Homosexual Law Changes (Press, 19 October 1985)

The letters published in response to the proposed Homosexual Law Reform Bill in October 1985 reflect a range of perspectives on the legislation and its implications for society. The correspondence reveals significant concerns about the potential societal impacts of legalising homosexuality, especially in relation to education and moral values. Ross Edgar argues that the primary individuals affected by the bill—the gay community—do not desire societal contention and assert that lawmakers have a duty to update outdated and unjust laws. He critiques the notion that opponents possess superior knowledge about the issue, suggesting that if left to the parties involved, resolution would have occurred sooner. Brendan McNeill expresses discomfort with the idea of promoting homosexual lifestyles among schoolchildren, questioning if it is appropriate to endorse tolerance that may overlook the consequences of different sexual practices. He argues that abdication of moral responsibility by authority figures, like the board of governors at Hagley High School, compromises their credibility. Another correspondent, B. Roberts, raises the issue of sexual maturity, arguing that the potential dangers of immature males engaging in sexual activity should prompt the need for protective measures for young women as well. He highlights health risks related to heterosexual intercourse and contrasts them with perceived dangers associated with male-male interactions. Vernon Wilkinson addresses misconceptions surrounding sodomy, clarifying its definition and expressing disdain for the act, which he views as a deviation from accepted norms. He questions whether legalising sodomy might lead to a slippery slope where other practices, like incest and bestiality, might also seek legal validation, prompting concerns about where societal boundaries should be drawn. E. Read discusses the importance of considering public opinion in law-making, citing moral responsibilities that should align with societal benefits. He contrasts attitudes towards homosexuality in the United States and the Soviet Union, suggesting that different cultural responses have resulted in varying societal consequences, including the A.I.D.S. epidemic in the U.S. Lastly, David Shanks critiques earlier arguments that conflate legal status with normalcy, drawing parallels between sodomy and rape to illustrate that legality does not equate to acceptance or normal behaviour. He warns against the dangers of attributing respectability to behaviours simply because they are biologically possible. Overall, these letters underscore a profound division in public opinion regarding the Homosexual Law Reform Bill, highlighting fears about changing moral standards and the consequences of legislative changes on societal norms. The discourse encapsulates historical tensions surrounding sexual rights and the role of government in regulating personal behaviour.

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