周一嶽在〈摒除心中偏見 人人得享平等〉一文批評明光社成員「把同性戀與某些性罪行如戀童或成癮成癖的病態性行為相提並論」，明光社文書關啟文教授撰文回應，文章八成篇幅是引述「同運活躍分子和支持同運的知識分子」的言論，以證明這些人「把同性戀與……戀童或……病態性行為相提並論」，然後在總結裏反問：
『其他人聽到這些言論，準確地報告給一般市民知道，也讓他們明白同運的革命性性哲學，有何不對？為何周主席不向原本說這些話的人問罪？卻反而怪罪傳話的人呢？這是哪門子的「平等機會」？』
關教授這個回應裝腔作勢得很，假如用英文來形容，我會用 ‘disingenuous’ 一字。他說的「其他人」，應該是包括了周一嶽指責的明光社成員，否則他可以直截了當否認這些明光社成員「把同性戀與某些性罪行如戀童或成癮成癖的病態性行為相提並論」；然而，他們這樣「相提並論」，真的只是做「傳話的人」、真的只是為了讓一般市民「明白同運的革命性性哲學」嗎？大家都知道不是，關教授當然也知道。
假設「同運的革命性性哲學」提倡我們應該接受主流社會排擠的性喜好和性行為，例如同性戀、雙性戀、戀童、戀家人、戀動物等，這種「相提並論」是正面的，與明光社成員反面的「相提並論」明顯不同
--- 他們認為同性戀、戀童、戀動物等都是罪、都是不道德的。雖然同是「相提並論」，但有了這個分別，就不能說明光社成員只是讓人「明白同運的革命性性哲學」。打個比方：假如我認為職業無分貴賤，就算是掃街、倒糞、替人浴足按摩、提供性服務，也不應被岐視，而你則說這些職業全是「不潔」的；即使我們都是將這些職業「相提並論」，你可以說你只是複述我的看法讓人明白嗎？
If 周一嶽 wants to deal with the 同性戀問題, I would suggest him to get some first-hand experience to really understand 同性戀 & 雙性戀.
回覆刪除When I was living in some western country many years ago, one time after swimming, in the shower room, someone totally naked stared at me and at the same time 扯足晒旗. Then I realized that that stranger had been following me even during swimming.
So if a man (stranger) naked and 扯晒旗 in front of a lady, he would have been charged.
Will 周一嶽 start to introduce some laws to protect people who don't enjoy these kind of 扯旗 activities in public places, say, to install more individual-use toilet and showing facilities?!
I believe that 同性戀傾向 could be a psychological one, rather than a medical one, just like some 異性戀 prefers flat chest, and some...
同性戀問題 isn't as simple as 周一嶽 would have thought. He must have been too naive. Thus, as said before, if 周一嶽 really wants to deal with the 同性戀問題, I would suggest him to get some "real" and "good" first-hand experience to fully understand 同性戀 & 雙性戀 before taking sides.
為什麼這種蠢話是基督徒和保守蠢貨“專用“？
刪除什麼叫“第一手經驗“？如果這一種癈話是成立，那麼福音戒毒，反對暴力，反對性工作者合法化的保守人士都是不是吸過毒，殺過人，嫖過妓？
而且你根本類比不倫，把海灘地區裸體和公眾地方祼體相提並論？我會更加質疑你根本不熟悉人家裸體場合！我甚至說給你聽有些美國和歐洲沙灘是禁止裸體，但有些特別節日或群體運動是成千上萬人在市區裸跑和裸奔都沒有問題，甚至家中露台日光浴都没有問題！所以你講男人性興奮問題會被告是你根本你了解不足，常識有問題！
而且“什麼同性戀問題好複雜“？為什麼吵的程度遠不及代母，體外受精，試管嬰兒？不是一堆有人幻想是道德問題嗎？搞清楚現代是世俗社會不是道德社會！
而且現代心理學和精神病學已經老早把同性戀剔出名單（DSM2)，你好意思說心理問題？果然無知！
而且同性戀根本在自然世界好普遍，超過1500種生物有關行為，請問人類有同性戀有什麼不自然？
無知沒有問題！但一個人又蠢又自以為是，就是獻醜！被罵蠢貨別怪其他人坦白！
If you want to be convincing and you want people to take your side, you shouldn't 獻醜 as such. 周一嶽, at his post, needs to have accurate and sufficient information and experience to judge for the 同性戀問題, so that he would not mislead but convince people of different viewpoints.
刪除My first hand experience (note: I didn't have to have sex with a homosexual person to get "first hand experience") to make me think that homosexuality could be more a psychological thing than a physiological thing.
Some people get "excited" with kids, some with big breasts, some with small feet, and so forth. Could that be due to psychological or physiological effect? I believe the probability is higher for the former, a psychological one.
People with "first hand experience" are often more effective in resolving problems that they had faced or witnessed. (Some examples are 福音戒毒 & 反對家暴.) Now tell me how much "first hand experience" 周一嶽 has on 同性戀 & 雙性戀, such as how many friends that he has are in those categories? And how much 周一嶽 knows about why some people enjoy to be 雙性戀, while some other choose to be 同性戀 or 異性戀?! Does 周一嶽 know if there are any differences in the sensation of "love" among various relationships, say in daily life and during intercourse?!
If someone gets excited just when seeing some thing/people, and if it is physiological, then medical doctors should be able to locate the physical differences among people. And if it is psychological, then that someone, as adult, should have the ability to choose what to act in different situations as allowed by the laws.
So if someone cannot help 扯旗 in a public shower room, probably he should have self-control to stay out of it, rather than to get more and more excited, don't you think?!
I had seen males wearing female's clothes and full makeup (for real, i.e. not for making jokes or be entertaining). If one finds the female clothing to be more comfortable, I could understand. But when I see that many females have no problem in not wearing makeup, I cannot comprehend such need for a male. So wearing makeup is more a psychological thing or a physiological thing?! I would think that it is the former too.
You mixed up the term "心理問題" to confuse. To make it look as if I labeled homosexuality as a sickness.
If 同性戀 is just like someone drinks cola while other prefers 7-up, then there is no need to change our laws. But the current case is that someone drinks cola while other prefers 7-up, but yet a different someone request to put into the laws that everyone must accept milk (when it is also known that some people are allergic to milk.)
If you are being sensitive and reasonable, the least courtesy you could give is to list out your arguments and fight for your right, instead of creating enemies whenever you see something not of your liking. That is "childish". And you think "childish" is protected by our laws?
If you continue to be so childish and stupid, why would I want to choose to be on your side?!
Mind you that my "fight for your right" means your right "in saying what you believe", not that everyone has to accept "what you believe".
刪除Also mind you that in our great nature, "cannibalism" happens, and it happened in human history too. So should we protect such behavior by "updating" our laws?
刪除又人表現無賴啦!搞清楚,歷史上大堆行為都容許啦,莫講食人族問題,基督教殺異教徒或異端,猶太人屠殺迦南人,女人包小腳,畜意歧視女人,農奴,遮民階級等等都一大堆宗教理由和道德理由支持!你是不是又支持?
刪除但請問現代社會有人支持這一種行徑嗎?為什麼現代人寧願支持平等和契約社會?
所以你食人族行為,只說明你常識有問題,現代社會可是現代倫理學,根本沒有需要考慮什麼傳統道德和"文化"這一種理由!你如果說明某行為有問題煩請提出證據!
如果你硬說因為"食人族行為"是文化的一種,請問"內地人隨地大小便"是不是文化一種?所以不干涉!煩請繼續表現childish and stupid!
@匿名 12/30/2013 2:06 上午
刪除"Will 周一嶽 start to introduce some laws to protect people who don't enjoy these kind of 扯旗 activities in public places, say, to install more individual-use toilet and showing facilities?!"
Whether "周一嶽 will start to introduce such laws", is in fact irrelevant to the discussions of whether "同性戀 & 雙性戀 is moral", or whether "同性戀 & 雙性戀 should be protected by law", which is the focus of the discussion of the blog posts (that is,〈摒除心中偏見 人人得享平等〉,〈 是誰把同性戀與戀童相提並論？回應周一嶽〉and the current one).
Your example that "someone cannot help 扯旗 in a public shower room" is not about sexual orientation, but about indecent acts in public. Such acts are illegal, regardless of sexual orientation. Your example is closer to the case where "a person sexually harass another person in a crowded train during peak hour", and such acts should be illegal, regardless of the sexual orientations or genders of the people involved. That is, this should be illegal when a man harass a woman, a woman harass a man, or a man harass a man and so on, and regardless of their sexual orientations.
"If 周一嶽 wants to deal with the 同性戀問題, I would suggest him to get some first-hand experience to really understand 同性戀 & 雙性戀."
Whether "周一嶽 has some 'first-hand experience' in the sense of being a victim of indecent acts" is irrelevant to whether he is competent to lead the discussion on such legalization, and it is also irrelevant to the current discussion.
As a side note, "someone exposed indecently in a public shower room" happened to me. It was disgusting. But this is irrelevant to the current discussion, and it does not make my argument stronger. I have other friends who are homosexual, and I know that homosexuality or bisexuality is not the same thing as acting indecently in public. 'First-hand experience' in the sense of 'having homosexual friends' or 'being a victim of indecent acts' are not sufficient nor necessary for leading such a discussion. They are irrelevant.
語無倫次都有個下限!好唔好!
刪除//“accurate and sufficient information and experience”?// how many friends that he has are in those categories? And how much 周一嶽 knows about why some people enjoy to be 雙性戀, while some other choose to be 同性戀 or 異性戀?!//
即係咁!如果這一堆理由都成立,那麼過去近二十年世界上所有平權留反歧視法律都不成立,其中包括性別歧視,宗教歧視,懷孕工作,殘疾歧視, 家庭崗位歧視,種族歧視,,單親歧視等等!請問支持的人和立法的人,全部都是女人, 全部都是殘疾, 全部都是信所有宗教信仰,全部都是懷孕?
