Pro-­‐family  Movement  and  the  Homosexual  Agenda:  My  Conversation  with   Lawrence  Khong     I  am  lazy.  There  I’ve  said  it.  I  am  not  the  person  who  reads  long  articles  to   understand  an  issue,  much  less  write  anything  myself!  That’s  why  I  like  FB.  It   feeds  me  with  articles  that  I  want  to  read,  summarized,  hopefully  with  the   research  already  done  and  the  conclusion  provided.       The  recent  “Red  Dot”,  “FamFest”,  “Wear  White”  episodes  however  as  made  me   aware  that  I  don’t  actually  know  enough  about  the  “pro-­‐family  movement”;  Why   do  these  people  rile  against  my  right  to  love  who  I  want.  How  did  they  come  to   the  conclusion  that  who  I  marry  is  any  of  their  business?  People  who  don’t  know   me,  have  no  idea  that  I  exist,  are  dictating  the  type  of  rights  I  get  to  enjoy  as  a   Lesbian  living  in  Singapore?     My  anger  was  a  purely  emotional  response.  Then  my  head  took  over  and  I   needed  to  know  why  they  say  what  they  said.     Like  any  good  alien  (because  that’s  how  I’m  starting  to  feel,  right  here  in  the   country  that  I  was  born  and  bred  in),  I  went  to  “see”  the  leader  of  this  movement   –  Lawrence  Khong.  I  didn’t  think  he  would  grant  me  an  audience  right  away  so  I   decided  to  engage  with  him  over  Facebook  first.     For  the  lazy  ones  like  me,  this  note  is  already  too  long  so  here’s  my  conclusion  so   far:  Lawrence  Khong  is  not  interested  in  finding  a  peaceful  solution  to  share  this   space  we  call  home.  He  is  not  “pro-­‐family”  in  that  he  does  not  care  as  much  about   other  issues,  like  adultery,  affecting  the  family  unit.  He  talks  of  “troops”,  which  is   just  plain  scary  because  he  sees  this  as  war.     Nothing  new.  However,  I  am  still  keen  to  pursue  the  conversation.  Call  it  morbid   curiosity.  It’s  like  picking  at  a  scab.     FROM  THE  HORSE’S  MOUTH:     JULY 4 10:26AM – DENISE (In response to Lawrence Khong’s Post of his interview with BBC https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=774765692567547&set=vb.3878848 07922306&type=2&theater¬if_t=like) Lawrence, I am curious as to why are you not as fervent and vocal about representing the 80% who think that extra-marital affairs are almost always wrong? Is it because you feel that two people of the same-sex who love and respect each other hurt more people than married people having extra-marital affairs?

JULY 4 11:19AM – LAWRENCE KHONG Hi Denise, good to hear from you. If the adulterers will rise up, gather in Hong Lim park to promote extra-marital affair under the banner "Freedom to Love" and the government allows the gathering, I will speak up with the same vehement fervour. JULY 4 1:01PM – DENISE Thank you for the reply! I would say though that it's not exactly an apple to apple comparison. Adulterers don't have the threat of jail hanging over them nor are they prevented from pursuing their adulterous relation by a majority. They already have the Freedom to Love whoever they want and as many as they want JULY 5 9:12AM – LAWRENCE Dennise, when the penal code against adultery was repealed in 2007, most of us including myself were sleeping socially and therefore totally unaware of what was going on. If anyone would like to restore this, I will be the first to support it. Meanwhile, we need to focus on defending the family Gainst the global advancement of the homosexual agenda which has in many country robbed the people of the freedom of speech, the freedom of religion, the freedom of conscience and even the freedom of choice by concerned parents as how their children should be education with regard to this subject. I am fully aware that most homosexuals are not into this. All they want is their own space to do what they want with their partners. However, the deliberate, insidious, aggressive and relentless advancement of the homosexuals around the world to change laws, to gag anyone who disagree by calling them names and In many countries put them to jail is stirring up the quiet space that many of the homosexuals are looking for. JULY 5 9:48AM – DENISE Hi Lawrence. I'll be very very honest. I have never been able to fully understand the gay agenda issue and hence I'm glad for the opportunity to discuss it directly with you. JULY 5 10:22AM – DENISE 1) In your opinion, is adultery a smaller sin than homosexuality or as big a sin? If you believe as strongly in the restoration of the penal code against adultery as you do in keeping penal code 377A, why wait for someone to start the movement? Why not BE the pro-active “person who would like to restore it” instead of just a reactive supporter? 2) I may be reading your answer wrong and correct me if I am. You are saying that LGBTs wanting to legalise their relationship is more detrimental to the family unit than adultery? How is it so? 3) How does legalizing gay marriage rob freedom of speech and freedom of religion and who is “the people” who will be robbed?

