Archives

同性伴侶不是家庭

這幾天香港立法局好不熱鬧﹐因為家庭暴力條例的修訂案中﹐讓立法局議員兩面受敵﹐給同志陣營與保守宗教團體兩面夾攻﹐正是左右做人難。條例本身的內容倒沒有大爭議﹐各方面大至也同意擴大條例的保護笵圍﹐包括同性和異性同居等人。問題卻出在條例的中文譯名上﹐同志陣營堅持要保留家庭二字。宗教團體則認為把同性伴侶納入家庭笵圍中﹐是為同性婚姻合法化開綠燈﹐要求把條例家庭二字改作家居。反而條例英文名字倒沒有問題﹐domestic一字意思明確沒有爭議。

這次爭議核心的問題﹐是家庭的定義是否包括同性伴侶。同志陣營認為﹐二人以長久一起生活為目標﹐有情感或物質上的依懶性﹐就是家庭的定義。可是法律貴乎清析﹐情感關係或生活目標﹐並不是一個客觀條件﹐完全是主觀的個人意見。我們如何在法律上﹐分辨一對同性戀同居者﹐與兩個同住的室友呢﹖若果一方認為他們有感情關係﹐另一方認為他們只是普通關係﹐那條例是否適用於他們身上呢﹖所以我們必需要用一個客觀的標準作為家庭的定義。

在社會學結構論的角度來看﹐家庭是培養下一代的最重要一環。因此家庭定義的客觀標準﹐應該以血緣關係為基礎﹐以及基於血緣關係而衍生的其他關係。兩夫婦原本沒有血緣關係﹐但因為他們生兒育女﹐讓他們二人的血脈相連﹐組成一個家庭。兩婆孫同住也是家庭﹐因為他們有血脈相連﹐透過孫兒的父母把他們連接起來。換一句話說傳宗接代才是家庭的本質﹐若果沒有下一代的血脈的聯繫﹐不管兩個同居的人心理狀況如何﹐他們也只是伴侶關係﹐並不能算是組成一個家庭。我們可以視為異性同居者為婚姻的向前申延﹐他們二人以末來生育為基礎﹐現在已居住在一起的準家庭。

一來同性伴侶會引起家庭歧義的問題﹐二來同性伴侶不能生育﹐永不可能建立血緣關係。很明顯家庭的定義並不包括同性伴侶﹐因此為免條例名稱引起不必要的誤解﹐應該刪除家庭二字。

48 comments to 同性伴侶不是家庭

  • 這個年頭,結了婚但沒生育、也不打算生育的夫婦也為數不少。根據你的定義,這些夫婦就不算是家庭了。這樣你覺得並無不妥?

  • 對的﹐嚴格來說﹐不生育的夫婦就不能算是組織家庭﹐只能算是終生伴侶。家庭的定義是要至少有兩代﹐上wiki查family也是這樣說。

    同志陣營要擴闊家庭的定義﹐那我們便用收窄家庭定義來抗衡了。我論點的最大盲點﹐倒是同性伴侶領養小孩。不過這點可是一面雙刃刀﹐若果同性戀有後天因素是成立的話。

  • Horace,

    To answer your question, “若果一方認為他們有感情關係﹐另一方認為他們只是普通關係﹐那條例是否適用於他們身上呢﹖” No, then it won’t apply in this case. And there shouldn’t be much dispute and surprised to the concerning couple as two people.

    “傳宗接代才是家庭” is a very traditional and religious definition, and something that shouldn’t be imposed on everyone.

    You wrote in your comment, “不生育的夫婦就不能算是組織家庭﹐只能算是終生伴侶。” I found this way too restrictive for my taste and most people will agree with me. And now, you can probably provide a support that is million times better than “上wiki查family也是這樣說”. I love and use Wikipedia a lot but there is one thing I often say, “If an idiot like me can edit, update and change Wikipedia, there are many other idiots that have done the same.” (big smile) I use Wikipedia to provide additional reading materials for others but I don’t base my argument on it.

    Also, what about adoption? Couples adopting babies that no one wants, they aren’t qualified as “family”?

    Enough said from me on this topic.

