無論是否天生,同志就在那裏

That has long been one of the rallying cries of a movement, and sometimes the gist of its argument. Across decades of widespread ostracism, followed by years of patchwork acceptance and, most recently, moments of heady triumph, gay people invoked that phrase to explain why homophobia was unwarranted and discrimination senseless.

“同性戀是天生的”，這一說法成爲運動的戰鬥口號由來已久，有時還是論證的主要依據。歷經幾十年的否認排斥、隨後數年的零星認可，以及最近令人興奮的勝利時刻，“生來如此”這一說法一直被同性戀者用來解釋恐同沒有任何理論依據，對同性戀的歧視也是毫無意義的。

Lady Gaga even spun an anthem from it.

Lady GaGa甚至從中得到靈感創作了一首同性戀讚歌。

But is it the right mantra to cling to? The best tack to take?

然而，這真的是一首值得讚頌的讚歌嗎？這就是我們所能採取的最好行動策略嗎？

Not for the actress Cynthia Nixon, 45, whose comments in The New York Times Magazine last Sunday raised those very questions.

對45歲的女演員辛西婭·尼克松（Cynthia Nixon）來說並非如此。她上週日在《紐約時報雜誌（New York Times Magazine）》的一番評論引發了對上述兩個問題的思考。

For 15 years, until 2003, she was in a relationship with a man. They had two children together. She then formed a new family with a woman, to whom she’s engaged. And she told The Times’s Alex Witchel that homosexuality for her “is a choice.”

2003年以前的15年中，她都一直和一位男性交往，並且有了2個孩子。後來，她與一位女性訂了婚，組建了新的家庭。她還向《時報》的阿列克斯·威切爾（Alex Witchel）坦言，同性戀對她來說是一種“選擇”。

“For many people it’s not,” she conceded, but added that they “don’t get to define my gayness for me.”

她承認“對於很多人來說並不是這樣的”，但也補充道，他們“還沒開始定義我這種同性戀。”

They do get to fume, though. Last week some did. They complained that she represented a minority of those in same-sex relationships and that she had furthermore handed a cudgel to our opponents, who might now cite her professed malleability as they make their case that incentives to change, not equal rights, are what we need.

不過，聽到她這一席話，有些同性戀者開始憤怒了。其中一些就按捺不住心中的怒火開始抗議。他們抱怨道，她只代表着處於同性關係中的少部分人羣，並且她的言論會進一步給那些反同人羣以把柄來攻擊我們。那些反對者會抓住她所聲稱的“可選擇性”來大做文章，從而振振有詞地要求我們改變性向，而不是賦予我們所需要的平等的權利。

But while her critics have good reason to worry about how her words will be construed and used, they have no right to demand the kind of silence and conformity from Nixon that gay people have justly rebelled against. She’s entitled to her own truth and manner of expressing it.

雖然批評她的人有充分的理由擔心她的言論會被曲解和誤用，但他們並沒有權利因爲自己的反對而要求尼克松（Nixon）保持沉默或者遵循他們的意志。她有權利以自己的方式表達真實想法。

Besides which, there are problems with some gay advocates’ insistence that homosexuality be discussed and regarded as something ingrained at the first breath.

除此之外，一些同性戀支持者對同性戀天生論的堅持是有問題的。

By hinging a whole movement on a conclusion that hasn’t been — and perhaps won’t be — scientifically pinpointed and proved beyond all doubt, they hitch it to a moving target. The exact dynamics through which someone winds up gay are “still an open question,” said Clinton Anderson, the director of the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Concerns Office of the American Psychological Association. “There is substantial evidence of various connections between genes, brain, hormones and sexual identity,” he said. “But those do not amount to a simple picture that A leads to B.”

他們通過把整個運動建立在一個尚未（將來可能也不會）被科學毫無疑問地證實的結論上，使運動成了無根之萍。一個人成爲同性戀的確切動因“還是個有爭議的問題”，美國心理學會男女同性戀、雙性者、跨性別關切事務部（Lesbian Gay Bisexual and Transgender Concerns Office of the American Psychological Association）主任克林頓·安德森（Clinton Anderson）說，“是有確鑿證據可以證明基因、大腦、荷爾蒙和性別自我認同之間有多種多樣的聯繫，但這並不等於一個有甲就導致乙的簡單公式。”

One landmark study looked at gay men’s brothers and found that 52 percent of identical twin brothers were also gay, in contrast with only 22 percent of nonidentical twin brothers and 11 percent of adoptive, genetically unrelated brothers. Heredity more than environment seemed to be calling the shots.

