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. 第一句的开头在FB上引起讨论， 反同的人认为联合国规范的是“男人跟女人结婚”的权利 而有人认为，联合国说的是“男人有结婚成家的权利，女人也有结婚成家的权利”， 至于“各自”结婚的“对象”并没有限定； 当年条文要拉抬低落的女权，所以才刻意把女人的权利明文标示为跟男人并列的位阶 举例来说，如果我们把主词代换成“白人与黑人”，成为以下的句子 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，意思是黑人结婚成家的权利跟白人是一模一样的 但并不是在说“黑人一定要跟白人结婚” 请问哪种说法对呢？
硬是在字面上钻的话，那么"Men and women"也包含一夫多妻，多夫多妻这种组合。当然也包含同性之间。这句子和美国宪法关于婚姻的条文一样都是不够精准，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)"解读的团体。所以硬争原句子绝对性的单一/统一解读没有太大的意义
他们阿呆，你跟着乱喔？大多反同的根本没有逻辑，追根究底就是认为“家庭必须一男一女（多夫多妻也被排除了）”，“同性恋是病，同志都是性变态”。这两点没办法靠理智说服的。去找Micheal Sandel对这议题的看法，那才是有思考逻辑，能扣人心弦的论述。连他的招式也没用的人，你也别想说服甚至讨论了。You cannot reason with someone who doesn't reason.