.95%
Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
N 1459 1158 622 386 2302 461 577

Data: General Social Survey, 2008–2014; overall N = 7245; weighted by wtssnr

C. P. Scheitle, J. K. Wolf
The Religious Origins and Destinations of Individuals… 731

have been shown to shape reaffiliation and disaffiliation, which themselves are
distributed unevenly across sexual identity groups.
Table 3 allows us to more directly examine movement between childhood and
current religious affiliation. This table shows the current religious tradition of the
respondent by the religious tradition they were raised in. The top half of the
table shows the results for self-identified sexual minorities, while the bottom half of
the table shows the results for heterosexuals. The diagonal cells indicate those
respondents that remain in the tradition in which they were raised. This might be
called the stability or retention rate for each religious tradition.
Generally, we see that the retention rates are lower for sexual minorities than for
heterosexuals across the religious traditions. This finding is especially true for
sexual minorities who were raised in white Protestant traditions. For instance,
63.57% of heterosexuals who are raised as an Evangelical Protestant remain an
Evangelical Protestant in adulthood. This retention rate compares to 34.02% of
sexual minorities who were raised as an Evangelical Protestant. Similarly, 58.29%
of heterosexuals who are raised Mainline Protestant remained Mainline Protestant in
adulthood compared to 37.29% of sexual minorities raised in that tradition.
If we look at the bottom row of the sexual minorities results, we see that 28.10%
of individuals raised Evangelical Protestant and 37.11% of those raised Mainline
Protestant are now religiously unaffiliated. These rates are about twice the rates of
disaffiliation of heterosexuals from these traditions, but these patterns are not as
large or dramatic when looking at the other religious traditions. The results suggest
that sexual minorities raised in white Protestant traditions are more prone to
experience identity conflicts and/or more likely to resolve that conflict by
abandoning their religious identity. Interesting, this does not seem to be the case
with sexual minorities raised within the Black Protestant tradition. It is possible that
the importance of a religious identity for individuals raised in this tradition makes it
more costly to move away from it. Indeed, some have called the Black Church a
‘‘semi-involuntary institution,’’ at least in some regions of the United States (Ellison
and Sherkat 1995; Sherkat and Cunningham 1998).
To examine these reaffiliation and disaffiliation patterns in more detail, Table 4
presents a multinomial logistic regression analysis predicting current religious
tradition by age 16 religious tradition, sexual identity, and the other measures
identified earlier. The Evangelical Protestant tradition serves as the base outcome.
The coefficients, then, represent the effect of a predictor on the likelihood of
identifying with a particular tradition relative to the Evangelical Protestant tradition.
Model 1 includes only the sexual identity indicators. The results show that gay or
lesbian and bisexual participants are significantly more likely (p \ .05) than
heterosexual participants to identify with an ‘‘other’’ religious tradition and
significantly more likely than heterosexual participants to identify as religiously
unaffiliated. These findings mirror what was seen previously in Table 2.
Model 2 includes not only the sexual identity indicators but also the indicators
representing participants’ religious origins. That is, the analysis is showing the
likelihood of currently being in a religious tradition net of the tradition that a
participant was raised in. On the whole, the results do not change dramatically. This
is not surprising given that there were not large differences in age 16 religious

