注册 登录  
 加关注
   显示下一条  |  关闭
温馨提示!由于新浪微博认证机制调整,您的新浪微博帐号绑定已过期,请重新绑定!立即重新绑定新浪微博》  |  关闭

守诚阁

基督徒世界观 译介圣经神学

 
 
 

日志

 
 

同性恋是天生的吗?  

2012-02-26 09:05:47|  分类: 国度生活 |  标签: |举报 |字号 订阅

  下载LOFTER 我的照片书  |
这篇文章说明科学家目前并没有发现所谓的“同性恋基因”,但是“同性恋是天生的”这个观念,却早已成为人们的“共识”。
值得一看。



Are Homosexuals Born that Way?

诚之编译自:http://str.typepad.com/weblog/2012/02/are-homosexuals-born-that-way.html

In an article found here Alan Shlemon writes:

Lady Gaga’s mega-hit song “Born this Way” sold millions of copies affirming what many people believe: homosexuality is hardwired. In fact, people think that’s as axiomatic as saying the earth revolves around the sun. No rational person rejects the idea. The only hold-outs, it is said, are either ignorant of science, homophobic, or bigots (read: Christians). But before I explain why this view is beset with problems, let me make a tactical suggestion.女神卡卡的畅销歌曲,天生如此Born this Way)肯定了许多人的信念:同性恋是天生的。这个观念也早已成为一种公理。任何有理性的人,都不会拒绝这个观念。坚持不信,就说明你跟不上科学,或害怕、讨厌同性恋,或者是心胸狭隘(基督徒!)。但是在我说明这个观念充满漏洞之前,请让我先提出一个策略上的建议。

Many Christians get defensive when someone says homosexuality is inborn. I understand the temptation to argue against this claim. But it’s a mistake to try to show it’s false, at least initially. That’s because the claim is not an argument. It’s just an opinion and, therefore, not necessarily true. In order for their claim to become a bona fide argument, it must be supported with evidence or reasons. 当有人说同性恋是天生的,许多基督徒会跳起来反对。我理解要起来反对这个说法的诱惑。但力图要证明此观念是错的,是一项失误,至少我们不该从一开始就加以反驳。这是因为这个宣称不是一个论证,只是一个意见,也就是说,未必是事实。要让这个宣称成为真实的论证,必须要有足够证据的支持。

So, instead of defending your convictions, make them defend their claim. Simply ask, “What evidence do you have that homosexuals are born that way?” Then wait and listen. This is totally appropriate and not just a rhetorical trick. It’s how the burden of proof works. Whoever makes the claim bears the burden to show it’s true. Since they’ve made the claim, it’s their job to back it up, not your job to prove them wrong.因此,与其为你的信念辩护,不如让他们为他们的信念辩护。只要问他们:你认为同性恋是天生的,有什么证据?然后静待对方怎么说。这是很恰当的回应,而不是文字的圈套。这牵涉到举证的责任:任何提出宣称的人,必须证明这是真的。既然他们做出这种宣称,就该提出证明。你没有必要证明他们的错误。

If they don’t have evidence for their claim, then it’s fair to graciously explain that their view is unreasonable – that they don’t hold their view for good reason. If they do offer evidence for their view, only then is it appropriate to respond with a counter-argument. 如果他们无法提出证据,你可以很公平地解释说他们的观念不合乎理性——他们这样相信没有足够的理由。如果他们真的提出了证据,提出反证才是适当的回应。

With that tactic in mind, let’s look at three problems with the born-that-way theory. The first is the most egregious. A simple scientific fact-check demonstrates that no study has proven that homosexuality is biologically determined. 基于这个技巧,让我们看天生如此理论的三个漏洞。第一个很明显。简单地查验科学的证据,就说明没有任何的研究已经证明同性恋是由基因决定的。

Decades of research to discover a “gay gene” have been unsuccessful. It’s now uncommon for scientists to think that homosexuality is solely genetic. Perhaps the most powerful line of evidence is found in twin studies. Since identical twins have identical genetics, it would follow that if one twin was homosexual, the other would also have to be homosexual 100% of the time. But both twins are homosexual in less than 15% of the cases.[1]几十年来,科学家一直未能找到同性恋基因目前已经很少有科学家认为同性恋单纯是由基因引起的。最有力的证据是来自双胞胎的研究。由于同卵双胞胎有完全相同的基因,如果其中一个人是同性恋,那么,另一个人就必然会是同性恋。但是调查研究证明,双胞胎都是同性恋的只有15%(注1

