Homosexual Law Changes (Press, 9 May 1985)

In a series of letters published in response to the Homosexual Law Reform Bill in New Zealand, various viewpoints have emerged, revealing a contentious debate surrounding homosexuality and legal rights. Mr Jim McLay, the Parliamentary leader, has publicly declared his opposition to the bill, which has led to significant criticism from multiple correspondents. Ben Smith questions McLay's rationale, arguing that if individuals can discriminate based on personal beliefs, then historical prejudices, such as those held by Mormons against black people, would also need to be justified. Smith's letter suggests that McLay's stance reflects a dangerous precedent in supporting discrimination based on one's beliefs about morality. Colin Brown, a representative from the University of Canterbury, is noted for providing what some consider a balanced perspective on Christianity's relationship with homosexuality. He argues that there are diverse Christian views on the matter, rather than a monolithic stance. However, Ian D. Spicer expresses frustration with repetitive opinions in the media, particularly criticizing Varian J. Wilson for lacking originality and insight in the discussions. Ross Edgar expresses his disbelief at McLay’s commitment to opposing the bill, particularly the implications of denying basic rights, which he believes undermines democracy. He sarcastically suggests that McLay's next actions should involve measures to control the lives of gay individuals, reflecting a deep concern for human rights. K. Orr counters Brown’s arguments, asserting that a true Christian perspective should align with scripture and natural law, rejecting Brown's reasoning as mere opinion that does not reflect "God's plan." Orr claims that the natural order ordained that men were made for women, suggesting that accepting homosexual acts, even when framed as "caring," distorts moral truth. Mark D. Sadler presents another facet of the discussion, advocating for legal tolerance towards homosexuals but insists on mutual respect from the LGBTQ+ community towards those who do not share their orientation. He argues against the necessity of the anti-discrimination clause in the bill, claiming there is little evidence of significant job discrimination faced by homosexuals and describing the bill as potentially harmful. These letters reflect a heated public discourse regarding the Homosexual Law Reform Bill, highlighting concerns over discrimination, interpretation of religious beliefs, and the social dynamics between different sexual orientations. The debate showcases both the opposition to and the support for the reform, reflecting a society grappling with issues of equality and rights as it moves towards legislative changes.

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