前总理艾伯特: 为什么同性婚姻合法化会从根本上瓦解社会结构 - Tony Abbott: Why Same Sex Marriage Would Fundamentally Change Society

跟大多数人一样,我也有同性恋朋友和家人,我一直支持和关爱他们。他们是好公民,值得拥有我们的关爱、尊重和包容。但这并不意味者我们不能保留“婚姻”一词,用于特指一男一女的结合,最好是一生一世的伴随, 并致力于为养育孩子提供最好的保护。

Like most, I have tried to be there for friends and family who are gay. They are good people who deserve our love, respect and inclusion but that doesn’t mean that we can’t continue to reserve the term “marriage” for the relationship of one man with one woman, ideally for life and usually dedicated to children.

原文:http://tonyabbott.com.au/2017/09/sex-marriage-fundamentally-change-society/

Tony_Abbott_cake.jpg

 

跟您一样,我也希望这个国家没有歧视,每个人得到公平对待,不论他种族、性别、信仰、政治立场或是性倾向如何。

事实上,多年来澳大利亚一直秉持这个原则。同性恋者在历史上曾被歧视,不被社会包容,不过那已经是很久以前的事情了。现在的澳大利亚,关系稳定的同性伴侣家庭,已经与结婚的异性家庭拥有完全一样的权益。

Like you, I want a country where everyone gets a fair go and where no one is discriminated against on the basis of race, gender, religion, political opinion or sexuality. We all want people to be appreciated for their achievements and for the quality of their character; not pigeon-holed and dismissed on the basis of prejudice.

 

That, in fact, is the Australia we’ve had for years. It’s a long time, thank God, since gay people have been discriminated against and just about everyone old enough to remember that time is invariably embarrassed at the intolerance that was once common. Already, indeed, same sex couples in a settled domestic relationship have exactly the same rights as people who are married.

因此“婚权平等“是一个非常误导人的口号。同性伴侣早已拥有了平等。当今社会的争论点在于改变婚姻法,维持 婚姻原有的意义。如果婚姻的定义被更改,社会也将随之改变;因为婚姻是家庭的基石;家庭是社会构成的基本单位。要求同性婚姻合法化的人士宣称,如果对这个议题进行公投,将会在社会煽动成见与不包容。然而迄今为止,那些对别人进行暴力霸凌和发表仇恨言论的,恰恰是支持修改《婚姻法》的人,而不是反方。

To demand “marriage equality”, therefore, is quite misleading. Same sex couples already have that. This debate is about changing marriage, not extending it. And if you change marriage, you change society; because marriage is the basis of family; and family is the foundation of community.

Supporters of same sex marriage say they are concerned about the bigotry and intolerance that will be whipped up by the plebiscite now going ahead. So far, it’s the supporters of change, not the opponents, who’ve been responsible for bullying and hate speech.

霍巴特大主教因捍卫基督教对于婚姻的教导而被告上法院。库伯啤酒因为赞助了一场关于支持传统婚姻的辨论,而被同运组织霸凌以致于不得不取消对《圣经协会》的支持。父亲节广告因为“具有政治性“而被禁止播出。一位医生因为公开表达她对于同性婚姻合法化对社会产生的后果,”GetUp“网站便出现请愿信要求撤销她的行医执照。甚至出现了子虚乌有的”仇视同性恋的海报“、“仇视同性恋的暴乱“等假新闻。

“也许爱就是爱“,但是那些支持同性婚姻立法的群体,在对待持有不同意见的群体时却毫无仁爱。在一个号称”争取更多尊重“的队伍中,却出现如此不尊重对方的行为,实在自相矛盾。这场推动同性婚姻合法化的运动基调已经向我们表明:同性婚姻合法化绝不可能使社会更公平与公正。

The Archbishop of Hobart has been dragged before a tribunal for defending Christian teaching. Coopers Brewery was bullied into withdrawing support for the Bible Society after sponsoring a debate about marriage. A Father’s Day ad was banned for being “political”. A doctor who went public with her concerns about the consequences of same sex marriage copped a GetUp! petition to have her struck off. There’s been fake news about non-existent homophobic posters and a homophobic ram raid that never happened.

 

“Love might be love” but it’s striking how little love the supporters of same sex marriage are showing for anyone who disagrees with them. It’s paradoxical how respect has flown out the window in the fight for yet more respect. It’s hard to see, at least from the tenor of the campaign to bring it in, how we would be a more decent society with same sex marriage than without it.

一方面,同性婚姻的社会辨论与大多数每天为生活而疲于奔波的群众关系微乎其微。这场辩论,不会提高他们的生活品质、家庭品质以及与邻居和同事和睦相处的气氛。另一方面,这场辩论涉及到我们现有社会所珍惜的价值观和原则,这是我们社会建立的基础所在,因此这些价值观和社会原则又显得尤为重要。

我们不能轻易改变世代相传的社会基础;除非我们已经对将要带来的社会后果进行过深刻的思考与衡量。然而,如果现在的民意调查真实可信,我们可能要抛弃自古以来的婚姻概念,而去迎合“同性婚姻”这个新概念。在我们的上一代,连同性恋群体也不认可这个概念。

At one level, the same sex marriage debate is of vastly less relevance than most people’s daily struggle to pay their bills, to improve their lives and that of their families, and to try to get on with their neighbours and workmates. But at another level, almost nothing is more important than the values that we cherish and the principles on which our society is based.