123
 Table 4 Multinomial logistic regression predicting current religious tradition
732

Base outcome: Evangelical Protestant

Mainline Protestant Black Protestant Protestant, don’t know

123
Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 1 Model 2 Model 3

Sexual identity
Heterosexual or straight (ref.) – – – – – – – – –
Gay, lesbian, or homosexual .63 .60 .20 .93 .85 .48 .94 .94 .73
Bisexual .51 .68 .94 .71 1.12 1.01 .64 .84 .94
Religious tradition at 16
Evangelical Protestant (ref.) – – – – – – – – –
Mainline Protestant – 3.90** 3.76** – -1.34 -1.28 – 1.12** 1.04**
Black Protestant – .88* 1.18* – 7.17** 4.88** – 2.04** 2.02**
Protestant, don’t know – 1.20** 1.30** – 3.33** 2.41** – 3.27** 3.24**
Catholic – 1.77** 1.86** – 2.21** 2.12** – 1.62** 1.62**
Other faith – 1.97** 1.95** – 2.30* 2.09  – 2.51** 2.39**
Unaffiliated – 1.39** 1.54** – 2.37** 2.27** – 1.39** 1.42**
Marital status
Currently married (ref.) – – – – – – – – –
Widowed – – .02 – – .31 – – -.22
Divorced/separated – – -.01 – – .49  – – -.08
Never married – – .15 – – .52  – – -.20
Number of children – – -.07 – – -.004 – – -.04
Geographic mobility since Age 16
Same city, same city (ref.) – – – – – – – – –
Same state, different city – – -.03 – – .44 – – .08
Different state – – .04 – – .12 – – .13
C. P. Scheitle, J. K. Wolf
 Table 4 continued

Base outcome: Evangelical Protestant

Mainline Protestant Black Protestant Protestant, don’t know

Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 1 Model 2 Model 3

Highest educational degree – – .36** – – .29** – – .30**

Age – – .01** – – -.003 – – -.004
Female – – .08 – – -.01 – – .02
Race
White (ref.) – – – – – – – – –
Black – – -.17 – – 3.51** – – .22
Other – – -.52 – – .44 – – -.13

Base outcome: Evangelical Protestant

Catholic Other faith Unaffiliated

The Religious Origins and Destinations of Individuals…

Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 1 Model 2 Model 3

Sexual identity
Heterosexual or straight (ref.) – – – – – – – – –
Gay, lesbian, or homosexual .67 .53 .16 1.25** 1.65** 1.16 1.09** 1.04* .16
Bisexual .38 .87 .96 1.65** 2.28** 2.43** 1.37** 1.76** 1.69**
Religious tradition at 16
Evangelical Protestant (ref.) – – – – – – – – –
Mainline Protestant – 2.45** 2.40** – 1.99** 1.88** – 2.36** 2.32**
Black Protestant – 2.08** 2.47** – 2.71** 3.03** – 2.39** 2.36**
Protestant, don’t know – 1.09* 1.10* – 1.90** 1.88** – 2.29** 2.06**
Catholic – 5.81** 5.82** – 2.69** 2.62** – 2.83** 2.76**
733

123
 Table 4 continued
734

Base outcome: Evangelical Protestant

Catholic Other faith Unaffiliated

123
Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 1 Model 2 Model 3

Other faith – 3.14** 3.08** – 6.52** 6.34** – 3.99** 3.88**

Unaffiliated – 2.15** 2.18** – 2.21** 2.22** – 3.36** 3.35**
Marital status
Currently married (ref.) – – – – – – – – –
Widowed – – .79** – – -.30 – – -.07
Divorced/separated – – .09 – – .10 – – .51**
Never married – – .53** – – .48* – – .64**
Number of children – – .02 .01 – – -.20**
Geographic mobility since age 16 – –
Same city, same city (ref.) – – – – – – – – –
Same state, different city – – -.11 – – -.12 – – .15
Different state – – -.10 .19 – – .03
Highest educational degree – – .23** .38** – – .35**
Age – – .0004 – – .0007 – – -.01**
Female – – -.11 – – -.31* – – -.58**
Race
White (ref.) – – – – – – – – –
Black – – -.52* – – -.28 – – .24
Other – – .19 .19 – – -.04