    Kempton

  • 小貓三四

    我想文中所說”家庭定義的客觀標準﹐應該以血緣關係為基礎﹐以及基於血緣關係而衍生的其他關係”,這點不敢苟同。根據文章的論點,同居男女因抱有將來與對方結婚生育的想法所以能稱之為”準家庭”,未免是一廂情願。加上如一位丈夫(或妻子)摳打一位沒有孩子的妻子(或丈夫)明顯是家庭暴力。
    單單以下一代(因根據後面的回應,看來如領養兒童等非血親也算是家庭成員,這與前面所說必須以血緣關係組織家庭有矛盾)或血緣關係來定義家庭,即窄化家庭定義,是難以找到更合適字眼形容目前社會複雜的同住或非同住親屬或親密關係。最終只會損害市民利益。因家暴之可怕不只是被人傷害身體而已,其暴力行為是源於一熟悉或信任或親近的人。

  • 回小貓﹕
    Domestic violence不是family violence﹐不譯做家庭暴力可以譯做家居暴力。我又不是說收窄保護范圍﹐只是說立法還立法﹐字眼的定義還定義﹐不可以因為貪方便隨意更改字眼的定義做成混亂。

    領養兒童也算是家庭成員﹐領養可以說是血緣關係的申延﹐功能也是延繼下一代。

  • Kempton: Yeap. Adoption is definitely a form of family. The core concept of family is procreation and the continue of next generation. Now, I have to redefine the definition of family to fit the core concept.

    The society grant family special rights is based on the function of family serve the society. A couple (gay or straight) without children does not serve the society the function of a family, so they should be categorize at partnership instead of family, which enjoy a different set of rights.

  • Horace,

    I checked my Oxford Canadian Dictionary,

    family (n)
    1. a group of people related to by blood, legal or common-law marriage, or adoption.

    P.S. Fortunately, gay marriage is legal in Canada. And unfortunately, HK is lagging behind in this and HK’s human rights law seems to have less teeth in HK.

  • 小貓三四

    我想這條例的宗旨是保護市民免遭受一個熟悉,信任或是親近自己的人對自己作出暴力行為。”家居”是不足以描述這點。舉例說明:如一對夫妻已分開居住,但丈夫(或妻子)仍不停地騷擾妻子(或丈夫)。這已超出同一居所的範圍,但法律也應該保障他們。而且這是有真實發生的事,施暴者騷擾已搬離居所,逃避施暴者的受害人。另外,”家居”暴力應否包括女傭與僱主間的暴力?這會否削弱法例針對親密關係的原意?

  • Kempton: I don’t agree with gay marriage. They can have civil union, but marriage should only between man and woman. I think Canada went too far bowing to the gay pressure group. It’s ridiculous that story books in public school have to have a “the two princes live happily then after” ending.

  • 小貓﹕ 那把條例的名字﹐改稱為“親密關係暴力條例”豈非更直接﹖ 法例內容和保障笵圍沒有爭議啊﹗只是同性伴侶不乎合家庭的定義﹐因此條例的名稱應該修正﹐方更能彰顯條例的宗旨。

  • beleebala

    小貓三四 Says: “如一對夫妻已分開居住,但丈夫(或妻子)仍不停地騷擾妻子(或丈夫)。這已超出同一居所的範圍,但法律也應該保障他們。”

    I really don’t understand why “一對夫妻已分開居住” should be considered “in a family”. If they are protected by this “家庭暴力條例”, everyone in “男女,男男,女女朋友關系” should be protected as well. I note that there were many persistent violence cases in 男女朋友關系. Quite a few ended up becoming fatal. So sad.

    I support naming it as “親密關係暴力條例” or “家居暴力條例”, depending on exactly who are protected by this law.

    Hevangel,
    I live in Vancouver. Many Canadians have great sympathy to “弱勢” society, such as drug addicts and gay people. So, great that they often apply twisted logic to the law.

  • I don’t think the gay or the drug addict pressure group are 弱勢 in our society. They are so powerful in hijacking the politics for their agenda.