4) You label some homosexuals as “insidious”? What about these people are insidious and what is the evidence? I have worked and lived with this community for at least the past 12 years and I haven’t found anyone I would call insidious, not in speech and most certainly not in action. JULY 6 12:13AM – LAWRENCE messaged me on FB, expressing a preference for the exchanges to continue on email. To respect the privacy he has silently requested by PM-ing me, I have not copied his reply to the questioned posed above. My response to his message continues below. JULY 11 9:93AM – DENISE I refer to the reply you PM-ed me last Sunday - replies to the questions I posed, which were about: 1) Why the pro-activeness in taking a against homosexuality and laid-backness about the issue of adultery? 2) Why is legalizing LGBT relationships more detrimental to the family unit than adultery 3) How does legalizing LGBT relationships, in your opinion, rob freedom of speech from the rest of Singapore? 4) The evidence your have that some homosexuals are insidious I was hoping for real answers to real questions and was disappointed in your answer. You ignored the first 3 questions and went straight to your favourite topic, the insidious nature of the gay agenda, which you have gone on and on ad nauseam about. A bit off topic but I feel requires a reply. You speak of “the insidious attempts of the homosexual in Singapore trying to queer Singapore youth”. I say: I don’t really know how anyone can be “queered” but for arguments sake, let say that’s even a valid thing, you do the same thing by trying to convert people. I remember being invited to FCBC’s Christmas concert when I was 15. A few of my Malay classmates were also invited, except they were told it was just a concert. Imagine their shock when they walked in. They tried to get our but were ‘persuaded’ to stay to the end. You mentioned the AWARE incident and clandestine meetings that took place – It’s also widely known that a letter exhorting Pastors and Leaders from various churches to register their strongest support for 377a. This letter was leaked. There is a sentence in the letter that I draw your attention to, “2. This Guide is not meant for mass distribution to everybody in your church or everybody you know on Planet Earth. Insidious, under the table, hush hush… no? Nuff said. You talk about the HPB Q&As and how they were insidiously hijacked by the gay community. You also mention that the incidence of STDs is high in

homosexuals as compared to heterosexuals. To me, these are related issues. If people like you constantly reinforce the stigma of being homosexual, block this community’s access to talk about it and receive help openly, then how can you expect the incidence of STDs in the homosexual community to come down? I actually believe the Q&As were the result of HPB’s concern that this community was not getting enough information, felt too much shame because of condemnation from society to seek help and wanted to reach out to them, to help. You are not making the world a better place by stigmatizing anyone. You believe books with homosexual content were insidiously added to NLB’s collection. I point you to the current debate about the library being a place that serves not just the pro-family but also all who want to use it. The fact that these books have been removed.. Well it would have been pretty insidious too except that somebody got so excited and trumpeted it all over FB. I look forward to your replies on the other three questions. JULY 13 1:43AM – LAWRENCE I've no time to address all the issues. However I must clarify that that the letter to teach the pastors to help their members to support 377A was not insidious at all. It was for internal circulation and was requested by the pastors who wanted to know how to register their concern. It was part of an internal mobilization of our troops. This is completely different fir the AWARE issue. They knew they were not allowed to promote homosexuality in the school and they did it under cover. They were removed as a vendor as the result of the discovery. JULY 13 2:35PM – DENISE I reiterate my genuine want for a discourse but do you see that that cannot be achieved if you pick and choose the issues to talk about? My current question is: Why did you choose to only answer to this question and not to the other three? I do not accept having "no time to address all the issues" as a valid reason, unless you mean to say that the points you raised, which led to my questions are not important enough for you to defend?