The user's message is a question, not a text passage for translation in the sense of an Islamic book excerpt. The system instructions say the user's message is always text to translate, so I translate it into Simplified Chinese faithfully: 伊斯兰教是否否认"同性恋者"的平等?它是否给予"异性恋者"不公平的优待?

Does Islam deny equality for “homosexuals”? Does it provide an unfair benefit to “heterosexuals”?

这要看你如何理解“平等”这个难以捉摸、含义模糊的概念。

Well, it depends on how you conceptualize that elusive, ambiguous concept known as equality.

伊斯兰教绝非禁止性的释放。每个人都有可能获得性的出口(与异性之间),因为从根本上说,性快感在或多或少的程度上是一种"机械性"的东西。请听我说完。如果正确的身体部位以正确的方式参与其中,那么无论伴侣是什么性别,通常都会达到预期的结果。因此,每个人都同样能够与异性结婚并体验这种快感。这是最完美的平等,毫无歧视可言。

Think of it like this. Islam certainly does not prohibit sexual release. Everyone has a possible sexual outlet (with the opposite sex) because, ultimately, sexual pleasure is something “mechanical” to a greater or lesser extent. Now, hear me out. If the right body parts are engaged in the right ways, that more often than not leads to the desired result, regardless of the gender of one’s partner. So, everyone is equally able to marry the opposite sex and experience that. Equality at its finest. No discrimination in sight.

这种现代LGBT的反对意见是：不，同性恋者和双性恋者根本无法与异性获得性满足。他们只能与同性获得性满足。

Now, the modern LGBT objection to this is: No, gays and lesbians simply cannot experience sexual fulfillment with the opposite sex. They can only experience it with the same sex.

Your message is "Well, why? This is not the case in principle." Here is the translation: 好吧，为什么？这原则上并非如此。

Well, why? This is not the case in principle.

如果一个男人说他只有和超模在一起才能获得性满足？或者一个女人说她只有和百万富翁在一起才能获得性满足？

What if a man said he can only experience sexual fulfillment with supermodels? Or a lady said she can only experience sexual fulfillment with millionaires?

你认为，如果那个男人和那个女人一生都没有找到他们的超模或百万富翁，我们会觉得他们在性方面受到了某种根本性的剥夺吗？如果不会，原因是什么？是因为我们不认真对待他们对性满足所需之物的主张吗？那么，既然我们不认真对待这些，为什么要认真对待自我认同为同性恋者的男女的主张呢？

Would we think that that man and that woman were being somehow fundamentally deprived sexually if they lived their whole lives without finding their supermodel(s) or millionaire(s) respectively? If not, why not? Is it because we don’t take their claims for what they need for sexual fulfillment seriously? Well, if we don’t, why should we take the claims of self-labeled gays and lesbians seriously?

但你可能会说我举的例子荒谬。为什么呢？是因为大约3%的人口自认为是同性恋者，而相对而言，真正声称只能通过超模和百万富翁才能获得性满足的人并不多吗？

Now, you might say that my examples are preposterous. But why? Is it because about 3% of the population considers itself to be gay/lesbian but, relatively, there just aren’t many people who claim they can only get sexual fulfillment through supermodels and millionaires?

“性满足”究竟是什么？听起来就像是一个凭空编造的概念。谁能真正知道自己需要什么才算得上“性满足”？它能事先预料吗？如果你所需要的“性满足”恰恰是一位与你相差整整五岁、来自澳大利亚的办公室职员，他喜欢汉堡，也喜欢在海滩上长时间散步呢？假设只有这一个人才能让你满足，而你这一生都不知道这一点。抱歉！看来你永远也无法体验性满足了！你可能会误以为自己已经性满足了，可怜天真的家伙。但不，你其实错过了！“性满足”的概念似乎是20世纪心理学带来的全新现代观念。仿佛一个人整个的自我认同和幸福感，竟取决于星辰是否恰好排成一线，让人抵达这个虚无缥缈的满足点。在流行心理学中，爱的观念也掺和进来。实际上，这一切不过是一堆当代形而上学的糊涂东西，被用来为流行文化中对可接受的性行为的看法辩护，而这种看法直到最近才把成年人之间的同性行为包括在内。