  • 小貓三四

    “They are so powerful in hijacking the politics for their agenda.”不同意你這個看法呢.加上已經有法律學者和政府官員澄清修訂條例不會對婚姻條例做成影響.但我覺得一些反修例團體好像聽不到或不信任人家的澄清,堅持修訂可以引發婚姻條例修改.

    “親密關係”通常用來翻譯”Intimate relationship”一詞,用來翻譯”domestic”顯得怪異.我覺得執著”家庭”定義對事情沒有好處.因為一來還未提出一個更好的名稱代替原本的法例名稱.二來通過法例可以保障同性同居者的安全,而損害的不過是部份基督徒對”家庭”一詞的狹窄定義,讓他們大腦受衝擊而已.

  • 小貓三四

    beleebala Says: “I really don’t understand why “一對夫妻已分開居住” should be considered “in a family”. ”
    其實舉這個例子是想說明”同住”或”同居”兩詞都不能描述條例的保障範圍和針對施暴者與受害者是親屬或雙方有親密關係的案件的特性.他們還是不是”一個家庭”不是重點.

  • 小貓三四

    sorry. 是”同住”或”家居”.

  • 小貓﹕ 我不是說香港的同志壓力團體﹐我是說加拿大的那些啊。他們迫我們的小學﹐要教王子與王子(不是公主﹗)從此快快樂樂生活的童話故事。

    家庭的定義並不屬於基徒﹐而一個基於家庭功用的申引出家庭的客觀定義。若果把同性伴侶強稱為家庭﹐等於把電單車歸類入單車一樣有問題。

  • 「我是說加拿大的那些啊。他們迫我們的小學﹐要教王子與王子(不是公主﹗)從此快快樂樂生活的童話故事。」

    頂!

    政府覺得無問題?學校覺得無問題?家長覺得無問題?

    難怪你說加拿大走得太遠了。

  • 大部份人都覺得有問題。但有問題又可以點﹖同志陣營用歧視法告學校局﹐好似依家官司仲打緊﹐一定會打到上最高法院﹐最後又變成了憲法問題。

  • beleebala

    Hi 小貓三四,

    I was not responding to your post. I quote your saying as you just happened mentioned 分開居住夫妻.

    You are right, many of the proposed name do not match the word “Domestic”. If 分開居住夫妻 should be protected as well, then all the terms “domestic”, “family” clearly does not fit the purpose. I propose to change the English name of the legislation as well. If same propose “domestic” means “家庭”. They should propose to rename the English name to “Family” as well. I guess that’s a logical conclusion. Please don’t twist the meaning of words.

    hevangel,
    They are “弱勢”, because they call themselves “弱勢”. I was just respecting how they call themselves. I also respect the persistence of gay people. Unlike our poor Paul Martin in Canada who does not even know what the God he believes believes. “弱勢” fight for what they believe. Christians shall learn from them about persistence and consistence.

  • beleebala

    hevangle,

    Don’t worry about Canada. We lost the fight in this country already. Just pray that your children will have the wisdom to distinguish what is right and wrong in this society.

  • Seeing the intolerance expressed here about gays and gay marriages shows again that minority rights should not be subject to the tyranny of the majority.

    It is very easy to discriminate against the minority and the weak but try we shall. Some times I will catch myself saying and thinking discriminating ideas which I will have to guard against.

    May be it is unfashionable to mention here, but not long ago African-Americans didn’t have vote and inter-racial marriages were as taboo as gay-marriages today (and inter-racial married couples were harassed and even harmed/hurt as a result).

    I am glad that in Canada our most basic human rights are protected by our Charter of Rights and Freedom and not by the wimps of elected politicians who will bend with the winds or even do things because of their own personal religious believes instead of governing for all Canadians.

    P.S. Horace, a suggestion. In the future, will you be so kind to link to additional source materials to add further insights and context? For example, I wish you had link to the proposed legislation for “家庭暴力條例修訂案” so for those that want to understand more can read the proposed legal text.

    I probably won’t read the whole “家庭暴力條例修訂案” but I would have scan through some key parts and try to understand and discuss with more concrete knowledge and basis.

