The Role of Empirical Evidence and Skepticism in the Same Sex Marriage Debate

I teach a course in experimental psychology and research methods. Being a skeptic as well as a psychological science enthusiast, I try to imbue my lessons with the importance of rational inquiry whenever or wherever possible. As my students are often interested in working in fields of social welfare and mental health they want me to emphasize practical applications. As such, there often arise examples where empirical knowledge does not seem to apply, or at least go far enough. To demonstrate this, and hopefully get the students thinking of ways to be logical and rational even where there are no directly testable hypotheses, I facilitate a discussion in each course examining the role and limits of science in the development of social policy. Last semester, the social policy we examined was the stance many hold regarding same sex marriage.

But, before I elaborate on this discussion, let me tell you a story about a cab driver I met a few weeks ago.

He picked me up at my house, and I told him I was heading to City College. He asked, “Oh, the school? What are you studying tonight?” I told him that I was actually headed there to teach a class, and when he asked what, I said , “Psychology.” I was eager to turn my attention back to my iPhone on; as mean as it might sound, I’m not chatty with strangers. He then said,  “Oh, psychology. I think psychology is interesting, especially in studying the problem with the homosexuals.”

I slowly withdrew my headphones.

Without prompting from me the cab driver began to explain his hypothesis concerning ‘the homosexuals’. He told me that homosexual feelings are caused by a virus you either get by having been originally possessed by Satan, or, the more common way, having been molested as a child by a person of the same sex. He concluded that most homosexuals were molested as children by a member of the same sex, and a select few (the ‘original’ homosexuals) were sent by Satan. The goal of this conspiracy is to make everyone gay, so no new babies are born, to bring about the end of days, as foretold in the bible.

To demonstrate that homosexuality is contagious he offered as evidence the ‘fact’ that there are more homosexuals today then ever before, that the disease is spreading. He even went so far as to say that the virus can be caught through simple exposure of an image of homosexuals, such as seeing two men or women kissing on television, or just openly talking about being gay or expressing pride as a gay man or woman. Pride parades are apparently giant petri dishes, growing and spreading the contagions around.

I asked if perhaps he thought that there really wasn’t an increase in homosexual behavior but perhaps it just seemed that way because more people are accepting of the lifestyle nowadays. His rebuttal was that this was part of the conspiracy to make people think homosexuality is normal, which is apparently another way of spreading the disease. I asked how he knew it was not perfectly normal. He told me to look in nature, claiming that as there are no gay animals, it’s not natural. I said that there actually is plenty of evidence of homosexuality amongst non-human animals. He responded that this is because they are animals, and they get ‘hot’ and can’t control themselves, because they have no conscience, because they aren’t human. I pointed out to him that he first said the absence of homosexuality amongst animals was evidence of it being unnatural behavior, and now he’s saying then when animals do have sex same relations, it’s because they’re animals and can’t help themselves. He failed to see the contradiction.

Clearly this cab driver is an example of the most extreme case of homophobia. But what this conversation epitomized for me were the limits to which empirical knowledge is applied to social policy and moral beliefs.  Scientific evidence against aspects of his specific claims can readily be demonstrated through research, and most already have. For example, his claim that animals aren’t gay, and that therefore it isn’t natural behavior: Homosexual behavioral has been well documented amongst several non-human species and a recent article in The New York Times goes into great depth concerning the topic. But evidence disconfirming his assertion that same sex relationships are uniquely human doesn’t go far enough to address his broader claims about homosexuality being abnormal.

Many layers of this claim can not be tested (such as the involvement of the AntiChrist) and it would be difficult to design a study to examine if exposure to same sex interactions would result in a greater likelihood of homosexual behavior as it would potentially involve violations of research ethics and at best would only produce a correlation (which does not go far enough to address questions of causation). However, from a descriptive, retroactive perspective, his claim that most homosexuals were sexually abused by a member of the same sex, could be analyzed. Surveying a population of persons having suffered this abuse, and persons who have not, to examine if the incidence of homosexual preference is greater amongst the former rather than latter group would support this claim. However, again, we’d only be able to conclude relationship, not a causal link.

But even if it were possible to test under rigorous conditions all of the claims he made that present possible, testable hypotheses, I argue that none of it would matter to a public unwilling to to employ empirical evidence in drawing social and moral conclusions. Let’s pretend for a moment that we have definitive, empirical evidence discounting all of the usual claims against same sex coupling, as well as demonstrating that homosexual preference is equivalent in every way to heterosexual preference. Would this knowledge go far enough for policy makers to legalize same sex marriage nationwide?

This was the question that I posed to my class last fall, and will pose once more to my students later this semester.

Responses to this question can vary. Some suggested that if it were demonstrated that sexual preference is determined by genetic factors this would result in the elimination of the belief that homosexuality is a ‘lifestyle choice‘ and/or that increased acceptance of homosexuality leads to more same sex relationships. It might follow then that a person’s sexual orientation is no more controllable than a person’s race, and therefore limitations on the rights of same sex couples would be discrimination on par with limitations of the rights of specific racial groups.

However, some students in the class still expressed having a problem with same sex marriage.

When asked, few could think of any hypothetical, empirically derived evidence that would make them ‘feel’ OK about same sex marriage. Honestly, most discussions I’ve had with people opposed express similar sentiments. To them, answers found in science about such topics as sexual orientation & identify offer little insight as to whether they would conclude that it’s OK for same sex couples to get married, have or adopt children, and other such social issues.

As a thought experiment I asked what possible experiment(s) or evidence would make them reconsider (and bear in mind I did not present actual data but asked what data would be sufficient), the answer was a resounding ‘none’.

Now, I could conclude that these individuals are simply not practicing careful logic in their reasoning, and I will. But these behaviors demonstrate something a bit more powerful than that; empirical evidence, no matter how often replicated, how well supported and demonstrated, is not automatically sufficient to sway public opinion. We see countless demonstrations, most notably amongst recent examples is the perpetuation of the belief  that vaccines cause autism despite reputable data demonstrating this not to be the case.

This is where the role of the skeptics becomes most notable. We, as skeptics, while we may offer empirical data in the formation of our arguments, our role is more importantly defined as promoting enthusiasm for science, and the spirit of wanting conclusions to be based on reasonable, scientifically derived findings. I am convinced that people can no longer be convinced of a viewpoint by being presented data. This has been tried, and it isn’t working. And from where I stand, I don’t think it can. And if you disagree, then tell me, what research could I have presented that cab driver that would have led him to question his firmly held conclusions?

What attracts me to skepticism as a school of thought is that it is not an ideology, it is a method. I think the skeptics have a role to play in enacting change, and not by purporting the research, but by encouraging the idea that arguments, positions, conclusions,  and even our social and moral values can and should be based upon a rational method, and where applicable, empirical evidence. And  perhaps more importantly, the idea that if one’s argument cannot be logically supported by evidence, it should be re-examined.

I find it encouraging that more and more social policy is being developed and designed around data driven and research oriented initiatives. However, progressive change is limited to that which the public will support, and it appears very few Americans desire rational inquiry to the extent your typical skeptic would.

I feel I should state that I strongly support same sex couples having the right to marry. It has been well demonstrated that same sex coupling is equivalent to heterosexual coupling in the quality of the relationship and efficacy in parenting. If we are to assume 1) marriage ultimately plays a positive role within our society, and 2) heterosexual marriage is acceptable (virtually without restriction) then this knowledge does not permit us to continue to differentiate rights based on sexual preference. Being a skeptic of course, should evidence emerge that disconfirms this conclusion I can revisit my position. But that’s the whole idea, isn’t it?