而且你問一堆how many和how much根本9唔搭8,人地,周一嶽針對同性戀問題是法律上的平等地位和社會地位的合法地位,而不是你個喜好問題,和幾多人有這一種喜好問題!
咁請問:社會大把人沒有信基督教或入任何宗教,是不是宗教小數人士他們沒有需要保護他們的權利?或甚不至比其他人更小權利?
你潛台詞就是老屈認同同性戀的人自己想搞基，這樣的人有什麼”邏輯”和”思想”可言?
//“Some people get "excited" with kids, some with big breasts, some with .......s higher for the former, a psychological one.”
I had seen males wearing female's clothes and .....thing or a physiological thing?! I would think that it is the former too."//
唔好玩捉字虱!搞清楚戀童癖是性嗜好,同性戀是性傾向! 搞清楚性取向同性嗜好有咩分別啦!小朋友!!
而且你無論點講psychological或心理問題都沒有意義!因為現代可沒有任何主流心理學或精神科定義同性戀是一個心理問題!而且《精神疾病診斷與統計手冊》（The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders，簡稱DSM）老早把同性戀剔除出手冊外!
所以一切純粹你個人沒有根據幻想!接受不了事實是你個人問題!你當自己心理醫生啊?自量下好唔好!
而且男女衣著問題都是類比不倫!因為心理學上易服癖根本就不是性傾向問題或性嗜好問題,而是性別認知和性別界定文化問題,根本和同性問題沒有關係!你無智程度都幾嚴重下!
//So if someone cannot help 扯旗 in a public shower room, probably he should h.....you think?!//
你公眾地方扯旗,鬼有人理你,最多是難為情,你如果用自己支野頂人地下半身就抵卑人拉啦!
//if 同性戀 is just like someone drinks cola while other prefers 7-up, then t.....t milk (when it is also known that some people are allergic to milk//
沒錯!同性戀問題根據同你個人飲食喜好一樣,純粹個人問題!既然已經證實左係自然界中正常性行為的一種和根本對社會沒有問題!
支持同性戀合法化的人,正是指出關係中的條件中,男女,男男,女女是享有同等法律地位
請問你擔心些什麼?人地有逼你成為同性?人地有減少你異性的權利?人地有逼下一代成為同性?人地有逼你對同性講:我唔歧視你?
人地只要求你同對待社會其他異性戀一樣態度和侍遇!
咩你D理由同基督徒D咁似既?一堆訴諸恐嚇!
難道想保留公然歧視人的權利!?
好心你搵同有說服力既埋由和有事實證明好唔好?你同D神打上身或信邪教的人有什麼分別!原來你想講自己hildish and stupid!
而且我用咩態度講野有咩問題?有point咪得囉!
又繼續移動龍門,又"'first-hand experience"!指有朋友,指有性經驗,有大量經驗?咪玩啦!?
刪除如果咁講法,大把法律都不存在啦!難道支持"防止搶劫的法律"的人,都有搶劫經驗,有小偷朋友,有相關經驗?
所以你所謂建議要麼是語無倫次,要麼是嘲笑!
You still haven't convinced me why I should support your "side". Why I should accept your arguments when there is none?
刪除>> Whether "周一嶽 has some 'first-hand experience' in the sense of being a victim of indecent acts" is irrelevant to whether he is competent to lead the discussion on such legalization, and it is also irrelevant to the current discussion.
刪除After reading 周一嶽's article, I don't think he has full understanding of the topics he wrote. Therefore "whether he is competent" or whether knows the topics well enough is very relevant to the current post, as the current post is directly related to his article.
"After reading 周一嶽's article, I don't think he has full understanding of the topics he wrote."
刪除Please point out clearly why he is not competent.
Effectively his article is long, ineffective and over-generalized.
刪除For example, 周一嶽 said, "立法的精神，就是保障所有人不會因其性傾向而遭歧視，更不容許任何人藉偏見和主觀的道德批判向他人作騷擾和中傷。"
My previous post has just shown how reverse-"騷擾" could happen in a public shower room, and how reverse-"中傷" could take place in normal discussion relating to 同性戀 matter (as happening in the current post).
周一嶽 ignored the fact that many people hasn't had any clue on what people are included in his "性小眾". What is 歧視? I don't 歧視, but I certainly have my own opinion on things that I believe.
This is not a good way to spend New Year's Eve. Thus I am getting out of here.
Happy 2014 to you all.
@ 匿名12/30/2013 11:38 下午
刪除"For example, 周一嶽 said, "立法的精神，就是保障所有人不會因其性傾向而遭歧視，更不容許任何人藉偏見和主觀的道德批判向他人作騷擾和中傷。"
My previous post has just shown how reverse-"騷擾" could happen in a public shower room, and how reverse-"中傷" could take place in normal discussion relating to 同性戀 matter (as happening in the current post)."
Your example is about indecent acts and harassment (騷擾), but is not about homosexuality, 同性戀 or sexual orientations. Would your argument change if you were harassed by someone heterosexual? Would your argument change if the harasser is of opposite sex to you (but somehow managed to sneak into the shower room of your sex)?
You are against indecent acts and harassment, not homosexuality.
性騷擾和戀童-戀家人-戀動物-戀anything並非同性戀者的專利；
刪除異性戀者也一樣有性騷擾和戀童-戀家人-戀動物-戀anything，
如果異性戀不會因此而被否定的話，so do 同性戀？
>> Your example is about indecent acts and harassment (騷擾), but is not about homosexuality, 同性戀 or sexual orientations.
刪除The sexual harassment was a direct result of the offender's sexual orientations.
>> Would your argument change if you were harassed by someone heterosexual?
Such offender would be "bisexual" !
>> Would your argument change if the harasser is of opposite sex to you.
Two males sharing a public shower room is a totally different situation then a female getting into the male showering room.
Please "THINK" clearly before asking.
>> You are against indecent acts and harassment, not homosexuality.
Same-sex Sexual harassment would be more "舉證困難". (The offender could argue that he was playing with his "toy" causing the excitement.)
@匿名1/01/2014 10:32 上午
刪除">> Your example is about indecent acts and harassment (騷擾), but is not about homosexuality, 同性戀 or sexual orientations.
The sexual harassment was a direct result of the offender's sexual orientations."
There are (lots of) other people with the same sexual orientation (e.g. homosexuality or bisexuality) that do not commit such indecent acts or harassment, so sexual orientation per se is not sufficient for causing such harassment.
It is not fair to say that "the sexual harassment was a direct result of the offender's sexual orientation", in the same way that it is not fair to say that "the sexual harassment by a man to a schoolgirl is a direct result of the offender's sexual orientation", and then as a result to make "heterosexual behaviours" illegal.
We want to make indecent acts or harassment illegal, but not heterosexuality, homosexuality, or bisexuality.
">> Would your argument change if you were harassed by someone heterosexual?
Such offender would be "bisexual" !"
Not necessarily. I haven't specified the gender of the harasser in this hypothetical example, so the harasser may be of opposite gender to you and may be a heterosexual. Moreover, even if you were sexually harassed (i.e. bullied or coerced of a sexual nature, e.g. your private parts being videoed taped, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_harassment for more examples), you can be sexually harassed by heterosexual people of the same gender (e.g. locker room bullying).
The sexual orientation of the harasser is irrelevant.
">> Would your argument change if the harasser is of opposite sex to you.
Two males sharing a public shower room is a totally different situation then a female getting into the male showering room."
Notice how "the sexual orientations of the people involved" is not relevant to this discussion (and your sentence). You are against indecent acts, not homosexuality.
"Same-sex Sexual harassment would be more "舉證困難". (The offender could argue that he was playing with his "toy" causing the excitement.)"
Somewhat agree that it would be comparatively harder to produce evidence. But is this a sufficient reason to blame indecent acts on sexual orientations?
So you have changed the context (from 1 incident to a general case), which is not desirable in any discussion/argument, unless you inform the other participant(s) explicitly.
刪除@ 匿名1/01/2014 1:16 下午
刪除"So you have changed the context (from 1 incident to a general case), which is not desirable in any discussion/argument, unless you inform the other participant(s) explicitly."
I thought that the context is about "general discussion on homosexuality" rather than "one specific indecent act in a shower room", because "general discussion on homosexuality" is the focus of the blog posts (i.e. 〈摒除心中偏見 人人得享平等〉,〈 是誰把同性戀與戀童相提並論？回應周一嶽〉and the current one).
I do agree that the "one indecent act in a shower room" brought up by "匿名12/30/2013 2:06 上午" is not relevant to the current discussion, and we should not change the context from "general discussion on homosexuality" to "one decent act in a shower room", whether or not "匿名12/30/2013 2:06 上午" inform us about the change of context.
If you trace back to the root of this sub-post, "one incident in the public shower room" is "主", leading to a bigger scope of discussion on homosexuality is "客"。 Without completing discussion on the "one incident" then moving to a "general discussion" is "反客為主"。It will not a good nor desirable discussion.
刪除@ 匿名1/01/2014 11:18 下午
刪除"If you trace back to the root of this sub-post, "one incident in the public shower room" is "主", leading to a bigger scope of discussion on homosexuality is "客"。"
Can we agree to focus on the big picture (general discussion on homosexuality, i.e. the focus on the blog posts 〈摒除心中偏見 人人得享平等〉,〈 是誰把同性戀與戀童相提並論？回應周一嶽〉and the current one), when we branch the discussion into details (e.g. one incident in the public shower room)?
Getting lost in details without looking at the big picture is not desirable for a discussion.
