Homosexual Law Changes (Press, 4 October 1985)

In letters published in October 1985, various writers contributed their thoughts on the contentious issue of homosexuality and the Homosexual Law Reform Bill in New Zealand. E. Read's question regarding the treatment of homosexuality by communist governments sparked discussion. Stuart Payne pointed out the inconsistency in policies across communist countries, noting that while male homosexual relationships are illegal in Rumania and the USSR, they are legal in varying ages in other countries, such as Bulgaria and Poland. Ian R. Orchard suggested a compromise to the homosexual law reform debate. He proposed that legislation could criminalise sodomy, which seems to provoke significant opposition, while allowing homosexual relationships between consenting adults. This approach could satisfy both sides of the debate, allowing individuals to maintain their moral standards without interfering in others' personal lives. David Shanks responded sharply to the implications in E. Read's letter, criticising the idea that sexual activity should only be permitted if it promotes “evolutionary gain.” Shanks rejected this narrow viewpoint, suggesting that it could also implicate other personal practices such as contraception and masturbation, thereby exposing outdated and regressive attitudes toward human sexuality. Vernon Wilkinson defended his thoughts on the topic, feeling mischaracterised and confused about his supposed prejudices. He found Betty Roberts's suggestion of placing homosexuals in charge of sports and cultural events amusing and engaged critically with previous correspondence regarding the acknowledgment of personal experience in discussions about such topics. Paul Maling argued against the logical foundation of the age of consent laws, suggesting that the basis for heterosexual consent does not apply to homosexual relationships. He asserted that male puberty begins at around age 13, making that a reasonable starting point for legalising male homosexual consent. Maling also refuted claims that anal intercourse is “unnatural,” citing scientific evidence that dismisses such outdated terminology, which had been dropped from the Crimes Act. Lastly, Mrs C. S. Hill expressed her concerns over the credibility of a recent Heylen Poll purported to represent public opinion on the Homosexual Law Reform Bill. She argued that she and her acquaintances had not been surveyed, thereby questioning the poll's accuracy and representation of New Zealand citizens' voices in this debate. These letters reflect a vibrant and complex discourse around homosexuality in New Zealand during this period, highlighting the diversity of opinions on legal reform and social acceptance.

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