  • timkingdom

    我倒不認為耶教徒在意刪除家庭二字與否

    中 華 基 督 教 播 道 會 恩 福 堂 牧 師 蘇 穎 智 指 , 同 性 同 居 屬 「 社 會 歪 風 」 , 指 同 性 同 居會為 社 會 帶 來 更 多 「 養 鴨 一 族 」 , 令 很 多 大 學 畢 業 生 「 成 為 性 奴 」 , 「 帶 來 更 多 AIDS 同 HIV 受 害 者 」 。 明 光 社 總 幹 事 蔡 志 森 則 指 , 同 志 在 家 暴 條 例 修 訂 「 埋 下 司法覆 核 伏 線 」 。 天 主 教 香 港 教 區 秘 書 長 李 亮 稱 , 希 望 政 府 的 方 案 能 避 免 外 界 產 生 認同同 性 婚 姻 的 憂 慮 。
    ———-
    plus
    若果把同性伴侶強稱為家庭﹐等於把電單車歸類入單車一樣有問題。
    ———-

    我倒有興趣知道是其麼有問題

  • timkingdom

    I don’t think the gay or the drug addict pressure group are 弱勢 in our society. They are so powerful in hijacking the politics for their agenda.

    弱同強永遠係對比
    而同耶教比同性戀實在係弱勢

  • timkingdom: The problem is that will dilute the meaning of “family”. If a word’s meaning become too dilute, it will lose its meaning. If a word has no meaning, why would we still use it? Why don’t we just delete that word from our vocabulary? It is about the integrity of our language.

    The devoid of the meaning of our words pose a bigger threats to the society than homosexual. We don’t know have a clear grasp on the meaning of words in our language, our mind will become a goo that can’t think clearly anymore.

  • The gay bashing in the recent comments here are rather unfortunate. This and other places have shown and proved that minority rights (be it gay, Chinese in North America, African-American in US, physically challenged) are better protected by human rights legislations. If it was left to politicians or majority votes, many African-Americans will still be slaves, many Chinese in Canada will still be excluded from becoming citizens of Canada.

    Fortunately, prejudice or discriminations, either because of personal or religious reasons, have less and less places to hide in the new world we live in.

  • Kempton: I agree gays should have human right and should not be discriminated. But anti-gay in the sense of against gayness, not the gay people, does not violate any human right. Just like smokers have human rights, but anti-smoking is the right thing to do.

  • timkingdom

    字係會跟隨時間改變

    用”沒有下一代的血脈的聯繫”去否定同性戀伴侶不是家庭同數十年前用”結婚係男X女”去否定同性戀結婚

    講到尾都只不過係用wording game 否定同性戀者

  • timkingdom: 客觀的慨念是不應隨時間改變的。現在中國不是企圖改變人權和自由等概念﹐讓人民沒有人權和自由﹐這可以嗎﹖

    結婚的定義從來也應該只是男+女﹐同性戀結婚一詞本身就有語病﹐邏輯上有問題。同性戀只有結合不可能結婚。

    講到尾是同性戀者玩word game在企﹐以更改結婚和家庭來達到他們的政治目的。我不烙對他們爭取權益﹐但他們為什麼要破壞我們的語言﹖

  • Horace,

    Word has a habit of changing with time. When slaves were considered properties, they were not man and thus deserve no votes.

    You need to know being gay is part of their being and not as a separable part. Like your dark hair, dark colour eye, and yellowish skin colour, these are part of your being.

    If someone say they are anti-dark-hair-colour, anti-yellow-skin colour, but they are not anti-Chinese, will you buy that argument?

    Ultimately it is regrettable that you seem quite intolerant against gay people and are determined to view being gay is something is curable or as you jokingly said, something you hope can be fixed by genetic engineering.

    Sad.

  • I am feeling this discussion is leading to no where fast. 🙂

    毓民踩場 2009-01-22 – 黃毓民

    * 家暴條例、淫審公聽會巨大的宗教身影
    http://www.imeem.com/people/VFTII5a/music/N-HaDvNd/20090122/

    source:
    http://dadazim.com/journal/2009/01/raymond-talks-again/

  • Kempton: If slavery is wrong, it’s always wrong regardless of time. Actually the definition of slave is human as property, that’s why it is wrong. Like nowadays people use the word slave to describe their job, but that does mean their job is wrong.

