幽默，是把雙面刃。其雙面性來自於其所具有的四個功能：認同、澄清、強化、區隔(Meyer, 2000)。現場喜劇演員在設計表演橋段時，為求笑聲的回饋，往往會忽略幽默的後兩種功能：強化和區隔，使得笑點中蘊含的歧視再度被加深。在面對性別和性傾向主題時，這樣的現象更是無可避免。 本篇研究將以《卡米地喜劇俱樂部》的站立喜劇為例，選擇切合性別與性傾向主題的表演橋段進行質化研究，將主題分為四類：男性、女性、男同性戀、女同性戀，以幽默的三個理論：優越論、不一致論、紓解論，以及佛洛伊德對笑的觀察為分析基礎。我們想要知道幽默的呈現手法選擇和幽默的主題，是否有一定程度的相關性？在這四大主題內的歧視，是針對整個族群，又或者是針對特定的次族群進行？最重要的是，這樣的歧視背後的意涵為何？又可能造成怎麼樣的傷害？我們旨在透過詮釋幽默形成的脈絡，帶領大家看見幽默下潛藏的性別和性傾向歧視，並加以反思。 研究結果顯示，相較於幽默主題，幽默的手法和站立喜劇演員自身的性別具有更加顯著的關聯性。男性演員較常使用優越論和有意圖的笑話，女性演員則更常運用不一致論和紓解論中的降階不一致感。以男性為主題時，男性演員表面上看起來是在嘲笑特定族群的男性，但本質上都還是建立在父權對女性的偏見之上；男性演員在貶低地位較自己高的男性時，最常見的作法，就是將對方說成男同性戀。這也顯示了男性演員不單是將男同性戀貶低到男性異性戀之下，更將無能跟男同性戀劃上等號。女性演員在攻擊男性的時候，由於父權主義作祟，男性在上位、女性在下位，難以鬆動兩者的階層，其殺傷力往往小的多。以女性為主題時，男性演員多從外貌或身材進行攻擊，將其獨立於女性主體之外，並反向以局部決定了一個女性的好壞。但由於反映了觀眾不敢講的話，男性演員在紓解論的庇護下，得以免於責難。男性演員針對特定族群女性的表演，不但反映了社會對其的刻板印象，更反映了更深層、父權下對女性的厭女情結。女性演員在談論女性主題時，即使嘗試實踐幽默中的認同、澄清功能 (Meyer, 2000)，卻很有可能再度落入父權刻板印象。兩難的是，由於男性地位在父權框架裡是較高的，一旦女性演員以攻擊男性的方式為女性發聲，可能會因為反抗父權而沒了笑聲。女性演員提到己身婚姻狀況時反映了社會對未婚男女的差別待遇。相較於未婚的男性，未婚女性容易被視為是「有問題」的，這也反映了父權下的社會期望值裡，女性是被設定成「適當年齡時結婚走入家庭」的刻板角色。面對男同性戀主題時，男性演員對男同性戀的再現反映了「男同性戀很陰柔」的刻板印象，並錯將性別氣質和性傾向劃上等號。這同時也反映了男同性戀跟陰柔的特質，在父權之下都是個可以被嘲笑的錯誤。以女同性戀為主題時，女性演員也同樣反映了「女同性戀很陽剛」的刻板印象，並反映了同性戀在異性戀主流下的出櫃困境。 / The four main functions of humor, a double-edged sword, are: identification, clarification, enforcement, differentiation (Meyer, 2000). While planning their performances, live stand-up comedians, to pursue laughter, tend to neglect the latter two functions of humor: enforcement and differentiation. This makes prejudices beneath punch lines to be rooted deeper, which are even more inevitable when comedians deal with gender and sexual orientation topics. This study takes as examples stand-up comedies from Live Comedy Club Taipei and we choose performances that touch upon the gender and sexual orientation topics to conduct qualitative research. Based on the nature of the topics, we divide the performances selected into four categories: male, female, gay, and lesbian. We take the three main theories of humor, namely, superiority theories, incongruity theories, and relief theories, and also Humor in Freud as our basis to analyze these performances. We set out to explore the following questions. Is there a connection between the way humor is delivered and the specific topic of humor? Are the underlying prejudices in these four major topics against the target group as a whole or a specific sub-group? Most important of all, what lies beneath these prejudices, and what damage do they cause? Through interpreting how humor comes into existence, we aim to reveal the gender and sexual orientation prejudices in humor, and further reflect upon such phenomena. The result shows, in terms of the four topics, how humor is delivered is more relevant to the gender of the comedian. Male comedians favor the superiority strategy and tendentious jokes, while female comedians tend to use the strategies of incongruity and descending incongruity of relief strategy. In male topics, male comedians seem to target specific subgroups of males, while their performances are