關啟文很清楚知道自己在打甚麼算盤，亦向來把這一方面的文章寫得很巧妙。他一直刻意對公眾提及比同性戀更受爭議的事，然後把它們連起來丶組成一群，公眾便會保持或更排斥同性戀，在立法一事更不會認同。
回覆刪除支持同性戀的人最麻煩的是，若他們主打「二人真心相戀就沒問題」的理論，那他們應怎樣面對把其連帶到亂倫（或家人戀）的反面論據？不論他們個人價值觀是甚麼，策略理應是不認同把兩者相提並論，但有甚麼理據？
@Kimmon
刪除"支持同性戀的人最麻煩的是，若他們主打「二人真心相戀就沒問題」的理論，那他們應怎樣面對把其連帶到亂倫（或家人戀）的反面論據？"
支持同性戀的人的理論是「無關性向」，而不是「二人真心相戀就沒問題」。「兩個同性的成年人相戀」應該和「兩個異性的成年人相戀」同等看待，就好像「同性的人亂倫」應該和「異性的人亂倫」同等看待。
我覺得現今關於同性戀問題的討論，與其說是知性而深入的，倒不如說是單方面的宣傳戰。
刪除LGBT文化實際上十分多元，關教授的論題其實不無道理。但與其集中地討論LGBT的哲學問題，我認為嘗試參看外國所謂「反歧視法」的可應用性，以及實際可做成的後果。實在而言，在執法方面，依據「性傾向」等、主觀(非客觀品質)、有流動性以及國際法中並無定義的概念，實際上對現存的人權已造成極大的負面影響。
除硬性的法律外，其實軟性的意識形態的問題可能更重要。作為大人我們也許有獨立思考能力，但要怎樣將「同性戀」或者「性小眾」等合理化，並教授於小孩，實在相當有爭議性。法例的功能不只於懲罰，更是將之合理化成為平常的概念，並要求所有市民，不論男女老幼，將之全盤接受。
對了，剛回應了有關教宗言論的問題，請查看。不是每天上來，沒看到，不好意思。
「但要怎樣將「同性戀」或者「性小眾」等合理化，並教授於小孩，實在相當有爭議性。法例的功能不只於懲罰，更是將之合理化成為平常的概念，並要求所有市民，不論男女老幼，將之全盤接受。」
刪除這不是說同性戀不合理嗎.......
The current laws has nothing to say about 「兩個異性的成年人相戀」. Thus the current laws has nothing to forbid 「兩個同性的成年人相戀」.
刪除What you are fighting for is to legalize 「兩個同性的成年人的性
行為 and all the consequences」, just as the current marriage law is for 「兩個異性的成年人的性行為 and all the consequences」, rather than 「兩個異性的成年人相戀」.
If someone drags "nature" into the game, then since the nature doesn't provide "marriage certificate", so why would that someone wants us to provide "marriage certificate"?
Thus 周一嶽 should know very well what kind of "box" he is trying to open up.
//同性戀...「二人真心相戀就沒問題」//
刪除Hey, that is too strict. Even if two homosexual people aren't in love but are consenting adults having sex, what's the problem? So, please don't use 同性戀 for homosexual; it's a misnomer. Maybe we should call it 同性交.
過客：
刪除1) 你只能說你的理論是這樣，你不能說沒有該立場的人持這理論。
2) 單是facebook，「二人真心相戀就沒問題」這樣的說話我看過非常多次。
3) 我討論的是「為何同性戀沒問題」而非「主流社會要以甚麼態度看同性戀」。到底你怎樣說服人「無關性向」是對? 當對方問為何同性戀可被接受，亂倫則不可時你怎樣回應？
匿名：
1) 其實是「『雙』方面的宣傳戰」，無論在香港丶台灣丶美國還是西歐等國家，關於同志的議題都是，雙方都具戰鬥慾。較開放的國家現時主要討論的應該是同性婚姻。
2) 對底反歧視法怎樣對人權「已造成極大的負面影響」?
3) 立法的條文怎樣寫而避免法例免被濫用很重要。實際上，的確有需要保護每個人免因性傾向受歧視，如在就業上。
4) 我建議家長教懂小孩要有思考能力就好了，也許不必灌輸任何一方立場給他們，留待他們自己判斷。最緊要不任由他們歧視人。
另外，題外話，懇請各位無論在王教授這裡還是其他網誌留言時都留個稱呼。
Kimmon :
刪除"我討論的是「為何同性戀沒問題」而非「主流社會要以甚麼態度看同性戀」。到底你怎樣說服人「無關性向」是對? 當對方問為何同性戀可被接受，亂倫則不可時你怎樣回應？"
「同性戀有沒有問題」和「亂倫有沒有問題」，的確要看（廣義下的主流社會）以甚麼態度看待。所以我們才要用道理、邏輯和事實去說服主流社會「同性戀沒有問題」。「亂倫」和現代家庭倫理相差較遠，所以除了少數國家（如荷蘭、法國、西班牙）外，一般不為世所接受。「同性戀」和現代家庭倫理相差較近（有如單親家庭），應該較易接受。若果社會接受，自然「無關性向」。
zpdrmn: Maybe we should call the homosexual orientation "同性性傾向"? I know we should call gay people "同志" though.
刪除過客:
1) 可是你仍然沒提出任何說服人的理據呀! 所以我最初才提出「應怎樣面對把其連帶到亂倫（或家人戀）的反面論據」。
2) 荷蘭和北歐普遍較開放。西班牙我認為只是一般，在法國更是仍然很具爭議。
祝各位新年快樂
亂倫，性騷擾，戀童，戀動物..戀anything...等等被視為不道德的行為並非只是同性戀者才有的「專利」，異性戀者也一樣有這樣的不道德行為。
刪除若然異性戀者有這樣不道德的行為但異性戀卻不會因此而遭否定，那為何同性戀也有這樣的行為卻就要被否定？
這就好比強姦，搶劫，殺人放火...等等被視為壞的行為並非只有黑人才會去做，黃種人白種人或任何其他種族的人也都一樣會去做。若然其他種族的人去做那些壞的行為就不會被譴責而只有黑人去做才會被譴責，那是不是就叫做「歧視」？
>> 那為何同性戀也有這樣的行為卻就要被否定？
刪除The current discussion is about whether "同性戀" is 不道德行為。
>> 另外，題外話，懇請各位無論在王教授這裡還是其他網誌留言時都留個稱呼。
刪除Will give you a reason after Chinese New Year.
@ Kimmon
刪除1) 可是你仍然沒提出任何說服人的理據呀! 所以我最初才提出「應怎樣面對把其連帶到亂倫（或家人戀）的反面論據」。
「同性戀傾向」和「同性戀行為」與現代和近代的中國家庭倫理較為接近（同性戀中國自古有之，例如看 https://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/中國同性戀史 ，或搜尋「書僮」「男風」等詞)，而「亂倫」則和現代和近代的中國家庭倫理相距較遠（因為會亂了「人倫」，所以叫「亂倫」）。換句話說，「同性戀」不會亂人倫，「亂倫」會亂人倫。
這些道德觀只是「主流社會」的看法。
2) 荷蘭和北歐普遍較開放。西班牙我認為只是一般，在法國更是仍然很具爭議。
為甚麼香港不及荷蘭和北歐開放？為甚麼香港不能夠像荷蘭和北歐般開放？
神洲：匿名已答了你。
刪除堅持匿名的匿名：
"Will give you a reason after Chinese New Year" 好，有性格!
//The current discussion is about whether "同性戀" is 不道德行為。//
刪除道德的標準是什麼？
自由戀愛男女雙方談情說愛以某些標準來看也可以是不道德；
女子衣著露出肩膀或露出大腿或者穿著短衫褲也可以是不道德；
女子衣著不是全身包到只準露出2只眼睛也是不道德......
>> "道德的標準是什麼？"
刪除You are trying to confuse the issue. Also, the term "不道德" when applied on sexuality and on "自由戀愛" & "衣著暴露" carry different meanings. You have been confusing yourself.
希望沒有人以為我在捍衛任何立場，我只在做主持人的角色帶出討論。感謝大家理性的討論，如沒有新的觀點，我便不再參與了。
刪除過客：
1) 亂人倫就不符合道德? 不亂人倫就符合道德？
2) 以前極少有兩男組成家庭，到底這有多近「中國家庭倫理」？
3) 為何要限於中國？
4) 用「以前就有」的理據支持同性戀是符合道德是引火自焚。以前沒有的，現在有亦不會有問題；以前有的；現在看來可以是錯的。
神洲：
你扯遠了。「道德的標準」的確很有討論空間，但提出那幾項質疑不會確立了你的立場。不如回到最原本的討論，若有人說「同性戀可以被接受，亂倫就一樣豈不一樣要被接受？」（今次只收窄在異性之間）你怎樣回應？
@ Kimmon
刪除1) 亂人倫就不符合道德? 不亂人倫就符合道德？
道德的討論沒有這麼簡單，但這個條件可以區分開同性戀和亂倫，指出同性戀如何比亂倫較接近現代和近代的家庭倫理（人際關係），非常片面地回答了你的問題 「應怎樣面對把其連帶到亂倫（或家人戀）的反面論據」。
道德的問題很難有完滿的哲學答案。但在討論政策和立法時，一個「合理」的答案就足夠了（雖然以上這個簡單的答案是否合理，仍可以討論）。同時，要注意政策和立法並非以（部份人的）道德觀念作標準，它們只作參考。
2) 以前極少有兩男組成家庭，到底這有多近「中國家庭倫理」？
這裏的「家庭倫理」指現實上家庭（包括單親家庭、領養家庭）的人際關係等，不是指組成成員的性別和性傾向。否則，「異性親子亂倫」就不會搞亂家庭倫理（人際關係）了。
3) 為何要限於中國？
不一定要限於中國。用中國作討論好像合乎香港現實。你喜歡的話，可以討論北歐或者北韓。
4) 用「以前就有」的理據支持同性戀是符合道德是引火自焚。以前沒有的，現在有亦不會有問題；以前有的；現在看來可以是錯的。
對，所以就算現在社會開始接受同性戀，亦不會有問題。一個開放的社會應該合理地包容「非主流」（即少過半數）的取向。
Kimmon,
刪除Sorry about the distraction from my mentioning how we should call homosexual people in Chinese. That's not my main point.