Not only is the genetic effect extremely low, but it also accounts for shared environmental factors. In other words, even saying that the genetic contribution to homosexuality is 15% is not accurate because identical twins are usually raised together and share a similar environment. In order to isolate the contribution of genetics, one would have to study identical twins raised apart. That way you eliminate the effect of their environment.不只是基因的影响相当低,还要考虑到相同环境的因素。换句话说,即使是说同性恋有15%是由基因所引起的,也是不准确的。因为同卵双胞胎通常是在同样的环境下被养大的。要把基因的影响单独分离出来,我们必须研究在不同环境下长大的同卵双胞胎的情况,这才能排除环境对他们的影响。

It was also speculated that homosexuality had a biological basis. But research that correlates brain anatomy/physiology with homosexual behavior doesn’t prove causation. In other words, even if the brains of homosexuals have structural differences from those of heterosexuals, that might suggest their behavior changes their brain, not necessarily the other way around. This is possible due to neuroplasticity – the lifelong ability of the brain to change in response to the environment, behavior, brain injury, or even acquiring knowledge. For example, blind people’s brains have a different neurologic structure because reading braille using fingers is a different behavior than using eyes to read. 有些人猜测同性恋有生物学上的基础。但研究脑部解剖学/生理学与同性恋行为之间关系的科学家,并无法证明其中的关联。换句话说,即使同性恋的脑部结构和其他异性恋者不同,这也许是因为他们的行为改变了他们的脑部结构,未必是他们的脑部结构造成了他们的行为。这有可能源自神经的可塑性(neuroplasticity——在我们的一生当中,脑部结构会因为环境、行为,脑部受伤,或甚至获得知识而发生改变。例如,失明者的脑部,会有不同的神经结构,这是因为他们使用手指来阅读点字,而不是用眼睛来阅读。不同的行为会改变脑部的结构。

What’s surprising is that pro-gay researchers and organizations acknowledge the dearth of evidence for a biological cause to homosexuality. The American Psychological Association (APA), for example, once held the position in 1998 that, there is “evidence to suggest that biology, including genetic or inborn hormonal factors, play a significant role in a person’s sexuality.” However, a decade of scientific research debunked this idea and caused the APA to revise their view in 2009. Their new position reads: “Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors”[2] [emphasis mine]. A pro-gay group like the APA wouldn’t revise their statement unless there was overwhelming evidence that necessitated a position change. 让人惊讶的是支持同性恋的研究者和研究机构也承认他们找不到同性恋的生物学证据。例如,美国心理学协会(American Psychological Association [APA]),在1988年曾经持这样的立场:生物学的证据,包括基因或天生的荷尔蒙因素,在一个人的性向上扮演非常重要的角色。但是,经过十多年的研究,这个观念被破除了,并迫使APA2009年修正了他们的看法。这个新的立场是:虽然许多研究查验了基因、荷尔蒙、人格发展、社会、和文化,对性取向的可能影响,目前没有证据能让科学家得到此结论,说性取向是由任何特定的单一因素或多重因素来决定的。(注2)除非有非常明显的证据,否则一个支持同性恋的组织(例如APA)是不可能修正他们的声明的。

A second problem with the born-that-way theory is that even if true, it wouldn’t prove that homosexual behavior is moral. Consider that scientific research has discovered genes they believe contribute to alcoholism, unfaithfulness, violence, and even many diseases. Are we to believe that because there is a genetic contribution to these behaviors (or even if they were genetically determined) that they should be regarded as morally appropriate? Of course not. So, proving homosexual behavior is appropriate by appealing to a genetic determinant is equally spurious.“天生如此理论的第二个漏洞是,即使这是真的,也不能证明同性恋行为就是道德的行为。比方说科学研究已经找到(他们以为的)造成酗酒、对婚姻不忠、暴力、甚至许多疾病的基因。难道我们会相信,既然这些行为因为是受到基因的影响(或甚至说这些行为是由基因所决定的),它们就可以被视为在道德上是适当的行为了吗?当然不是。因此,说既然同性恋是基因决定的,因此,同性恋的行为就是适当的,同样是欺骗人的说法。

