评论
打印
Even that would not be an argument against homosexuality.
即使在这种情况下，这都不会成为反对同性恋的合理论证。
At best, it would be an argument against exclusive homosexuality.
它顶多可以用来反对那种对异性恋绝对排斥的真性同性恋。
I mean, homosexuality doesn't prevent a person from procreating, anymore than you sitting here listening to this lecture prevents you from procreating.
因为同性恋，也就是同性之爱本身，并不会阻止一个人去生育。（想想很多生育孩子的拉拉就知道了。）如果强说同性之爱会妨碍生育，那么你们此刻坐在台下听演讲也同样是妨碍生育的行为嘛。
I mean nobody is procreating right now, as far as I can tell.
但据我初略地观察，你们此刻确实没有人在进行生育活动。
The lights are kind of bright; I can't really see to the back.
灯有点黑，我看不到后排。
But, it's just a non-procreative activity.
因为听演讲就是一个非生育活动嘛！
And, so, Father Prior's argument would not apply to gay and lesbian people who had children through prior relationships, artificial insemination, or, if we take procreating broadly, through adoption.
所以神父的论点完全不适用于已生育了孩子，或采用了人工授精的男女同性恋，或者如果我们把生育这个概念的外沿扩展一下，这个论点同样不适用于领养和收养。
So, we need a better argument to cover those things.
所以想以这种论证来反对同性恋似乎站不住脚。
So I want to turn to the third argument that I'm going to look at: the argument that homosexuality is wrong because it's harmful.
接下来我想说的是第三个反对同性恋的论点：同性恋的错在于，它是于人有害的。
And this is not just one argument, of course.
这并不是仅仅一个论点。
This is a whole host of arguments.
这是一大群论点的集合。
Throughout history, gay and lesbian people have been blamed for all kinds of disasters: earthquakes, plagues, famines...Liza Minnelli...
历史上，男女同性恋者，曾被视为种种灾祸的替罪羊。从地震、瘟疫、饥荒到丽莎·明尼里（好莱坞全能巨星，同志权益活动家）...
We were party responsible for that one, actually. You've got to accept blame where it's due.
好吧，出了丽莎确实是我们的责任，有错我们不推诿。
And, you know, even today we hear all kinds of crazy claims about homosexuality being associated with disease, and suicide rates, pedophilia, and all kinds of social ills.
即使到了今天，我们耳边也充斥着各种对同性恋的牵强指责，从疾病、自杀率、恋童癖到各种各样的社会问题。
When you listen to these claims, you've got to ask a couple of questions.
听到这些指责，你心里肯定有些问号。
One question is: are they true?
一、它们都是真的吗？
Another question is: and, how would we know this?
二、我们如何知道它是真的？
It seems one way we might know is by talking to gay and lesbian people-because we know something about our own lives.
似乎有一种方法能得到答案，就是和男同性恋和女同性恋们聊聊，因为我们同性恋对于自己的事情还算比较了解的。
But, a lot of people say, "No, no, you can't trust them; they're biased."
可是很多人就说："不行，你不能信任那些同性恋，他们是有偏见的。"
Okay. So, how do we find out about gay and lesbian people's lives?
好吧，那我们怎么去了解男同性恋和女同性恋的生活呢？
Well, we could look to statistics, but there's a problem with doing this.
好，我们可以靠统计数据。这里有个问题。
And it's not just the usual problem that, well, sometimes it seems like you can find a statistical study to back up any claim you want.
常见的问题是，通常你想佐证自己观点的时候，你需要找到统计数据来支撑它。
There are better and worse statistical studies to be sure.
而无可否认，在别的情况下，我们总能找到或好一点或差一点的统计研究供论证使用。
The problem is that in order to make any kind of accurate comparison between gay and lesbian people on the one hand, and straight people on the other, you need some way of separating the two.
而整件事上就出现了新的问题：如果想要对同性恋者和异性恋者双方进行精确的比较，你必须找到区分他们的方法。
How do we do this?
而我们如何做呢？
We ask people!
靠问！
Are you gay or straight?
比如问"您是同性恋还是异性恋呢？"
You can't just check behind people's ears. You've got to ask them!
他们耳后也不会有什么区分标记，我们只能靠问！
And in a society that stigmatizes homosexuality, some people are not comfortable answering that question, which makes it very difficult sometimes to get accurate samples for research on gay and lesbian people versus everyone else.
而在一个羞辱排挤同性恋的社会里，很多人没法轻松如实地回答这个问题。因此对于同性恋和异性恋的研究，有时我们甚至根本无法取得精确的研究样本。