My main point is we shouldn't use whether they are in love as a yardstick. It isn't important. And how can we judge if they are or not? They judge it for themselves? Even so, they themselves may not be sure. And how can we write it as a law? Such yardstick is like 做特首要愛國愛港.
性傾向 has similar problem. 傾向 isn't an action.
Kimmon，
刪除//若有人說「同性戀可以被接受，亂倫就一樣豈不一樣要被接受？」//
這個說法是把兩樣無關聯的東西等同起來。
因為：
同性戀有亂倫（同性亂倫），
異性戀也一樣有亂倫（異性亂倫），
這就好比黑人會有人去做賊（黑皮膚的賊），
白人也一樣會有人去做賊（白皮膚的賊），
黃種人或其他種族的人也都一樣會有人去做賊（膚色不同的賊），
所以
賊與膚色是無關的，亦即性取向（同性戀或異性戀）與亂倫是無關的；
若果把賊與某一膚色聯繫起來，那顯然就是種族歧視；
同樣道理，把性取向與亂倫，性騷擾，人獸交等等不只是同性戀，異性戀的人也會做的事等同起來，無疑即是把膚色與賊等同起來一樣，是一種歧視。
補充一句：
刪除所以，同性戀可以被接受，不等於亂倫，性騷擾，人獸交等等一樣要被接受。
關於//若有人說「同性戀可以被接受，亂倫就一樣豈不一樣要被接受？」//這個問題可能還有一個解釋：
刪除同性戀或異性戀是一個性取向問題，相信不是屬於醫學上的心理問題，所以亦無法用醫學的方法（或治療）來改變；
但亂倫或人獸交則很可能是屬於醫學上的心理問題，可能是屬於心理有些變態之類，可以經過醫學上的心理治療來得到改善。
所以，亂倫或人獸交（這個可能還會涉及虐畜問題）應該要去看心理醫生。
過客：
刪除我相信你的「較接近」理論可回應「應怎樣面對把其連帶到亂倫（或家人戀）的反面論據」這個題目。
（但不代表我個人認同理論可解答道德的問題。）
zpdrmn：
I discussed NOTHING about the legislation.
神洲：
你漏了以下這一句：（今次只收窄在異性之間），
你實在扯遠了。
1) 黑人不一定做賊 > 不要歧視黑人
同性戀不一定亂倫 > 不要歧視同性戀
但誰在主張同性戀會亂倫?
沒有幾多人會說「同性戀會亂倫，所以不可以接受」。
很多人只是感覺「社會要性開放，那接受同性戀就是一樣要接
受亂倫」。
2) 因為 同性戀非心理問題 所以 無法治療
因為 無法治療 所以 非心理問題？
你有論證了甚麼嗎?
3) 你知道醫學界有認為亂倫是心理問題？
4) 以前醫學界認為同性戀是精神病，那時是否就不應接受同性
戀？
Kimmon，
刪除1）//但誰在主張同性戀會亂倫?//
請看王Sir文章的第一段。
我想「接受」與「歧視」的意思是不相同的，例如：「我無法接受你的意見，但我不會歧視你。」
所以，我只是想討論有關歧視同性戀的問題而無意要求
2）//同性戀或異性戀是一個性取向問題，相信不是屬於醫學上的心理問題，所以亦無法用醫學的方法（或治療）來改變；//
此句原意是想講若同性戀不是心理問題或其它醫學上的問題的話，是無法用醫學的方法（或治療）來改變的。
//你有論證了甚麼嗎?//
我想這未必是一個論證的問題，如果你發現同性戀是有得醫的話，不妨提供這方面的資訊。
但不論是有得醫還是無得醫，我們都不應該歧視他/她們。
3）//你知道醫學界有認為亂倫是心理問題？//
「知道」是無止境的事，我只能夠說亂倫可能需要接受心理輔導或心理治療。
4）//以前醫學界認為同性戀是精神病，那時是否就不應接受同性
戀？//
我只是討論關於歧視同性戀的問題，即使同性戀是精神病，我相信也不應該歧視病人。
完善1）最後一句：
刪除所以，我只是想討論有關歧視同性戀的問題。
神洲，最後一次回應你：
刪除1)「接受」與「歧視」不同，但「不接受」是「歧視」的先決條件。
2) 你亦知道同性戀不是病，怎會存在「有得醫」或「無得醫」的問題？不是病怎會有「醫」這回事？
我奉勸支持同性戀平權的人，策略上著重於讓人體會同性戀其實只是與異性戀差不多大概是最重要的了。
Kimmon,
刪除it doesn't have to be about legalization. You can see it as a moral issue or 價值觀 or whatnot. The problem of how you judge if two people (or more) are in love is still there. Who are going to judge it? I just point out the stickiness of using whether being in love or not as a yardstick.
Kimmon,
刪除1）//「接受」與「歧視」不同，但「不接受」是「歧視」的先決條件。//
“「不接受」是「歧視」的先決條件”又如何？
「不接受」可能是很多結果的「先決條件」，
「不接受」可以導致「歧視」，「不接受」也可以導致「包容」，
「不接受」甚至還可以導致「殺人」，這是一個實例：
http://news.sina.com.hk/news/20140102/-12-3155900/1.html
正因為「不接受」可以導致多種不同的結果，
正如我之前說的例子：「我可以不接受你（的政治取向，文化取向或性取向），但我或者社會不應該歧視你」。
所以，討論怎樣的結果才是合理結果，那才有實際意義和重要的。
2）因為你疑問
//因為 同性戀非心理問題 所以 無法治療
因為 無法治療 所以 非心理問題？
你有論證了甚麼嗎?//
所以我才說：「但不論是有得醫還是無得醫，我們都不應該歧視他/她們。」
//策略上著重於讓人體會同性戀其實只是與異性戀差不多大概是最重要的了//
如果問題是那麼簡單的話就最好了。
事實上，歧視同性戀的「先決條件」是歧視者背後的一個影響力強大的文化傳統，而要改變一個人的傳統思維/傳統文化或傳統價值觀絕非易事。
非常喜歡讀王先生的博客，我很少見到香港人有如此理性和文筆優美的文章，
回覆刪除謝謝。
刪除It is absurd to require that one must have a first hand experience to make a point in an argument. The only human beings that had first hand experience of God are Adam and Eve. Later God refuses to speak to his creation face to face. Future human beings only have Nth hand experience of God. Yet fundamental Christians, 明光社 members in particular talk as if they are the only people who are doing the God work and act as if they are God’s spokesman.
回覆刪除Samson
Ontario, Canada
There are people who believe that God speaks to them directly.
刪除>> It is absurd to require that one must have a first hand experience to make a point in an argument.
刪除Then what is the difference between telling a lie and telling the truth?! So you want other people to accept someone's words without knowing all the facts?
What if someone's definition of "同性戀行為" isn't what "other" people "expected" (particularly when some people in the society might not even know what "同性戀" is really about), yet after it is written into our laws, then, wah-la, "同性戀行為" would include some other "行為" ...
>> Future human beings only have Nth hand experience of God.
God is timeless, and thus your argument fails.
Bring "God" into the homosexuality discussion isn't wise, as the pro-homosexual side will always lose.
同性戀或異性戀都是個人的性取向問題，
回覆刪除個人的性取有人是異性戀，
個人的性取有人是同性戀，
無論是戀同性，抑或戀異性的人，
都同樣有人戀童-戀家人-戀動物-戀anything，
也都同樣有人性騷擾別人。
所以，
如果以戀童-戀家人-戀動物-戀anything和有人性騷擾別人為由來否定同性戀的話，
同樣，
也可以以戀童-戀家人-戀動物-戀anything和有人性騷擾別人為由來否定異性戀。
而如果異性戀不能夠因為異性戀也有人戀童-戀家人-戀動物-戀anything和有人性騷擾別人而被否定的話，那麼同性戀也不應該被同樣的理由來否定。
-------------------------
至於有人提出異性戀的人有分男女洗手間，那麼同性戀的人也是否需要有分開「男」「女」洗手間呢？但這個問題與否定同性戀不是同一個問題。
Without giving a clear thought on this:
回覆刪除"性取向" still cannot be proven as a physiological thing. If there is such thing as "性取向" genes, then there would only be "雙性戀" genes, as the "同性戀" genes never got pass down. And if there is such thing as "同性戀" genes, then there should be multiple generations of "同性戀" in the same family. If "同性戀" genes is a genes "突變", then the "同性戀" population should be very very small comparing to the current one.
Thus "性取向" should be a psychological one.
So people want us to change the laws because of what they enjoy psychologically...
如果性取向不是一種疾病因此也無法治療的話，那麼性取向應該是屬於一種個人的特徵，就像有人用右手寫字，也有人用左手寫字一樣，無論是用右手或左手寫字，都很難“be proven as a physiological thing” or “psychological one.”
刪除Thus不應該因為多數人用右手寫字而要去歧視另一種特徵的少數用左手寫字的人。
If someone loves to "打橫行", then everyone should not 歧視 him/her. Right?! (Then welcome to "Canton Road" !)
刪除It is not clear on the definition of 歧視. (In the old Cantonese movie, a stepmother would intentionally provide "everything" to her step-son, so as to spoil him. Was she 歧視-ing him?)
>> "如果性取向不是一種疾病因此也無法治療"
Do you have the same desire for sexuality as when you were a kid? How do you know if sexual behavior was not through "learning" or exterior stimulation causing "同性戀" at a later stage of life? If sexual desire is influenced by hormones, then it is not uncontrollable (for example, through "mind power"), and our laws should not cater for it, the same as our laws wasn't catered for providing protection to other "desires".
