By: 黃繼忠
為了避免誤會，讓我開宗明義聲明，以下這篇文章，全屬議事論事的意見交流。我主要是回應性文化學會反對性傾向歧視立法的其中一個論證，而不是反對或否定性文化學會所持守的使命。其實，前三篇我所寫關於性傾向歧視立法第三條路線的文章（參考《時代論壇》第九一五、九二四、九二五、九二八，及第九二九期的回應文），我亦嘗試同時兼顧正反雙方（包括性文化學會）的憂慮及訴求，所以我的出發點純粹是討論而已。
在〈性傾向歧視立法──與邵國華對話〉一文（http://www.sexculture.org.hk/sodo/20050304.php），
性文化學會提出反對歧視立法的其中一個理由是：若反性傾向歧視立法，會對其他受歧視群體不公平，因為反性傾向歧視法屬於特別保護，而社會上有這麼多其他受
歧視的群體，立法會顧此失彼，性文化學會進一步詰問：「同志群體獲得的對待與口吃的群體不盡相同。這符合公平原則嗎？」所以結論是不要立法。
在
某一個意義上說，誠然是不公平的，特別如果社會有能力應付所有的歧視問題。但是實際上，基於各種原因，社會根本不可能或很難應付所有的歧視問題，
所以一定會有顧此失彼的情況出現。讓我舉以下例子作為跳板。有些人不想捐錢賑災，於是振振有詞：「世界上有這麼多的饑荒、貧窮、自然災害及人道災難，你幫
得幾多，更何況幫得一個就幫不到另一個，對那些沒有受惠的人不公平，那麼為什麼要幫呢？」這種邏輯思維很明顯有問題的。就算退一步來講，我們選擇幫助南亞
受海嘯蹂躪的災民而不幫助埃塞俄比亞的饑民真的有點隨意（arbitrary），但也不等於我們不要幫助任何人。同理，就算選擇保障同性戀者的權利，而不
保障其他受歧視的群體帶有一點隨意性，也不等於任何受歧視群體都不要受到保障。（性文化學會沒有直接說什麼群體都不幫助，但從他們的論證可以得出這樣的結
論，所以我提出的不是「稻草人論證」。雖然一個人沒有意思說X，但是我們仍可以從他（她）已經說的話，推斷到X是合理的結論。）
當然，正如前一陣子我與一位網友討論過，以上的例子可能不夠貼切，因為一個牽涉慈惠，一個牽涉立法，而立法是帶著庭杖懲罰及會剝奪個人自由的。縱然如此，我以上論證的要義也無損：就是我們不能因為有一些事情／行動／待遇有隨意性，我們就順理成章認為不要去做。
換
一個可能較貼切的例子。如果你駕車闖紅燈，踫巧遇到交通警員把你抓著，檢控你。你可不可以對他（她）說：「呀Sir（Madam），前面有三部車
子衝紅燈，為什麼你不抓他們，要抓我，這是太不公平了。我相信你也可能見到，我前頭的車子硬要cut到我的線上，那個可惡的司機還以粗言穢語罵我……」你
能否以這種理由去挑戰交通警員的判斷嗎？
何況現時香港已有《殘疾歧視條例》，《家庭崗位歧視條例》──而禁止種族歧視建議的公眾諮詢期
也在二月結束，去保護這些受歧視的群體。如果按照性文
化學會的思路，那麼連《殘疾歧視條例》，《家庭崗位歧視條例》，也不要通過，因為假設有N個受歧視（但未被保護）的群體，若反性傾向歧視法例繼其他兩個反
歧視法例通過，就會對N-3（N減3）個受歧視（但不受保護）的群體不公平，那麼我們本來就更不應該有《殘疾歧視條例》及《家庭崗位歧視條》，因為通過以
後，（而事實已經通過了，）會對N-2
（N減2）個不受保護的群體不公平。尤有甚者，若有一個新的受歧視群體出現，就變成N+1（N加一）個，因此更不應該有反歧視法例，因為會對更多沒有受到
照顧的群體不公平，所以結論是越多受歧視群體出現，就越不應該有反歧視法。試問這樣的論證能成立嗎？
任何糾正某個群體X所承受不公平1（或保護某個群體X免受不公平1）的法例或政策，都可能會帶來對其他群體Y不公平2。但是不公平2並不等同不公平1。不公平2是指社會在糾正眾多不公平1的事情當中，可能出現顧此失彼或帶隨意性的情況，不公平1是指某個群體原來所承受的傷害。如果因為有可能會對Y或Z做成不公平2，就不要糾正X原來所承受的不公平1，那麼未免本末倒置了。就如美國有些（從來沒有嘗過被歧視的滋味的）白人反對平權政策（affirmative action policy），他們就以這種理由指出平權政策對沒受惠的社群不公平，但是他們沒有切實處理被歧視的族裔所承受不公平（不公平1）。（當然，現行反性傾向歧視法並不是提倡affirmative action──起碼支持者不是這樣推動，因為並沒有要求雇主要撥一定數目的職位給同志群體。我只是拿它出來作例子而已。）
結
論是性文化學會所提出的論證不能成立。當然，我鄭重聲明，我並不是說，因為這個論證不能成立，反性傾向歧視一定要立法。我也不是說，萬一立法以
後，不會有人濫用法例，為自己謀取特權。（其實是否會濫用，主要視乎法律怎樣寫。寫好一點便能減少濫用情況出現。到底外國那些所謂被濫用的個案是因為法律
寫得不夠完善，還是一定是立法的必然後果是有待探討。假設一定會在所有情況下被濫用只不過是推測性而已。）我只是說：若以立法特別保護某些群體帶有隨意
