Homosexual Law Reform A Christian Case For Change (Press, 1 May 1985)

Colin Brown, a reader in Religious Studies at the University of Canterbury, critiqued the Rev. David Stewart’s article opposing the Homosexual Law Reform Bill introduced by Fran Wilde. Brown acknowledged the charitable and restrained tone of Stewart’s piece, which distinguishes between sin and crime and critiques the current law for being unequal as it applies only to men. However, he expressed that opinions among Christians on this issue are highly divided. Brown pointed out that while Stewart focused on the age of consent, which is set at 16 for females, he failed to convincingly justify why it should differ for males. Brown questioned the assumption that boys require prolonged legal protection from predatory homosexuals while women do not after turning 16. He asserted that an act being legal does not equate to it being moral and that sexual conduct should not exploit immaturity or authority dynamics. In discussing sexual orientation, Brown noted that some Christians like Stewart believe it is fixed late in life, while other research suggests preferences are set by puberty. He cited Professor Ken Strongman, who stated that the age of 16 is reasonable even from conservative perspectives. Brown also indicated that Stewart was poorly informed about the origins of homosexuality, highlighting the complexity of the issue. The most significant contention in Stewart's argument lay in his opposition to legislation aimed at preventing discrimination based on sexual orientation. Brown noted that the Christchurch Anglican Synod, despite differing opinions on homosexual acts, concluded in 1979 to oppose discrimination against anyone due to their homosexuality. Brown clarified that the proposed bill addresses discrimination concerning “sexual orientation” rather than specific behaviours, countering Stewart's claims about employment practices concerning LGBTQ+ individuals. Brown reflected on his personal experiences and the importance of relationships, suggesting that the central criterion for both homosexual and heterosexual relationships should be whether they are caring and constructive. He expressed that the sexual acts involved are less important than the quality and health of the relationship itself. He underscored that while traditional biblical interpretations might condemn homosexual acts, there are also contemporary Christian perspectives that advocate for a nuanced understanding of human sexuality. Reports from various church bodies have suggested that homosexual acts can be morally acceptable in specific relational contexts, illustrating a diversity of Christian thought on the matter. In conclusion, Brown urged for legal changes that would grant justice to homosexual individuals rather than mere charity, advocating for recognition and respect for the natural diversity of human sexuality within society.

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