2005年9月20日

醫護人員聯署聲明

早前法庭裁定16歲以上男同性戀者可以肛交,已經覺得不可思議。既然異性戀者合法性行為年齡為16,為何要多此一舉為同性者戀者立法。他們應自然擁有同等權利!立法只顯出本巿的道德標準可其高尚,脫褲子放屁立法因為本巿還沒有真正平等,社會將異性戀者同性戀者二分作兩個不同的社會階層,唯有為二者分別立法。

今日報章刊登一群「醫護人員聯署聲明」,指「男性性接觸對公共衛生構成風險」,要求政府立即就「肛交案」上訴。

這群醫護人員認為肛交會帶來公共衛生風險指出肛交是「引致性病爆發及傳播愛滋病的最好途徑」,對香港公眾健康、經濟、社會穩定構成衝擊,並簡單將肛交定性為危險行為,指出肛交的危險性「已超越他們(肛交者,同性戀者)的圈子」。

內文又將肛交與「禽流感、SARS及其他致命傳染病」一併比較,提醒社會高度警惕。

作為異性戀者(先這樣劃分), 閱畢廣告,我擔憂的不是同性戀者會傳來世紀絕症。我明白預防勝於治療,為社會健康預警是醫護人員的一部份。不過現在部份醫護人員以減低公共衛生風險為名, 打擊社會多元文化為實,感覺為了保護他們的工作健康,呼籲大眾減少危險動作,但無論公眾行為為何,醫治疾病根本是他們工作的一部份。另外,性病傳播的途 徑,又豈可與禽流感和SARS比較﹖我們的醫護人員的性知識何在﹖

另外廣告中的一系列數字,有心人不妨拆解。我見到數字腦袋便自動關閉,無法分析,請不吝賜教。

23 則留言:

  1. 我也很有興趣拆埋一份... 不過等放工返屋企先... (之不過, 又值得這樣做嗎... 嗯...)

    回覆刪除
  2. Dear Miss Lee and all:
    This is an ad from stubborn Christians
    see the phone number and the "ming kwong she" credit on the bottom right corner?
    "ming kwong she" is an infamous group that opposes homosexuality
    They are objecting the law from a religious viewpoint
    not from a prof. viewpoint
    no need to discuss this anymore la!
    it's a waste of time

    回覆刪除
  3. 唉唉唉,先來個嘆十聲……

    先係日月教來一個令人啼笑皆非的「陰道不等同肛門論」,現在又輪到醫護人員……

    真教人懷疑人的常識都哪兒去了??

    實在奇怪,日月教眾人滿腦子「肛交」,我差點就要以心理學來推論實情是他/她們太嚮往「肛交」奈何太壓抑,才如此強烈反應。

    真搞不懂,何時起「肛交」成為了男同性性交行為的專利?並劃上等號?

    異性戀的「肛交」哪裏去了?如果「肛交」遺害至深,為何在異性愛的性行為中,從沒聽過有人提出反對?難道女子肛門有殺菌作用,就不會「引致性病爆發及傳播愛滋病的最好途徑」?(並不代表認同這句話,只是純粹推論其邏輯而已)

    還是,到底是父權社會,女子的肛門,不及男的矜貴,所以不值一晒?

    我希望蔡志森不至告訴我,男人和女人從不會肛交。

    回覆刪除
  4. 最怕部份人拿自己的專業資格來嚇唬群眾,說一些似是而非的道理。做道德洗潔精不打緊,但也要有實在客觀的理據。要命的是明光社打正旗號批判傳媒,但有時說話卻語無論次,毫無邏輯可言,教壞細路。

    司南︰說得又好又清楚!參考你那篇的脈絡更清晰。

    一豆︰就咁,男女絕對可以肛交,你知我知。不過昨晚想,不可排除有衛道之士疾呼類似「老師也鼓吹肛交」的歪理,小人當道,小人行文要小心,自求多福。

    思存兄,我唔計啦,都話數學差囉…

    蛋蛋、九洲,別來無恙!

    回覆刪除
  5. 哇!呢個肛交定義真係好得人驚!咁即係話所有男同性戀者的性行為MSM都係肛交。(唔知異性戀者的肛交定義係唔係咁,包括埋「生殖器對口」和「手交」?)

    而且「因為有多至4.6%的香港男士曾經有MSM行為,所涉及的公共衛生風險已超越他們圈子,性別,文化及地理界限。」

    如果真係咁得人驚,咁真係要上訴咯!

    回覆刪除
  6. 借醫護人員之名來聯署聲明

    二百幾人代表晒全港仝人, 真係多得佢地唔少

    回覆刪除
  7. 恕我多言,上綱上線的,混淆視聽的似乎是你吧。

    回覆刪除
  8. The Society for Truth and Light now receive government funding to organize training course on human rights for primary teachers too! (you can look to EMB's teacher calender with the course no. CGCDI020050055) What do you think? I think it's deplorable.