    Gay is part-nature, part-nurture. The nurture part of gay is just bad habit that we can correct with better eduction. That’s why we should not encourage gay in public. The nature part of gay is like genetic defects, we can fix it with genetic engineering.

    If you think skin-color does not matter, then think again. Have you heard of a skin problem called “Nevus of Ota”. It’s genetic, the gene controls color pigment of the skin is mutated, so the there are patches of gray or brown on the skin. The condition is only cosmetic and have no other known side effects. To those people with “Nevus of Ota”, it’s their part of being. No one should discriminate them. But that doesn’t mean we should not fix the gene that cause “Nevus of Ota” if we can. Am I anti-“Nevus of Ota”? Will I support research to fix this gene? It’s a proud YES.

  • Slavery is considered “right” for people living in US in 1850s, they just didn’t know that it is wrong to kill slaves if they run away. In 2009, we know having slaves is wrong and killing “slaves” is still kinda murder.

    Think of your views about gay people are like those slaves owner in 1850. You just don’t know you are wrong yet and you are fiercely defending your views.

    Again, fortunately, we live in Canada. The strength of our Charter of Rights and Freedom help protect the minorities from the tyranny of the majority.

    Horace, you are well read and seem quite intelligent so allow me to suggest a few things to read and consider. After all, they protect us all and they are rather short.

    I highly recommend you have a read/scan of the Charter,
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Charter_of_Rights_and_Freedoms

    Have a look at section 15,
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_Fifteen_of_the_Canadian_Charter_of_Rights_and_Freedoms

    Have a read at these Supreme Court of Canada cases,
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egan_v._Canada
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vriend_v._Alberta
    While I am no legal expert but I still remember the enjoyment I had in reading them cover to cover as bed time reading when these judgments were first issued by the SCC.

    Horace, I hope you don’ t mind me being very direct. When talking about law or legal rights, how you think is just mind boggling and ill thought out. I truly think it helps a lot to read the Charter, the legislation and what the courts have said to be able to analyze and write intelligently. Writing without some knowledge is daydreaming in an vacuum. Now, I am quite lazy so I often wait till the Supreme court to hand down its decisions to save time. 🙂

    Best Regards,
    Kempton

    P.S. One of my personal favourite SCC cases has some sex and violence and even verbal lashing against a judge (that part I enjoyed the most),. Good read.

    R. v. Ewanchuk may get you started reading a case. This one is “fun”.
    http://csc.lexum.umontreal.ca/en/1999/1999rcs1-330/1999rcs1-330.html

    Coles notes Wikipedia summary (which you might prefer but I highly recommend the originals to read from the masters themselves and not derivatives work as one math professor once advised me.)

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R._v._Ewanchuk

  • Kempton: Moral is objective, what is right or wrong is universal truth. What people believe can be difference from the Truth. Slavery is always wrong, that’s nominative moral. Southern in 1850 thinks slavery is not wrong, that’s descriptive moral. In 1850, many people believe the world is flat too, does it make the earth less sphere back then?

    Believe it or not, I actually went through the human right charter some time before. My position on gay has evolved a lot for the past few years. My current position against gay should be compatible with human rights.

    If you are interested, you can check out my old articles on the gay issue

    Same Sex, debating the ethics, science, and culture of homosexuality – John Corvino

    同性婚姻合法化

    恐同﹐反同﹐滅同

    反反同﹐鄙同

    反同非歧視

  • I picked your “恐同﹐反同﹐滅同” (Dec 2006) to have a quick read.

    I feel I’ve done what I could to try to shine some light on the topic here for you and your readers. I doubt you will change your views given you are quoting your 2006 Dec article and held the same view.

    I know some of my friends may be gay but I don’t know for sure as I never feel the urge to ask them directly. I don’t choose my friends base on their sexual orientation. But I respect them as who they are. And I have no desire to change them and let alone “cure” them.