Data: General Social Survey, 2008–2014; N = 7245; weighted by wtssnr

* p \ .05; ** p \ .01
C. P. Scheitle, J. K. Wolf
The Religious Origins and Destinations of Individuals… 735

traditions across the sexual identity groups, as seen in Table 2. Gay or lesbian and
bisexual participants still show a significantly greater likelihood of identifying with
an ‘‘other’’ faith or as religiously unaffiliated compared to heterosexual participants.
Interestingly, sexual minorities are not significantly more likely than heterosexuals
to move from Evangelical Protestantism to one of the other Christian traditions,
such as Mainline Protestantism. This might have been expected given that some
Mainline Protestant denominations tend to be more welcoming of sexual minorities.
If we look back at Table 3, however, we see that the movement of sexual minorities
from Evangelical Protestantism to the other Christian traditions is comparable with
the movement of heterosexuals. It is only with the ‘‘other’’ and the unaffiliated
category where we see larger differences; so, these findings were already suggested
by that table. It is possible that Evangelical Protestantism’s hostility towards non-
heterosexuality negatively influences sexual minorities’ perceptions of the entire
category of Protestantism (or even Christianity), so when considering a new
religious group these individuals do not see any Protestant or Christian group as an
attractive option even if some of them might be more welcoming.
Model 3 includes all of the additional factors described earlier. In line with past
research, the results of this model show that having children is associated with a
reduced likelihood of becoming religiously unaffiliated. The age and female
measures are also negatively associated with becoming religiously unaffiliated.
Compared to participants who are currently married, divorced or separated and
never married participants are significantly more likely to have become religiously
unaffiliated. Education is positively associated with moving to any of the religious
traditions relative to Evangelical Protestantism.
Turning to the sexual identity findings, Model 3 finds that the previously
significant effects for gay or lesbian participants in switching to ‘‘other’’ religions or
disaffiliating become non-significant once accounting for factors like childbearing,
marriage, and educational attainment. Looking at those other factors, we do find that
gay or lesbian respondents significantly differ on these measures. For instance,
43.25% of gay or lesbian participants reported having a bachelor’s degree or more
compared to 32.60% of bisexual and 28.26% of heterosexual participants. Just over
77% of gay or lesbian participants reported being never married compared to
52.39% of bisexuals and 25.82% of heterosexuals. Similarly, 82.86% of gay or
lesbian participants report having zero children, compared to 45.21% of bisexuals
and 27.09% of heterosexuals. Note that the social and demographic differences
between bisexuals and heterosexuals are smaller relative to the differences between
gays or lesbians and heterosexuals. These smaller differences are likely why Model
3 does not fully explain away the findings for bisexuals. Even after accounting for
differences in other social factors, bisexuals are still significantly (p \ .05) more
likely than heterosexuals to affiliate with an ‘‘other’’ religious tradition and
significantly more likely (p \ .05) than heterosexuals to be religiously unaffiliated.
The ‘‘other’’ religious tradition is obviously quite a broad and non-descriptive
category, but one that is necessary given the small number of participants belonging
to the religious groups included in this category. Although it is not possible to
include more specific indicators for these groups in the multivariate analysis,
Table 5 shows the distribution of specific religious affiliations for the ‘‘other’’

123
736 C. P. Scheitle, J. K. Wolf

Table 5 Breakdown of ‘‘other’’ religious tradition category by sexual identity

Straight or heterosexual Gay, lesbian, or Bisexual
homosexual

N % % (in N % % (in N % % (in

(overall) ‘‘other’’) (overall) ‘‘other’’) (overall) ‘‘other’’)

