Homosexual Law Changes (Press, 16 May 1985)

On 16 May 1985, a letter from The Rev. Martin Rees, Chairman of the Public Questions Committee for the Associated Churches of Christ in New Zealand, clarified that an advertisement concerning the Homosexual Law Reform Bill, published in "The Press," did not represent the views of the Associated Churches. Rees emphasised that no consensus had been reached within the organisation regarding the bill. However, the Public Questions Committee released a statement outlining their stance: they affirmed that Christians should love and accept all individuals, including homosexuals, as God loves them; acknowledged that the majority believed homosexual acts contradicted scriptural teaching; felt that practicing homosexuals should not be seen as criminals; unanimously supported raising the age of consent from 16; and expressed concern that the bill could imply public endorsement of homosexual acts as normal, particularly among youth. Additionally, a letter from Paul Maling critiqued the advertisement that appeared in "The Press" opposing the law reform which, according to him, lacked credibility due to a significant portion of its content being anonymous. He argued that knowledge of an author’s identity is crucial for determining the validity and reliability of any argument made, whether in court or academia. Maling cautioned that misleading information could sway the perception of those less discerning. Moreover, Mark D. Sadler responded to a claim made by Keith Wignall that asserted the Christian moral code was no more valid than any other moral framework. Sadler contended that moral codes, including Christianity, have undergone rigorous examination over time through natural selection, with only those that foster group prosperity enduring. He emphasised that the Christian moral code has persisted for two millennia and deserves respect. Sadler critiqued Wignall’s view that the debate was purely legal and not moral, contending that laws outlawing discrimination involve moral considerations. He concluded that discrimination does not inherently equate to unreasonable intolerance. This compilation of letters reflects a heated discourse surrounding the Homosexual Law Reform Bill and the broader implications concerning morality, societal acceptance, and religious perspectives in New Zealand during this period.

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