問題係性取向並非someone “loves to do”就得的事，如果你不是一個鍾意去戀同性的人，你是無法像想去“打橫行”就去“打橫行”那樣，“想去戀同性就去戀同性”的。因為不具有戀同性特徵的人若果要他去戀同性，他們多數會覺得“核特”和有抗拒感的，也可能正因為他們的這種“核特”感和抗拒感而導致了他們歧視同性戀者。
刪除同性戀是先天還是後天形成的可能還未有確切定論，據留意到的新聞採訪和報導，很可能是先天性的多些，並且也不是他們自己可以控制得到的。
>> 問題係性取向並非someone “loves to do”就得的事，如果你不是一個鍾意去戀同性的人，你是無法像想去“打橫行”就去“打橫行”那樣，“想去戀同性就去戀同性”的。
刪除異性戀的人，也不是見任何異性都 會產生 sexual desire 的。
>> 同性戀是先天還是後天形成的可能還未有確切定論，據留意到的新聞採訪和報導，很可能是先天性的多些，並且也不是他們自己可以控制得到的。
Based on my observation, I think 同性戀是"先天" has a low chance.
同性戀很可能是先天的佔多數，據新聞報導訪問過的同性戀者，他/她們都是講述他/她們年紀很小的時候就發覺自己與別人有些不同，但因為年紀小，不明白為什麼不同；到年紀大些後終於知道自己是同性戀者。
刪除新聞報導似乎未有見過受訪問的同性戀者有說自己是後天因為學習同性戀而變為同性戀的。
>> 同性戀很可能是先天的佔多數，據新聞報導訪問過的同性戀者 ...
刪除Not scientific enough. For example, "我年紀很小的時候就發覺自己與別人有些不同, 別人都是蠢的。到年紀大些後終於知道自己是個天才。" Do you find any problem with such statement? It is "自說自話" without proofs.
>> Not scientific enough.
刪除Many studies in psychology are based on self-reporting by the subjects studied. It is arguable whether such studies are scientific enough.
周一嶽可以 ignore！
回覆刪除Why? 理由?
刪除周一嶽篇文有邏輯謬誤。看出嗎?
回覆刪除你能夠指出嗎？
刪除>> 你能夠指出嗎？
刪除Of course I can (through logical thinking), otherwise how would I know that there were 邏輯謬誤? The issue is "Can You?" (This is 1 meaning of "指出".)
The 2nd meaning of "指出" which you might mean "if I will list them here", will do so when I have time, when at the same time, give you more time to find them.
>> Of course I can (through logical thinking), otherwise how would I know that there were 邏輯謬誤? The issue is "Can You?" (This is 1 meaning of "指出".)
刪除Without proof, it is possible that there is no 邏輯謬誤 in 周一嶽篇文, but you mistake that there is one (for example, through flawed logical thinking; that is, by performing 邏輯謬誤 yourself). The burden of proof is on you. You need to substantiate your claims.
"邏輯謬誤" has a full list describing each of the 謬誤. If you know them, you should be able to find some of them in 周一嶽篇文. If you don't know them, it doesn't mean that other people who understand "邏輯謬誤" cannot find them. This is how "真理" works. Therefore I don't have the "burden of proof", just as I don't have the burden to educate people who don't want to be educated on the related matter(s).
刪除You need to substantiate your claims if you want to start a discussion in the comments, so that others can join.
刪除(Currently I don't have the time writing up my opinions about 周一嶽篇文.)
刪除Go & spend some time reading 周一嶽篇文 (maybe several times, word by word carefully), bearing in mind that there could be some logical problem(s) with it, and see if you can find any.
(& I guarantee you that there were some problems with it.)
... I don't understand why people don't have to substantiate any claims that 周一嶽篇文 had NO logical problem...?!... A discrimination against people with a higher IQ / education / mind power / ... or whatever?!
You have not yet brought up a substantiated point that others can discuss here.
刪除You will have to wait. (If you don't have any other things to do, go shoot some basketballs before coming back to this thread of discussions. Maybe by that time, some people had already found "the" problems for you.)
刪除「姿姿整整」「故作神秘」--中國人文化？
刪除Only 八公、八婆 wait in front of the TV for another episode of a show so that they may criticize / discuss afterwards.
刪除You have heard that it was said, “You shall not commit adultery.” But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart. If your right eye causes you to sin, pluck it out and throw it away; it is better that you lose one of your members than your whole body be thrown into hell (Matthew 5:27-29)
回覆刪除I am waiting to see many fundamentalist Christians losing their eyes.
By the way, did God condone incest? Why did he allow Mr Lot having sex with his two daughters without punishment?
Samson
Ontario, Canada
Bring "God" into the homosexuality discussion isn't wise, as the pro-homosexual side will always lose. And you will always lose.
刪除Discussion is to learn, not to win.
刪除For example, see http://www.ted.com/talks/daniel_h_cohen_for_argument_s_sake.html
Samson (of Ontario) seemingly doesn't really understand the Bible. So if he started an argument, he would either win or lose. If his purpose is to understand certain issues, his attitude and wording would show differently and my choosing of words would be different.
刪除Plus his post's viewpoint shifts towards a discussion about the Bible, instead of about "同性戀". I just pre-warn him.
If he is wise, he would spend some more time studying the Bible, without bias, and then examine other people's (both sides') viewpoints in similar discussions (which should be plenty on the net).
>> So if he started an argument, he would either win or lose.
回覆刪除An argument is not a war, we don't "win" or "lose". We learn from it.
The discussion is not about who wins and who loses. When the 反對歧視 laws finally go through the HK legislature the winner will be the democracy and social justice. Let us not forget that the legislation protects the rights of all minorities including the Christian minorities in HK among them 明光社 members. (There are only 800,000 Christians in HK within a population of 7 millions. Their influences is unproportionately greater because of HK’s colonial past )
回覆刪除There is no doubt that 明光社 is a fundamentalist Christian organization and their opposition to the 反對歧視 legislation is bases on the bible. I just want to expose the absurdity and inconsistency in the bible when it comes to addressing sexuality. Fortunately HK is a secular society and it is not governed by any religious doctrines.
Take a look at the world today. All socially progressive countries put an effort to protect the civil rights and social justice of its citizens. HK prides itself to be a world city. Would it be a shame if its social policies are in the same league as Saudi Arabia?
As far as my own knowledge of the bible I am not ashamed of my status, not only from religious perspective but also from a bible scholastic view point.
Samson
Ontario, Canada
Please don't waste my time. Plus I don't have the obligation to point out your mistakes, such as your quoting Matthew 5:27-29 and your interest in finding any inconsistency in OT relating to our current science knowledge. You simply don't understand the process of the "Truth".
刪除(as promised... )
回覆刪除周一嶽指蔡志森及明光社成員 "辯說...同性戀是罪..." 又說 "無論從醫學和法律等客觀角度來看，同性戀既不是病，也不是罪，..."
非常明顯蔡志森及明光社成員說的 「罪」，是指耶教所說的 「心靈 (或"屬靈") 之罪」。周一嶽作為醫生，應該知道人類的醫學知識還未達完善。所以，他祇能直說...同性戀是從醫學的精神科的精神病名單被剔出...and nothing more。
醫學界似乎沒有一種病叫做 "視力模糊"病。這不等於有此病徵的患者沒有(其他有"視力模糊"病徵的)疾病。也不等於 "視力模糊" 是正常現象。
周一嶽說的在"法律等客觀角度來看...同性戀不是罪..."但他沒有說 "肛交" 是受法律監管的。又因為"肛交"可能被男同性戀者運用，所以 "同性戀的性行為"是有機會構成 "犯法" (即 法律上的 "罪")。又依法律原則，我們的法律是針對"行為"及"結果" 而定立，又為顧及法律下人人平等，當然不會用上 "黃種人"、"黑人"等字眼。(亦不會[?]用上 "奸夫"、"淫婦"等字眼。) 亦不會直接指明 "同性戀是罪" 或 "同性戀不是罪"。但如果查考 "肛交"的法律條文的歷史及原先目的，是有考慮 "男+男性行為" 即 "男同性戀性行為" 而定立，及至後來 "同性戀"和"異性戀"的"肛交"條文才統一化，消除了性別傾向的分野。
每處地方的法律都有些不同，這說明是先有"人"，後有"法"。"法"亦是由當地的眾"人"同意並定立。法律也不會是完整，否則每處地方的法律都應該是相同。
"說謊" 在耶教中，是一種 「心靈之罪」，亦是 "萬罪之源"。但在 "從醫學和法律等客觀角度來看", "說謊" "既不是病，也不是罪" (除非是 "說謊強迫症" 或是法律上不所容許，如作"假見證"或利用"說謊"得到利益)，那麼為何校長們、老師們不容許學生"說謊"? 這就證明除了"醫學和法律",人們亦有"道德"角度。而這"道德"角度既是法律的主要樑柱，卻不是與法律完全溶而為一。
蔡志森及明光社成員說的 「罪」，是 "道德"上的「罪」，和法律上的 「罪」，不是同一樣的東西。周一嶽把它們混為一談，是在嚴重扭曲及誤導。
耶教的"說謊是罪"論，是有數千年歷史，而每次"同性戀"相關法例被改動，耶教的立場是一致無變，但其相信的"道德"角度卻從未被考慮。這證明 "法" 大於 "人"。(就如早前的 "綜援" 終審一案，也是"法" 大於 "人"。是錯判的。)這結果主要基於法庭相信 "同性戀" 是天生的。
周一嶽說 "同性戀"不是罪，亦是依據他認同 "同性戀" 是天生的。若仿照倪匡的語調及思維：「"難忍"喜歡"難忍"係好正常架、係天生架嘛。除非你出生係問題家庭，你喜歡你阿爸係好正常嘅事。但係"難忍"識得同 "難忍"上床係好唔正常架、一定係後天架。你睇吓有隻大熊貓，要睇"閑"帶至識得交配，就知道 "性行為"是後天才學番嚟架。一定唔係天生架。」
所以，"同性戀性行為" 一定是後生學習而成。
咁 "同性戀" 會否天生? 現有的心理學研究都有一個共同疑點，就是研究人員有否被他們的主觀意見影響研究結果? (是否中肯? 有否「櫃中人」?)另一疑點是當事人有否"說謊"的動機、研究人員怎知當事人有否"說謊"?
