評論
打印
Since when did animals start providing us with our moral standards, particularly in the area of sex?
從什么時候開始，我們的道德標準是由動物來提供的？特別是性的道德這個領域。
I mean, think about this. ok.
我們想想。
Animals don't become state legislators, either.
動物是不會成為州立法委員的。
Can we lock Warren Chisum up now?
或者換個角度說，我們能把沃倫·奇松關進籠子里嗎？
But, beyond that, think about the premise behind this claim.
更進一步說，想想這種指責的前提。
I want to make you a promise.
我在此向你們承諾。
And I've made this promise to hundreds of audiences, so I've got to follow through on this if it ever happened.
我當著你們幾百名觀眾來承諾這點，我說到做到。
If I ever encounter Warren Chisum in public, I'm going to get down on the ground and start humping his leg, just to drive home the point that animals do not provide us with our moral standards.
以后如果我有機會在公共場合見到沃倫·奇松，我會坐在地上，像動物一樣蹭他的腿。讓他徹底清楚我們的道德標準從來都不是動物提供的。
And even if they did, well then homosexuality wouldn't be a problem because not only do animals engage in homosexual sex, some actually form homosexual pair bonds.
退一萬步講，即使真的動物能決定我們的道德標準，同性戀也不是一個問題。因為動物不但會有同性性行為，而且會有牢固的同性戀情感關系。
And people are always sending me clips about this kind of thing.
我總是能看到別人給我發這種小視屏。
You read this stuff in the paper "Gay penguins in Central Park."
你會在報紙上讀到關于"中央公園的同性戀企鵝"的報道。
I'm not making this up.
這可不是我編的。
Lesbian seagulls.
還有"拉拉海鷗"，不會吧？
Do they have short haircuts and Birkenstocks? What does that mean?
這些海鷗難道剃短發穿涼鞋嗎？這意味著什么？
I mean it's all very fascinating, scientifically, but it's not going to answer the moral argument for us.
這事情在科學研究說很吸引人，但完全不足以解決我們在道德上是爭論。
You know what other scientific debate is not going to answer the moral argument for us-that whole nature nurture debate.
有另外一件事也是在科學上頗多辯論，但同樣無法給我們在道德上的爭論以答案，那就是"塑造我們的，究竟是先天還是后天？"
You know what I'm talking about?
想知道我說的是什么意思嗎？
Back when I started doing this, there was a lot of research going on about the hypothalamus of the brain, and we used to hear this argument.
我當年剛開始做現在的事情的時候，有很多針對大腦下丘腦的科學研究。那時候聽到了很多關于這個問題的爭論。
And, it seemed right away that there were two camps that formed.
好像人們立刻就分成了兩個清晰的陣營。
One side says, "I was born this way, therefore it's natural, therefore it's okay," and the other side says, "No, it's a choice, therefore it's unnatural, therefore it's wrong."
支持先天論的一方說："同性戀生來如此，因此這就是自然，因此這毫無問題。"而另一方則說："不，同性戀是個選擇，因此它是不自然的，因此這是錯的。
I think those are both really lousy arguments, both of them.
我認為雙方的論證都很糟糕。
Let's take each one.
我們一個一個說。
I was born this way, therefore it's natural therefore it's okay.
"同性戀生來如此，因此這就是自然，因此這毫無問題。
Well, first of all, I don't really remember the way the world was when I was born and neither do you.
"首先，我根本不記得我出生時世界是個什么樣子，你們也一樣不記得。
I mean the best you can say is that "I've had these feelings as long as I can remember."
我們最多可以說："從我可以回憶起來的時候開始，我就有這種情感感受了。"
I mean you can't just by some act of introspection see your own genetic makeup.
我的意思是，我們不能通過自我反省的方式來看到我們的基因組成。
You've had these feelings for a long time, okay, but just because you've had these feelings for a long time it doesn't mean that you ought to act on them.
你長久以來一直有這樣的情感感受。好，不過，僅僅因為你一直有這樣的情感感受，并不意味著你要將其付諸實踐。
I might have had violent feelings for as long as I can remember, but if I start hitting the people in the front row, you're not going to say, "He was born that way; it's okay."
從我記事起，我大概也有過比較暴力的念頭。但是如果我現在開始向前排的觀眾揮拳，你可不會用"他生來就愛打人，因此這毫無問題"來給我做辯護。
We don't judge the moral status of an activity by looking at the cause or origin of the disposition to that activity.
我們不會用某種行為的緣由或者這種行為的傾向來源，來評價這種行為是否道德。
On the other hand, there's the side that says, "No, it's a choice, therefore it's unnatural therefore it's wrong."
另一方的說法是："同性戀是個選擇，因此它是不自然的，因此這是錯的。"
