The homosexual law reform had many debates surrounding it as there were many different views and perspectives about it.
Marchers supporting the Homosexual Law Reform Bill are preceded by an opposing campaigner May 1985, Photograph by Ross Giblin (born 1957), New Zealand, courtesy of Alexander Turnbull Library, Wellington, New Zealand (Dominion Post Collection, EP/1985/2382/6).
Several meetings called to oppose reform became chaotic when gay and lesbian activists disrupted proceedings. Fewer big meetings were held as the campaign progressed.
Opponents got support from organisations such as the Salvation Army and from well-known campaigners against homosexuality overseas – the Reverend Lou Sheldon and John Swan in particular. Their arguments often rested on moral and religious grounds: that homosexuality was 'unnatural' and that the Bible condemned it.
Some people argued that the law would lead to more homosexuality and that this would eventually mean the collapse of the family unit. Fear and a lack of understanding led some to claim that young boys would be put at risk. Homosexuality and paedophilia were sometimes regarded as the same thing.
Mainstream sections of society were beginning to question whether homosexual behaviour should result in punishment. The gays did not accept this agenda and they created a counter-response to this ridicule. They wanted to create the image of the gay lifestyle, as being positive and acceptable – gay is proud.
The equalitarian stance of the gay liberation meant that there was early tension between gay liberation groups and NZHLRS. The NZHLRS wanted to primarily achieve political equality with heterosexuals. Gay liberation groups were more focussed on achieving social equality with heterosexuals, they believed that once they were considered equal by the rest of society then it would be much easier to get a law reform.
Those arguing for the reform had the argument that the sexual orientation of an individual was not something that an individual would choose to have it was compared to eye colour or which hand is your dominant hand. Because sexual orientation is not something that can be controlled this led to the argument that the age of consent for homosexuals should be 16 which is the same as heterosexuals.