理論上要證明 "同性戀是天生" 與 "同性戀不是天生" 都是同樣困難。至今亦未(?)找到 "同性戀"基因以證明 "同性戀" 一定是天生。(在大自然，動物是不懂得屈就。不會明明是同性戀卻去行異性性行為，以便傳宗接代。故此儘管有"同性戀"基因，這基因也不能傳至下一代。) 證據祇是依賴某些心理案例以支持"同性戀是天生"及"後天不能改變同性戀傾向"。
(記憶中)曾有心理案例說男當事人自少愛穿女裝，有"性別認知障礙"。試問若該男子若從未教之何為男裝、何為女裝，又或者男、女裝都是同式同款，又或是他是盲的，又如何會有"性別認知障礙"?所以該當事人的"性別認知障礙"一定是後天形成。或受衣料顏色、款式影響，或受其他人的穿衣飾而偏向喜歡女裝。
(我曾有一極"姐姐形"的大學同學，據聞後來信了耶教及結了婚。因為與該同學從沒聯絡,無法知道結局。真的後天不能改變同性戀傾向?)
從自身經歷得知，"性慾念" 不可能從小便有，必是在青春期後("性激素"產生)才發生。因為無人知道"性激素"會推你傾向"同性"或"異性"，所以"性傾向"不可能在青春期前便能察覺。
結論是"同性戀是否天生?"，我相信不是。若同性戀是天生，便沒有「心靈之罪」，因為是上帝給的考驗。但 "同性戀/雙性戀性行為"必是後天而成，是當事人可控制的，所以是一種 「心靈之罪」。
- - -
關於周一嶽說 "道德的標準，會因應時、地、人而有所不同，甚至有很大差異。舉例說，古時婚姻必須有「父母之命、媒妁之言」，子女與人私訂終身是不道德的，異族通婚更是「為世不容」..."
周一嶽似乎攪錯了(或誤導人?)"子女與人私訂終身是不道德"。前人視子女與人私訂終身是"無媒苟合、大逆不道"，"苟合"不是"狗合"，是不光彩、得過且過、違反父權的意思，與今人所說的 "不道德" (含"不潔") 的意思不盡相同。
周一嶽又說 "「道德」的標準會隨着時代及社會教育而改變"... 若周一嶽認為「禮教亅是過時，今人還 "燒香祭祖" 算不算過時? 曰本人在如廁時忍住不制做聲響是否戇居?
而「異族通婚亅古時有文成公主、王昭君，近代有嫁飛虎將軍之陳香梅。周一嶽是否睇粵語長片洗錯腦？
周一嶽說的 "性小眾" 是指甚麼? 若 "人人有座斷背山"，異性戀反而是 "性小眾"。周一嶽是否又再出言語誤導?
周一嶽說的 "我們亦反對明光社成員把同性戀與某些性罪行如戀童或成癮成癖的病態性行為相提並論"，是他對同性戀高舉的"彩虹旗"一知半解。"彩虹旗"是代表所有非異性戀的傾向。所以，戀童及病態性行為都包括在"彩虹旗"中。
容許愛男體的"同性/雙性戀"人進入男性共用浴室，不就等同容許一男子進入女性共用浴室?這樣就是有道德、無歧視的行徑?
既然 同性戀及雙性戀性行為是後天而或的，其他人便有權不認同此等行為。這不算是歧視。周一嶽，你大錯特錯了。
申利： 本人與明光社全無瓜葛，亦不認同其抽取聖經羅馬書並斷章取義、呼號教徒依付強權之做法。
刪除「視力模糊」是不是病似乎也不能夠證明什麼，因為就算同性戀是病，那歧視病人也不應該吧？
刪除-------------------------------------
「又因為"肛交"可能被男同性戀者運用....」,但"肛交"也一樣可以被異性戀者運用，所以「....及至後來 "同性戀"和"異性戀"的"肛交"條文才統一化，消除了性別傾向的分野。」這相信是消除歧視的進步。
-------------------------------------
//所以，"同性戀性行為" 一定是後生學習而成。//
其實不論是天生與否，還是生病與否，都不應該受歧視。
即如天生殘疾的人就要被歧視嗎？生病的人就應該被歧視嗎一樣。
道德應該是這樣：
歧視天生殘疾的人是不道德的；歧視生病的人也是不道德的。
-------------------------------------
//既然 同性戀及雙性戀性行為是後天而或的，其他人便有權不認同此等行為。這不算是歧視。//
「不認同」「不接受」在民主社會裡其實都不是什麼問題，例如「我不認同你的意見」是很平常的事；又如「我無法接受同性戀行為」相信也不應強迫我去接受這種行為。
但即使我「不認同」「不接受」同性戀，也不應該歧視他/她們和剝奪他/她應有的權利。
Please think before you post & don't waste my time. Obviously you are not a careful reader. Which should explain why you continue to ask questions that has answered in my post, or ask irrelevant / incorrect questions.
刪除>> Obviously you are not a careful reader.
刪除This is not a point that others can discuss, can you substantiate it?
By the way, beware of argument from fallacy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_fallacy
http://www.slate.com/blogs/browbeat/2014/01/06/_the_adventures_of_fallacy_man_existential_comic_explains_why_it_s_not_enough.html
All those questions already have been answered. Re-answering them is stupid. Re-asking them is also stupid.
刪除Saying that they have been answered, is not the same as answering them. You reiterated that they have been answered, but did not answer them.
刪除>> 既然 同性戀及雙性戀性行為是後天而或的，其他人便有權不認同此等行為。這不算是歧視
宗教信仰明顯係後天嘅，咁係咪我哋可以歧視其他人嘅宗教信仰？
Read all the posts carefully and THINK. The answers are all there.
刪除Whether "宗教信仰明顯係後天", or whether "stupidity" is "後天" or "先天" is irrelevant to the current topics.
PLEASE READ THIS:
刪除“CURES” FOR AN ILLNESS THAT DOES NOT EXIST
(World Health Organization)
http://www.paho.org/hq/index.php?option=com_docman&task=doc_view&gid=17703
REPEAT :
刪除"說謊" 在耶教中，是一種 「心靈之罪」，亦是 "萬罪之源"。
咁 "同性戀" 會否天生? 現有的心理學研究都有一個共同疑點，就是研究人員有否被他們的主觀意見影響研究結果? (是否中肯? 有否「櫃中人」?)另一疑點是當事人有否"說謊"的動機、研究人員怎知當事人有否"說謊"?
如果你不是醫生，又不是研究人員，你當然不會知道醫生或研究人員怎樣作出判斷。即如你身體不適去看醫生，醫生經檢查/檢驗後說你是患了什麼病，你同樣也可以說或懷疑那是醫生的「主觀意見」，你也可以用同樣理由不相信所有醫生。
刪除這類病人可能常見於精神科，他們通常可能會反指醫生有病。
You are biased and is dragging the topics into your direction serving your purpose instead of seeking the truth.
刪除It is proven that some scientist(s) "說謊" when writing academic articles for a purpose. On the other side, when subjects in an experiment "說謊", even truly "professional" professionals could be misinformed and misled. Then the resulting reports would also be misleading.
I already said that "(記憶中)曾有心理案例說男當事人自少愛穿女裝，有"性別認知障礙"。試問若該男子若從未教之何為男裝、何為女裝，又或者男、女裝都是同式同款，又或是他是盲的，又如何會有"性別認知障礙"?所以該當事人的"性別認知障礙"一定是後天形成。或受衣料顏色、款式影響，或受其他人的穿衣飾而偏向喜歡女裝。"
This shows that someone (the examiner or the subject) isn't doing a good job in seeking (or providing) the truth in locating the source of "性別認知障礙" in an unbiased manner.
You have been wasting time by continuing a thread which you do not present any new information.
