[聽力] Same-sex Marriage in Australia
大家好
我最近剛完成了下面這一段video的聽寫
http://vimeo.com/9748570
這是ABC的談話節目Lateline，Tony Jones主持
這一集的內容是同性婚姻辯論
參議員Bob Brown v.s. 澳洲基督教遊說團主席Jim Wallace
以下是我聽出來的內容
右邊的數字是行號
畫底線的部份是我聽不出來 想請問大家的
當然我聽出來的不一定對
就一併PO出來給大家參考了
謝謝大家
=============================================================================
Jones: Well, that's right here. Jim Wallace is the head of the
Australian Christian Lobby, who is adjoined at our Caberra studio by
the leader of Australian Greens, Senator Bob Brown. Thanks for both
being here.
5
Brown and Wallace: Thanks, Tony.
Jones: Jim Wallace, let's start with you. You just saw those two
women have what is typically a wedding ceremony in Australia. Do you
really think their union is going to undermine Australian marriage? 10
Wallace: Well, yes, Tony. Never mind my sympathy for their situation,
the reality is, I've mentioned on the program, really, that this is
not marriage. Marriage should bring to society a commitment. It
brings stability through commitment of one person to another. We know 15
that various studies show that, for instance, in heterosexual
relationships, you'll have 83 percent that are monogamous, as you have
in homosexual relationships only 2 percent. So immediately you'll
have a vast difference between the commitment of one person to
another statistically. Secondly, in terms of commitment in time, we, as 20
I mentioned there, know that homosexual relationships in Holland,
steady partnerships, what I call steady partnerships, last on the
average 18 months, whereas marriage, regardless of our friends said
before about, having a number of _____ in Australia, they still last
on the average 32 years. And it is a vast difference. So it's not 25
marriage.
Jones: Jim Wallace, don't you _____ interrupt there? If it's about
duration, that's your real problem, we saw also two women who would
like to get marriaged have been together for 20 years. I mean, will 30
you bend the rules for who have been together for a long time?
Wallace: No, you can always prate of exceptions to the rule. But the
reality is, what we are dealing with here is something in institution
we choose for stability to society into relationships. Stability is 35
very, very important, and becoming more important in our world which
is putting more and more pressure on relationships. So we are going
to make sure that we don't mess around with that. We have the
circumstances where France has looked at this option, and has said
"No, we're not going to do this", because it opens up too many 40
options to bury relationship and to dilute the concept of marriage.
We have in Holland, where it's been introduced, we have people then
immediately _____, and persue, for instance, relationships for one
man and a number of women, or one woman and a number of men. In other
words, the concept of relationships in society gets diluted, and it 45
loses the stability which marriage seeks to bring to us.
Jones: Ok, Bob Brown, let me bring you in the Jim Wallace's view of things.
It is, that is the thin edge of the wedge, and everything goes to pieces.
50
Brown: Yes, it's certain _____ there in the five year to extend to
other people the exact right what Jim wants himself. And if you want
to extend monogomy, if you want to extend stability, then you
certainly extend the privilege which is the marriage under the law to
everybody. And it's about equality, it's not about sympathy, it's about 55
equality. And the majority of Australians, in the Galaxy Poll done
last year, two to one majority or more of Australians back marriage for
same sex couples. It's Catholic Belgium and Catholic Spain have got
their options, as Canada, as South Africa, and Scandinavian
countries. It's inevitable we are going that way. But it's a blockage 60
by politicians, and John Hodward was exemplary, that by a very tiny
minority lobby trying to take the rights of more than a million
Australians to have access to their union and their love for each
other being recognised in public the same as everybody else's.
65
Wallace: I'd just like to take out a few couples of those points. I
mean, there's not a million Australians at there. There are 49,500
same sex couples in the last ABS census. And we are always being
presented by inflated figures from homosexual lobbies, which for
years tell us there're 10 percent of the population. We now know it's 70
around 2 percent. That the reality is here that there's not a
screaming majority for this. In Tasmania where we have relationships
registers, you'll have 0.02 percent of the population of Tasmania
taking advantage of that. Now we are not in the position, and we
shouldn't be in the position of democracy where we overturn, 75
compromise a fundamental institution in society for that small
proportion of population.