This mistake in thinking is known as the naturalistic fallacy. You can’t get an “ought” from an “is.” Even if homosexuality is natural, it doesn’t prove it ought to be. And scientists who are attempting to prove homosexuality is inborn agree. Harvard geneticist Dean Hamer, himself a homosexual, says, “Biology is amoral; it offers no help in distinguishing between right and wrong. Only people guided by their values and beliefs can decide what is moral and what is not.”[3] Simon LeVay, a Harvard trained neuroscientist and also openly gay, concurs: “First, science itself cannot render judgments about human worth or about what constitutes normality or disease. These are value judgments that individuals must make for themselves, while taking scientific findings into account.”[4] 这个思想上的错误被称为自然主义的错谬naturalistic fallacy)。你不能从已然得出应然的结论。即使同性恋是自然的,不能证明它必然如此。而那些想要证明『同性恋是天生的』之科学家,同意这点。哈佛的基因学家Dean Hamer,他自己是个同性恋者,说:生物学是没有道德性的;它对区分对和错,无法提供任何帮助。人只有被他们的价值观和信念的引导,才能决定什么是道德的,什么是不道德的。(注3Simon LeVay是一位在哈佛受训的神经科学家,也是出柜的同性恋者,他同意:首先,科学本身无法为人类的价值或什么是正常、什么是疾病提供道德判断。这些是价值判断,是个人在考虑到科学发现的同时,必须自行决定的。(注4

A third problem stems from the mere existence of the “ex-gay” community. If homosexuality is, as many pro-gay advocates state, as inescapable as eye color, then how do they explain former homosexuals? Eye color is genetic, something that one is born with and can’t change. But sexual orientation is fluid, as evidenced by the changed lives of thousands of men and women.第三个漏洞是来自存在着前同性恋这样的社群。如果按照支持同性恋的人所提倡的,同性恋和色盲一样是无法选择的,那么他们如何解释以前是同性恋,而现在却不是?眼睛的色彩是基因决定的,是天生的,无法改变的。但是性取向却是流动的,千千万万生命得到改变的男男女女就是证据。

There are women who have had long-term, lesbian relationships with other women and then changed and became attracted to men. There are also men who have had same-sex attractions since puberty, spent a decade in gay relationships, and then developed attractions to the opposite sex. Many of these people have gone through some form of counseling or therapy, but many have not.有一些妇女,她们曾经与其他女人有着长期的同性恋关系,却发生了改变,变成喜欢男人。也有些男人,从青春期开始就受到同性的吸引,在同性恋的关系中生活了十年,然后发展出对异性的兴趣。这些人有很多是走过辅导或治疗的手段,但是也有许多人没有。

The fact that even one person has changed is evidence that homosexuality is not hard-wired. But that there are thousands of individuals who share this experience is significant counter-evidence against the born-that-way theory. I know many of these people. They can’t all be lying about their life. 即使只有一个人发生改变,也足以证明同性恋不是天生的。但是有成千上万的人有同样的经历,这足以反证天生如此的理论。我认识许多这样的人。他们不可能都在撒谎。

Instead, what they offer is hope. Since many people are dissatisfied with their same-sex attractions, these changed lives represent an opposing voice to the cultural chorus that claims homosexuals are born that way. 相反,他们所提供的是盼望。既然许多人对他们受到同性吸引感到不满足,这些改变了的生命就代表了一种反对的声音,反对文化的同声唱和,说同性恋是天生如此。

——————-

[1] Bailey JM, Dunne MP, Martin NG. 2000. Genetic and Environmental influences on sexual orientation and its correlates in an Australian twin sample. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 78:524-36. The figure is the pairwise concordance, not probandwise concordance.

[2] Retrieved on February 2, 2012, from http://www.apa.org/helpcenter/sexual-orientation.aspx

[3] Hamer, Dean & Copeland, P. (1994). The Science of Desire (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1994), 214.

[4] LeVay, Simon, “Sexual Orientation: The Science and its Social Impact,” in Reverso, 2000, p. 12.

 

 

  评论这张
 
阅读(1080)| 评论(0)
推荐 转载

历史上的今天

在LOFTER的更多文章

评论

<#--最新日志,群博日志--> <#--推荐日志--> <#--引用记录--> <#--博主推荐--> <#--随机阅读--> <#--首页推荐--> <#--历史上的今天--> <#--被推荐日志--> <#--上一篇,下一篇--> <#-- 热度 --> <#-- 网易新闻广告 --> <#--右边模块结构--> <#--评论模块结构--> <#--引用模块结构--> <#--博主发起的投票-->
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

页脚

网易公司版权所有 ©1997-2017