評(píng)論
打印
What do they mean when they say that it's a choice?
當(dāng)這些人說(shuō)"同性戀是個(gè)選擇"的時(shí)候，他們想表達(dá)什么？
This is one of those places where the orientation-activity distinction actually comes in handy.
在這種情況下，"性取向"和"性行為"之間的區(qū)別看上去很適合來(lái)佐證這種觀點(diǎn)。
They might mean that homosexual orientation is a choice, having those feelings.
他們也許想表達(dá)：同性戀的性取向是一個(gè)選擇。而正是因?yàn)槲覀冇辛诉@些情感感受。
And if that's what they mean, that just seems false.
他們這種說(shuō)法就不攻自破了。
How many of you choose your sexual feelings?
在座哪位的情感感受，是自己選擇的？
Ask yourself whether you've ever been attracted to somebody that you wish you were not attracted to.
不管你是否曾經(jīng)奮不顧身地愛(ài)上某人，你都可以這樣問(wèn)自己。
Maybe the person was already involved with somebody else.
也許吸引你的是一個(gè)有家室的人。
Maybe you were already involved with somebody else.
也許你自己已經(jīng)成了家卻心屬第三者。
Maybe the person just couldn't stand you.
也許你愛(ài)上的人對(duì)你避之不及。
We've all had these kind of experiences where we've had these feelings and wished we could get rid of them. We can't.
對(duì)某人有了情感感受，拼命克制，卻難以自拔。我們都曾有個(gè)這種經(jīng)歷。
Or, the other side sometimes happens, where we don't really have the feelings and wish we could.
反過(guò)來(lái)的事情也很常見(jiàn)：我們難以愛(ài)上某人，卻希望自己能產(chǎn)生感情。
So-and-so is so nice, we had great conversations, but the spark is just not there.
"那個(gè)人真是個(gè)好人，我們交流得很愉快，可是為什么就是沒(méi)有化學(xué)反應(yīng)呢？"
I mean, we don't have that kind of direct control over our feelings.
我們對(duì)自己的情感感受，無(wú)法收發(fā)自如。
But if we don't have that kind of direct control over our feelings for particular individuals, why would anyone think that we would have that sort of control over our feelings towards men in general or women in general?
正因?yàn)槲覀儧](méi)有那種直接的控制機(jī)制，來(lái)控制甚至只針對(duì)某一個(gè)人的情感，那又怎么能說(shuō)我們有控制機(jī)制，來(lái)控制針對(duì)男性和女性這兩個(gè)特定人群的情感呢？
And, why would anyone choose to be gay in a society that stigmatizes homosexuality?
而且，在一個(gè)傾向于污名化和侮辱同性戀的社會(huì)里，又怎么會(huì)有人蠢到去"選擇"做一個(gè)同性戀呢？
It just doesn't stand to reason.
這在邏輯上是說(shuō)不通的。
So then, the other possibility when they say "it's a choice" is that they mean the activity is chosen, and if that's what they mean, there's only one appropriate response-Duh! Yeah!
他們聲稱"同性戀是一種選擇"的另一個(gè)可能的理由，是他們想表達(dá)"同性戀行為是一種選擇"。如果他們這么想，那么對(duì)他們來(lái)說(shuō)只有一個(gè)最合適的回答方式--"廢話！當(dāng)然！"
The technical philosophical term; you can write that down.
"廢話"這詞是我們的哲學(xué)專業(yè)名詞，你可以記在筆記里。
Yeah, the activity is chosen. You don't just sort of wake up and find yourself saying, "Oh, I'm living with this person. How interesting."
沒(méi)錯(cuò)，行為本身是一種選擇。我們總不會(huì)稀里糊涂地就和路人甲在一起過(guò)一輩子吧。
You make choices, but that doesn't say anything about whether it's a good choice or a bad choice, a natural choice or an unnatural choice, in the relevant sense.
我們是在作出選擇，但這不能因此就推論出我們作出的是好選擇或者壞選擇。同樣道理，也不能推論出究竟是個(gè)"自然的"選擇，或是個(gè)"非自然的"選擇。
Think of this by way of analogy.
我們類比一下。
I am probably naturally right-handed in the sense that I've just been discussing.
我大概生來(lái)就是個(gè)右撇子。
I've always written with my right hand.
總是用右手寫(xiě)字。
Everyone in my family writes right-handed, but if I were to pick up a pen and start writing with my left hand, you wouldn't say, "Unnatural! Sinner!"
我家里的每個(gè)人也都是右手寫(xiě)字。不過(guò)如果我打算用左手拿起筆來(lái)開(kāi)始寫(xiě)字，你總不會(huì)對(duì)我說(shuō)："這不自然，你是個(gè)罪人！"
There was a time in history when people would have said that.
在歷史上曾有一段時(shí)間，人們會(huì)這樣說(shuō)。
People were burned at the stake for writing with their left hands.
甚至用左手寫(xiě)字的人會(huì)被燒死。
We think that's crazy, but it has nothing to do with whether left-handedness is something genetically determined or something learned in early childhood or something that I just do for some reason because I think it might be fulfilling to me.
今天看來(lái)無(wú)疑夠瘋狂，但這與為什么人們用左手寫(xiě)字無(wú)關(guān)。無(wú)論左手寫(xiě)字是基因決定，還是幼年習(xí)得，都與這無(wú)關(guān)，亦或是一時(shí)興起為之，全部無(wú)關(guān)。
The scientific debates are not going to settle the moral debates.
因?yàn)榭茖W(xué)上的左右兩方意見(jiàn)不能用來(lái)為道德定高下是非。
So what else might we mean when we talk about unnatural?
當(dāng)熱門提到"非自然"的時(shí)候，還有哪些所指呢？
Well maybe people are grasping at this kind of natural law tradition that goes back to Aristotle and St. Thomas Aquinas.
也許他們以源自亞里士多德和托馬斯阿奎那那個(gè)時(shí)代的自然法則傳統(tǒng)觀點(diǎn)為佐證。
The idea is something like the following: all of our organs have certain "natural" purposes-our eyes are for seeing, our ears are for hearing, our genitals are for procreating, and to use your organ for some purpose other than its "natural" purpose is unnatural, and therefore, wrong.
來(lái)表達(dá)這種觀點(diǎn)："我們身體的每個(gè)器官都有著某種'自然賦予'的功用。"比如雙眼用來(lái)看東西，雙耳用來(lái)聆聽(tīng)，我們的生殖器官用來(lái)生育繁殖。而在自然賦予的功能之外使用你的器官就是"非自然的"，也就是錯(cuò)誤的。
