评论
打印
I must admit I find some of these bizarre.
这种说法让人不寒而栗。
How does what I do in bed "threaten the nation's infrastructure?"
我们在床上的事情，如何能动摇国家的基础呢？
I might think I'm powerful in bed, but whoa, that's a crazy claim.
我的确在床上比较威猛，不过这种指责也太不着边际了。
Nation's infrastructure better watch out tonight, baby.
"亲爱的，今晚要小心点，别伤到国家的基础哦。"
But I just said to you it's not just about what people do in bed, right?
我刚刚和你们说过，其实和床上的事情并没有什么关系。
I'm being facetious there.
开个玩笑而已。
In what way is this a threat to society?
同性恋究竟在什么方面可以威胁到社会？
And there are all different kinds of arguments around this.
在我们身边充斥着各种各样的指责。
I want to focus on two.
我主要讲其中两种。
I want to look at the argument that says it's a threat to children,
首先是指责"同性恋对儿童是一种威胁"。
and then I want to look at the more general argument that says it's a threat to marriage and the family.
接下来我会讨论更为广泛的一种说法，那就是"同性恋是对婚姻和家庭的威胁"。
The argument that says homosexuality is a threat to children could mean a number of different things.
关于同性恋对儿童是一种威胁的论调，多半意味着如下几点：
One thing it might mean is that as homosexuality becomes more visible,
一是说同性恋现在的曝光度越来越高，
children will be more likely to grow up gay and lesbian.
孩子们长大后会越来越有可能变成男女同性恋。
Now, first of all, there is absolutely no evidence for this,
首先必须强调：这种说法是彻头彻尾的无稽之谈。
but, even so, the argument is entirely circular.
即使如此，这种论证本身也是个循环谬误。
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.
你不能去先说之所以某件事是坏的，是因为我们假设允许它，其他人就也会跟着去做。上面的论证依然不能解释为什么这件事是坏的。
It's like saying well if we let people play golf, more people will want to play golf.
就好像如果我们允许玩高尔夫球，那么更多的人就会想去玩高尔夫球。
Okay, but why is that bad?
可高尔夫球坏在哪里？
Okay, so that the argument doesn't get us anywhere.
这种论证放在哪里都是一样站不住脚的。
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.
接下来是另外一个版本，指责同性恋之所以是儿童的威胁，是因为同性恋者，特别是男性，会有更多的可能成为恋童癖。
Now again, the evidence does not bear this out.
我再次强调，没有丝毫的证据支撑这种论点。
This claim is just false.
因此这是无稽之谈。
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.
不过我也想请你们想想这一点：当一个异性恋者做了一件恶事，比如猥亵儿童、强奸女性、犯下严重的罪行等，我们都不会觉得这和他的异性恋性取向有关。
Why then, when we read in the paper about a man molesting a boy,
可是当我们从报纸上读到一个男人猥亵一个男童的时候，
this somehow becomes a fact about all gay people.
大家的印象却往往推及整个同性恋人群。
Look, if you want to fight child abuse, I am right there with you.
如果你想打击虐童犯罪，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.
虐待儿童是个非常恶劣的事情，但我们不能把这和发生在两个自愿的成年人之间的事情混为一谈。一旦混淆了这两者，不但会让无辜的人群承受无端中伤，更让我们的注意力从一些对儿童真正的威胁上转移开，这才是非常值得严肃关注的问题。
So, then people sometimes move away from the children argument a little bit and say, "Yes, but this is a threat to the family."
接下来有些人开始绕开儿童问题，而是指责同性恋是家庭的威胁。
I go around the country debating same sex marriage.
我在全国各地巡回演讲，为同性婚姻呼吁辩护时。
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.
总是听到这种论调。我必须承认，对于这种论调，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?
你们是否觉得，一旦我们支持同性恋的情感关系之后，异性恋者就会停止他们的异性恋关系，转投到同性恋关系中去？
This seems implausible.
听起来难以置信。
The usual response to a gay person is not,
异性恋对同性恋的反应会是这种吗：
"Hey, no fair! How come he gets to be gay and I don't?"
"嗨，这不公平。凭什么他可以是同性恋而我不行？"
Heterosexual people will continue to have relationships, and that's a good thing.
异性恋的人依然会继续自己的异性恋情感关系，这是件好事。
And we can support that, while recognizing it's not for everyone.
而我们也应该一边支持他们，一边承认异性恋情感关系并不是对每个人都适合。
