Homosexual Law Changes (Press, 20 May 1985)

In May 1985, a series of letters were published concerning the controversial Homosexual Law Reform Bill and its potential implications for public health, particularly in relation to the spread of A.I.D.S. L. Williams, writing on 16 May, expressed concern as a first-aider about the necessity of using face masks when administering CPR due to the risk of disease transmission, particularly A.I.D.S. He questioned the moral conduct within sexual relationships and linked promiscuity, particularly in homosexual relationships, to a broader societal decline. He referenced the importance of discipline in sexual partnerships and suggested that Jesus Christ represents a moral compass for society. B. Roberts countered Williams' view on 17 May, arguing that understanding and identifying carriers of A.I.D.S. is essential to combat the disease. He critiqued an anti-homosexual advertisement, stating it misrepresented legal changes by implying that legalisation would lead to a lack of accountability for homosexuals, which he argued is not the case. Roberts pointed out that the fear surrounding A.I.D.S. is unjustly targeted at homosexuals, asserting that the disease does not discriminate based on sexual orientation. He called for a compassionate approach rooted in the teachings of Jesus, advocating for understanding and change, which he illustrated with the example of the first woman rabbi among patriarchal Jews. In another letter dated 17 May, D. Paterson emphasised a critical view of the claims linking homosexuality to the spread of A.I.D.S. He argued that A.I.D.S. transmission is more about individual behaviours than sexual orientation. He contended that eliminating homosexuality would not prevent the disease, as carriers could infect any partner, regardless of orientation. Lastly, Gregory Smith voiced concern regarding medical opinions against the Homosexual Law Reform Bill. He reiterated the alarming medical perspective that passing the bill could lead to an epidemic of A.I.D.S. in New Zealand, suggesting this view carries significant weight in the debate about the bill. Overall, the letters highlighted a polarised debate on the intersection of homosexuality, public health, morality, and legislation, with varying perspectives on the implications of the proposed law change.

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