Jones: Really, it's a battle about words, isn't it? Because in the end,
same sex couples in Australia, Jim Wallace, are going to be given the 80
same legal rights as married couples, are they not? So in the end
you're quibbling about the actural word "marriage"?
Wallace: I'm quibbling about retaining and protecting the concept of
marriage. The concept of marriage is about stability. It brings 85
stability into relationships, which is essential for children. We know,
for instance, in Australia, in CNN TV screen every night, we have a
high rate of abuse of children, and physical violence against children.
And in the same time we know that only 2 percent of those children, or
2 percent of fathers, biological fathers, actually occasion that 90
damage. So what we're saying here is, if we have a traditional family,
we have the biological parents both there with the family, we'll
have a lot more stability for both the partners and also for the
children in the relationship. And we shouldn't try to make something
... 95
Jones: Just give me the answer of the point that I just made of. If
the legal changes go through, and are going to go through inevitably
under this government, same sex couples will have the same legal
rights as a married couple, will they not? 100
Wallace: No. They'll have many of the same legal rights, but it is
still to be determined how many of those rights of the federal level
will be passed on. I'm not personally against the equal
politically financial rights. But I'm absolutely adamant that we must 105
retain in society an ideal which we call marriage, an ideal of
relationship, which aims to put stability, commitment _____. And that
needs to held before our children as an example, it need to be held
before society as an example, because it's been proven.
110
Jones: Let me get the Bob Brown. Are we really having an argument
about symbols here? I mean, is it in fact the symbol of marriage, the
marriage ceremony, that we are talking about here?
Brown: That's one of those things. But you can hear from Jim that 115
there's a far greater distinguishment and discrimination inherant in
what here is the so called Australian Christian Lobby. And let me
remind this point that most Australian Christians, if the opinion polls
are right, favor same-sex unions being able to go to marriage. But the
argument being used by Jim here is the same one which is argued by the 120
anti-abolitionists in favour of slavery and against women getting to
vote. This is a civilising move towards equality, towards taking away
discrimination in our society, which reconises that is the bedrock of
fairness in society. And extending marriage to same sex couples is
going to extend stability, and it extends equality which allows 125
people as we saw in the leading to celebrate their love for each
other, which we should be enhancing with their loved ones, and with
their family, and by society, and it's a fundamentally reasonable and
simple thing to do. But it's opposed by bigots. It's opposed by people
and they're very, very powerfully organised. And unfortunately, they've 130
been blocking will of the majority of people in Australia. And it's time
for Rudd government to take a stand on this. And thank goodness, the ACT
government is persuing the legislation that had _____ without a reason
held by Howard government, which now should be brought in to law.
135
Jones: Jim Wallace, let me ask you. All right, I'll let you make your
point.
Wallace: We're continuing being presented here with false
information. Majority of Christians would never endorse, as Mr. Brown 140
said, homosexual marriage. Secondly, you know, he talks about
Christians trying to retain slavery, which was the Christian of
Clapham Sect. And the motivations they ...
Jones: All right, we know, seriously, we are getting a little bit off 145
the topic, we are getting off the topic.
Wallace: I think that we've got a whole list of senators ...
Jones: Jim Wallace, all right, let me ask you this question about Jon 150
Stanhope, and what he is doing in the ACT. You've accused him to have
a social engineering _____ Do you think he is trying to put Rudd
government on the spot here to have to make a serious decision like
John Howard did, or not make the same decision that John Howard did
to veto his legislation? 155
Wallace: I think Mr. Ron Stanhope has run his own agenda, and I don't
think he cares who is embarrassed in this. He already passed homosexual
adoption, and as a result we saw a baby given away to a male-male
couple in Western Australia recently. And it doesn't worry Stanhope 160
_____ break a long-held convention that governments should always act
in the best interest of their child. So I thinkg Mr. Stanhope is
trying to get his place in Australian social history. And nothing
will stop him doing it, because clearly he's going to embarrass this
government. This government has made a pre-election promise: it is 165
also now sitting not just as a Labour government, but as the federal
government of Australia. And as such it has a constitutional
responsibility to overturn any laws which are in conflict with
federal law.
170
Jones: Bob Brown, do you think the government really has no choice if
Jon Stanhope _____ this legislation once again, other than to do
pretty much what John Howard did next to veto, because that's what's
in their party platform, that's what they've promised?
