Homosexual law changes

Press, 7 August 1985, Page 16

Homosexual law changes

Sir,—What provision does Philip Ney want for those “wishing to change,” and how would the bill, if passed, not allow the freedom to “change”? What evidence does he have that homosexuality appears to be on the increase in New York? If the homosexual population is larger than 10 per cent in New York, it will probably be because homosexuals have moved from other states where they are regarded as criminals to cities like New York and San Francisco where their difference is accepted and cele-

brated. The homosexual percentage of the population of Sydney will increase if the bill is not passed in New Zealand. People will be able to be more open about their homosexuality if the bill is passed and it has been my personal experience that this openness leads to more acceptance and understanding from heterosexuals. — Yours, etc., BRUCE MORRISON. July 30, 1985.

Sir, — I defy Philip Ney to spell out his proposal for a more acceptable law on homosexuality defining it as “changeable.” Society would be equipped with another method of oppression even more damaging than what we have. Authentic sexual choices for all of us depend on an atmosphere of freedom. A Christchurch branch of HUG, or Heterosexuals Unafraid of Gays, is forming to support homosexuals in their struggle for law reform and for acceptance and understanding by the community. In most cases we are motivated by knowing homosexuals as family members or as valued friends who have made us aware of the absurdity of the existing law and of the fear that the community has of them. Homosexuals should be appreciated rather than feared for showing us a tenderness and loyalty that can exist between people of the same sex, gay or otherwise, and for helping us all to be more cheerful and frank about our sexuality. — Yours, etc., ARTHUR WELLS. July 31, 1985.

Sir,—Philip G. Ney’s letter on homosexual law changes (“The Press,” July 30) would seem to indicate that on this issue at least experts not only differ, they confuse themselves. His arguments against the proposed changes — naivety, short-sightedness and reactionism — might equally be argued for change. But he overlooks the significant premise: homosexuals are legislated and discriminated against, heterosexuals are not. The bill seeks to place both forms of sexual behaviour on an equal legal footing in the only sensible way possible. A “more acceptable” law is possible, he says; but he carefully avoids saying acceptable to whom. The homosexual community has put forward what is acceptable to it in the form of the bill, and there is the end of the matter. Reading views like Professor Ney’s, we sometimes wonder if liberty and equality have become somehow an unacceptable face of democracy. — Yours, etc., K. L. CRUMP, spokesman, Gay Task Force. Wellington, July 30, 1985.