一個具有里程碑意義的研究調查了男同性戀者的兄弟，結果顯示同卵雙胞胎兄弟中有52%也是同性戀者，相比之下，非同卵雙胞胎兄弟和被收養的（沒有任何遺傳關係的）兄弟中分別只有22%和11%的人也是同性戀者。看起來遺傳因素比環境因素起的作用更大。

Other research has posited or identified common anatomical and chromosomal traits among gay men or lesbians, and there’s discussion of a gay gene or, rather, set of genes in the mix. The push to isolate it is entwined with the belief that establishing that sexual orientation is like skin color — an immutable matter of biology — will make homophobia as inexcusable as racism and winnow the ranks of haters.

其他研究則已經斷定或者辨認出男女同性戀者身上共有的解剖學和染色體的特點，並且對同性戀基因或者確切地說是一組與同性戀有關係的基因進行了探討。對這一問題孤立處理的努力，與認爲性傾向可以像皮膚顏色一樣被確定爲一種穩定的生物特徵的信念交織在一起，將使恐同變得像種族歧視一樣不可原諒，並把恐同主義者分離出來。

But bigotry isn’t rational. Finding a determinative biological quirk, deviation or marker could prompt religious extremists who now want gays in reparative psychotherapy to focus on medical interventions instead. And a person’s absence of agency over his or her concentration of melanin has hardly ended all discrimination against blacks.

但這種偏執的行爲並不理智。因爲尋找一個特定的生物學巧合、偏差或者標誌，很可能促使主張對同性戀者進行修復性精神療法的宗教極端主義者轉而主張進行醫療干預療法。而且，一個人的對黑色素濃度的忽視並不能完全終結對黑人的所有歧視。

What’s more, the born-this-way approach carries an unintended implication that the behavior of gays and lesbians needs biological grounding to evade condemnation. Why should it?

此外，這種“生來如此”的想法無意中帶着一種暗示，即暗示同性戀的行爲需要在生物學基礎上來規避非難。爲什麼應該這樣呢？

Our laws safeguard religious freedom, and that’s not because there’s a Presbyterian, Buddhist or Mormon gene. There’s only a tradition and theology that you elect or decline to follow. But this country has deemed worshiping in a way that feels consonant with who you are to be essential to a person’s humanity. So it’s protected.

我們的法律捍衛我們的宗教自由，並不是因爲存在着長老教會友基因、佛教徒基因或者摩門教徒基因。只不過有這麼一種傳統或者神學理論，而你選擇或拒絕信仰它。但是，這個國家已經認可，以一種與自我認知相符合的方式來進行敬奉，對於一個人的人性是十分重要的。因此宗教自由受到保護。

Our laws also safeguard the right to bear arms: not exactly a biological imperative.

我們的法律也保護持有槍械的權利：這也不完全是出於生物學上的需要。

Among adults, the right to love whom you’re moved to love — and to express it through sex and maybe, yes, marriage — is surely as vital to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness as a Glock. And it’s a lot less likely to cause injury, if that’s a deciding factor: how a person’s actions affect the community around him or her.

對成年人來說，去愛打動了你的愛人的權利，並通過性愛或者婚姻，來表達你的愛——這種權利就如同格洛克手槍一樣，對捍衛生命、自由以及對幸福的追求至關重要。而且這種權利（比起槍械來說）幾乎不會構成危害，如果把一個人的行爲對周邊社區的影響也算作一種決定性因素的話。（注：格洛克（Glock），專產手槍的奧地利著名槍械公司。美國憲法保障私人持有槍械的權利，而格洛克手槍是最常見的一種私人槍械，美國銷量第一的槍支是Glock19。）

I USE the words “moved to love” in an effort to define the significant, important territory between “born this way” and choice. That solid ground covers “built this way,” “oriented this way,” and “evolved this way”; it incorporates the possibility of a potent biological predisposition mingling with other factors beyond anyone’s ready control; and it probably applies to Nixon herself. In a Daily Beast interview after the Times article appeared, she clarified that she has experienced an unforced, undeniable attraction to individuals of both sexes. In other words, she’s bisexual, not whimsical. She just happens not to like that term, she said.

