段宜康直批立院鄉愿、造謠

WOW! 有霸氣,有邏輯,有理性。主要要推翻反同性婚姻4個論調:

  • 1.不影響目前已有的身份證。
  • 2.出生率不會因此降低。
  • 3.愛滋病得病比率不會因此升高。
  • 4.重大爭議法案,不是等到沒爭議再來通過。

段宜康 Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/tuanyikang/

Youtube:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YwMfmVOE2Ec

 

Facebook video:
https://www.facebook.com/ftvnews53/videos/10154626178630901

【霸氣談婚姻平權 段宜康直批立院鄉愿、造謠】#淡水蝙蝠俠: 好感度大增啊!!超敢講😍#護家盟 #婚姻平權 #挺同 #反同 #同性婚姻 #段宜康 段宜康

Posted by 民視新聞 on Sunday, December 25, 2016

 

英文部份逐字稿:

Chair and my fellow colleagues, I am here speaking on my behalf, as DPP has not yet reached a conclusion regarding how to achieve marriage equality. Therefore, what Legislator Chang Hung-Lu (張宏陸) has just said, previously the very long speech given by Legislator Ker Chien-ming (柯建銘) and my speech are all opinions of ours and ours only, and do not represent the party. I very much agree on Legislator Lin Wei-Chou (林為州)’s point that we hoped when we discuss this (marriage equality) issue, we can approach it with reason, however, it is a pity that some of the speeches given by my fellow colleagues and some of the recent voices from all over the society have suppressed the possibility of a reasonable discussion. Even if the amendment to the Civil Code is approved, will our national ID cards be revised? Will “the father and the mother” (on it) be replaced by “the two parents”? We all know they will not. To all existing families, the revision will not be happening. And yet some of my colleagues have spread the rumored change with graphs. Those voices from Zhongshan S. Road certainly represent some of the society as those from Jinan Road do. But as a Legislator, are our capacities, our roles and our responsibilities just saying what we hear from streets, without a thinking of our own and without investigating? Are our responsibilities not helping reduce conflicts and settle disputes when the society discusses important issues? Most importantly, aren’t our responsibilities preventing those malicious slanders from circulating Legislative Yuan?

In the world, from those countries legalizing same-sex marriage, we take two of them, France and Spain, for example. In these two countries, is the percentage of adults having AIDS higher than that in Italy, a country not approving same-sex marriage? No. You can do the math. We also see that in many countries legalizing same-sex marriage, their birth rates are higher than Taiwan. So, when some of the society mentioned that if we are legalizing same-sex marriage, AIDS will be spread out in the country, and our people will not have children and Taiwan is dying, go check out those numbers.

I must mention the worst kind (of those voices) here. That is if the society has not yet reached a common ground, bills of critical controversy shouldn’t be passed. If you agree on it, please recall the situation of African Americans. Just a little more than 50 years ago, the US ended racial segregation in the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and approved the voting rights of people of color in the Voting Rights Act of 1965. At that time, did the American society wait until it reached a common ground to pass those Rights Acts which today we take for granted? When the Civil Rights Act and Voting Rights Act were passed, were clashes not occurring in their society? During that period, and even when the US ended racial segregation, the US National Guard had to protect those African American kids who went to schools that used to be for White people. Wasn’t there any conflict? But (they did so) for this very reason… people were willing to overcome conflicts and deal with disputes, and they hoped the society can be progressive. More than half century ago, if the US Senate and the House had been like some of our colleagues at Legislative Yuan, saying we should only pass those bills when the conflict is vanishing from the society, racial segregation could have remained today in many states in the US, and people of color wouldn’t have been able to vote. I DO NOT WISH TO SEE that we wait until the conflict is gone to pass the (marriage equality) bill and assert smugly that it is Legislative Yuan’s mission and responsibility to do so. I would call such act a hypocrisy. If we are responsible for what we believe, and if we have the courage to recognize that our mission is pushing for a progressive society, we shall bravely embrace controversy, we shall set up an example for the society, and we shall lead the society to move forward. Thank you.

 


段宜康暗指藍委賴士葆的發言說,此言論扼殺了理性討論可能,就像現有身分證、現存家庭都不會受影響,「作為立委角色,難道只是不經思索,就讓不正確的言論繼續在國會殿堂重複,不斷中傷別人?」他舉例,法國、西班牙,同性婚合法,愛滋病也沒有未通過的義大利來得高。
而對於「若還沒達成共識,重大爭議法案就不應通過」的論調,段宜康也說,美國黑人,取消種族隔離取得投票權,離現在也不過是50多年前的事,「那時美國有取得共識,才來通過現在覺得理所當然的權利法案嗎?」他強調,法案通過後,黑人要到白人學校就讀,州政府還要出動國民兵保護,「難道這不是更大的衝突?」
段宜康說,立法院應克服衝突、面對爭議,希望社會進步,否則美國參眾院當時若依「某些同仁」態度,「有可能在現在,美國很多洲還是黑白隔離」,段宜康直言,這不是某些人自我標榜的「負責任的立法院」而是「鄉愿的立法院」,若對理念負責,堆動社會進步,就要勇敢面對爭議,帶領社會往前進步。

 

影片截圖:

Facebook網友回應