Homosexual Law Changes (Press, 19 August 1985)

The discourse surrounding the Homosexual Law Reform Bill in New Zealand has drawn significant attention and controversy, particularly highlighted by Reverend Lou Sheldon’s recent advocacy against the bill. During his appearance before the Select Committee, Sheldon suggested the establishment of concentration camps for individuals suffering from AIDS, which sparked outrage among supporters of the bill. He framed his opposition as part of a broader crusade supported by American groups, such as the Moral Majority, which raises concerns over external influences on New Zealand's legislative processes. In the ensuing public debate, letters to the editor reflected various perspectives. Ian Rowland emphasised that the bill represents a crucial human rights issue, urging supporters of racial and sexual equality to back it. He warned that failure to pass the legislation could result in a rise of fundamentalist Christian ideology in New Zealand. Other writers responded to specific critiques of the reform process. Duncan B. highlighted that disruptions at previous meetings advocating for homosexual law reform were a result of being barred from voicing their views, contrasting the open-mindedness of reform supporters with the intolerance exhibited by opponents. He argued that the approach taken by those against the bill was indicative of a broader intolerance towards differing viewpoints. Additionally, D. de G. Lambert noted that the chaos in family dynamics, mentioned by critic Vernon Wilkinson, is not the responsibility of legislators but rather the individuals involved. Lambert argued that many who struggle with concealing their homosexual orientation contribute to familial chaos, suggesting that criticism of homosexual law reform often comes from those grappling with personal issues. B. Roberts argued against Wilkinson's stance that homosexuality should remain illegal but tolerated. He pointed out the dangers associated with such a dual approach, emphasising the need for decriminalisation to encourage homosexuals to seek medical help without fear of persecution. Roberts posited that all of society would benefit if homosexuality were decriminalised, allowing individuals to live openly and contribute positively to public health and awareness. Lastly, Paul Maling contended that legal discrimination against homosexuals is inherently unjust and likened it to outlawing the practices of any religious group. He highlighted the faulty reasoning in arguments against granting legal recognition to homosexuals and called for a more rational discourse on the issue. The ongoing debate reflects deep divisions in New Zealand society regarding sexual orientation and rights, with fervent defenders of reform arguing that legal equality is vital for the protection and acceptance of all individuals, regardless of their sexual orientation.

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