    回覆刪除
  9. 樓上的那位,我實在讀不明白。

    xyz自說上綱上線。

    我只想說為什麼總要以孌童,人獸等加入肛交這個議題來討論「多元文化」。
    給我一個像是沒完沒了重複不斷的討論陷阱,所以我說是混淆視聽。

    另外,我們是在討論醫護人員的聲明,卻一下子窺準以blog主教師的身份說基準試,問得怪。

    actually i m very confused n lost with your comment.

    and why do u comment me 低劣? i am it is a bit too much.

    sorry miss lee, i am off from here.

    回覆刪除
  10. 為什麼當一男一女在一起,第一個浮現的詞彙不是X or Y or Z 交?

    為什麼當一男一男在一起,第一個浮現的詞彙就是肛交?

    為什麼提起男女媾合,從不聞扯進孌童、人獸作類比?

    為什麼一提起兩個男人,就拉扯出孌童、人獸?

    語言,當然從不是random,囉。

    回覆刪除
  11. 孌童和人獸是否「多元文化」的一部份!不能抹殺其在社會的存在。不過這些喜好不在我們主流道德文化,社會主流不能接納和包容這些文化,對這些「小眾喜好」有既定的應對方法,如法律。這是共識。

    但拿孌童和人獸來與同性愛相比,是否公平的比較呢﹖前者是對社會群體道德的侵犯,一方無法在充足的知性判斷或強迫的情況下與人交配,後者則是兩情相悅的選擇。司南兄你在自家blog亦提到,只要做足安全措施,同性性行為不見得是傳染性病的重要途徑。以孌童和人獸來與肛交比較,是走向了極端。(BTW,如果司南指向正確方向,咁,司北呢﹖hehehe)

    明光社一類的機構,常以自身的信仰與道德觀來否定他們認為不道德的事。我對整篇聲明的感覺有二。

    一是他們以醫護專業之名,藉肛交案宣傳反同性戀的既有立場,你能不贊同他們這種既有立場嗎﹖既然社會(或我)認為同性戀應有其在社會立足之地,我們也應歡迎明光社的意見,但不是以似是而非的論點來誤導公眾。

    二便是他們以同性性交會提高醫療風險為由,勸喻政府就降低肛交合法年齡上訴。我同意醫護人員以專業人員身份向社會提出忠告,可是以專業的糖衣來達到個人或組織目的,不正是明光社一向踢爆批評蘋果東方等傳媒所常做的嗎﹖有關機構可以向社會發出警告,但如病者感染性病,他們也應該一樣要醫!我對聲明中所指的高風險有疑問︰他們是指對社會的高風險,還是醫護本身安全的高風險﹖聲明中,表示尊重同性戀者的人權,但有關行為風險已超越同性戀者的風險 – 這群醫護擔心風險已殺到埋身﹖

    當然,無論如何所謂主流文化是強權壓倒小眾,是比較的議題,這種邏輯辯論只能是循環不息。語言是強權嘛,傅柯如是說。

    回覆刪除
  12. 真的不能想像,醫護人員,作為專業人士,竟然對性病的知識那麼偏狹,甚至是錯誤的。這也可以看到在香港,有某一些群體,他們是可以這樣混淆視聽,是非不分,借「專業」(或者是用上某些家長迷信專業是必然正確為的繆誤)為名來打做魔鬼面具。

    想提出幾點:
    性行為,是不等同性傾向,那只是其中一個部分,日月教吓吓把同性戀等同肛交,只會泥足深陷,離道理越來越遠。他們誤解所有男同性戀都肛交,是一個錯誤,我有些朋友只會口交和互相jerk off。就算有另外一些男性與男性(不等如他們一定是同性戀)會肛交,如果他們是用安全套,那比起很多異性戀男女(沒有安全性行為)染上性病,和其他因體液交換和性器官感染的疾病的機會還少,還要「健康」。

    你知道有多少女性為自己只與老公有性(還是初戀情人),都會染上性病(甚至愛滋病)嗎?不只是因為老公到處滾,而是女性(其實男性也是)是否有保護自己的知識和能力,要求對方用安全套 (特別是在有的體液交換性行為,無論是男男或男女),是很重要的。

    我在1993年問當時的衛生署申請了一些錢,做一份給女性的愛滋病小冊子,做了很多research後知道了更多。以NGO的人手做制作,再發給不同的婦女團體。其中一點要強調的:

    其實,是不安全的性行為,是我們對身體對疾病的不認識,危害我們美好的生命,使我們的社會倒退.。不是肛交,更加不是同性戀,和其他不被放在異性戀一對一的框架下的戀愛(雙性愛)和性愛模式(性工作者)。

    所以,請不要把公共衛生與我們健康,和肛交扯上關係,這更加不是同不同性戀的問題,說到底,這是社會上某一群人,把自己的信仰說成(還要不停的說,到處說,用錢買大衆傳媒的地盤來說)唯一的真理,強加於他人身上。如果肛交是那麼不道德不健康,那應立法禁止(異性戀也不準做?)!!?

    當一個社會(自覺的選擇)忘記我們自家真正的問題到這個恐怖的程度,那是不是很悲哀呢?

