In part 2 of this Supper Club interview, pastor Lawrence Khong of Faith Community Baptist Church talks about why he opposes calls to repeal Section 377A of the Penal Code, which bans homosexual sex, and how he became a pastor.
Q: I want to move on to Section 377A of the Penal Code. You are a very vocal opponent of calls to repeal the law, which bans homosexual sex. Why is this such an important issue for you?
First of all, I want to very clearly state that I don't believe in discriminating against anybody in terms of the basic human rights.
In fact, I just spent a whole day rehearsing with the dancers for my magic show, and more than half of them are living the homosexual lifestyle. It's not a problem. They are good dancers, we use them. But I disagree with the lifestyle.
And there is a difference between loving people, including homosexuals, and allowing the homosexual lifestyle to become normalised in society.
The reason I stand firm on asking that this law not be repealed is that Section 377A is a standard that is written down.
The history of many countries tells us that if you remove it, the homosexual community is not going to stop there. They first ask for tolerance.
Tolerance means: Don't bully me, don't make me a criminal. The minute you take that away, they will ask for acceptance, in the form of gay marriage. And then, before long, they will go for celebration of the lifestyle.
I'm talking about the gay pride days all around the world. Then the next thing you know, they will persecute those who disagree with them, by labeling those disagreements as hate speech. We have seen that path.
Singapore does not need to go that way. I do not believe this is good for any society. And I will stand firm because I love my nation very much.
This homosexual agenda is being pushed with great aggression. For example, inasmuch as they ask for tolerance, they are some of the most intolerant people that I have ever met.
Anytime you disagree with them, you are said to be homophobic, you are said to have made hate speech.
We do not say that they are heterophobic or Christophobic. We don't engage in name-calling. But they do, all the time. Why can't we argue on the merits of a case instead of slapping on labels?