Nats Oust Gay Law Reform (Press, 4 June 1984)
This is a Generative AI summary of this newspaper article. It may contain errors or omissions. Please note that the language in the summary is reflective of the original article and the societal attitudes of the time in which it was written.
Summary: Nats Oust Gay Law Reform (Press, 4 June 1984)
At the Young National conference held on Saturday, 2 June 1984, a proposal from the Wellington division to liberalise homosexual law was debated but ultimately rejected. The remit aimed to reform the Crimes Act to ensure that homosexual acts would not face greater discrimination than heterosexual acts. During the discussion, biblical references were invoked against the proposed changes, with Mr David Purkiss from Heretaunga quoting a passage from Romans to argue against the remit. He highlighted his belief that allowing homosexual acts would lead to moral degradation. Several other speakers supported Purkiss's view, describing homosexuality as a social illness and unnatural behaviour that could lead to the spread of diseases. One speaker warned that past civilisations, such as the Babylonian and Roman empires, had fallen due to the acceptance of promiscuity and homosexual practices. They directly linked the prevalence of acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS) to homosexuality. Conversely, Ms Margaret Voyce from Birkenhead, one of the proponents for the remit, argued that homosexuality should be regarded as a victimless crime, asserting that it simply involved consenting adults engaging in their choices without harming anyone. She challenged the notion of imposing moral dictums on individuals by saying society should not dictate what people can do in private. Furthermore, the chairman of the Wellington division, Ms Heather Shotter, supported the idea of freedom of choice for individuals, questioning whether law enforcement should focus on policing consensual acts rather than spending resources on more serious crimes such as murder and armed robbery. She concluded that morality cannot be legislated, signalling a call for progressive change and personal liberty in matters of sexual orientation. Ultimately, the remit proposing the reform did not pass, reflecting the prevailing attitudes at the conference.
Important Information
The text on this page is created, in the most part, using Generative AI and so may contain errors or omissions. It is supplied to you without guarantee or warranty of correctness. If you find an error or would like to make a content suggestion please get in contact
The text on this page is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 New Zealand