在愛中沒有恐懼一同性戀行為之性愛倫理分析

同性戀的議題在目前強調「性別平等」的時代裡，似乎已經形成具有政治色彩的正確觀點，因此學術界通常保持「敬而遠之」的沉默或冷漠。另外也有一些人不加思索地認為同性戀的立場無可質疑，何必再討論呢？然而為追求真理的人特別是教育工作者而言，應該審慎分辨後再採取立場，這也是本文的主要目的，希望透過本文的討論，讓贊成同性戀的人更暸解同性戀行為具有的困難或挑戰；另一方面也讓反對同性戀的人更理解同性戀的特性，澄清對同性戀的誤解及意識型態的判斷。本文認為以愛為性愛關係的核心要素，那麼比較容易跨越成見及恐懼的藩籬，公正的面對同性戀行為的倫理思考。討論同性戀的倫理意涵不只是對特定類別行為的倫理判斷，更與性愛倫理規範的本質有密切的關係。在生命教育的討論場域中，需要依照「立場不必中立，態度應該公正」的基本原則，藉由理性的對話，幫助不同立場的人深入議題的核心意識，也就是如何看待人與人之間的性愛或婚姻關係，在對話中幫助我們更接近真理，更認識何謂愛的真諦。本文首先將澄清名詞的爭議，界定本文所討論的幾個重要名詞，以免落入各說各話的無謂爭議。其次討論對同性性傾向的爭議，包含同性性傾向的可能成因及此種傾向是否能改變的爭議。藉由這兩項爭議的討論，將醫學、心理學、社會學及腦神經科學中相關的事實呈現出來，將有助於後續同性性行為的倫理分析。倫理分析的爭議點在於同性性行為是否是道德上錯誤的行為，本文將批判贊成及反對同性性行為的各種正反面論述。綜合倫理分析的結果顯示，主張同性性行為是不道德的論證無法成立，因此本文認為，在沒有確切論證可以證實同性性行為不符合道德以前，應當有條件的接受同性性行為如同異性性行為，當作一種可列入選擇的性行為選項。因此具體性行為是否正當，應該由是否合乎性愛倫理的規範或原則來決定，而非由性對象的性別決定。本文發現，「愛」才是性愛及婚姻規範的前提及本質，沒有愛，性愛倫理就無法成立，沒有愛，婚姻倫理也不能成立，這與接不接受同性戀沒有直接的關連。相反的，為了反對同性戀，將性別或生育當作性愛或婚姻規範的前提或本質，而忽略更重要的因素愛則將喪失對性愛及婚姻倫理的正確理解，也將喪失對人之所以為人的正確理解。

關鍵字

同性戀；性行為；倫理分析；愛

並列摘要

The issue of homosexuality has entered the arena of political correctness in the current cultural environment which emphasizes gender equality. Hitherto, it was a topic rather neglected by academia as some believed that it is unnecessary to discuss the ethical status of the homosexuality. However, for education workers, who should always seek the truth, it is vital to adopt a well informed perspective after carefully differentiating and examining the underlying concepts, a process which is also the main principle of this research.The discuss ion of the ethical concepts related to homosexuality not only involves an ethical judgment on the behavior of a specific social community, but also pertains closely to sexual ethics in a broader sense. In the discussions on life education, the fundamental principle is that ”while one's attitude has to be fair, one's perspective does not necessarily need to be neutral.” By engaging in rational dialogues, people on both s ides of the ethical debate can delve more deeply into the core concepts of the issue and better understand the general definitions of sexual or marital relationships. Through such dialogues, we can get closer to the truth and learn more about the true meaning of love.This study will first clarify some important terminologies employed in the text, in order to avoid any argument that may arise from semantic confusion. Furthermore, some disputes regarding the homosexual tendency are also discussed, including its possible causes and whether this tendency could or should be changed. Through the discussions, the relevant medical, psychological, social and scientific facts are also presented, in order to strengthen the following ethical analysis of homosexual behavior. The dispute of the ethical analysis is the question whether homosexual behavior is morally wrong or not. This research tries to present the positive and negative discourses in relation to the pros and cons of this sexual behavior. The results of the analysis showed that no evidence can be found to support the viewpoint that homosexual behavior is immoral. Yet, the discourse that positively evaluates homosexual behavior is also untenable in terms of a solid theoretical foundation. Consequently, after delving into the rational points proposed by both s ides, this study argues that homosexuality should be viewed as normal sexual behaviors as is the case with heterosexuality. The correctness of sexual behavior must be determined based on whether it matches sexual ethics, rather than the nature of the gender.The researcher of this study noticed that ”love” is a premise or essential quality in the ethics of sex or marriage; without love, neither sexual ethics nor marital ethics would exist. It is not homosexuality but love that matters. Conversely, people who are against homosexuality usually view gender or giving birth as the basis of the ethics of sex or marriage while often ignoring the very important factor: love. Without love, no one could correctly understand the ethics of sex and marriage, or obtain a correct understanding of human nature and behavior.