Re: 神洲
刪除抱歉沒仔細閱讀上文，只是剛見閣下列出這份世衛泛美洲地區辦公室的立場書，也來「八一八（掛）」。
立場書的對象似乎是針對泛美洲地區社會而發出的。首先，假若立場書的對象是普世性的，應由世衛總部發出，而不是豁下某個地區辦公室；第二，立場書簡介的第三段提到：
「證據顯示，在一些美洲國家，有人透過所謂的『診所』或私人『治療師』，持續地去宣揚一種旨在『治療』非異性戀性傾向，而被稱為『性向修復療法』或『性向轉換療法』的服務。令人憂慮的是，這些服務不僅在公眾關注的領域外提供，而更是透過隱藏的方式下提供。它們代表著無法解釋的做法，而本著專業道德精神，以及受地方性和普世性條例和公約所保障的人權原則，如《美洲人權公約》和它的《附加議定書 (聖薩爾瓦多議定書)》，應予以譴責和受到相應的制裁。」
簡介只提到美洲國家，所援引的亦是美洲條約，顯示了立場書的地區性；再加上立場書內提及的治療方法早已為已發展地區所棄，有理由相信，這份立場書是針對泛美地區，那些仍保留對同性戀者不人道的治療方法的地區而發出的。立場書內又提到一些非自願接受更正治療的青年人作證時指出：
「受害人被軟禁和被剝奪他們的自由，有時甚至會被隔離長達數個月。在這些見證詞中，包含了對有辱人格的待遇﹑極端羞辱﹑肢體暴力﹑電擊或催吐劑性厭惡性反射條件療法﹑以及甚至性騷擾﹑和尤其發生在女同性戀例子中的『修復性強姦』的描述。這類療程不僅侵犯了受害人的尊嚴和人權，而且事實是這類療程的『治療』效果是零，或者甚至有反效果。」
十分明顯，這不是香港或大部份先進國家的情況。雖然主流的專業團體均不主張修正治療，但他們亦強調要尊重個人自決的意願。
以下提到一位美國心理學會(American Psychological Association, APA)前會長上年在法庭宣誓作證，他不單指出性傾向可以改變，更批評性傾向的心理治療及輔導已經變得高度政治化；而且，將改變性傾向的治療，定性為「不道德」的做法，是侵犯了求助者的選擇權，並干預當事人的治療方向。
上年5月，著名心理學家，前美國心理學會(APA)會長康明斯(Nicholas Cummings)向美國新澤西州的最高法院提交宣誓書(affidavit)（http://www.consciencedefense.org/contents/media/Nicholas_Cummings_Declaration.pdf），指出他和其同事在任職的南加州凱薩醫院(Kaiser Permanente)，治療超過一萬八千名同性戀者。在這些求助者之中，部分尋求性傾向的改變，康明斯和其同事見證數百名人士成功改變性傾向。康明斯在2003年獲得美國心理學基金金獎，這是心理學實踐方面的終身成就獎。他一直為同性戀者爭取人權，並在1973年有份參與將同性戀剔除在精神病列之外；不過，他認為同性戀是可以改變的，並且病人有權自決接受改變治療。
康明斯作證時指出：在今日，性傾向的心理治療及輔導已經變得高度政治化，同性戀運動成功遊說公眾相信同性戀是天生及不能改變（證詞第25段，下同）。令到康明斯感到沮喪的是，某些具有規模的精神科團體，包括美國心理學會在內，未有反駁這種沒有科學證據支持的說法。不過，在不斷出現的證據下，美國心理學會似乎有軟化原本立場的跡象(26)。
他又批評將改變性傾向的治療，定性為「不道德」的做法，是侵犯了求助者的選擇權，並干預當事人的治療方向。(28)對於一些專業團體，例如美國心理學會，阻止求助者尋求性傾向改變，也是「不道德」的。(29)
康明斯進一步指出，抨擊向已得到（有關治療的）充分資訊的求助者提供性傾向改變治療的專業人士為欺詐並不正確。這種批評技倆只會抹黑專業人士及侮辱求助者。同性戀者尋求性傾向的改變，不應受到政治議程的阻止，他們有權選擇決定怎樣。(30)
總結而言，強迫人改變性傾向是不道德的，而且，經驗顯示，改變不容易（但非不可能，要看個別人士的意願與意志），但大前提應是尊重個人自決吧。
Shan，
刪除同性戀是否可以改變大概不能夠一概而論，相信是因人而異的。因為不排除有些人的性取向會有「顯性」與「隱性」兩者同時存在（例如有的男同或女同，對異性未必堅決抗拒或有某程度的接受），這一類的人有可能通過心理誘導/治療，會使「隱性性取向」變為「顯性性取向」，「顯性性取向」變為「隱性性取向」，從而出現性取向的改變。但並不代表所有同性戀者都具有這種特性。
無論如何，正如閣下所說：「......但大前提應是尊重個人自決吧」。
重要的是社會不應該歧視他/她們。
泛美特別是北美相比於亞洲或中東等地相信是一個比較更開明或開放的社會，不那麼諱忌公開討論/探討性取向問題，所以WHO的泛美機構會公開發表其見解。是不是所謂「普世價值」相信乃是見仁見智，就如人權自由民主等，相信在某些國家或地區例如北韓，也不會被視為「普世價值」一樣。
Re: 【匿名1/11/2014 10:15 下午】
刪除//It is proven that some scientist(s) "說謊"....//
這是一種「攻其一點，否定全盤」的狡辯術，你不妨指出WHO泛美機構的文件有哪些地方是"說謊"？
//I already said that "(記憶中)曾有心理案例說男當事人自少愛穿女裝，有"性別認知障礙"。......//
你混淆了異裝癖與性取向這兩個不同問題。
"性別認知障礙"是一個混淆的說法：如果是指生理上的性別（生殖器官）與心理性別不一樣的話，這就往往不是“認知”問題而是性取向的問題。
而異裝癖通常是指那些的變裝不是基於對自己生殖性別的不認同，而是純粹迷戀該等服飾之功能以求達到滿足自身性欲幻想之目的，這類異裝癖並沒有你所說的所謂"性別認知障礙"；
而你所說的“男當事人自少愛穿女裝”則很有可能不是異裝癖問題，而是他很可能認為自己的心理性別和他的生理性別（生殖器）不一樣，這不是通常所指的“異裝癖”，而是他的性取向導致了他尋求變裝而不是"性別認知障礙"。
神洲，
刪除你好！謝謝回覆。
關於「普世價值」一點可能有點誤會。我說的「普世性」，正確一點應是「全球性」。如果這份立場書的對象是全球性的話，第一，似乎應是世衛本部發出，而不是轄下某地區辦公室；第二，立場書引用的是美洲條約，似乎也顯示出立場書的地區適用性；第三，立場書內提到的不人道治療方法早已為先進國家／地區所棄。所以，我的結論是，這份立場書的呼籲對象應主要是美洲某些同性戀仍是不合法的國家，而非全球性。
為何我會留意這份泛美洲的立場書呢？因為香港有同運組織不斷拿這些專業組織的立場書／聲明打壓自願尋求輔導離開同性戀生活的同性戀者及提供輔導的專業人士。但如果大家留意，各專業團體（包括這份泛美洲立場書）所持的理據全都指向2009年APA出的那份Appropriate Therapeutic Responses to Sexual Orientation報告。（http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbt/resources/therapeutic-response.pdf）然而，專業團體都只片面引述報告的內容便全盤否定reparative therapy，請聽受打壓的康醫生解釋，他說的正是APA 2009年那份報告：
//康醫生指出，美國心理學協會(APA)的立場已經改變，首先，她不再全然否定“Sexual Orientation Change Effort” (SOCE)的有效性，只說是“unlikely to be successful”，也不再說是必然有害，而是“involve some risk of harm”；其次，APA承認了有一群人，因為強烈保守及宗教背景，而尋求SOCE的幫助；還有第三點：
「最重要的是，他們鼓勵成員，提供一種合宜和肯定性的介入：appropriate affirmative intervention，不再提gay affirmative。……後面說得很清楚：“without imposing a specific sexual orientation and identity outcome”， 很明顯，APA的立場已經比之前開放了，開始尊重後同的人權，即是他們自決和尋求治療的權利。我歡迎APA與時並進的改變。我認為SOCE縱使有風險，我們可坦誠告訴尋求改變者有甚麼風險、成功率及失敗率有多高，讓他們自己決定。……如果有個癌症治療方法有百分之十至二十的機會可以幫到你，我可以馬上說機會太少，副作用可能好多，所以不容許你選擇這種治療方式嗎？這樣不是沒有尊重那人的人權嗎？我覺得APA在尊重人權和宗教自由上已有進步，但很可惜有些組織仍然沿用全盤排斥後同的進路。其實同性戀及性別認同等課題已經很政治化，任何立場與政治正確的立場不同，也會遭受同運的攻擊，而醫療人員、輔導員等都已經受到政治干預，不再是客觀的醫學或心理學課題。如果要發出不同的聲音，那些人會面對巨大壓力。」//
(http://kwankaiman.blogspot.hk/2013/07/blog-post.html)
康醫生所說的，正與之前Cummings的證詞內容不謀而合。同運的議題已變得非常政治化，已不是單純的科學專業。試想想，在加州，剛剛生效，向18歲以下青少年提供reparative therapy改變性傾向的專業輔導是犯法的，縱使是自願或家長要求；但十一、二歲的年紀卻要「專重」他們有自決的權利做改變性別的手術！！這些決定背後根據的，不就是所謂的「專業意見」嗎？我真不願見香港步向「常識已死」的後塵。
神洲,
刪除Your mentioning of "這是一種「攻其一點，否定全盤」的狡辯術" in a discussion is already a logical fallacy. (Remember the Korean cloning scandal? & Go check the long list of logical fallacies.)
Your throwing a so-called "authority paper/book" into a discussion could have committed a logical fallacy. (I don't have as much time as you on lingering on issues that you don't understand. Or reading any thick article to point out logical problems for you. Thus I cannot conclude if you have committed another logical fallacy. Obviously you have the same set of [your so-called] "evidences" always in front of you to throw into every discussions relating to homosexuality across the internet, as you are so well-prepared to present your "evidence".)
"性別認知障礙", "異裝癖" and "性取向" are three separate terms. It is you who got them mixed to create confusion.
If one said to have "性別認知障礙", and yet if he/she were artificially & experimentally put to grow up in a uni-sex environment, do you think such person would know the difference of sexes? Do you think such person would feel not belonging to his/her current body but a body of an opposite sex? So obviously something / logic is wrong here. One possibility is that someone could be lying.
About "性取向", when did you know your "性取向"? What is your current "性取向"? (I guess you should "伸利" if you want to continue such meaningless way of "discussions".)
From my 1st-hand personal experience, I wasn't aware of any major "性取向" alert till teenage time. And that is "hormone" time.Then how come some people could argue that they knew their "性取向" since the time they could remember? If it is hormone at play, then the so-called "性取向" could also flip to a different direction at different time. (Should our laws cater for such flip-flop behaviors due to hormone-driven mechanism? Should our laws be cater for people who wants to 變性.變性.再變性? These are questions that our law systems should get public consensus, but not by the knowledge and experience of a handful of judges, as no one should have any of these kinds of experience before. Yet obviously the general public hasn't been given all information, and our law system like to "play God" and bypass public consensus.) So obviously someone is lying, or some logic is wrong, and something isn't right.
Obviously you want me to agree with you on this matter. But sorry, you simply don't have convincing evidence yet. So don't waste my time.