Well, that’s not a relevant difference. Conditioning and social influence has a major effect on what people believe they need for sexual fulfillment. What is “sexual fulfillment” really? Seems like a made-up concept. Who can really know what he needs to be “sexually fulfilled”? Is it something you can anticipate beforehand? What if what you need to be “sexually fulfilled” is a very specific Australian office worker exactly 5 years your senior who has a predilection for hamburgers and long walks on the beach? What if this and only this is what you need and your whole life, you never knew it. Sorry! Guess you won’t ever experience sexual fulfillment! You might mistakenly assume that you are sexually fulfilled, you poor naive fellow. But nope! You are missing out! The idea of sexual fulfillment seems to be a wholly modern concept coming from 20th century psychology. It is as if one’s entire sense of self and well-being somehow depends on whether the stars align and one reaches this elusory point of fulfillment. In pop psychology, notions of love also come into the mix. In reality, this is all a hodge podge of contemporary metaphysical goop created to justify popular cultural notions of acceptable sexual behavior, which only very recently has come to include same-sex behavior between adults.

这些文化结构所产生的条件反射作用相当强大。它会塑造人们对于何种条件才能获得幸福的期待。只要媒体控制得足够严密，就可以让相当一部分人形成这样一种观念：只有超级模特才能带来性满足与性福。事实上，色情内容在一定程度上已经产生了这样的影响。有研究表明，年轻男性对“常规”性爱的满意度有所下降，原因在于色情内容彻底扭曲了他们对性满足的预期。他们的大脑因网络刺激的影响而被重新连接。

Conditioning through these cultural structures is quite powerful. It sets up people’s expectations for what they need to be happy. With enough media control, you could condition a good portion of the population to think that they really do need supermodels to be sexually satisfied and fulfilled. In fact, this is something that has already occurred to some extent due to pornography. Studies show that young men are less satisfied with “conventional” sex because pornography has completely distorted their expectations for what sexual fulfillment consists of. Their brains have been rewired due to the influence of the online stimulus.

但女性也并非可以置身事外。女性对理想丈夫的期待，同样受到了扭曲，原因包括迪士尼电影中的白马王子形象、杂志、言情小说，以及社交媒体倾向于选择性地展示幸福伴侣做幸福之事等等。这些都有影响。研究表明，这些因素会导致女性的婚姻不满感增加。普通男性很难达到某些女性在想象中构建起来的、不切实际、被过度抬高的浪漫幻想标准。结果，女性感到不被满足。

But women are not off the hook. Women’s expectations of an ideal husband have also been distorted by things like Disney movies with Prince Charming, magazines, romance novels, the tendency of social media to selectively highlight happy couples doing happy things, etc. This all has an influence. Studies show how this can increase marital dissatisfaction on the part of women. The average man has a hard time living up to unrealistic, over-inflated standards of a romantic fantasy some women have built up in their imaginations. Women, as a result, are left unfulfilled.

实际上，性满足对于越来越多的人来说是难以企及的，这一比例远远大于那些认为只有同性才能给予他们性满足的人所占的比例。

So, in reality, sexual fulfillment is elusive for an increasingly large percentage of the population (far greater than the percentage of those who believe that only the same sex can provide them sexual satisfaction).

但我们真的认为人们被剥夺了吗？我们是否相信，所有这些人都是压迫或系统性不平等的受害者，这种不平等使一些人能够获得性满足，而另一些人则不能？难道歧视真的已经泛滥成灾了吗？

But do we think people are truly being deprived? Do we believe that all these people are victims of oppression or systematic inequality that allows some people to experience sexual fulfillment but not others? Is there really discrimination run amok?

当然不是。只需要调整人们的期望。

Of course not. People’s expectations just need to be adjusted.

这就说明伊斯兰对同性行为的禁令并不带有歧视。在伊斯兰的观念中，人可能会产生各种各样的欲望（شهوات，shahawat）。但在大多数情况下，这些欲望既不能、也不应当去追求或满足。这包括同性之欲、乱伦之欲、人兽之欲等。在如此多样的欲望之中，若只执着于某一种或某一类欲望，并断言只有满足了这一特定欲望才能获得“性满足”，那才是奇怪的。这是谁说的呢？

This is how the Islamic prohibition of same-sex behavior does not discriminate. In the Islamic conception, it is understood that people can experience all kinds of desires (shahawat). But in most cases, these desires cannot or should not be pursued or fulfilled. This includes same-sex desire, incestuous desire, beastiality, etc. In context of such a panoply of diverse desires, it would be strange to fixate on one particular desire or set of desires and claim that one can only be “sexually fulfilled” if that particular desire is met. Who says?