    Your views have probably been established over years and through various things and ideas you had been exposed to, so I don’t think I can say much more to change these views. Especially you have no desire to change any time soon.

    Finally, I will like to quote and credit former chief justice of Canada Brian Dickson,
    “The Charter safeguards […] minorities from the threat of “the tyranny of the majority”.”

    It is in discussions or debate like that I feel great and proud to be a Canadian (and not living in places like China or HK) and the power & beauty of our Charter of Rights and Freedom.

    While I totally disagree with you, I thank you for making me feel the love and treasure of our Charter.

  • 小貓三四

    不好意思, 繼續在這old post裡打reply.
    “基於家庭功用的申引出家庭的客觀定義”但家庭功能正正在現代社會中不斷轉變, 修正案正引發有關”家庭”這一詞的討論, 終可能就家庭的定義達到共識。 此時才算是找到這個社會對”家庭”的定義。

    你多次提到客觀定義, 但這概念有問題。 如果”家庭的客觀定義”是由”家庭功用”引申出來, 為何同志們認為”二人以長久一起生活為目標﹐有情感或物質上的依懶性”就不是一種家庭功能。 引用文中一句:”情感關係或生活目標﹐並不是一個客觀條件﹐” 及後又說”若果一方認為他們有感情關係﹐另一方認為他們只是普通關係﹐那條例是否適用於他們身上呢﹖” 那麼你眼中的”客觀”實際是指”容易驗證”。 就算驗證時有困難也不代表不是base on facts, 不objective.

    引用獨媒中的一篇文章”http://www.inmediahk.net/node/31938″, 文中提到家庭功能並非只有培養下一代, 而家庭功能亦非千古不變。 你的主張單以一項家庭功能定義家庭, 忽略其餘的家庭功能。 且隨時代轉變, 不見得生育後代是家庭的最重要功能。 當一個家庭履行了大部份家庭功能, 就因為沒有生育而拒絕將之稱為家庭是不妥。

    “把同性伴侶強稱為家庭” 我想修訂條例逹不到這種效果, 沒有市民會因為”家庭暴力”一詞, 再加上”家庭暴力條例”保障同居者, 而認為”家庭”已擴展至同居者。 怎能說這是強稱同性伴侶是一個家庭。 將家庭=family, family=/=domestic, 推出家庭不可譯作domestic, 但又無法提出更好的譯名代替。 根據漢語大詞典, 家庭的釋義包括: 1.猶言家中; 2.以婚姻和血統關係為基礎的社會單位,成員包括父母、子女和其他共同生活的親屬; 3.院落,庭院。 你主張的”家庭的定義”符合第2個釋義, 但根據第1個釋義”domestic”是可以譯為”家庭”。

    看過你過去的文章覺得很驚訝。 幾篇文章除了提到同性戀會令人類滅絕外, 其餘說法都是沒有證據, 而人類滅絕論的證據就只得一個蟲實驗。 卻扯到滅同, 基因改造, 缺憾云云。 “反同亦可以合法合理”, 但你就是給不出個”理”來。 “傷殘的存在始終是社會的一個缺陷” 很多傷殘人士活得比健全人士更”健全”, 非但不是社會的缺陷, 還要對社會有許多貢獻。 你不覺得你的文章太多這些主觀帶偏見的言論嗎?

  • 小貓三四, It is nice to see you haven’t given up on Horace (yet) and still trying to shine some light on “同性伴侶” for him. I have given up on Horace on this. 🙁 But it is still nice to see others that haven’t.

  • 小貓﹕

    何同志們認為”二人以長久一起生活為目標﹐有情感或物質上的依懶性”就不是一種家庭功能。

    那不是“家庭”的功用﹐而是“合法伴侶”的功用啊﹗事實上承同性合法伴侶有幫社會穩定﹐從功用的角度我是支持civil union的。

    你的主張單以一項家庭功能定義家庭, 忽略其餘的家庭功能。 且隨時代轉變, 不見得生育後代是家庭的最重要功能。

    不。生育後代是家庭功能的necessary condition。其他的功能倒是隨時代變遷。正如船的功能可以隨時代改變﹐但其不可缺的功能就是浮水。若刪去家庭的necessary condition﹐就等同把家庭的意義抽空﹐那家庭二字就只不過是一個隨意符號。若果這二字只是一個隨意符號的話﹐為什麼我們不可以用另外一個符號去取代﹖