Conservative traditional
Mormon 86 1.23 16.83 – – – 1 0.65 4.17
Jehovah’s 54 0.78 10.57 – – – 1 0.65 4.17
witness
True light 1 0.01 0.20 – – – – – –
church of
christ
Christian 4 0.06 0.78 – – – – – –
science
Liberal nontraditional
Religious 2 0.03 0.39 1 0.79 8.33 – – –
science
Mind science 1 0.01 0.20 – – – – – –
Spiritualist 5 0.07 0.98 – – – 1 0.65 4.17
Unitarian, 21 0.30 4.11 – – – 1 0.65 4.17
universalist
Unity 2 0.03 0.39 – – – – – –
Other non-christian traditions
Jewish 116 1.67 22.70 4 3.15 33.33 7 4.58 29.17
Muslim 31 0.45 6.07 1 0.79 8.33 1 0.65 4.17
Hindu 28 0.40 5.48 – – 2 1.31 8.33
Buddhist 52 0.75 10.18 3 2.36 25.00 2 1.31 8.33
Other Eastern 6 0.09 1.17 – – – 1 0.65 4.17
Native 8 0.11 1.57 – – – – – –
American
Orthodox 28 0.40 5.48 – – – – – –
Other-other 66 0.95 12.92 3 2.36 25.00 7 4.58 29.17
N (in ‘‘other’’ 511 100 12 100 24 100
tradition)
N (overall) 6965 100 127 100 153 100

Data: General Social Survey, 2008–2014; weighted by wtssnr

tradition by sexual identity group. Among heterosexuals, so-called conservative

non-traditional groups like Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses comprise a large
segment of those in the ‘‘other’’ category; however, this is not the case among
sexual minorities. Gay or lesbian respondents in the ‘‘other’’ tradition category are
concentrated in the Jewish and Buddhist groups. Bisexuals are also largely
concentrated in Jewish, Buddhist, and other Eastern groups. Of course, some caution
must be taken in making too many conclusions based on the small number of cases
for sexual minorities across these ‘‘other’’ religious groups.

123
The Religious Origins and Destinations of Individuals… 737

Discussion

A number of studies have shown that sexual minorities who were raised in or remain
in religious traditions experience feelings of dissonance and conflict between their
religious identity and their sexual identity. This struggle might be especially true for
sexual minorities in more conservative religious traditions. Such traditions have
been and remain especially hostile to non-heterosexuality. These traditions,
however, also tend to create stronger religious identities and more closed social
networks to reinforce those identities. This evidence led us to hypothesize that, for
sexual minorities raised in conservative religious traditions, their religious identity
would take precedence over their sexual identity. Empirically, we expected this
dynamic to produce an underrepresentation of those more conservative religious
traditions among the childhood traditions of currently self-identified sexual
minorities. This hypothesis, however, was not supported. The religious traditions
that self-identified sexual minorities were raised in did not significantly differ from
heterosexuals. This result would seem to suggest that, while the feelings of
dissonance and identity conflict might be stronger among sexual minorities in
conservative religious traditions, those feelings do not ultimately lead to a higher
likelihood of rejecting an identity as a sexual minority.
Our findings do provide more support for the second hypothesis, which stated
that self-identified sexual minorities will be more likely than heterosexuals to have
reaffiliated to more welcoming religious traditions or to disaffiliate from religion
entirely. As we saw in Table 5, net of their religious origins and other social and
demographic characteristics, bisexuals are more likely than heterosexuals to
currently affiliate with ‘‘other’’ religious traditions and are more likely to be
religiously unaffiliated. At first, the analysis suggested a similar pattern for gay and
lesbian individuals, but this was explained away by this group’s higher educational
attainment and lower rates of family formation. The lack of a direct effect for
identifying as gay or lesbian on religious disaffiliation might be surprising to some,
especially given that there is a direct effect for identifying as bisexual on
disaffiliation. Some research, though, has suggested that the experiences of
bisexuals in regards to religion and religious communities are different from gays
and lesbians. In interviews with bisexual men regarding their religion, Jeffries et al.
(2008: 468) found that some respondents reported feeling like bisexuality received
even more hostility than homosexuality from their religious communities. As one
respondent told them, ‘‘My sexuality is worse than being gay, because at least you
know what you’re dealing with. At least you know what that person wants. But
someone who’s bisexual, you don’t know.’’
In addition to further exploring the differences among sub-groups of sexual
minorities, future research could move beyond changes in religious affiliation and
examine how changes in religious beliefs and behaviors between childhood and
adulthood differ between sexual minorities and heterosexuals. For instance, are
sexual minorities more likely to see a decline in religious service attendance or
belief in God from childhood to adulthood when compared to heterosexuals? Data is
more limited in this area, however, as it tends to be less common for surveys to

