Homosexual law changes

Press, 9 May 1985, Page 12

Homosexual law changes

Sir,—So Mr McLay has taken the plunge and decided with his usual acumen that the course of political expediency lies in opposing the Homosexual Law Reform Bill. He argues that if someone sincerely believes another to be sinful, that person is entitled to discriminate against the other. The Mormons once sincerely believed black skin to be the mark of Cain and the stigmata of original sin. Would Mr McLay champion their right to discriminate against blacks? Come back Rob, all is forgiven—Yours, etc., BEN SMITH, KYLE SMITH. May 6, 1985. Sir, — Colin Brown, of the University of Canterbury is to be thanked for proffering what must be the sanest and most reasoned view yet on Christianity, homosexuality and the law (“The Press,” May 1). I held hopes that his observation that “there are Christian views on the matter, not ‘the Christian view,” would have at last staunched the gush of curious notions on the subject with which your correspondent Varian J. Wilson, among others, insists on flooding your columns. But no, there he was again this morning, banging his Bible and telling me more about himself than I really care to know. The subject is becoming tiresome and Mr Wilson no longer even amusing. Some other subject — even another correspondent with a different point of view — would be a pleasant and timely contribution to these rapidly wintering mornings when I need all the help and entertainment I can get to see me through to the first pot of coffee. — Yours, etc.,

lAN D. SPICER. Wellington, May 3, 1985.

Sir,—Perhaps it is just as well members of the Sunday Club and others are plotting the downfall of their Parliamentary leader, Mr Jim McLay, if he is to continue making statements such as the one reported this morning (“The Press,” May 7), on the Homosexual Law Reform, Bill. I respect Mr McLay’s riglfi to his feelings and

opinion, but his public statement that he will oppose the bill especially to deny a section of our community some of their basic human rights (employment and accommodation) I find incredible and most unworthy of a man who aspires to be the Prime Minister of our democracy. Perhaps his next statement will inform us if he proposes to intern gay people or organise a special financial and accommodation benefit to keep them off the streets when they have been given notice by employers and landlords.—Yours, etc., ROSS EDGAR. May 7, 1985.

Sir,—Colin Brown purports to present a Christian view for change. One would expect that for his case to be accepted as an authentic and authoritative Christian view, it would be supported by reference to the revealed word of God, Christian tradition and the natural law. In rejecting all three sources Mr Brown forfeits the right to claim his case is Christian and is left with a case that is essentially his personal opinion. The natural order of God’s plan is obvious that man was made for women. Man was not made for man. Mr Brown is apparently prepared to accept sodomy if it is “caring, careful and creative.” His case is based on situation ethics which are unsound, for that which is intrinsically evil does not become virtue because it is caring. We do homosexuals a grave disservice by distorting the truth which makes all men free.— Yours, etc.,

K. ORR. May 6, 1985.

Sir,—l am in favour of legal tolerance towards homosexuals, provided they show greater respect than they have in the past for those who do not share their preferences. Even under the present law, incidents of homosexual enticement and near rape are part of the

experience of most male teenagers. Without amendments, the bill will tip the balance disastrously in favour of the aggressive homosexual. At the very least any new law should clearly state that sex instruction assisting heterosexual males to protect their sexual integrity will never be illegal. Indeed, since there is little evidence of job discrimination against homosexuals, the anti-discrimination part of the bill should be dropped as unnecessary and potentially harmful. One might as sensibly outlaw discrimination against those not born good-looking. In its unamended form, the bill is part of the extreme feminist crusade against normal males and should be voted against.—Yours, etc.,

MARK D. SADLER. May 7, 1985.