我之所以用“打動了你的愛人”這幾個字眼，是爲了試着定義“生來如此”和“選擇”這兩個極端之間的意味深長的重要領域。這一領域涵蓋了“建構如此”、“朝向如此”和“漸成如此”的含義；它整合了一種混合着有效的生物傾向和其他並不可控的因素的可能性。或許這才適合尼克松（Nixon）她自己。在《時報》那篇文章之後，尼克松在一次《每日野獸》（Daily Beast）的訪談中澄清道，對男女兩個性別的人，她都有過自然而然、不可否認地受到吸引的經歷。換句話說，她是雙性戀，而不是水性楊花反覆無常。她說她只是不太喜歡雙性戀這個詞。

In any case, concentrating on how she ended up like that misses the point.

無論如何，將注意力集中在她是如何以“是雙性戀”結題的，就偏離了重點。

“Most people’s sexual attractions are pretty much fixed” once they take root, said Jack Drescher, a psychiatrist and psychoanalyst who has written extensively about homosexuality. In light of both that and the unanswered questions about what fixes them, there’s more wisdom and less harm in accepting and respecting homosexuality than not.

一個曾經寫過很多同性戀方面文章的精神病學家和精神分析學家傑克·德雷舍爾（Jack Drescher）說，一旦性吸引力確定下來，“大多數人的這種吸引力是相當穩定的”。鑑於這兩者——性傾向的穩定以及對其如何穩定仍然未知，那麼相比較於排斥和歧視同性戀者，接受和尊重同性戀是更明智而無害的。

We don’t need to be born this way to refute the ludicrous assertion that homosexuality poses some special threat to the stability of the American family. We need only note that heterosexuality — as practiced by the likes of Newt Gingrich and John Edwards, for example — isn’t any lucky charm, and yet no one’s trying to heal the straights.

我們不必以“生來如此”的姿態去反駁那種認爲同性戀會對美國家庭的穩定造成威脅的荒謬論斷。我們只需要注意到，像紐特·金裏奇（Newt Gingrich）和約翰·愛德華茲（John Edwards） 這類異性戀者也不會給人們帶來任何好運，但沒人會傻到嘗試去治療這些直人。（注：紐特·金裏奇（Newt Gingrich）和約翰·愛德華茲（John Edwards）都是美國不受歡迎的政客。）

We don’t need to be born this way to call out Chris Christie, currently trying to avoid responsibility for a decision about same-sex marriage in New Jersey, for being a political wimp. Andrew Cuomo showed courage and foresight in fighting successfully for such legislation in New York. Christie, who fancies himself a dauntless brawler, should do the same in the state next door.

我們也不必以“生來如此”的姿態去動員克里斯·克里斯蒂（Chris Christie，新澤西州州長）這種試圖逃避自己在新澤西州有關同性婚姻的決議中的責任的政治懦夫。安德魯·科莫（Andrew Cuomo，紐約州州長)在紐約成功地爭取到同樣的立法，顯現出了他的勇氣和遠見。一向以無畏的鬥士自稱的克里斯蒂就在紐約州隔壁，恐怕也該有同樣的作爲。

I honestly have no idea if I was born this way. My memory doesn’t stretch to the crib.

坦白說，我不知道我是不是“生來如此”。我的記憶無法觸及我的搖籃時光。

But I know that from the moment I felt romantic stirrings, it was Timmy, not Tammy, who could have me walking on air or wallowing in torch songs and tubs of ice cream. These feelings gelled early, and my considerable fear of society’s censure was no match for them.

但是，在我情竇初開時，是蒂米（Timmy，男孩名），而不是塔米（Tammy，女孩名）能讓時而興高采烈、時而鬱鬱寡歡、時而甘之如飴。這些感覺早已永駐心田，對於社會責難的巨大恐懼都無法與之匹敵。

I know that being in a same-sex relationship feels as central and natural to me as my loyalty to my father, my pride in my siblings’ accomplishments and my protectiveness of their children — all emotions that I didn’t exit the womb with but will not soon shake.

我知道處於同性的情感關係之中，對我而言如此重要和自然，就像我對父親的忠誠，對兄弟姐妹成就的自豪感和對他們的孩子的保護之心一樣。所有這些情感都不是與生俱來的，卻很難動搖。

And I know that I’m a saner, kinder person this way than trapped in a contrivance or a lie. Surely that’s not just to my advantage but to society’s, too.

我還知道，相比那些被計謀騙術或謊言所困的人，我這樣更健全，也更好。毫無疑問，那不只有利於我，也有利於社會。