123
738 C. P. Scheitle, J. K. Wolf

include questions about childhood religious beliefs or behaviors than it is for them
to include questions about childhood religious affiliation. The General Social
Survey, for instance, has only sporadically asked about childhood religious service
attendance. The most recent inclusion of such a question occurred in 2008. Such
questions might also be less reliable, as it might be more difficult to remember with
accuracy such beliefs and behaviors than it is to recall one’s childhood religious
affiliation. Still, given the relatively recent trend to include measures of sexual
identity on national sample surveys, there will be many more opportunities to
expand upon the research presented here.
Our findings indicate that regardless of religious upbringing, sexual minorities
are still likely to adopt their sexual identity. However, we could not examine the
level of internal conflict this involved or the process of coming to accept this
conflicting identity. It is possible that, although they eventually adapted a sexual
minority identity, it took great effort to do so. The results showing higher religious
reaffiliation and disaffiliation among sexual minorities, particularly for bisexuals
whose identity is directly attributed to such changes, suggest this may be the case as
they negotiate incongruent identities. Overall, these outcomes support the idea that
being a member of the sexual minority community and a religious congregation are
not mutually exclusive; however, sexual minorities are more likely to adjust their
religious identities to fit their sexual identity.

Funding The authors did not receive funding to conduct this research.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of interest Author Scheitle declares that he has no conflict of interest. Author Wolf declares that
she has no conflict of interest.

Ethical Approval The data used in this research come from the General Social Survey (GSS), which is
publicly available at gss.norc.org. Informed consent is obtained from all GSS participants. This research
is in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and
with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

References
Adamczyk, A., & Pitt, C. (2009). Shaping attitudes about homosexuality: The role of religion and cultural
context. Social Science Research, 38(2), 338–351.
Beaulieu-Prévost, D., & Fortin, M. (2015). The measurement of sexual orientation: Historical background
and current practices. Sexologies, 24(1), e15–e19.
Beckstead, A. L., & Morrow, S. L. (2004). Mormon clients’ experiences of conversion therapy: The need
for a new treatment approach. The Counseling Psychologist, 32(5), 651–690.
Bibby, R. W. (1997). Going, going, gone: The impact of geographic mobility on religious involvement.
Review of Religious Research, 38(4), 289–307.
Buchanan, M., Dzelme, K., Harris, D., & Hecker, L. (2001). Challenges of being simultaneously gay or
lesbian and spiritual and/or religious: A narrative perspective. The American Journal of Family
Therapy, 29(5), 435–449.
Census Bureau. (2016). Current population survey table creator. Accessed at http://www.census.gov/cps/
data/cpstablecreator.html.

