对于很多这种无端的指责，其实并非每个都需要我们通过统计研究的方法加以辩驳。

　　Part of the reason for this is that correlation is not the same thing as cause.

　　原因很简单：相关性和因果性不能混为一谈。

　　How many of you have heard this before maybe in class? Ok.

　　你们有谁听过这个道理？

　　Just because two things go together, it doesn't mean that one causes the other.

　　两个事物同时出现，并不意味着其中一个是另一个的因或果。

　　I usually illustrate this with the old story of the scientific drunk.

　　我一般会用一个科学醉鬼的故事来说明这个道理。

　　Scientific drunk wants to know why he gets hangovers, so he starts keeping a journal.

　　科学醉鬼想要了解他自己宿醉的元凶，于是开始进行记录。

　　And he writes in his journal, "Monday night, scotch and soda. Tuesday morning, hangover.

　　记录里这样写：周一晚，威士忌兑雪碧，周二早，宿醉；

　　Tuesday night, gin and soda. Wednesday morning, hangover.

　　周二晚，杜松子兑雪碧，周三早，宿醉；

　　Wednesday night, vodka and soda. Thursday morning, hangover."

　　周三晚，伏特加兑雪碧，周四早，宿醉。

　　And he looks back at the journal and says, "Aha! Soda causes hangovers!"

　　他研究了记录，得出了结论：哈，造成我宿醉的是雪碧！

　　I think that when we say that homosexuality is responsible for all these problems, we might be looking at the soda.

　　我想，当我们说同性恋对于很多问题负有责任的时候，也许同性恋就是那杯雪碧。

　　So, what's the alcohol?

　　那么，什么是酒呢？

　　Well, at least part of the alcohol seems to be society's treatment of gay and lesbian people, which might make it stand to reason that life is more difficult if you're a gay or lesbian person, and you might be more likely to exhibit problems as a result of that.

　　嗯，至少有一部分造成宿醉的酒，是这个社会对于同性恋者的不公平对待。而这也会在某种程度上导致如下的结果：如果你是一个同性恋者，你的生活多半会变得相对不易一些，因此你就比异性恋者更容易遇到生活中的问题。

　　In fact, there is something here that I call "the argument of the bully."

　　事实上，有种东西我管它叫"恶霸理论"。

　　Bully on the playground knocks another kid, kid falls down and starts crying.

　　学校操场上有个小恶霸把别的孩子打倒在地，倒地的孩子大哭起来。

　　Teacher says, "Why did you hit the kid?"

　　老师问打人的孩子："你为什么打他？"

　　Bully says, "I hit him because he's crying and that bothers me."

　　打人的孩子回答："我打他因为他哭，他哭起来让我心烦。"

　　Teacher says, "Well, he's crying because you hit him."

　　老师："可是他哭是因为你打他啊。"

　　Bully says, "Yeah, and if he keeps crying, I'm going to hit him again!"

　　打人的孩子回答："没错，如果他继续哭，我会继续打他。"

　　Now, what's the problem with the bully's argument?

　　这种"恶霸论调"的问题在什么地方呢？

　　The bully tries to justify what he does on the grounds that he doesn't like the effect of what he does.

　　施暴者试图以"我不喜欢我对他施暴后他的样子"为理由，把自己的施暴行为正义化。

　　Now, imagine somebody like, oh I don't know, Pat Robertson.

　　我们设想一下，假设有这么个人，名叫帕特·罗伯森。（著名反同保守派政客）

　　Pat Robertson says, "Homosexual people lead miserable, unhappy lives!" And I want to say, "Why do you think that might be?"

　　帕特·罗伯森说："同性恋者过着悲惨和不幸福的生活！"我想说的是：你难道就不想想为什么他们过得不好吗？

　　Could it have anything to do with the kinds of things that you say about gay and lesbian people?

　　难道和你针对同性恋者的攻击言论没有一点关系吗？

　　Could it have anything to do with the kinds of positions you take?

　　难道和你扮演的极端保守主义角色没有一点关系吗？

　　I mean that might stand to reason that gay and lesbian people's lives are a little more difficult.

　　而这也许就会在某种程度上，导致同性恋者的生活变得更不易一点。

　　Now you might say, "Okay, well that might work for some of the alleged problems, but not all of them.

　　也许你会说："好吧，也许你的道理能解释一些问题，但不是全部。

　　What about AIDS? Doesn't homosexuality cause AIDS?"

　　你如何解释艾滋病？难道导致艾滋病的不是同性恋吗？"

　　Um, no. A virus causes AIDS, and that virus can be passed along by homosexual activity, by heterosexual activity, by some activities that are not sexual at all.

　　不，导致艾滋病的，是病毒！而病毒可以通过同性性行为传播，可以通过异性性行为传播，也完全一通过非性行为传播。

　　Consider the fact that from the standpoint of AIDS risk, it is infinitely more risky for me to have sex with an HIV positive woman than with an HIV negative man.

　　从艾滋病风险的角度来说，我和一个女性HIV病毒携带者发生性关系，被传染上艾滋病的风险要无限大于我和一个完全健康的男性发生性行为。

　　Why? Because it's the virus that causes AIDS, not the sex.

　　因为导致艾滋病的，是病毒，而不是性行为。

　　And, if the virus isn't present, two men can have sex for days on end without worrying about AIDS.Fatigue, yes. AIDS, no.

　　而且，如果病毒不存在的话，两个男人可以从早到晚发生性行为而不必担心染病，他们会累得半死，但不会得艾滋病。

　　And furthermore, if AIDS risk was somehow supposed to be the barometer of morality, lesbians would be the most moral people in the world-because, from the standpoint of AIDS risk, lesbian sex is the way to go.

　　此外，如果艾滋病的风险高低，可以成为判断伦理道德水准高低的计量工具的话，女同性恋会成为世界上道德水准最高的族群。因为以艾滋病风险来看，女同性恋的性行为非常值得提倡。

　　I see some of you are very risk-averse in this audience.

　　我知道你们当中有很多喜欢规避风险的哦。

　　I mean think about the headline: Surgeon General Recommends Lesbianism.

　　我们想象一下新闻头条：卫生局长大力提倡拉拉性爱！

　　Okay, it's probably not going to happen. But if we're talking about AIDS, I mean, there are just too many gaps in this argument.

　　这多半不可能。不过当我们讨论艾滋病风险的时候，这种反同的论点有着太多的漏洞了。

　　The argument seems to assume that: all homosexual sex is risky, all risky activity is immoral, therefore, all homosexual sex is immoral.

　　这种论调在假定：所有的同性恋性行为都是高风险的，所有的高风险性行为都是不道德的，继而推出结论：所有的同性恋性行为都是不道德的。

　　That argument falls apart in two places: the first premise and the second premise.

　　这种论断在两个地方站不住脚：第一个前提和第二个前提。

　　They're both false as written.

　　两者皆荒谬。

　　Some homosexual sex is risky, some is not, some heterosexual sex is risky, some activities that are not sexual at all are risky.

　　有的同性恋性行为是有风险的，有些没风险；有些异性恋性行为是有风险的，有些没风险；有些跟性半点关系都没有的行为时有风险的；

　　Some risky activities are immoral, some aren't.

　　有些有风险的行为是不道德的，有些则无关道德。

　　There are just too many gaps here.

　　那种论断太多漏洞了。