Homosexual Law Changes (Press, 19 March 1985)

In a series of letters published in March 1985, writers express their views on the topic of homosexual law reform and the portrayal of homosexuals in society. Marnie Barrell argues that the focus for Christians should not be on sexual morality but on justice, stating that while Christians are called to a life of love and justice, there is no divine mandate to impose chastity on others through law. She points out that it is unjust to single out homosexuality for legal scrutiny when other forms of immorality, such as adultery, are not subjected to the same treatment. Dick Beauchamp expresses discontent with the modern usage of the term "gay," suggesting that it has been appropriated by a minority group known for unhappiness. He refers to historical language and prefers the term "bugger" as a suitable descriptor, indicating his belief that if one does not like the revised terminology, they should simply ignore the group in question. Craig Hood defends the professional recognition of homosexuality as a normal variation of humanity, highlighting that the clinical psychology field has shifted away from characterising it as a disease. He references ongoing studies into “homophobia,” contrasting it with accusations he faces about using derogatory language. R. Freestone counters previous arguments by affirming the Biblical stance on homosexuality, referencing Jesus’ admonition to a woman caught in adultery. He insists that sin does not become acceptable simply due to legalisation, reaffirming traditional views that condemn homosexuality. E. R. L. Wilson critiques the focus on the word "gay," pointing out the inconsistent application of concern regarding derogatory terms used against homosexuals, such as “queer” and “faggot.” Wilson questions the editorial’s impartiality. Lastly, a group of writers including Marg Curnow, Cynthia Spittal, Barbara Smith, Jo Moffat, and Lindsay MacBeth addresses the misguided association between homosexuality and sexual abuse of children. They highlight the prevalence of sexual abuse in society and advocate for a logical reconsideration of the arguments that suggest criminalizing homosexual acts based on these unfounded connections. They suggest that if such reasoning were followed, heterosexual acts would also be deemed illegal, which underlines the flaws in associating sexual orientation with abuse. The letters present a diverse array of opinions surrounding the legal and moral discourse on homosexuality in New Zealand, reflecting societal tensions and varying interpretations of Christian doctrine, language, and social justice.

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