for the philosopher why prattle about it? The situation exists! (bearing in mind that the cases reported in these texts are sick souls referred to as "patients" and could not possibly be representative of the millions of homosexuals who've found no need to consult psychiatry.) Does the heterosexual stop to consider why he is a heterosexual and capable of loving one of the opposite sex? No. Nor does the homosexual. That these texts are the result of the researchings of doctors... granted... but the construction of the work is ludicrous rather than logical. It reminds me of the reporter visiting in a strange city. He writes words and words and words about this city. But he has never lived in it so he hasn't a real picture of what he is talking about. It seems infinitely wiser to me to remove the stigma of this "condition" thereby removing the fear that makes too many of us withdraw from becoming better candidates for civic duties. What human being when renunciated will not in like manner renunciate? Who, when hate is fostered against him, will not hate in kind? Yet there are millions of homosexuals today who, in spite of undergoing hardships suffered by present day laws and theories, have the marked distinction of selflessness when needed.

It has been read by this writer in these "books of science" that fear of rejection is common among our people. I challenge the heterosexual to imagine, if he will, being an oddity among an hypothetical world of homosexuals and being fortunate in finding for himself a mate whom he can love and who can in turn love him. Indeed would this "odd heterosexual" not be always anxious of intervention from a world hostile to his way of life?

We are told that we're an unhappy lot that we're a jealous, fearful and guilty people. Firstly-that every homosexual is unhappy is a bold gen-

eralization if not a ridiculous one. Secondly if the homosexual has mental conflicts do you suppose that being born human (a gregarious animal) and being forced to proceed always cautious would not at times give rise to that conflict?

Imagine, if you will, hiding the fact that you are in the throes of terrible pain; you are in the company of your doctor: the man who's calling it is to care for such matters. Yet, you are determined to keep this pain from him, because (due to the standard of his practice) it is against his principles to tend you for this pain-principals set up for him by society's rules of rote forbid him to attend to you. So, to prevent his discomfort by allowing him to have the feelings of inadequacy, you resist the temptation of crying out. Such is the predicament of the homosexual with his family. Though his suffering is the healthy suffering of love-the family who's calling it is to care for such matters cannot or "dare" not. As a result it has been observed by this writer that many a homosexual in love, whose good sense of duty forbids intimacy with a timid and rote riddled family, has not the well balanced well rounded well being that is the birthright of every living creature.

It is frightening to think that these books serve mostly to strengthen and secure the overwhelming ignorance already rampant on the subject.

Then of course there is the matter of God-but that again seems outside the ken of psychiatry, and may be counted a meritorious omission in books by these doctors who make these sick subjects their "specialty." And since the reading laymen resort to these books for knowledge of homosexuality and receive an incomplete and distorted picture, any reference to the normalcy of homosexuality would indeed reduce curiosity and, hence, the value of the merchandise.

27