simply raise the roof? In the year 2053, he asks, are we to be allowed to continue our pursuit of physical happiness without restraint as we attempt to do today? Well, why the hell not? What is this tendency on the part of some people to seek more and more restrictions?

In the first place, Mr. Saunders assumes that homosexuals are fighting for acceptance as "normals." I, for one, am not. I consider myself abnormal in one respect; namely, a misdirected sex-drive. (Here let me assure you that I consider myself a well-adjusted one. I like being what I am.

As an abnormal whose subnormality seems permanent, I do not seek acceptance as a "normal," but rather, simple justice as what I am. We do not legislate prison terms for persons with only one leg, or who wear glasses, or who have freckles. But for heaven's sake, neither do we hope to "accept" them by legislating two-legged ability for one-legged men, or perfect vision for the weak-eyed, or clear skins for the freckled!

And part of the abnormality (or is this abnormal?) for most homosexuals is their seeking many companions. They would fight enforced monogamy tooth and nail; if not in the open against the proposed legislation. then simply by ignoring it (breaking the law) after it was passed.

Incidentally, listen to Saunders' references to promiscuousness: "For why should he (the homosexual) be permitted promiscuity when those heterosexuals who people the earth must be married to enjoy sexual intercourse?" (Oh, must they?) And again: "It would be a legalizing of promiscuity for a special section of the population." Is Mr. Saunders a "normal" married

one

man? His references to "promiscuity" seem to contain more than a little envy. And if promiscuity is so universal and so desirable, it must be natural, and laws will not remove it; nor should we want it removed.

If marriage is desired by a man and woman, it is accessible. But no man or woman is really held to that marriage by the laws which sanction it, not if he or she really wants to escape it. The laws are a hand-medown from ancient religious rites. And we have retained them for even gentler reasons. First, what we choose to call "civilization" is the direction we adhere to at the moment, and the basic unit of civilization is the family. So it is for the children that marriage seems really important. Basically, marriage is, at best, a "challenge to nature," as has been pointed out before my time.

Since no man has ever had a child by another man, and no woman conceived from another woman, I see no reason to try to legislate lasting mutual love on the part of any two homosexuals. If they are compatible enough to live together and that is their desire, they'll do it without attempts at legal enforcement. If they proved incompatible, or lost interest in each other, they would seek companions outside the law just as they do now without a law. Except that, with the proposed laws, it would then be called adultery, desertion and divorce. Mr. Saunders is simply proposing a a means of naming the things we do now and would continue to do. Mr. Saunders thinks that legalized marriage should be one of our primary issues as a group seeking acceptance. "What a convincing means of assuring society that we are sincere in wanting respect and dignity," he says. Balderdash! "Marriage" between

page 14