性，及以這種隨意性會帶來不公平為理由，是不能構成有力的論據去反對立法。我並不否定可能有更好的論證會顯示因為立法後對其他群體不公平，所以我們不應該
立法。一個立場可以有好幾個論據去支持的，我現在只是指出其中一個有問題。
末了讓我重申，我以上為文，是純粹討論交流。我的用意，是希望增進不同立場的理解及進一步提升討論水平，也希望性文化學會留意某些個別論證好像不太有說服力。至於家庭及性倫理，我也認為是重要的社會價值，所以我並不是要否定性文化學會所持守的使命。
（作者為哲學教授）
（http://www.christiantimes.org.hk/，時代論壇時代講場，13.7.2005)
(http://homoissue.blogspot.com/，平情論性，14.7.2005)
回應
搞笑
篇文ok啦，只是竟然要用到近四份一的篇幅去反覆表示「我不是不認同明光社及其分支」，「我不過是for argument sake」...
最可怕的地方
最可怕的地方, 並非性文化學會那篇文章的論點, 而是那篇文章寫好, 貼出來, 廣為流傳了四個月之後, 才有人正式為文駁斥其中明顯地錯得離譜的謬誤? 四個月了! 四個月, 都不知死了多少人. 四個月, 都不知多少人將明/家/性的論點抱之如甘露. 我不是亂吹的, 你看直到今天, 還有不少人拿著明/家/性那些胡說八道的說法來反對性傾向歧視立法, 例如 "立法後老師教學生同性戀唔岩都要拉" 之類, 就知明/家/性就算放個屁, 都有一定影響力, 而這個屁瀰漫了四個月, 才有敢言勇者道, 好似臭臭地既...?
其實這並不是繼忠兄的第一篇
在一年前繼忠兄已開始寫這類文章，不過那時史偉文仍未上來吧！
其實繼忠兄肯以真名示人，勇氣可嘉。不過，他的確是十分慬慎。他不單會在文章加上一些「事先聲名」，也會在文章出街前讓朋友檢查，以免被人捉著把柄。
其實基督徒要寫這一類文章，壓力真的很大。白色恐怖啊~~
明/家/性的臭屁而被基基吸收了
//還有不少人拿著明/家/性那些胡說八道的說法來反對性傾向歧視立法, 例如 "立法後老師教學生同性戀唔岩都要拉" 之類//
全中!
看以下吸收了明/家/性的臭屁的 PegChiu ，在南華早報登出，明顯地錯得離譜的廢話，便知明/家/性的臭屁對基基有多大影響力!
**********************************************
Churches must decide (July 10 2005)
In the letter "Cite Bible completely" (July 8), Christopher Gallaga says we should quote Bible references on all topics, given that some Christian organisations take their stand from the holy book in law-making on sexual orientation.
In fact, some rules in the Bible are true only for a period of time (for example, the veiling of women). But other rules are not limited in time, such as the one on killing. Is homosexuality in the former category or the latter? This issue needs more discussion in churches.
But people who are against the Sexual Orientation Discrimination Ordinance (Sodo) do not necessarily oppose it based on the Bible. The Sodo is a law that forbids any different treatment among sexual-orientation minority groups. It seems to be a fair law, but it is unfair to people who cannot morally accept homosexuality.
If we have the Sodo in Hong Kong, will a mother who does not accept homosexuality have moral grounds to fire a home tutor if the tutor keeps on saying homosexuality is no big deal to her daughter in lessons about current societal matters?