175
Brown: Well, this is a test for the Labour. But let me first cite, I
want to go back to the business about same-sex couples raising child
in a loving household. And what we see is wonderful relationships,
and children getting as marvelous upbringing as they could. And the
test for the children should be parent, that is, the love that parents 180
could give to their children. And moving on from that, the Stanhope
government is making a stand on behalf of its electors. The people of
the ACT voted for the Stanhope government know this was on their
policy platform. And we've got the Howard government overriding the
democratic wishes of the people of Australia Capital Territory. Let's 185
hope that the Rudd government doesn't do that, and doesn't go with
this vociferous and outdated minority viewpoint that should be
discrimination under the law against people simply on the basis of
sexuality.
190
Jones: What if the Rudd ...
Wallace: So you said discrimination ...
Jones: Just hang on for a second, Jim Wallace. I'll try to _____ this 195
point quickly. What if the Rudd government, Bob Brown, simply pass
the, I think, the 58 separate paces of legislation which will end
discrimination for same-sex couples?
Brown: Well, it would move in the right direction. But they need to 200
remove the discrimination. If you're going to do that, why not go the
59 step, and remove discrimination altogether, and we'll have a much
fairer, more loving, caring and stable society as a result of that.
Jones: OK, Jim Wallace, you were trying to get in, and I interrupted you.205
Wallace: Well, it is not about discrimination against homosexual
people. It is about discriminating for marriage and for family, and
for reinforcing--we're at the stage in society, where we need to
reinforce the institution of marriage, we need to reinforce family. And 210
what we mustn't do is to import into it concepts of relationship, of
commitment in relationships which are quite foreign to marriage.
Instead we're going to reinforce that concept of the proven marriage
to be right benefit of society throughout history.
215
Jones: Ok, no doubt, this debate will continue in the next few weeks.
Thanks for Jon Stanhope and others. Thank you very much. Thanks for
Bob Brown and Jim Wallace for joining us tonight.
Thanks, Tony. 220
--
※ 發信站: 批踢踢實業坊(ptt.cc)
◆ From: 218.169.183.48
推
04/08 21:41, , 1F
04/08 21:41, 1F
→
04/08 21:41, , 2F
04/08 21:41, 2F
→
04/08 21:43, , 3F
04/08 21:43, 3F
→
04/08 21:46, , 4F
04/08 21:46, 4F
→
04/08 21:47, , 5F
04/08 21:47, 5F
→
04/08 21:49, , 6F
04/08 21:49, 6F
→
04/08 21:52, , 7F
04/08 21:52, 7F
推
04/08 22:31, , 8F
04/08 22:31, 8F
→
04/08 22:46, , 9F
04/08 22:46, 9F
推
04/08 23:00, , 10F
04/08 23:00, 10F
→
04/08 23:01, , 11F
04/08 23:01, 11F
→
04/08 23:03, , 12F
04/08 23:03, 12F
→
04/08 23:06, , 13F
04/08 23:06, 13F
推
04/08 23:08, , 14F
04/08 23:08, 14F
→
04/08 23:09, , 15F
04/08 23:09, 15F
→
04/08 23:11, , 16F
04/08 23:11, 16F
→
04/08 23:14, , 17F
04/08 23:14, 17F
→
04/08 23:16, , 18F
04/08 23:16, 18F
謝謝大家的熱心
我已經把修改過的逐字稿放在上面
不過有一些問題：
(1) line 172 不太可能是 brings down
因為 bring down 是 reduce, lower 的意思
和「Jon Stanhope再次進行這項立法」的意思完全不合
(2) line 24 我也覺得不是 guise (因為單複數的關係)
不過應該也不是 gays
因為中文翻譯裡面「在澳洲的婚姻狀況也有些不是那麼理想的例子」
這些「不是那麼理想的例子」應該不是指 gays
※ 編輯: Natsutaka 來自: 218.169.176.173 (04/09 10:43)
※ 編輯: Natsutaka 來自: 218.169.176.173 (04/09 14:19)
推
04/10 01:50, , 19F
04/10 01:50, 19F
→
04/10 02:10, , 20F
04/10 02:10, 20F
Eng-Class 近期熱門文章
PTT職涯區 即時熱門文章