in fact based on prejudices against women rooted in patriarchy. If male comedians want to degrade males in higher position, the most common way for them to do so is to insinuate the homosexuality of the target. This suggests that male comedians degrade homosexual men and view them as incompetents. Female comedians' attacks on males are weaker due to patriarchy, in which males are in higher positions and females in lower ones. In female topics, male comedians attack women on their appearance or figure, isolate these characteristics from women's entity, and evaluate females by parts. Since male comedians say what the audience dares not to say aloud, they can escape blame, as suggested by the Relief Theory. Performances against specific groups of women by male comedians reflect not only social stereotypes but also misogyny from patriarchy. Besides prejudices from male comedians, even female comedians may fall into the patriarchy trap as well while trying to identify and clarify themselves, which are two of humor’s functions (Meyer, 2000). Female comedians are in a dilemma due to the higher position of men in patriarchy. If female comedians voice for females by attacking males and thus rebel against patriarchy, consequences are that they may lose laughter from the audience. The discrimination between unmarried men and unmarried women appears while a female comedian mentions her marital status. Compared to unmarried men, unmarried women are more easily to be seen as deficient, which reflects that under the expectation from patriarchy, women are expected to get married and form a family at the proper ages. In gay topics, a recurrent theme from the male comedians’ performances is that gay are born to be feminine and confuses gender with sexual orientation. This also shows that under patriarchy, gay and femininity are mistakes that can be laughed at. In lesbian topics, the female comedian also shows the stereotype that lesbians are born to be masculine, and reflects the dilemma for homosexuals to come out under the world of heterosexuals.

憲法保障人民婚姻自由，但現行實務上卻僅承認異性戀婚姻，而拒絕同性婚姻之組成，這其中的差距究竟是從何而來？是憲法本來就不保障同性婚姻之權利？還是現行法令抵觸了憲法保障同性婚姻之意旨？ 本文第二章從探討同性婚姻是不是具有「正當性」出發，先從過往歷史的觀點來看同性戀者是不是具有同性結合之需求？除此之外，現代政府或國家賦予婚姻制度諸多權利及利益，而這些權利或利益是不是賦予同性戀者更多步入婚姻的動機？接下來探討支持同性婚姻以及反對同性婚姻所持之論點，包含傳統上對於婚姻之定義、允許同性婚姻會造成「滑坡效應」、同性婚姻並無生殖能力是否會對人類繁衍造成負面影響、同性婚姻組成的家庭是否符合「子女之最佳利益」等問題。 第三章主要探討美國聯邦及各州對於同性婚姻之看法，就結論上來說，於聯邦的層級中，「婚姻防衛法」仍然為合法有效之法律，而有拘束聯邦的效果，代表美國聯邦政府表面上對於同性婚姻仍是採行禁止的作法，然而近年來歐巴馬政府一再地放寬對同性戀者的限制措施，本人甚至在媒體訪問中表達自己對於同性婚姻合法化的寬容態度，顯見美國政府已逐漸邁向同性婚姻合法化的道路。而就各州的角度來看，目前美國各州對於同性婚姻仍有眾多不同的看法，有容許者亦有禁止者，然而不能否認的是，自從2008年之後，開放同性婚姻合法化的州已有越來越多的趨勢，換言之，容許同性婚姻的浪潮已逐漸席捲整個美國。更重要的是，美國法院對於同性婚姻合法化爭議中，有關結婚權、性傾向歧視、審查基準之選擇、法令是否具備合法的政府利益、手段與目的間之關連等問題均已有詳細的探討。而這些討論，在我國憲法同性婚姻合法化的討論上，尤其是平等權的審查上，均有值得參考借鏡之處。 第四章首先從國民法及大法官解釋的觀點，檢視同性婚姻之爭議，結論認為我國民法即我國大法官解釋，均沒有明文規定我國婚姻制度限於一男一女之結合。而我國憲法不論從自由權、平等權或者是平等公民權之觀點，均應容許同性婚姻。 第五章則討論應如何確立憲法保障同性婚姻之誡命？是應該修正民法親屬編之相關規定？還是額外立法保障同性婚姻？於確立保障同性婚姻之前提後，是否應額外立法創設「民事結合」或「家庭伴侶」制度？就結論來說，本文認為，基於憲法保障同性婚姻，且我國民法並無明文規定婚姻限於一男一女之情形下，我國民法容許同性婚姻，無須另行修正民法之相關規定。