Cross-sectional evaluation reveals knowledge gaps and negative attitudes towards LGBTQ+, indicating the influence of religiosity.
Background: India has made significant strides in recognizing the rights of the LGBTQ+ community by repealing Article 377 of the erstwhile Indian Penal Code. Despite that, societal attitudes toward the LGBTQ+ community have not undergone a substantial transformation. The current study was conducted to ascertain the knowledge and attitudes of the general population about homosexuality and to investigate the association between spirituality and the knowledge and attitudes toward same-sex relationships. Methods: The study employed a cross-sectional design, and an inter-group comparison was made between respondents of various sexual orientations. The three instruments used were the Attitudes Toward Homosexuals Questionnaire (AHQ) to study attitudes, the Sex Education and Knowledge about Homosexuality Questionnaire (SEKHQ) to assess the knowledge base, and the Centrality of Religiosity Scale (CRS) to quantify the religiosity of the respondents. Results: We obtained responses from 419 participants. The asexual respondents scored significantly higher on AHQ, signifying a more negative attitude (analysis of variance [ANOVA] = 5.502; P < .01). The homosexual or bisexual respondents had a better knowledge profile than others (ANOVA = 20.159; P < .001). Asexual respondents tended to have a higher score on the intellect and ideology subscale of CRS. In multiple linear regression, we found that scores on SEKHQ, CRS, and expressed sexual orientation were predictive of the attitude toward homosexuality. Discussion: Overall, this study addresses an important area of the role of religiosity in the attitude of the public toward homosexuality. It can be very useful in developing an intervention that is scientifically sound, culturally sanctioned, and acceptable to the patients and society.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Sharma et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: