同性戀讓你感到別扭嗎？

 

同性戀讓你感到別扭嗎?

WHAT an altered world we live in. What an advanced one. The man I love and I can be married in New York or 35 other states if we ever get organized enough, if we decide that we want public vows and a gaudy cake — I’m thinking devil’s food, for a host of reasons — to seal our commitment.

我們身處一個(gè)天翻地覆的世界。一個(gè)進(jìn)步的世界。我和我愛(ài)的那個(gè)男人，可以在紐約或另外35個(gè)州結(jié)婚，只要我們能緊密組織起來(lái)，只要我們下決心，要用公開(kāi)的誓言和一個(gè)俗氣的蛋糕——我在考慮用巧克力蛋糕，這么做的理由相當(dāng)多——來(lái)完成我們的盟約。

I’m grateful for that. I’m stunned, really.

對(duì)此我心懷感激。這真是驚人的變化。

And yet. When we’re walking down the street after a long dinner or a sad movie and he slips his hand in mine, I tense. I look around nervously: Is anyone staring? Glaring? I feel exposed, endangered, and I’m right to, even here in New York, even near my apartment on Manhattan’s epically liberal Upper West Side. Just two years ago and two blocks from my home, an inebriated young woman who spotted us shouted: “So you’re gay? These two are gay!” She went on and on like that, for what seemed an eternity.

不過(guò)，當(dāng)我們吃完一頓豐盛的晚餐或看了一部傷感的電影后走在街上，他拉起我的手，我會(huì)僵住。我緊張地四處張望：會(huì)不會(huì)有人在盯著、瞪著我們?我感覺(jué)自己身處險(xiǎn)境，危機(jī)四伏，而這些念頭，即使在紐約，在崇尚自由的曼哈頓上西區(qū)，我的寓所附近，也都是合乎情理的。就在兩年前，距離我家兩個(gè)街區(qū)的地方，一個(gè)醉醺醺的年輕女人沖我們大吼：“那你們是基佬咯?他們是基佬!”她就這樣一直吼著，時(shí)間仿佛陷入停滯。

It was the booze talking, sure. But sometimes alcohol is a truth serum, stripping the varnish of etiquette to reveal the ugliness beneath.

那當(dāng)然是醉話。但有時(shí)候，酒精是一劑讓人吐露真言的免疫血清，禮貌的外表被剝?nèi)?，丑陋的?nèi)心袒露出來(lái)。

A straight woman puts a photograph of herself and her beloved on her desk at work and it’s merely décor. A lesbian displays the same kind of picture and it’s an act of laudable candor or questionable boldness: a statement, either way you cut it. She knows that some people’s eyes will linger on it too long, or will turn from it abruptly. She has to decide not to care.

一個(gè)異性戀女性把她和愛(ài)人的照片放在辦公桌上，那只是一個(gè)裝飾。如果一個(gè)同性戀女性展示了同樣的照片，就成了值得贊美的德行，或引發(fā)爭(zhēng)議的大膽之舉：不管是哪種情況，它都成了一種姿態(tài)。她知道有些人的目光會(huì)久久停留在照片上，有些人會(huì)猝然把視線移向別處。她只能選擇不去想這些。

And a politician who says awful, hateful things about gays and lesbians can still find a warm enough reception and plenty of traction in one of our two major political parties. The Republican winner of the Iowa caucuses in 2012, Rick Santorum, has said that the marriage of two men or two women is no more like the marriage of a man and a woman than a tree is like a car or a cup of tea is like a basketball. He has also lumped homosexuality together with incest.

而且，一個(gè)對(duì)同性戀男女說(shuō)出可怕的、充滿厭恨的話語(yǔ)的政治人物仍然能在兩大政黨之一得到足夠熱情的歡迎，及相當(dāng)充分的支持。2012年在艾奧瓦州黨團(tuán)會(huì)議上獲勝的共和黨人里克·桑托勒姆(Rick Santorum)曾表示，要說(shuō)兩個(gè)男人或兩個(gè)女人之間的婚姻，和一男一女之間的婚姻是一回事，等于在說(shuō)一棵樹(shù)和一輛車(chē)是一回事，或者一杯茶和一個(gè)籃球是一回事。他還把同性戀和亂倫混為一談。

So has Mike Huckabee, the winner of the Iowa caucuses in 2008. Both are poised to run for the presidency again, in a field potentially including Ben Carson, who has mentioned homosexuality and bestiality in the same breath, and Ted Cruz, who urges ardent prayer against what he considers the society-threatening outrage of two men or two women tying the knot.

2008年艾奧瓦黨團(tuán)會(huì)議的獲勝者麥克·赫卡比(Mike Huckabee)也是這樣。兩人都準(zhǔn)備再次參加總統(tǒng)競(jìng)選，同樣可能加入的還有本·卡森(Ben Carson)，他曾將同性戀和獸交相提并論，以及特德·克魯茲(Ted Cruz)，他曾呼吁大家全心全意去祈禱兩個(gè)男人或兩個(gè)女人結(jié)為連理這樣的事不會(huì)發(fā)生，他認(rèn)為那是威脅人類(lèi)社會(huì)的惡行。

I don’t expect any of them to win the nomination, partly because their particular, pronounced degree of closed-mindedness won’t wash with the number of Americans whose favor they need. Hurray for that.

我估計(jì)這些人都不會(huì)得到候選人提名，一定程度上是因?yàn)樗麄兌急憩F(xiàn)出了具體的、顯著的封閉思想色彩，很多美國(guó)人不會(huì)買(mǎi)他們的賬，而他們需要這些美國(guó)人。謝天謝地。

But I expect that on their way to defeat they’ll turn us gays into punch lines and punching bags. I expect that I’ll hear and watch large audiences cheer and egg them on. It’s a sickening spectacle, if you pay it any heed.

但我也估計(jì)，在他們走向失敗的過(guò)程中，我們這些同性戀者會(huì)被他們變成俏皮話和宣泄的對(duì)象。我估計(jì)我會(huì)聽(tīng)到、看到一大群歡呼雀躍的人被鼓動(dòng)起來(lái)。那將是一個(gè)令人作嘔的景象，除非你完全不關(guān)心這些。

Sarah Kate Ellis wishes that you would.

而莎拉·凱特·埃利斯(Sarah Kate Ellis)希望你去關(guān)注一下這個(gè)情況。

She’s the head of Glaad, a prominent gay rights group, and she and it are doing something important right now. They’re trying to reacquaint Americans with the vast and messy landscape beyond the handful of political issues that garner the most news coverage. They’re trying to size up the territory where hard work is still necessary and to guarantee that it’s not ignored.

她是著名的同性戀權(quán)益團(tuán)體同性戀者反詆毀聯(lián)盟(Glaad)的負(fù)責(zé)人，她和這個(gè)團(tuán)體正在做一些重要的事情。他們希望幫助美國(guó)人從占據(jù)著新聞報(bào)道的那幾個(gè)政治問(wèn)題中跳脫出來(lái)，重新去認(rèn)識(shí)整體上的糟糕局面。他們?cè)噲D評(píng)估哪些領(lǐng)域還需要努力，要確保它們不被忽視。

“We want to make sure that marriage is looked at as the benchmark and not the finish line,” she said. “Where are the hearts and minds of Americans?”

“我們一定要讓婚姻成為一個(gè)衡量標(biāo)準(zhǔn)，而不是終點(diǎn)線，”她說(shuō)。“評(píng)估美國(guó)人的心和意識(shí)正處在什么位置。”

To answer that question, Glaad commissioned a Harris Poll late last year. I was given a first look at the results, which underscored how uncomfortable many Americans remain with gay, lesbian and bisexual people — and, even more so, with transgender people.

為了給這個(gè)問(wèn)題找到答案，Glaad去年底委托進(jìn)行了一次哈里斯民調(diào)(Harris Poll)。我先期了解了調(diào)查結(jié)果，從中可以看到男女同性戀和雙性戀人群依然讓美國(guó)人感到不自在，對(duì)跨性別人士就更是如此。

About 30 percent of the respondents who didn’t identify themselves as gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender said that it would unsettle them to learn that their physician or child’s teacher did.

在認(rèn)為自己不屬于男女同性戀、雙性戀或跨性別的受訪者中，約有30%的人表示如果他們的醫(yī)生或孩子的老師屬于這類(lèi)人，他們會(huì)感到不安。

Close to 45 percent said that they would be uneasy about bringing a child to a same-sex wedding. Thirty-six percent feel uncomfortable when they see a same-sex couple hold hands.

接近45%的人說(shuō)，帶孩子去參加一場(chǎng)同性婚禮會(huì)讓他們擔(dān)心。有36%的人說(shuō)看到同性情侶手拉手會(huì)覺(jué)得不舒服。

And those percentages probably pretty up the truth. Pollsters have learned that people often say what they think they’re supposed to rather than how they really feel.

這些數(shù)字可能基本上反映了現(xiàn)實(shí)。民調(diào)發(fā)現(xiàn)人往往會(huì)依據(jù)他們“覺(jué)得自己應(yīng)該怎么樣”來(lái)說(shuō)話，而不是根據(jù)他們的真實(shí)感受。

Their feelings, in any case, are mixed and evolving. Glaad’s poll is just the latest to capture this. In a survey conducted a little over a year ago by the Public Religion Research Institute, 51 percent of respondents said that sex between two men or two women is morally wrong.

無(wú)論從哪方面看，他們的感受都是復(fù)雜且不停變化的。而這一點(diǎn)遠(yuǎn)非Glaad的民調(diào)首次發(fā)現(xiàn)。一年多前公共宗教研究所(Public Religion Research Institute)的一次調(diào)查中，51%的受訪者認(rèn)為，兩個(gè)男人或兩個(gè)女人之間的性愛(ài)是敗德行為。

One especially interesting discovery in the Glaad poll was how much unease lingered even in respondents who formally approved of gay marriage or of civil unions with full benefits. Twenty percent of these people said they’d nonetheless feel uncomfortable attending a same-sex wedding.

在Glaad的民調(diào)中，有一點(diǎn)格外有意思：連明確支持同性伴侶可以結(jié)婚或進(jìn)行享有全部權(quán)益的民事結(jié)合的受訪者，也是存在這種不安的。這類(lèi)人中有20%表示，如果參加同性婚禮，他們還是會(huì)覺(jué)得不自在。

What might change that, other than the passage of time?

除了時(shí)間，還有什么能改變這種局面?

THERE’S no definitive solution or strategy, but Ellis emphasized the importance of getting those straight people who are wholly comfortable with gays to be more forward about that — more evangelical, if you will — and to recognize that the country’s education and illumination are incomplete. Glaad is focusing its energies on that, with a new campaign called “Got Your Back.”

立竿見(jiàn)影的辦法或策略是不存在的，但埃利斯強(qiáng)調(diào)，很重要的一點(diǎn)是那些對(duì)同性戀能坦然接受的異性戀者要更積極地——也可以說(shuō)更狂熱地——去宣傳，要認(rèn)識(shí)到這個(gè)國(guó)家的教育和啟蒙是存在不足的。Glaad正把精力集中在這個(gè)問(wèn)題上，發(fā)起了一項(xiàng)名為“為你撐腰”(Got Your Back)的活動(dòng)。

There’s so much hurt and madness out there, to this day: a gay couple told that their children aren’t welcome at a private school; gay and transgender people bloodied in hate crimes; teenagers who are bullied or take their own lives. Those sorts of injustices won’t be extinguished by any imminent Supreme Court ruling on same-sex marriage.

傷痛與瘋狂直到今天都還是隨處可見(jiàn)的：一對(duì)同性伴侶得知一家私立學(xué)校不歡迎他們的孩子;同性戀和跨性別人士成為仇恨暴行的目標(biāo);遭欺凌的少年結(jié)束了自己的生命。這些不公正的事件，不會(huì)因?yàn)樽罡叻ㄔ?Supreme Court)即將就同性婚姻做出什么裁決而杜絕。

Nor will such a ruling change the fact that most states have never enacted laws protecting gay people from employment discrimination.

大多數(shù)州都沒(méi)有法律保護(hù)同性戀者免受就業(yè)歧視，這也不是一個(gè)高法裁決就能改變的。