So, what is it really about? We need to look to some of the non-religious, or secular, arguments against homosexuality, and we especially need to do that if we are genuinely committed to living in a society that embraces freedom of religion.
所以，真正的原因是什么？我们来看看一些非宗教的，或者可以说更世俗的观点。当我们生存在一个支持宗教自由的社会里并且真心热爱它的时候，我们尤其需要从这个角度进行探究。
So, what are some of those non-religious arguments against homosexuality?
那么，有哪些非宗教观念的论点是反对同性恋的呢？
Well, the second argument I'm going to look at tonight, the first non-religious argument, is the argument that homosexuality is wrong because it's not universalizable.
今晚我要说的第二个论点，也是第一个非宗教性质的论点，是声称同性恋不可以普遍推行。
That's not a word you get to use every day.
这个词不是个常见词。
What does that mean?
那它是什么意思呢？
I first heard of this argument back in '92.
我第一次听说这种论调，是在1992年的时候。
I gave an early version of this lecture at St. John's University in New York, where I had previously done my undergraduate work.
我在纽约的圣约翰大学，我本科就读的地方做一个演讲。此刻我的这个演讲即脱胎于那时。
And there was a priest, Father Prior, who wrote to the school paper.
当时有一位普莱奥神父--当时学校报纸的撰稿人。
He was very upset that I had been invited to give this lecture, and he wrote this long letter to the school paper.
对我受邀演讲非常不满。于是给校方写了一封长信。
And in his letter to the school paper, on of the things he said was, "Of course homosexuality is bad for society.
信中有这样的说法："毫无疑问，同性恋对人类社会是有坏处的。
If everyone were homosexual, there would be no society."
每个人都是同性恋的话，根本不可能有人类社会。"
And I call this the "universalizability argument."
我将之称为"普遍推行论"。
Everyone were this way, if we universalize the activity, that would be bad; therefore, the activity is bad.
如果每个人都这样。如果我们将个体的行为推广到整体，出现不会的推论结果，那么这种行为就是错的。
Now, I disagreed with a lot of what Father Prior said in his letter, but I thought it was nice that he took the time to write to the school paper.
我对神父信中的很多观点颇不同意，但我想既然他花了那么多时间来写这封长信。
And I said, "You know what, I'm going to write to the school paper, too."
我不妨也写封吧。
So, I did. I wrote an open letter to Father Prior.
因此我给普莱奥神父回了一封公开信。
It said, "Dear Father Prior, if everyone were a Roman Catholic Priest, there would be no society, either.
信是这么说的："尊敬的普莱奥神父，如果每个人都是罗马天主教神父的话，人类社会也不存在了。"（罗马天主教神父有独身不婚的传统）
Sincerely, John Corvino."
John Corvino敬上。
What's the problem with this argument?
这种论点的问题在哪里？
A few problems.
它有很多问题。
One, Father Prior seems to assume that just because society needs some people to procreate that everyone is obligated to procreate, but, of course, that doesn't follow.
一是普莱奥神父假定，仅仅因为社会需要某些人生育繁衍后代，就能据此得出每个人都有义务生育的结论。当然，这种推论显然错了。
Society needs some people to be doctors.
社会需要某些人去成为医生。
That doesn't mean everyone is obligated to be a doctor.
并不意味着每个人都有义务去成为医生；
Society needs some people to be sanitation workers, which doesn't mean that everyone is obligated.
社会需要某些人去成为环卫工人，并不意味着每个人都有义务去成为环卫工人。
Yeah, we need some people to procreate, but it doesn't follow that everyone is obligated, as Father Prior surely recognized.
诚然，我们需要一些人去生育后代，但并不能推论出每个人都有义务生育后代。这点我想普莱奥神父一定会认可。
People have pointed out to me, "Yeah, well some Catholic priests actually do have children."
有人对我指出："其实有些天主教神父是有孩子的。"
Fine. The point is the argument applies equally well to celibacy.
说的没错，但重点在于，神父的论点都同样适用于独身主义。
But, let's suppose that we were to grant this premise that everyone is obligated to procreate.
因为很多同性恋也是有孩子的。退一万步说，先假定我们要遵循这种"每个人都有义务生育"的论调。
