I'm so happy, I'm almost........

I refer to an article (am I being professional yet?) published in the new paper on Sunday 19 July 20, 2009, regarding Dr Thio Li-ann’s defence of her stand on same sex marriage in Singapore.

[I can’t find the article online so I will just type out excerpts of the article in question, also i assume you are familiar with the topic]

In the article she says “My objection is not to gay people, it is towards the nature of the homosexual political agenda and the vicious and degrading tactics of some activists (like insults and death threats)”.

Firstly, what exactly is the homosexual political agenda? Are there any gay political parties that have just come out (haha, pun) that I did know of?
If she is referring to the abolishment of the law prohibiting gay sex, as I have said before this is obviously a case of the ignorant wanting to remain ignorant, the abolishment of the law would not cause any sort of moral degradation or sudden proliferation of homosexuals.

Secondly, if you can read past the rhetoric, you see that there is no credence to her argument. All Dr Thio is saying is, I don’t want the law criminalizing gay sex to be removed, it’s not that I have something against gay people, it’s just that I don’t like the way some of them talk to me.

This is equivalent to saying that all women are bitches because this one lady told me off just because I wanted more syrup in my soybean milk. And because my experience with one person is indicative of the entire female population, I deem they should all wear muzzles to stop them from spewing their vitriolic venom.

Perhaps more tellingly, Dr Thio later contradicted herself in the same article when she implied that a dissident who called for her to be disallowed from teaching about human rights in NYU to be totalitarian.

“Let’s be tolerant but not tolerate whom we consider intolerant. That is totalitarianism by any other name.”

You said it, sister. *COUGH*Hypocrite*COUGH*