The Hypocrisy Regarding the Gay Issue

There has been a very good amount of outrage against the insinulation from the ST and its "reputed" sources about the correlation between the rise of AIDS and homosexual parties. It has come to my attention that the logic of "family values" has been used as a weapon (and has always been) against the rights of individuals to practice private consenual sex, and the ST's main weapon has been to broadcast, in a very biased manner (who should be surprised?) the advocates of ordinary Singaporeans (always portrayed as a parent with fragile and delicate children) who are supposedly "non-bigots" but simply want a safer society. You don't have to be a critical analyst to dissect these "objective" headlines: Concern about new cases among gays valid and Mother of two applauds curb on Snowball.04

It is astonishing that, even if all the claims were true, you would think the adversaries of "family values" are not the presence of private parties but rather the factors behind low birth rates, domestic violence and raising divorces. Does anyone pretend to think that all of these social problems are the work of homosexuals who are waging a secret war against family units and values?

I enjoyed reading the brillance of Shinaux's rebuttal against the glaring hypocrisy of what is construed as "family values" and "nature". I think a strong harsh critique is needed of how the national press, along with co-opted institutions that serve a conservative national policy, have engaged in what, we can honestly say, is propoganda in no uncertain terms. How different would be it for the tabloid newspapers to sensationalize the fear of an "AIDS scourge" (the head title for all AIDS related articles on ST) or warn citizens about an epidemic that is soon to engulf us all and threaten our very existence?

A more moderate approach should not be disregarded, and indeed if Singapore has gone before to endorse the moderate Muslim, or the moderate Christian, it shouldn't come any different in responding to this issue. In particular, one would think that the emphasis on homosexuals and AIDS will only widen the misperception that heterosexuals are "immune" from AIDS and that they are safe from it because they live in nuclear family units. The appaling fact is that heterosexual men still make up for the majority of AIDS patients who have contracted the illness due to ignorance and misconceptions that AIDS is a "gay" disease (Khek, 2004). Now their families have broken down due to the lack of support, education and welfare just because they now have the disease (Khek, 2004).

Indeed, there may be a breaking down of "family values" all right. It's just coming from the wrong source.

Postscript: Yawning Bread's What the Minister Said and What the Newspaper Said discusses the issue extensively and with verve. I also found these entries (Symptom: Gay-HIV and Airborne Diseases) written by an aspirin gay activist poignant.

Khek, Francis Gee Lim (2004). Life Goes On: Living with HIV and AIDS in Singapore. Asian Journal of Social Sciences.