123
The Religious Origins and Destinations of Individuals… 739

Dahl, A. L., & Galliher, R. V. (2009). LGBQQ young adult experiences of religious and sexual identity
integration. Journal of LGBT Issues in Counseling, 3(2), 92–112.
Ellison, C. P., & Sherkat, D. E. (1990). Patterns of religious mobility among black Americans. The
Sociological Quarterly, 31(4), 551–568.
Ellison, C. G., & Sherkat, D. E. (1995). The ‘semi-involuntary institution’ revisited: Regional variation in
church participation among black Americans. Social Forces, 73(4), 1415–1437.
Finlay, B., & Walther, C. S. (2003). The relation of religious affiliation, service attendance, and other
factors to homophobic attitudes among university students. Review of Religious Research, 44(4),
370–393.
General Social Survey. (2017). Appendix A: Sampling design & weighting. Accessed at http://gss.norc.
org/Documents/codebook/A.pdf on January 24, 2017.
Hadaway, C. K., & Marler, P. L. (1993). All in the family: Religious mobility in America. Review of
Religious Research, 35(2), 97–116.
Haider-Markel, D. P., & Joslyn, M. R. (2008). Beliefs about the origins of homosexuality and support for
gay rights: An empirical test of attribution theory. Public Opinion Quarterly, 72(2), 291–310.
Halderman, D. C. (2004). When sexual and religious orientation collide: Considerations in working with
conflicted same-sex attracted male clients. The Counseling Psychologist, 32(5), 691–715.
Henshaw, A. L. (2014). Geographies of tolerance: Human development, heteronormativity, and religion.
Sexuality and Culture, 18(4), 959–976.
Herek, G. M. (1988). Heterosexuals’ attitudes toward lesbians and gay men: Correlates and gender
differences. Journal of Sex Research, 25(4), 451–477.
Herek, G. M., Norton, A. T., Allen, T. J., & Sims, C. L. (2010). Demographic, psychological, and social
characteristics of self-identified lesbian, gay, and bisexual adults in a US probability sample.
Sexuality Research and Social Policy, 7(3), 176–200.
Hooghe, M., Claes, E., Harell, A., Quintelier, E., & Dejaeghere, Y. (2010). Anti-gay sentiment among
adolescents in Belgium and Canada: A comparative investigation into the role of gender and
religion. Journal of Homosexuality, 57(3), 384–400.
Jacobsen, J., & Wright, R. (2014). Mental health implications in Mormon women’s experiences with
same-sex attraction: A qualitative study. The Counseling Psychologist, 42(5), 664–696.
Jeffries, W. L., Dodge, B., & Sandfort, T. G. M. (2008). Religion and spirituality among bisexual black
men in the USA. Culture, Health & Sexuality, 10(5), 463–477.
Kubicek, K., McDavitt, B., Carpineto, J., Weiss, G., Iverson, E. F., & Kipke, M. D. (2009). ‘‘God made
me gay for a reason’’ Young men who have sex with men’s resiliency in resolving internalized
homophobia from religious sources. Journal of Adolescent Research, 24(5), 601–633.
Lapinski, J., & McKirnan, D. (2013). Forgive me Father for I have sinned: The role of a Christian
upbringing on lesbian, gay, and bisexual identity development. Journal of Homosexuality, 60(6),
853–872.
Levy, D. L., & Reeves, P. (2011). Resolving identity conflict: Gay, lesbian, and queer individuals with
Christian upbringing. Journal of Gay & Lesbian Social Services, 23(1), 53–68.
Loveland, M. T. (2003). Religious switching: Preference development, maintenance, and change. Journal
for the Scientific Study of Religion, 42(1), 147–157.
Mahaffy, K. A. (1996). Cognitive dissonance and its resolution: A study of lesbian Christians. Journal for
the Scientific Study of Religion, 35(4), 392–402.
Miller, B. (2016). A computer-mediated escape from the closet: Exploring identity, community, and
disinhibited discussion on an Internet coming out advice forum. Sexuality and Culture, 20(3),
602–625.
Moore, L. M., & Ovadia, S. (2006). Accounting for spatial variation in tolerance: The effects of education
and religion. Social Forces, 84(4), 2205–2222.
Musick, M., & Wilson, J. (1995). Religious switching for marriage reasons. Sociology of Religion, 56(3),
257–270.
National Research Council. (2011). The health of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people: Building
a foundation for better understanding. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
Pitt, R. N. (2009). ‘Still looking for my Jonathan’: Gay back men’s management of religious and sexual
identity conflicts. Journal of Homosexuality, 57(1), 39–53.
Pitt, R. N. (2010). ‘Killing the messenger’: Religious black gay men’s neutralization of anti-gay religious
messages. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 49(1), 56–72.
Robertson, M. A. (2014). ‘How do I know I am gay?’: Understanding sexual orientation, identity and
behavior among adolescents in an LGBT youth center. Sexuality and Culture, 18(2), 385–404.

