評論
打印
So, what is it really about? We need to look to some of the non-religious, or secular, arguments against homosexuality, and we especially need to do that if we are genuinely committed to living in a society that embraces freedom of religion.
所以，真正的原因是什么？我們來看看一些非宗教的，或者可以說更世俗的觀點。當我們生存在一個支持宗教自由的社會里并且真心熱愛它的時候，我們尤其需要從這個角度進行探究。
So, what are some of those non-religious arguments against homosexuality?
那么，有哪些非宗教觀念的論點是反對同性戀的呢？
Well, the second argument I'm going to look at tonight, the first non-religious argument, is the argument that homosexuality is wrong because it's not universalizable.
今晚我要說的第二個論點，也是第一個非宗教性質的論點，是聲稱同性戀不可以普遍推行。
That's not a word you get to use every day.
這個詞不是個常見詞。
What does that mean?
那它是什么意思呢？
I first heard of this argument back in '92.
我第一次聽說這種論調，是在1992年的時候。
I gave an early version of this lecture at St. John's University in New York, where I had previously done my undergraduate work.
我在紐約的圣約翰大學，我本科就讀的地方做一個演講。此刻我的這個演講即脫胎于那時。
And there was a priest, Father Prior, who wrote to the school paper.
當時有一位普萊奧神父--當時學校報紙的撰稿人。
He was very upset that I had been invited to give this lecture, and he wrote this long letter to the school paper.
對我受邀演講非常不滿。于是給校方寫了一封長信。
And in his letter to the school paper, on of the things he said was, "Of course homosexuality is bad for society.
信中有這樣的說法："毫無疑問，同性戀對人類社會是有壞處的。
If everyone were homosexual, there would be no society."
每個人都是同性戀的話，根本不可能有人類社會。"
And I call this the "universalizability argument."
我將之稱為"普遍推行論"。
Everyone were this way, if we universalize the activity, that would be bad; therefore, the activity is bad.
如果每個人都這樣。如果我們將個體的行為推廣到整體，出現不會的推論結果，那么這種行為就是錯的。
Now, I disagreed with a lot of what Father Prior said in his letter, but I thought it was nice that he took the time to write to the school paper.
我對神父信中的很多觀點頗不同意，但我想既然他花了那么多時間來寫這封長信。
And I said, "You know what, I'm going to write to the school paper, too."
我不妨也寫封吧。
So, I did. I wrote an open letter to Father Prior.
因此我給普萊奧神父回了一封公開信。
It said, "Dear Father Prior, if everyone were a Roman Catholic Priest, there would be no society, either.
信是這么說的："尊敬的普萊奧神父，如果每個人都是羅馬天主教神父的話，人類社會也不存在了。"（羅馬天主教神父有獨身不婚的傳統）
Sincerely, John Corvino."
John Corvino敬上。
What's the problem with this argument?
這種論點的問題在哪里？
A few problems.
它有很多問題。
One, Father Prior seems to assume that just because society needs some people to procreate that everyone is obligated to procreate, but, of course, that doesn't follow.
一是普萊奧神父假定，僅僅因為社會需要某些人生育繁衍后代，就能據此得出每個人都有義務生育的結論。當然，這種推論顯然錯了。
Society needs some people to be doctors.
社會需要某些人去成為醫生。
That doesn't mean everyone is obligated to be a doctor.
并不意味著每個人都有義務去成為醫生；
Society needs some people to be sanitation workers, which doesn't mean that everyone is obligated.
社會需要某些人去成為環衛工人，并不意味著每個人都有義務去成為環衛工人。
Yeah, we need some people to procreate, but it doesn't follow that everyone is obligated, as Father Prior surely recognized.
誠然，我們需要一些人去生育后代，但并不能推論出每個人都有義務生育后代。這點我想普萊奧神父一定會認可。
People have pointed out to me, "Yeah, well some Catholic priests actually do have children."
有人對我指出："其實有些天主教神父是有孩子的。"
Fine. The point is the argument applies equally well to celibacy.
說的沒錯，但重點在于，神父的論點都同樣適用于獨身主義。
But, let's suppose that we were to grant this premise that everyone is obligated to procreate.
因為很多同性戀也是有孩子的。退一萬步說，先假定我們要遵循這種"每個人都有義務生育"的論調。
