評論
打印
I must admit I find some of these bizarre.
這種說法讓人不寒而栗。
How does what I do in bed "threaten the nation's infrastructure?"
我們在床上的事情，如何能動搖國家的基礎呢？
I might think I'm powerful in bed, but whoa, that's a crazy claim.
我的確在床上比較威猛，不過這種指責也太不著邊際了。
Nation's infrastructure better watch out tonight, baby.
"親愛的，今晚要小心點，別傷到國家的基礎哦。"
But I just said to you it's not just about what people do in bed, right?
我剛剛和你們說過，其實和床上的事情并沒有什么關系。
I'm being facetious there.
開個玩笑而已。
In what way is this a threat to society?
同性戀究竟在什么方面可以威脅到社會？
And there are all different kinds of arguments around this.
在我們身邊充斥著各種各樣的指責。
I want to focus on two.
我主要講其中兩種。
I want to look at the argument that says it's a threat to children,
首先是指責"同性戀對兒童是一種威脅"。
and then I want to look at the more general argument that says it's a threat to marriage and the family.
接下來我會討論更為廣泛的一種說法，那就是"同性戀是對婚姻和家庭的威脅"。
The argument that says homosexuality is a threat to children could mean a number of different things.
關于同性戀對兒童是一種威脅的論調，多半意味著如下幾點：
One thing it might mean is that as homosexuality becomes more visible,
一是說同性戀現在的曝光度越來越高，
children will be more likely to grow up gay and lesbian.
孩子們長大后會越來越有可能變成男女同性戀。
Now, first of all, there is absolutely no evidence for this,
首先必須強調：這種說法是徹頭徹尾的無稽之談。
but, even so, the argument is entirely circular.
即使如此，這種論證本身也是個循環謬誤。
You can't argue that something is bad because, if we allow it, other people will do it because that still doesn't explain why that's bad.
你不能去先說之所以某件事是壞的，是因為我們假設允許它，其他人就也會跟著去做。上面的論證依然不能解釋為什么這件事是壞的。
It's like saying well if we let people play golf, more people will want to play golf.
就好像如果我們允許玩高爾夫球，那么更多的人就會想去玩高爾夫球。
Okay, but why is that bad?
可高爾夫球壞在哪里？
Okay, so that the argument doesn't get us anywhere.
這種論證放在哪里都是一樣站不住腳的。
So, then there's the other version of the argument that says it's a threat to children because homosexual people, particularly gay men, are more likely to be pedophiles.
接下來是另外一個版本，指責同性戀之所以是兒童的威脅，是因為同性戀者，特別是男性，會有更多的可能成為戀童癖。
Now again, the evidence does not bear this out.
我再次強調，沒有絲毫的證據支撐這種論點。
This claim is just false.
因此這是無稽之談。
But also, I want you to think about this: whenever a heterosexual person does something terrible-molests a child, rapes a woman, commits some horrible crime-we don't think of this as reflecting on all heterosexual people.
不過我也想請你們想想這一點：當一個異性戀者做了一件惡事，比如猥褻兒童、強奸女性、犯下嚴重的罪行等，我們都不會覺得這和他的異性戀性取向有關。
Why then, when we read in the paper about a man molesting a boy,
可是當我們從報紙上讀到一個男人猥褻一個男童的時候，
this somehow becomes a fact about all gay people.
大家的印象卻往往推及整個同性戀人群。
Look, if you want to fight child abuse, I am right there with you.
如果你想打擊虐童犯罪，我全心支持。
Child abuse is a horrible thing, but let's not confuse that with consensual adult relationships, because to confuse those two things not only slanders innocent people, it also directs our attention away from the real threats to children, and that's a serious moral concern.
虐待兒童是個非常惡劣的事情，但我們不能把這和發生在兩個自愿的成年人之間的事情混為一談。一旦混淆了這兩者，不但會讓無辜的人群承受無端中傷，更讓我們的注意力從一些對兒童真正的威脅上轉移開，這才是非常值得嚴肅關注的問題。
So, then people sometimes move away from the children argument a little bit and say, "Yes, but this is a threat to the family."
接下來有些人開始繞開兒童問題，而是指責同性戀是家庭的威脅。
I go around the country debating same sex marriage.
我在全國各地巡回演講，為同性婚姻呼吁辯護時。
I've heard this argument many times, and I must admit to you there's a part of it that I just don't quite get.
總是聽到這種論調。我必須承認，對于這種論調，我常常搞不懂。
Do we think that if we support gay and lesbian people in their relationships that heterosexual people will stop having relationships and all go gay?
你們是否覺得，一旦我們支持同性戀的情感關系之后，異性戀者就會停止他們的異性戀關系，轉投到同性戀關系中去？
This seems implausible.
聽起來難以置信。
The usual response to a gay person is not,
異性戀對同性戀的反應會是這種嗎：
"Hey, no fair! How come he gets to be gay and I don't?"
"嗨，這不公平。憑什么他可以是同性戀而我不行？"
Heterosexual people will continue to have relationships, and that's a good thing.
異性戀的人依然會繼續自己的異性戀情感關系，這是件好事。
And we can support that, while recognizing it's not for everyone.
而我們也應該一邊支持他們，一邊承認異性戀情感關系并不是對每個人都適合。