Can the owner of a printing firm refuse to print materials about homosexuality in the same way that he refuses to print some erotic magazines? If we consider the other three discrimination laws to be a blueprint for the Sodo, the answers in both these cases seem to be negative.
And a few more important questions: is using the Sodo a good way to ask people if they accept all sexual minority groups? Is it good to use "punishment" as a means to ask people to respect one another, especially when homosexuality is still a controversial topic which needs more discussion?
Are there other ways to help sexual minority groups obtain their rights and respect without punishing those who may not disrespect them, but cannot accept their morals?
To have a better discussion and clearer understanding on the issue, it is best if the sexual minority groups would clarify what kinds of basic human rights they lack and what kinds they need, so that we can come up with more concrete ideas.
PEG CHIU, Kowloon East
***********************************************
已經有人去信駁了PegChiu 的謬誤。我最喜歡這一句，可以說是一語道破！
"Her examples are just cutely packaged excuses for discrimination."
她(PegChiu) 的例子不過是經過包裝、歧視他人的藉口！
還有:
"Ms Chiu and others are using scare tactics..."
趙小姐和像她的人，不過是用恐嚇戰術...
*************************************
Mother keeps rights (July 13 2005)
I refer to "Churches must decide" (July 10). Peg Chiu says one problem with the Sexual Orientation Discrimination Ordinance (Sodo) is that a mother probably could not fire a tutor, if the tutor "kept saying that homosexuality is no big deal". She does not specify whether the tutor is gay or not, and so it appears that Ms Chiu is opposed to the notion of homosexuality, and to a homosexual teacher expressing his or her validity in society.
Her examples are just cutely packaged excuses for discrimination.
Legal action should be a last resort. I suggest that if someone is not bigoted, but does face such a moral dilemma, before talking about law you should simply deal with the situation as an adult. Talk to the person offending you, understand your differences and see what solution can be agreed. Conservatism is not illegal either, and it is not illegal for a mother to ask a tutor to not bring up certain topics in the presence of a child. The Sodo will not change this control you have in your life. Let us not be led astray from what the legislation does and does not mean. Ms Chiu and others are using scare tactics that imply that a mother's freedoms will be curtailed by this law.
The Sodo would hopefully draw a line between discrimination and reasonable cause for dismissal (or other actions). It would make us think harder about our own judgments and presumptions about someone, and it would make it harder for "morality" bullies to have their way in society.
The truth is that other agendas are really at work here. There are many righteous people who want us to live by their "moral" standards; they want everyone to adhere to their view of the world in order to establish their way of life. Tolerance is not their goal.
They oppose the Sodo because it would weaken their ability to tell our children and us how we can live our lives. Righteous elements must learn that they cannot push their standards on our society - unless they are invited to, or if they become elected leaders. The Sodo will not hurt the freedoms of mothers, but it will help protect us all from groups who want Hong Kong to adopt their unjustified standards.
CATHERINE BARR, Kowloon City
***************************************
And this one. Which say the same thing I have been trying to say all along.
God loves us all.
*******************************************
God loves us all (July 14 2005)
I support legislation forbidding the discrimination of homosexuals, and the campaign to eventually allow gay marriage. Greg McCarthy's letter "Marriage alternative?" (July 11) uses the typical arguments made by opponents of gay marriage.
Both he and the Church claim that homosexuality is a choice. Currently, scientific evidence on this question is inconclusive, yet most research suggests that a combination of genetic and environmental factors is at work.
As a church-going Protestant, I understand that God loves all He created. If homosexuality is even partly genetic, and thus determined by God, there is no reason to deny them equal rights. Even in the unlikely event that homosexuality is just a chosen lifestyle, Mr McCarthy fails to notice that religion (and non-affiliation) is also a choice. Yet, religion is afforded respect and legal protection not given to homosexuals.
He further refers to traditional, heterosexual marriage as serving "nature's self-evident, universal purpose" to procreate. But as countless couples, such as Christine Loh Kung-wai and her partner, can testify, some people are unable to have children. Others do not want to burden themselves financially with children. Should these couples be banned from marriage as well, so that only those who are able and intend to have children can marry?
Most importantly, perceived "truths" on civil rights change over time. Mr McCarthy claims that America's founding fathers did not address the question of sexual orientation because they "did not see the need to question its logic". However, they also excluded any mention of women or racial minorities. If we only support institutions "based on nature's self-evident purpose", we might as well live in the Stone Age, with nature's laws on food and shelter (and children for some).
GRACE WONG, Aberdeen
*****************************************