before a word peeps out, at the request of worm i am posting this here:

--Some Reticence-- Please do not accept being added to the MSN list of sweet_ting7@msn.com. Virus, again. says:
but sex is so *wrong*, i say
and homosexuality is so *unnatural*, i say
it is best if we were to sweep it under the rug, really
because our society will not be accustomed to this for the next two and a half centuries, by conservative (haha pun!) estimates
but we're opening up
to become a more inclusive (of GST, service charge etc.) society

now.

the straits times isn't the only party guilty of sensationalising this issue. it's pretty obvious that balaji's statement was ridiculous and could qualify as libel. and it's understandable that the liberal majority on this class blog, as well as the vocal minority on the humanz mailing list gets pretty pissed off by such irresponsible remarks, made by a relatively prominent character in singapore [hehh given its size virtually everyone's prominent eh]. and tst certainly didn't help matters by deciding to pull a Sun/National Enquirer/Star tabloids on everyone.

yet, rather than focussing on his comment itself, the debate seems to have veered off on an entirely separate tangent about how

1. homosexuality should/should not be accepted by singaporeans
2. whether homosexuality is just about sex [and honestly, why is that argument even existent - i echo mr sowden in saying that one's sexual orientation is defined by one's whole approach to life - sure sex plays a part, but how big a part is not for any heterosexual to determine]
3. the whole conspiracy theory about shutting down the nation party [which actually probably isn't as much a theory as a very concrete possibility].

which, to me, misses the point of kicking the article to pieces - unless everyone's decided that the above three are much more interesting tangents to discuss (: [cant say i'd disagree with that].

in which case,
with regards to (1), i would vehemently disagree with shoojee that "You[lindakwek] have no right to label homosexuals" - she has every right to label them as anyone/thing she sees fit - she can be horribly bigoted and a narrow-minded prick [ha!] in the process, but she still has the right to tell a newspaper what she thinks. the beauty of liberalism [even singapore's pseudo-sort] is that it allows both conservative and radical [?] voices their say.

on the other hand, balaji does not have a right to say what he did, because he did so in the capacity of a minister, a member of the government of a republic. off-handedly and informally citing an epidemiologist's hypothetical assertion - which had no serious research to back it up - either belies a keen lack of awareness to the sensitivity of the issue, or an overriding desire to blunderingly impose his perception on the supposedly vacuous, cud-chewing singaporean. either stance is unacceptable - and that's where the article - the tst itself, in fact, screws itself over. everything else is fascinating and intriguing stuff, but not something exclusive to this article and therefore irrelevant as far as this slew of articles is concerned - more than half of america subscribes to his view anyway.