We shouldn’t lightly change what’s been the foundation of our society for generations; and, if we do, it should only be after the most careful thought and weighing of all the consequences. Yet if the polls are to be believed, we are about to discard the concept of marriage that has stood since time immemorial in favour of a new concept that would have been scornfully rejected even by gay people just a generation ago.

本周,一位反对同性婚姻合法化的女同性恋人士提出一个疑问:“  对于妇女而言,如果她们没有看到我们反对那些一直伤害我们的制度 --正如婚姻、娼妓和核心家庭等对女性不利的制度 -- 她们又怎么能把女同性恋视作异性恋的一个更佳的替代品呢?我相信一些同性恋运动家的确是想要通过扩展”婚姻“的范畴来达到推动稳定、长期的关系;但是另一部分人却是想通过这个运动来颠覆婚姻的定义。那些强烈争取婚姻权利的同性伴侣不希望改变他们的关系;他们只是希望被给予一种新的程度的认可。”

推动同性婚姻合法化的一方宣称“爱就是爱”,那么各种关系都毫无差别可言,甚至用来描述各种关系的用词都必须一样。然而,世界上有很多不同种类的关系。我们不是在讨论一种爱比另一种更好;而是要承认各种关系的差别。另找一个词语来描绘这种同性之间愿意彼此牺牲和委身的爱吧,同时保留“婚姻”这个词原有的意义。

This week, an anti-same marriage sex gay activist posed the question: “how are women going to recognise lesbianism as an alternative to heterosexuality if they don’t see us protesting against institutions that have been harmful to us: like marriage, prostitution and the nuclear family?”

I’m sure that some gay activists really believe that they are trying to promote stable, long term relationships by extending marriage to same sex couples; but others clearly want to subvert marriage. And the gay people demanding to be married don’t want their relationships to change; they just want them to be accorded a new status.

It’s said that there should be absolutely no difference, even in terminology, between relationships because “love is love”. Yet there are many different types of love. No one is saying that one type of loving relationship is better than another, just that they can be different. By all means, let’s find a way to solemnise what is intended to be a sacrificial love between two people of the same sex; but it remains a different love even though it’s not a lesser one.

 

要保持“婚姻是一男一女的结合”这个原有的定义看似很学究;然而,这对于保持文化和知识完整性来说非常重要。一个男人,不会因为他想变成女人,就成为一个真正的女人;同性伴侣关系也不应该因为推动者想让其成为婚姻,就真的变成了婚姻。在那些认可“任何两个人的结合都是婚姻”的国家,在同性婚姻合法化后已经出现了很多的问题。在英国,天主教儿童收养中介被迫关闭,东正犹太教学校收到失去政府资助的威胁。在美国,蛋糕店主因为拒绝在婚礼蛋糕上写下庆祝同性婚姻的口号而受到迫害。

At one level, insisting upon any particular definition of marriage may seem like pedantry. At another level, though, it’s important to maintain cultural and intellectual integrity. A man is not a woman just because he wants to be, and a same sex relationship should not be able to become a marriage just because activists demand it.

All the overseas evidence shows that allowing “any two persons” to marry brings many other changes in its wake. In Britain, the Catholic adoption agencies have been forced to close down and an orthodox Jewish school threatened with defunding. In America, a baker has been prosecuted for refusing to put a slogan on a wedding cake.

在本周的《季刊》中,一位名叫 本杰明 罗的“安全学校”的支持者声称,“为了停止恐同现象,仅仅实现同性婚姻还远远不够,” —— 一个显而易见的问题:如果澳大利亚允许性别流动性的概念渗入《婚姻法》,家长们将来又如何能阻止倡导性别流动性的课程进入学校呢?若同性婚姻合法化的推动者们不能允许别人有言论自由、信仰自由、家长对孩子的权利,他们现在就是要求选民来签署一张无法兑现的空口承诺。澳大利亚人向来不喜欢被催逼蒙骗。当Uber出租车、Subway快餐、路雪巧克力冰淇淋等诸多大公司开始公开向同性婚姻示好时,是我们向同性婚姻投否定票、并让“政治正确”急刹车的时候了。

This week in Quarterly Essay, a “safe schools” supporter, Benjamin Law, said that “it might be stating the obvious but same sex marriage is far from the final frontier in the battle against homophobia” – prompting the equally obvious question: how can parents keep gender fluidity programmes out of schools here in Australia when gender fluidity has entered the Marriage Act? If the advocates for same sex marriage can’t demonstrate how freedom of speech, freedom of religion and parental choice will be protected in their brave new world, they’re asking voters to sign a blank cheque.

Australians have never liked being pushed around or hoodwinked. When big businesses from Uber, to Subway, to the makers of Magnum ice cream are virtue signalling on same sex marriage, it’s time to say that political correctness has got completely out of hand and to vote “no” to stop it in its tracks.