http://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/ Universal Declaration of Human Rights Article 16. (1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution. (2) Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses. (3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State. 第一句的開頭在FB上引起討論， 反同的人認為聯合國規範的是「男人跟女人結婚」的權利 而有人認為，聯合國說的是「男人有結婚成家的權利，女人也有結婚成家的權利」， 至於「各自」結婚的「對象」並沒有限定； 當年條文要拉抬低落的女權，所以才刻意把女人的權利明文標示為跟男人並列的位階 舉例來說，如果我們把主詞代換成「白人與黑人」，成為以下的句子 White people and black people of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution. 就看得清楚了，意思是黑人結婚成家的權利跟白人是一模一樣的 但並不是在說「黑人一定要跟白人結婚」 請問哪種說法對呢？
硬是在字面上鑽的話，那麼"Men and women"也包含一夫多妻，多夫多妻這種組合。當然也包含同性之間。這句子和美國憲法關於婚姻的條文一樣都是不夠精準，都是open tointerpretations。也因此: http://tinyurl.com/cwvs37t第二段 For more than a decade ....我相信你也可以找到"反同(或其它)"解讀的團體。所以硬爭原句子絕對性的單一/統一解讀沒有太大的意義
他們阿呆，你跟著亂喔？大多反同的根本沒有邏輯，追根究底就是認為“家庭必須一男一女（多夫多妻也被排除了）”，“同性戀是病，同志都是性變態”。這兩點沒辦法靠理智說服的。去找Micheal Sandel對這議題的看法，那才是有思考邏輯，能扣人心弦的論述。連他的招式也沒用的人，你也別想說服甚至討論了。You cannot reason with someone who doesn't reason.