    我們該做的,是增加我們對不同疾病的了解,提高健康意識,知道怎樣保護自己,不要被日月教所誤導。牛棚書展今年開了一個blog,話題正是身體,要多讀朋友們對身體的反思嗎?http://cattledepotbookfair.blogspirit.com/

    講這些講了十幾年,我想還一直要說下去。文化前進,在於耐性,反思,和 鬥長氣鬥長命 (所以,健康很重要呀! :-) )

    祝好。

    不想佔用您太多地方,若有興趣者,可到這裡看延伸閱讀。
    http://www.aahsun.com/blogger.htm

    回覆刪除
  13. 又一世紀病毒來啦,佢比SARS毒性更強,破壞人的邏輯思維,佢個名叫(無知)正由各大報章,網站,教會中廣泛傳播,病源由明光社發出的。

    防禦方法:
    多用理性思維,唔好用有色眼鏡睇人就得

    回覆刪除
  14. re:XYZ之"多元文化"
    根據Case Law,肛交還沒"合法化"
    根據現行條例,孌童,人獸從未"合法化",
    他/她加上"基準試"等,和孌童,人獸一樣,也都是D低B類比論證,只有D沒有logic的民族才buy的.Ha...Ha...

    回覆刪除
  15. Miss Lee, 我知你用technorati 查到我有連結到你此文, 但寫文時, 我有用你的haloscan trackback 你的, 不知是否trackback 失敗呢? -_-

    回覆刪除
  16. Sidekick,我想應該是可以trackback的呢!不過除了人手trackback,我對其他連結方式也是矇查查!

    回覆刪除
  17. Sidekick,我想應該是可以trackback的呢!不過除了人手trackback,我對其他連結方式也是矇查查!

    回覆刪除
  18. 明光社again.
    I have already started trying to ignore it, let's try together!!!

    回覆刪除
  19. This is the first time I've come across some quality social commentaries in HK blogs, so I have to throw in my two cents. And please forgive me for having to use English as I don't know how to type Chinese...

    Bravo Miss Lee for your balanced and insightful critique of the joint declaration by what seems to me like a Christian sect and about 200 public health professionals? I emigrated from HK at a very young age and the last time I was back was 1999, so I really only know about HK these days through mainstream and indy media. I work in the policy end of the health field myself, and I remember the touching professionalism of all health workers at the time of SARS, and I can't believe that there are now a group of HK PH people who would hide behind their so-called professionalism to score political points with a vulnerable group of society.

    To argue aganist homosexuals (by equating them first of all as only MSM, forgetting that homosexuality applies to women also) on the basis of ONE of their sexual behaviours, a behaviour which is common to both heterosexuals and homosexuals, as being a major public health risk to Hong Kong and thus must be stopped, is so wrong on so many levels that I don't know how to begin to refute. It would have made a little more sense to say rampant prostitution would be a major public health risk, rather than on any single type of sexual behaviour, especially one that is common to both heteros and homos. This is of course, only one of the many things wrong with the PH assertion, and so I'm really glad that there are quite a number of clear-thinking and level-headed people in HK on here who have done the job far more eloquently and reasonably than I could manage myself.

    I do want to add to the arguments against the points raised by XYZ Enzo though: you're relying on good old solipsism to link homosexuality with bestiality and paedophilia, which is erroneous in the extreme. Using your so-called logic then one could also link heterosexuality with bestiality and paedophilia as well, because bestiality and paedophilia are not restricted to male sex only. Especially in regard to paedophilia, lots of child molesters target young girls as well as young boys, and there is an extremely deplorable "third world child sex tourism" where old white men go to South East Asian countries to prey on vulnerable children. A very high-profile case recently is how the washed-up British pop star Gary Glitter was sentenced for having sex with a 12 year old girl in Vietnam. To try to confuse homosexuals with the likes of Gary Glitter is therefore offensive in the extreme!! In fact, if we are indeed interested in protecting our kids rather than trying to impose religious dogma on everyone, then perhaps the "Society of Truth and Light" could do with a bit of self reflection regarding the Christian faith itself - I live in Ireland and the country has had numerous paedophilic scandals committed by members of the Catholic priesthood, and which the Vatican had tried actively to cover up. I will call that kind of religiously-sanctioned paedophilia far more morally-repugnant than anything else, and these in no way could be lumped in with the sexual behaviours of consenting adults, be they homosexuals or heterosexuals.

    回覆刪除
  20. Dear Snowdrops,

    It's nice to see some people still reading posts long time ago. This proves that blogging really helps discussion and exhcange of knowledge.

    I still believe that 包容 is an important and inevitable element in building a livable city, and of course I agree with you that there are some base lines which we cannot cross, such as children's rights and women's right.

    A society which always argue but over different political interests is so boring. Sexuality has become a political tool in Hong Kong.

    There are always people who do not agree with us and whom we can never persuade them to agree with us. Some even take a hostile stance in discussion. We need to discuss in calmness and according to logic and knowledge, but along with the increasing popularity of blogging, it is getting difficult to maintain a meaningful blog environment.

    There are plenty many good bloggers in Hong Kong!Hope you'll come across some some day.

    回覆刪除