Homosexual law changes

Press, 14 March 1985, Page 12

Homosexual law changes

Sir,—The greatest propagator of A.I.D.S. in this once fine country is sodomy, described in the Oxford Dictionary as “unnatural sexual intercourse, especially between males.” If our society wishes to eradicate A.1.D.5., which in most cases is fatal, then we have to look to the major cause. Television unfortunately displays a bias over the issue. A lead up to the introduction to Parliament of the Homosexual Law Reform Bill on “Close Up” of March 7 contained tearjerking pleas on behalf of homosexuals by a young man who is to be pitied and who himself has as he describes a mild form of A.I.D.S. and is worried about whether he has infected his lovers. This was followed on TV2 News the same night by another plea for legalising sodomy. Homosexuals have the remedy to stamp out this killer not only of their own fraternity but also of other innocent people. — Yours, etc., P. CUNNINGHAM. March 8, 1985.

Sir,—ln your editorial of March 12 you point out that some of the most common foul words in English refer to homosexual practices. You fail to mention that equally foul and common words refer to heterosexual practices. Are we to take from this that the community is just as disapproving of heterosexuals? Your editorial also be-

moans the recent prostitution of the word “gay” by homosexuals. Unfortunately for your thesis “gay” lost its honour many years ago at the hands of heterosexuals. By 1637 “gay” had as one of its meanings “addicted to social pleasures and dissipation; of loose and immoral life.” Since at least 1825 it has also meant “living by prostitution.” It has been a long time since “gay” has been either completely innocent or entirely charming. — Yours, etc., MATT McGLONE. March 12, 1985.

Sir,—To reply to Ralph Knowles’s comment on my letter, to complete his scriptural quotation, it reads, “Neither do I condemn thee, go and sin no more.” The crime in the proposed new law,- is to make homosexuality legally acceptable. The sin is abhorrent, not the sinner. The church should move on a matter such as this. — Yours, etc., JEAN CAMPBELL. March 12, 1985.

Sir,—ln response to R. Freestone’s and Jean Campbell’s cries of “Why is the church silent?" on such a moral issue, the churches’ primary responsibility is to set people free from the bonds of spiritual slavery, of which homosexuality is but one aspect. Of course we oppose this satanic influence and many church folk are involved in petitions and prayer meetings on this and other issues. However, to suggest that the church is failing in its duty because it is not actively involved in protests is merely trying to use the church to support individual moral beliefs. The church, silent? No, but we do have priorities, number one being salvation of souls, only after which ethical issues can be resolved. — Yours, etc., ERNIE POLLARD, Secretary, Riccarton Baptist Church. March 12, 1985.

Sir,—The only think sick about homosexuality is the irrational prejudice it causes. Whenever the subject is discussed correspondents like Varian J. Wilson trot out the same hoary arguments defying logicality and accepted fact. It is my experience that homosexuality does not “bring misery to all.” The only misery comes through gay people having to cope with unpleasant, intolerant bigots. As to your editorial, “homosexuals as a group are hardly light-hearted people,” when will you comprehend that gay people are like any others? Some are outgoing, others retiring. There can be no single definition. Ultimately the fight for gay rights is for the right of people with different natures and interests to exist freely in society and to be allowed to live without' oppression.—Yours, etc., CRAIG HOOD. March 12, 1985.

Sir,—ln reply to the six letters and editorial in “The Press” (March 12), I believe that people should have the power and freedom to do what they want in their own personal world, providing that they do not exploit or damage anyone else in the process. What gives these writers the right to say who I sleep with? If it feels right for me to sleep with a particular man or woman, then that should be my decision along with the other person, and no-one else’s. There is nothing wrong with homosexuality. It is another way for people to express their feelings for each other. It is time that people stopped telling us that homosexuality is wrong. It can be as clean, healthy and beautiful as heterosexuality. Legalising homosexuality is the first step for correcting the wrongs that our society has done to gay people. —Yours, etc., GRAHAM HARVEY.

March 12, 1985. Sir,—l commend to those moralists fascinated with the sexual behaviour of other people a selection of virtues witch some correspondents seem to have forgotten are

also relevant to the discussion — tolerance, acceptance and respect (for differences between people if not for people themselves) plus freedom, responsibility, openness, honesty, positive attitudes, non-vio-lence, humour and truth (or at least the search for it), not forgetting compassion, friendliness, and love (without qualification). Humility could be considered too, but only by those who choose not to write letters to “The Press.” — Yours, etc.,

E. R. L. WILSON. March 12, 1985.

Sir,—l am amazed by the argument that legal freedom for homosexuals will help combat A.I.D.S. A.LD.S. is a disease of promiscuity, not homosexual activity although, homosexuals’ promiscuity is a flash point. According to statistics from Los Angeles, active homosexuals in their “open society” participate in liaisons with 3000 to 11,000 partners a year. Open our society to accepting such promiscuity and similar statistics here will result in an A.I.D.S. epidemic. Our degree of protection to date can only have come from our old-fashioned laws and out-dated society. If the promoters of this legislation believe their arguments we must also legalise prostitution. I am also surprised that Mr J. McLay does not offer more conservative leadership, in line with his position, rather than submit to personal choice.—Yours, etc.,

M. ASPINALL. March 9, 1985.