    我想修訂條例逹不到這種效果, 沒有市民會因為”家庭暴力”一詞, 再加上”家庭暴力條例”保障同居者, 而認為”家庭”已擴展至同居者。

    這點與你上一點互相矛盾啊。到底你認為同性伴侶者是否家庭﹖若答是﹐則這一點不成立。若答否﹐則上一點不成立。竟然沒有市民認為家庭的定義包括同性伴侶﹐我們不是更應該要正名嗎﹖

    推出家庭不可譯作domestic, 但又無法提出更好的譯名代替。

    就似字典所說﹐譯作“家中暴力條例”﹐如何﹖

    “傷殘的存在始終是社會的一個缺陷” 很多傷殘人士活得比健全人士更”健全”, 非但不是社會的缺陷, 還要對社會有許多貢獻。

    傷殘人士當然有對社會有貢獻。若能夠把他們醫治好﹐他們對社會的貢獻會更大啊﹗所有傷殘人士都得到醫治的世界﹐不是更美好的世界嗎﹖

  • 小貓三四

    to 加燦: 這是最後嘗試呢~

    hevangel始終不肯開放自己, 令他的許多的理據和想法都偏差了。 偏離現實狀況, 討論下去也沒有意思。

    to hevangel: “傷殘人士當然有對社會有貢獻……不是更美好的世界嗎﹖” Sad…這一眼就看出是盲辯。 不然是基於無知嗎?

    整體來說, 問題可以分開兩部份, 一是家庭的定義, 二是家暴條例易名的必要性。

    家庭的定義是需要有社會的共識。 而你提出的定義除了以”社會學結構論”去看是”確當”外, 卻偏離社會普遍的想法。 “我們是一家人因為我們共同繁殖了後代, 否則我們不是一家人。” 這似乎只有你同意罷了。 這無法回應一些現代才普遍出現的狀況, 例如不生育的夫婦。 不生育的夫婦不是家庭, 妻子與她的父母是一家人, 但丈夫與岳父母就不是一家人。 這不是件怪事嗎?

    我無意討論同性戀伴侶怎樣才能稱為家庭, 只想指出你的家庭定義有問題。 事實上我接納”以長久一起生活為目標﹐有情感或物質上的依懶性”是履行了家庭功能。 我要反駁的是你以不客觀為由否定這項家庭功能, 這本身是不合理。 你也沒有提出理據解釋為何這只能是合法伴侶的功能, 而不可以是家庭功能。

    你執著於”家庭的定義”, 因為你認為只要有”家庭”二字必對家庭的定義有影響。 事實上, “家庭”一詞可翻譯自不同的字, 如household, home, 以為”家庭”只能譯自family是沒根據。 加上根據詞典”家庭”一詞原來可以解作”家中”, 那更加沒有易名的必要性。 沒必要下仍要易名是笨拙的事。 對於“家中暴力條例”我與之前的reply中反對”同住”和”居所”等詞的理據一樣。 如果沒有更好的選擇, “家庭”仍是最好的譯名。

  • potato

    “The society grant family special rights is based on the function of family serve the society. A couple (gay or straight) without children does not serve the society the function of a family, so they should be categorize at partnership instead of family, which enjoy a different set of rights.”

    Agreed totally. The society grant families privileges such as preferential treatment in queuing for public housing, special tax concession, etc in order to facilitate raising of children and the continuation of the human race. A couple (gay or straight) without children does not help the continuation of the human race. I don’t think they should enjoy the kind of privileges granted to families.
    If straight couples without children are not regard as families and cannot enjoy the privileges currently granted to families, I think gay couples will not insist on calling themselves families. However, taking privileges enjoyed by families away from straight couples without children will certainly meet more opposition than calling gay couples families and cannot be implemented!

