Doctor Disputes Surgeon’s Claim On Homosexuals (Press, 17 May 1985)

On 17 May 1985, a debate arose in Hamilton, Waikato, concerning the proposed Homosexual Law Reform Bill, which aimed to liberalise laws related to homosexuality. A prominent figure in this discussion was surgeon Mr Geoffery Wynne-Jones, who intended to present a motion at the Medical Association conference appealing for the association to oppose the bill. Wynne-Jones argued that the liberalisation of homosexual laws could result in increased public displays of sodomy, particularly in bars. Countering these assertions was Dr Michael Easther, who strongly rejected Wynne-Jones' claims as “ridiculous.” He pointed out that, based on his experiences in heterosexual bars, there were no public displays of sexual acts, and thus he could not see why such behaviour would be expected in bars designated for homosexuals. Dr Easther emphasised that equating homosexuality solely with acts of sodomy was a flawed viewpoint. He clarified that homosexuality is fundamentally about the attraction to the same sex and is not limited to, nor defined by, specific sexual practices. Dr Easther further elaborated on misconceptions about the homosexual community, stating that many of his homosexual friends did not engage in sodomy and viewed it unfavourably. He referenced statistics regarding convictions for forced anal sex, indicating that a majority of offenders were heterosexual men. The doctor also challenged the notion that individuals at the age of 16 are not mature enough to determine their sexual orientation. He argued that if teenagers are legally allowed to marry and have children at that age, they should equally be considered capable of understanding their sexual preferences, whether heterosexual or homosexual. Dr Easther asserted that legalising homosexual acts would not contribute to the spread of A.I.D.S., proposing that the disease was primarily transmitted through promiscuous sexual behaviour. He believed that the removal of criminal penalties would encourage individuals at risk to seek appropriate advice and treatment. Moreover, Dr Easther expressed disapproval of tactics used by those opposing the law reform, including the coercion of young individuals into signing petitions against the bill. He recounted an incident involving a friend’s son, a 16-year-old student, who felt pressured to sign the anti-law reform petition for fear of being labelled derogatory terms. This public discourse highlights the ongoing tension surrounding the Homosexual Law Reform Bill in New Zealand during the 1980s, revealing societal attitudes towards homosexuality and the legal implications for sexual orientation at the time.

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