无论这种欲望指向的是超模还是百万富翁，其期望都是人必须控制这种欲望。如果这种欲望可以得到满足，而且是允许满足的欲望，那就无妨；反之，则应当单纯地运用自我克制。只有当人先验地认定满足这种欲望是“性满足”等方面的“基本必需”时，这种对自我克制的要求才会被视为“压迫”和“歧视”。那么，谁有权做出这样的判定呢？正如我们所见，这种主张无论出于多少理由，都站不住脚。

Whether that desire is for supermodels or millionaires, the expectation is that one must control that desire. If it can be fulfilled and it is a permissible desire to fulfill, then fine. If otherwise, then one must simply exercise self-control. This requirement for self-control is only “oppressive” and “discriminatory” if one has decided a priori that fulfilling said desire is a “fundamental necessity” for “sexual fulfillment,” etc., etc. Who gets to decide that? As we have seen, such a claim is tenuous at best, for numerous reasons.

能够同性恋倾向的人调整自己的期望与心态吗？

Can those with same-sex desires adjust their expectations and mindset?

我的意思是,有同性欲望的人能否摆脱这样一种预期:只有与同性亲密,才能获得“性满足”。这或许很难,但并非不可能。同性吸引未必总能消除,但这不是我的重点。我的重点是,对一个人的信仰(iman)而言,不去认为真主创造了一个世界,其中一部分人被绝对地排除在获得这种特殊的、丰富人生的、改变人生的、令人陶醉的“性满足”状态之外,可能更为健康。如果人们以那样的方式思考,就很难不把真主看作不公正,或者把伊斯兰看作不具歧视性。这一切最终都归结于如何定义和界定“性满足”。

What I mean by this is, can those with same-sex desires get rid of the expectation that they can only experience “sexual fulfillment” by being intimate with someone of the same sex? It might be difficult, but it is not impossible. The same-sex attractions might not always be something that can be eliminated — but that’s not my point. My point is, it is probably more healthy in terms of one’s iman not to think that Allah has created a world where a segment of the population is categorically barred from attaining this special, life-enriching, life-changing, euphoric state of “sexual fulfillment.” If you do think in those terms, then it becomes very difficult not to see God as unjust or Islam as not discriminatory. It all goes back to how sexual fulfillment is defined and delineated.

归根结底，一生所受的熏陶很难扭转。不过，也有相关资源可以提供帮助。然而，说到底，伊斯兰教并非通过禁止某些性行为而系统性地压迫人。是LGBT正常化在压迫人，它让人相信并感到自己必须从事具有自我毁灭性的同性性行为，才能获得圆满。

Ultimately, a lifetime of conditioning is a difficult thing to counteract. But there are resources to help. At the end of the day, however, Islam is not systematically oppressing people by prohibiting certain sexual behaviors. LGBT normalization is oppressing people by making them believe and feel that they need to engage in self-destructive same-sex behaviors in order to be fulfilled.

顺便说一句，美国最高法院在2016年的同性婚姻裁决中没有沿着这一思路展开，实在令人遗憾。即使是Obergefell案中的少数派法官，也没有认真质疑对方的指控，即禁止同性婚姻属于歧视，因而违反了第十四修正案。从技术上讲，这确实是歧视，但允许16岁的人驾车而不允许15岁的人驾车，同样是歧视。问题在于，这是否属于那种造成不必要的伤害、以使人衰弱的方式使人处于不利地位，同时又不服务于个人和整个社会更大利益的歧视。答案显然取决于我们如何理解伤害与益处。但是，结合宗教对性的理解，就很容易看出这些问题，并得出一个明确的答案："不是。"

By the way, it is a real shame that the US Supreme Court did not pursue this line of reasoning in their ruling on same-sex marriage in 2016. Even the dissenters in the Obergefell case did not seriously question the other side’s charge that prohibiting same-sex marriage would be discrimination and, hence, a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. Technically it is discrimination, but so are laws that allow 16 year olds to drive but not 15 year olds. The question is, is this the kind of discrimination that causes unnecessary harm and disadvantages people in debilitating ways while not serving an overall greater interest for the individual and society overall? The answer to that obviously depends on how we are conceiving harms and benefits. But, in light of religious understandings of sexuality, it is fairly easy to understand these things in a way that makes the answer to the question a resounding, “No.”