  • to 小貓三四:
    You’ve hit the nail right on its head with this observation, “hevangel始終不肯開放自己, 令他的許多的理據和想法都偏差了。 偏離現實狀況, 討論下去也沒有意思。”

    Horace, not sure if you realize this, but your reply “生育後代是家庭功能的necessary condition。” has jumped right to the conclusion you wish to come to. You just made your statement sounded “logical” when it is simply a claim. In most discussions that I am accustomed to, both sides at least try to come to agreement with some basic and fundamental statement of facts.

    Not sure if this entry has broken your record in most discussed/commented on. Sadly, there has a lot less flow and exchange of ideas than I had hoped. Well, at least it did solidify my own convictions and glad to see I don’t live in Hong Kong or other less tolerant countries.

  • Potato: Yeap. Taking privilege away from couples with no children will meet more resistance. It is directly against their interest. Just like once you give our welfare, it is almost impossible to take it back.

    小貓三四, Kempton: Yeah, probably it is the most commented thread in this blog. I think my thesis on the definition of “family” warrant its own blog entry instead a few words in comment. I am using sociology’s technical definition of “family” instead of the understanding of “family” in daily language. In order to convince you, I will have to re-read my sociology books and present the argument in a more logically way.

    BTW, I didn’t create that condition “procreation is the function of family”, it comes from Max Weber, the father of sociology. I guess I take the sociology definition of family for granted and assume everyone should know it. I didn’t realize the definition needs explanation.

  • The fact that the father of sociology said something doesn’t make a statement more or less creditable. The statement has to have legs and staying power to stand on its own.

    Freud and Newton may have some great insights but then some of their thinking and theories have been replaced and updated long since they uttered those thoughts.

    Horace, it may be wise to move away from your technical definition of “family” when people (including me) thought this really nutty idea actually come from your active imagination. 🙂

    Again, sometimes things people said will worth re-examinations in every few years and generation, etc. Some ideas last longer and some should be scrapped sooner.

  • Kempton: You would like to see my up-coming book review on “A Good Book, In Theory”. The problem of common people (less intellectual) is that they take statement at the face value without realizing the underlining theory the idea comes from. Everything has to understand through a theory. Without theory, it’s not ideas, it’s merely irrational opinions.

    If someone has an idea on its own without backup from any theory, it is very likely to contradict with other ideas he holds under careful scrutiny or he is not aware of the flip side of his idea in the theory.

    What we re-exam is the idea as a theory, not merely the idea as a statement. I sort of know where the idea the definition of “family” should changes over time comes from. The linguistic root comes from from Wittgenstein’s analytical philosophy and the Post-structuralism that we are shaped by the society. They are the rival theories to the social structure theory I use.

  • 我也看了梁文道的那篇文章。基督不丟石頭﹐但基督也叫那妓女以後不要賣淫。如果耶穌活在今次﹐解決同性戀就很間單。只要叫基佬摸下耶穌﹐耶穌就可以行神蹟讓基佬變直﹐搞掂晒。

  • Lenny Chan

    This is a very old post but let me give you an example why domestic partner and marriage are not the same, and you can see for yourself which direction you should take.

    You were Chinese and one day the government decided that because the majority of citizens did not want to see Chinese in their local parks, they decided to ban you from using the parks. You were furious because you wanted to bring your kids to play in the parks. Well, the government decided to built more parks for the Chinese. In fact, they looked the same as the ones you wanted to go to. Now, the other citizens can enjoy the original parks and you can only use the new parks. Is it discrimination or is it not? Your kids were asking you why they could not go play with the other kids in the original parks. How do you explain to them?

    • Your analogy does not apply in the case, the new Chinese-only park are not the same as the old park. Although domestic partner enjoy the same benefits as marriage, but they are essentially different concepts.

      A man and a woman forming a family is a marriage, a gay couple getting together is civil union. Just like you cannot call a church a mosque, although they are both religious building, have similar functions and both protected by freedom of religion. You can’t call Christian are worshiping inside a mosque or Muslim are praying inside a church. A church and a mosque are two different concepts thus need two different names to distinguish between them.

  • lichufai

    拜讀你一系列gay文,感覺你的反同理據並不比其他反同陣營高明,但你比較講理。

Leave a Reply