The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Sexuality and Religious Commitment in the United States: An Empirical Examination
Abstract
I provide an empirical assessment of the religious commitments of gays, lesbians, and bisexuals in the United States. I compare the religiosity of gay men and lesbians and bisexuals to each other and to male and female heterosexuals, while controlling for a host of sociodemographic factors that may contribute to differences across the gender/sexuality groups. To accomplish this, I examine data from the 1991–2000 General Social Surveys (GSS). During this period, the GSS asked respondents for the sex of their sex partners over the last five years. The GSS finds that 4.3 percent of men and 3.1 percent of women report same‐sex sexual partners in the five years preceding the interview—this is a larger proportion than members of “other” races, Episcopalians, or Jews. I find that gay men have high rates of religious participation, while lesbians and bisexuals have significantly lower rates of participation. Nonheterosexuals are more likely to become apostates when compared to female heterosexuals, but no more so than are heterosexual men. My findings are at odds with religious pundits who suggest that alternative sexuality mixes with religion more often for females than for males. The results are in concert with contemporary theories regarding the formation of religious preferences, and risk preferences and religiosity.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Most religious movements in the United States hold negative views of nonheterosexual sexual identities.
“While religiosity, itself, does not create harmful environments for LGBQ+ youth (Dahl and Galiher, 2010), most religious movements in the United States hold negative views of nonheterosexual sexual identities (Sherkat 2002).”
From Coming Out Queer: Sexual and Romantic Exploration and Identity Development of LGBQ+ College Students (2025) · cites this paper as Sherkat 2002
Citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Sacred and Secular: Religion and Politics Worldwide
Norris, P., & Inglehart, R. (2004) · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511791017 · Cited by 1,795
Zuckerman, P. (2009) · Sociology Compass · doi:10.1111/j.1751-9020.2009.00247.x · Cited by 239
Drabble, L., Trocki, K. F., & Klinger, J. L. (2016) · Drug and Alcohol Dependence · doi:10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2016.01.022 · Cited by 60
Coming Out Queer: Sexual and Romantic Exploration and Identity Development of LGBQ+ College Students
Lamont, E., & Roach, T. (2025) · Social Currents · doi:10.1177/23294965241285469 · Cited by 5
Metadata
- Authors
- Sherkat, D. E.
- Affiliations
- Southern Illinois University Carbondale (US)
- Corresponding author
- Sherkat, Darren E.
- ORCID
- Sherkat, Darren E.
- Venue
- Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2002-06
- Volume
- 41
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 313-323
- ISSN
- 0021-8294 (ISSN-L)
- 1468-5906
- OpenAlex
- W2042421503
- Cited by
- 168
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 5 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 11 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 18 · 2016: 11 · 2015: 7 · 2014: 4 · 2013: 5 · 2012: 6
- FWCI
- 33.88
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- Princeton University
- Religious Research Association
- Nutrition Obesity Research Center, University of North Carolina
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Religion and Society Interactions
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › LGBTQ Health, Identity, and Policy
- Social Sciences › Health › Religion, Spirituality, and Psychology
- Keywords
- religiosity, sexual orientation, gay men, lesbians, bisexuals, religious commitment, religious participation, apostasy, gender differences, risk preferences, United States
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review