Homosexual law changes

Press, 1 April 1985, Page 12

Homosexual law changes

Sir,—lt is sad that homosexual law reform has become clouded by emotive red herrings. There are two compelling reasons for enacting Fran Wilde’s Bill. First, the present law is rarely enforced, and it is difficult to do so. As such it is bad law, and should be changed to reflect the community attitudes which render it ineffective. Second, legal discrimination against a vulnerable minority is hard to justify. The frequently used argument against change — because homosexual activity is unnatural — is clearly false. For an estimated 10 per cent of the population, homosexual behaviour is quite natural. How people became homosexual is irrelevant and yet unclear. Few would advocate making heterosexual activity outside marriage illegal, no matter what their moral viewpoint. The age of consent can be debated. It would seem just to make it 16, although 18 might be more widely accepted. Fundamentalist hysteria only clouds the real issues. — Yours, etc., BARRY ALLOM. March 27, 1985.

Sir,—Over the last week there have been many varying opinions based both on facts and feelings concerning homosexual law reform contained in your letters. The article by Ken Strongman attempts

to encourage readers to bear some important points in mind when considering attitudes to homosexuality, whereas Varian J. Wilson’s letters reflect his personal feelings on the matter. I think it is important that your readers make the distinction and accept that the views expressed by Varian Wilson, a retired psychologist, are generally at variance with the great majority of registered psychologists in clinical practice. The Psychological Act, 1981, provides for the registration of appropriately-qualified persons to practise in psychology and information regarding local psychologists so qualified is available from the Canterbury branch of the New Zealand Psychological Society, P.O. Box 8206, Riccarton. — Yours, etc., JOHN C. WATSON, Chairman, Canterbury branch, N.Z.Ps.S. March 28, 1985.

Sir,—Varian J. Wilson’s statement concerning myself is totally false. He states (March 27) that “Paul Maling has deplored the inferiority of our laws compared with Muslim countries, where young boys can be legally used, then discarded, physically injured for life.” I made no such comparison. The harsh application of Muslim law against Iranian homosexuals, currently being put to death, would have vitiated the alleged comparison. Does Mr Wilson have any evidence at all that young boys are legally being used sexually, and physically injured for life? How many boys? In which Muslim country? By whom? In the unlikely event of the occurrence of' such abuse in a Muslim country, what relevance could it have in New Zealand? Mr Wilson will probably be seen as studiedly dragging, very unprofessionally, an

emotive red herring across the stage of the current debate.— Yours, etc., PAUL MALING. March 27, 1985.