123
740 C. P. Scheitle, J. K. Wolf

Rodriguez, E. M., & Ouellette, S. C. (2000). Gay and lesbian Christians: Homosexual and religious
identity integration in the members and participants of a gay-positive church. Journal for the
Scientific Study of Religion, 39(3), 333–347.
Roof, W. C. (1989). Multiple religious switching: A research note. Journal for the Scientific Study of
Religion, 28(4), 530–535.
Scheitle, C. P., & Hahn, B. (2011). From the pews to policy: Specifying Evangelical Protestantism’s
influence on states’ sexual orientation policies. Social Forces, 89(3), 913–933.
Schuck, K. D., & Liddle, B. J. (2001). Religious conflicts experienced by lesbian, gay, and bisexual
individuals. Journal of Gay & Lesbian Psychotherapy, 5(2), 63–82.
Schwadel, P. (2011). The effects of education on Americans’ religious practices, beliefs, and affiliations.
Review of Religious Research, 53(2), 161–182.
Schwartz, J. P., & Lindley, L. D. (2005). Religious fundamentalism and attachment: Prediction of
homophobia. International Journal for the Psychology of Religion, 15(2), 145–157.
Sherkat, D. E. (1991). Leaving the faith: Testing theories of religious switching using survival models.
Social Science Research, 20(2), 171–187.
Sherkat, D. E. (2002). Sexuality and religious commitment in the United States: An empirical
examination. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 41(2), 313–323.
Sherkat, D. E., & Cunningham, S. A. (1998). Extending the semi-involuntary institution: Regional
differences and social constraints on private religious consumption among African Americans.
Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 37(3), 383–396.
Sherkat, D. E., & Wilson, J. (1995). Preferences, constraints, and choices in religious markets: An
examination of religious switching and apostasy. Social Forces, 73(3), 993–1026.
Smith, T. W., Marsden, P. V., & Hout, M. (2015). General Social Surveys, 1972–2014 cumulative
codebook. Chicago: University of Chicago, National Opinion Research Center.
Smith, C., & Sikkink, D. (2003). Social predictors of retention in and switching from the religious faith of
family of origin: Another look using religious tradition self-identification. Review of Religious
Research, 45(2), 188–206.
Smith, C., Sikkink, D., & Bailey, J. (1998). Devotion in Dixie and beyond: A test of the ‘Shibley thesis’
on the effects of regional origin and migration on individual religiosity. Journal for the Scientific
Study of Religion, 37(3), 494–506.
Steensland, B., Robinson, L. D., Wilcox, W. B., Park, J. Z., Regnerus, M. D., & Woodberry, R. D. (2000).
The measure of American religion: Toward improving the state of the art. Social Forces, 79(1),
291–318.
Swanson, D. J. (2004). The framing of contemporary Christian apostasy on the World Wide Web. Journal
of Media and Religion, 3(1), 1–20.
Szymanski, D. M., Kashubeck-West, S., & Meyer, J. (2008). Internalized heterosexism: Measurement,
psychosocial correlates, and research directions. The Counseling Psychologist, 36(4), 525–574.
Thumma, S. (1991). Negotiating a religious identity: The case of the gay evangelical. Sociology of
Religion, 52(4), 333–347.
Whitehead, A. L. (2010). Sacred rites and civil rights: Religion’s effect on attitudes toward same-sex
unions and the perceived cause of homosexuality. Social Science Quarterly, 91(1), 63–79.
Wilcox, M. W. (2002). When Sheila’s a lesbian: Religious individualism among lesbian, gay, bisexual,
and transgender Christians. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 63(4), 497–513.

123
Sexuality & Culture is a copyright of Springer, 2017. All Rights Reserved.