Letters To The Editor (Press, 2 October 1985)
This is a Generative AI summary of this newspaper article. It may contain errors or omissions. Please note that the language in the summary is reflective of the original article and the societal attitudes of the time in which it was written.
Summary: Letters To The Editor (Press, 2 October 1985)
On 2 October 1985, a column from "The Press" outlined guidelines for readers wishing to submit letters for publication. Letters should not exceed 150 words and must be either handwritten in ink or typed on one side of the paper, with ample margins for editing. Those submitting letters are required to provide a legible signature and a complete postal address, excluding P.O. Box numbers. It was stated that letters using pseudonyms or initials would generally not be accepted, and correspondents must disclose if their letters have been submitted elsewhere. Additionally, the editor clarified that they do not guarantee acknowledgment or return of letters not chosen for publication, and they directed readers to address their letters to the editor's postal address in Christchurch. The column also included responses to previous correspondence. One response warned against potential legal repercussions for publishing defamatory content, while other comments related to the acceptance of letters and editorial policies. The crossword puzzle section provided clues and solutions for various words, combining both amusing and engaging content for readers. In correspondence regarding social issues, E. Read expressed a viewpoint on homosexuality, arguing that it is inherently a negative behaviour, equating it to serious conditions like bulimia or cancer. Read maintained that personal behaviours between consenting adults should remain private until they affect others negatively and criticized the decriminalisation of homosexual acts as providing undue positive recognition, arguing for the rights of those opposed to such changes. Conversely, Bernard Machell rebutted previous arguments made by Bert Walker against the Anglican Church’s support for homosexual law reform. Machell contended that the discussion around homosexual acts is not about their morality, but about whether they should be condemned through criminal law. He highlighted the inconsistency in applying biblical condemnation selectively to certain sins while questioning if other actions, such as adultery, should also be criminalised. This dialogue reflects a broader societal debate in New Zealand about homosexuality, criminal law, and moral viewpoints, contrasting differing perspectives on private conduct and legal reform.
Important Information
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