Re: 【匿名1/12/2014 9:49 下午】
刪除你試圖用//some scientist(s) "說謊"//來否定其他研究人員或醫生的研究結果，這應該也是一種“fallacy"吧？
你擔心或認為“if he/she were artificially & experimentally put to grow up in a uni-sex environment”會出現 "性別認知障礙"，
有沒有人做過這樣的試驗我不知道，但可以設想：
一群猴子，有雄性也有雌性“put to grow up”在一起生活，它們沒有衣著打扮，沒有任何可分辨雌雄的飾物，也沒有可分別性別的名字或稱呼，也沒有分開“男/女洗手間”，可以說，所有environment都是uni-sex的；
你認為那群猴子會出現 "性別認知障礙"嗎？會搞不清雌雄而同性交配嗎？
由此可以想像，如果那群猴子真的有猴子出現“同性交配”的話，那麼肯定是與uni-sex environment無關，而是由那隻猴子本身的“性取向”所決定的，而不是因為外部環境的uni-sex environment而改變或影響了猴子的性取向。
//when did you know your "性取向"? //
我的性取向不是同性戀者，也覺得同性行為“核突”，我只是認為不應該因為性取向不同而歧視他/她們，就算同性性取向是精神病，那對病人也不應該歧視吧？
//From my 1st-hand personal experience, I wasn't aware of any major "性取向" alert till teenage time. And that is "hormone" time.Then how come some people could argue that they knew their "性取向" since the time they could remember? If it is hormone at play, then the so-called "性取向" could also flip to a different direction at different time. (Should our laws cater for such flip-flop behaviors due to hormone-driven mechanism? Should our laws be cater for people who wants to 變性.變性.再變性?//
可能你的記憶力不太好，teenage time之前的事忘記了。
我記得入讀幼稚園時就已經覺得有異性的性取向，當然那時不知道那些名稱，但知道不是對同性感興趣。
所以我覺得性取向很大可能是先天的，當然也不排除有人天生會是“中性”心理，會有你所說的“flip-flop”可能。
“變性.變性.再變性”有些像“整容.整容.再整容”那樣，但做變性手術之前我相信醫生會比整容有更加嚴格的評估，不會輕易給你做手術的。
我當然不會要求你同意我的想法，就如不應該強迫性取向不同的人硬要改變性取向一樣，我只是認為不應該以宗教的原因去歧視其他/她人罷了。
神洲,
刪除Obviously you don't read carefully and you don't think what other people think before making comments, forcing people to explain and re-explain things. i.e. It is as if you have made up your mind in what is to appear on the text even before actually seeing the actual words. Therefore your major actions have been creating more and more logic loops and subplots, rather than trying to narrow the gaps between people of different opinions. Plus your "generic" statements that don't necessarily happen in real life.
Obviously you don't have 1st hand knowledge to show me new and interesting thoughts or evidence, I don't understand why you keep on a dying thread of discussions.
It would be wonderful if you had sexual desire to engage in intercourse with another person in your "幼稚園" year, then that "might" be used as evidence to prove that your "性取向" could really be identifiable in "幼稚園" year. (I use the word "might" because I cannot exclude the chance that you might have grown up in a very unethical family.) Otherwise, your term "性取向" must carry a very different meaning than mine.
And if homosexual and bisexual people's "性取向" is the same as when they were in "幼稚園" year, i.e. without any sexual desire for intercourse and without any intercourse involved, that they would get my strong support. Otherwise, please show me more new & interesting evidence to convince me that their "性取向" was genes- or hormone-driven, then we may continue the discussion from there.
The contents of your replies have been way out of the topic of this blog post.
Re: 【匿名1/13/2014 12:19 下午】
刪除//Obviously you don't read carefully and you don't think what other people think before making comments, forcing people to explain and re-explain things. //
你這些說話用來批評你自己恐怕是最合適不過了。我說「我記得入讀幼稚園時就已經覺得有異性的性取向，....」，而你竟然可以比喻成“if you had sexual desire to engage in intercourse with another person in your "幼稚園" year....”？
你把“性取向sexual orientation”理解為“sexual desire”？還要“to engage in intercourse with another person in your "幼稚園" year”？
你這樣做是不是“ It is as if you have made up your mind in what is to appear on the text even before actually seeing the actual words. Therefore your major actions have been creating more and more logic loops and subplots, rather than trying to narrow the gaps between people of different opinions. Plus your "generic" statements that don't necessarily happen in real life.”？？？
正如你自己所講“ So don't waste my time.”
你自己去看吧：
http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbt/resources/guidelines.aspx
A lie is a lie is a lie. You have practically defined your own term "性取向", and during discussion keep changing targets.
刪除So if when I was a kid, I loved to play with animals, would I grow up to become "戀獸" with sexual desire? Obviously NO.
Thus so far you have been wasting everybody's time to listen to your preaching of lies.
Re: 【匿名1/13/2014 9:13 下午】
刪除If “性取向Sexual orientation” is the same of “sexual desire”, then why didn't say “sexual desire” and say "Sexual orientation”？
//So if when I was a kid, I loved to play with animals, would I grow up to become "戀獸" with sexual desire? Obviously NO.
//
So if you were a kid and loved to play with animals that's "with sexual desire", then you would become "戀獸";
However, if you loved to play with animals was "without sexual desire", then you would not become "戀獸".
我相信兒童基本上不會區分animals是雌性還是雄性，therefore “loved to play with animals”根本與“sexual desire”無關，因此你的這個比喻完全是荒謬的fallacy。
“Thus so far you have been wasting everybody's time to listen to your preaching of lies.”
You just said that a kid can have "sexual desire". That is a lie.
刪除>> 蔡志森及明光社成員說的 「罪」，是 "道德"上的「罪」，和法律上的 「罪」，不是同一樣的東西。周一嶽把它們混為一談，是在嚴重扭曲及誤導。
回覆刪除蔡志森及明光社成員說道德上的「罪」，和香港的立法討論有咩關係？
周一嶽強調同性戀的相關行為不是法律上「罪」，有何不當？
Please think before you post & don't waste my time. Obviously you don't know the history of any legal system. And obviously you are not a careful reader.
刪除似乎已錯過了跟王教授交流的機會！十分抱歉，剛看到王教授的文章，未知現時請教會否失禮，如王教授仍看到這留言，請不吝指教，先行謝過！
回覆刪除之前已有很多討論，但快速看過一遍，似乎是關於同性戀的討論居多，似乎未有人就著王教授的文章發表過意見。
我想回應「關教授對周一嶽的回應仍然是不公允的」這一點。
其實雙方的討論是有一些根源的，事緣周主席自上年四月上任以來態度對同運一方甚偏頗，對反對方的意見充耳不聞，漠視反對方向他提出的意見，反稱反對方「以為連家庭管教也會規管」、「反對同性婚姻的理據是恐怕人類會絕種」！令人以為反對方都是頭腦閉塞的遠古化石！簡而言之，周主席對同性戀議題的偏頗態度早已令反對立法的人士甚為不滿，我想這也是為何關教授的語氣略欠沉實的原因。
明白了雙方的「恩怨」，也許王教授可以對關教授的文章有多點同情理解。當然，就算是同運更常將「把同性戀與…戀童或…病態性行為相提並論」，也不等於周主席不應該批評「明光社成員」將「把同性戀與…戀童或…病態性行為相提並論」。所以，關教授文章其實是隱含了批評周主席立場偏頗的意思，大概並非真的要替那位不知是否真有其人的「明光社成員」辯護。他的意思應是指周有「大鱷唔打打蝦毛」，從而反映出周主席的立場偏頗。不過，的確要有一定的背景資料才容易明白關教授的意思。
謝謝留言。我只是就關教授這篇文章的內容來評論，假如他希望讀者對此文有多一點同情的理解，便有責任交代前因後果，像閣下這聊聊一兩段便夠了。
刪除謝謝王教授留言，王教授所言甚是。
刪除其實反對方也有難處，傳媒文化人是左翼居多，反對方的聲音很難傳出去，有時反對方向報章投稿，聞說是遭「投籃」的多。而且受篇幅所限，只能蜻蜒點水，點到即止。像關教授十多年前已開始著述反對性傾向歧視立法的理由，可惜到今天，真正了解他論點的人不多。
根據現有的四條歧視法，香港預期中的性傾向歧視法會是很辣的平等法，已包括類似外國煽動仇恨罪的中傷罪及嚴重中傷罪，還包括使人感到被冒犯已可觸犯的騷擾罪。其實是一條透過懲罰強制不能差別對待同性戀者而迫使市民認同同性戀的「惡法」，嚴重影響不認同同性戀人士的基本自由，而且影響深遠。在一個民主社會，要限制社會人士自由來立一條保護某特定群組的法例必須有充份理據，同性戀者受歧視的情況已嚴重到有必要立一條限制別人自由、逼使人認同同性戀的法例來保護嗎？可是，香港社會仍欠缺有關討論──總之現在同性戀者有被歧視，一定要立歧視法，反對的都是歧視人的混蛋！感性支持代替理性討論，似乎並非香港之福。
關於性傾向歧視法欠缺法理基礎及社會討論，若王教授或其他網友有興趣，請參張達明律師的文章：〈探討性傾向歧視法例的法理基礎〉http://news.sina.com.hk/news/20130522/-6-2974907/1.html
另一方面，關教授是一位認真的學者，多年來已著書立說解釋他反對立SODO的理據，分別是《是非曲直──對人權、同性戀的倫理反思》及刊於《平權？霸權？審視同性戀議題》的文章。遺憾的是，罵他的人不少，卻暫未見有人就著當中論點正式回應。另外，關教授寫了五萬字論證同性婚姻不是人權，刊於他的網誌：http://kwankaiman.blogspot.hk/2012/11/blog-post_22.html
也希望與對真理有堅持、執著的人切磋討教。