tain social obligations that a program such as ONE's, whereby the homophile undertakes to educate and better himself, deserves our principal efforts. It was pointed out that in few cases was the homophile welcome as a homosexual in community affairs, while the amount of work to be done and the needs within homophile groups called for large amounts of volunteer work.

Considerable discussion centered around the point that the homophile must do an especially good job with himself and his own organizations, public criticism and prejudice being what it is. A suggestion was made that the homophile, like other minorities, should deliberately marshall his economic resources so as to be independent as far as possible of outside pressures and so be in a position to command respect with greater authority than otherwise.

Should the homophile obey sex laws believed to be unconstitutional and an illegal infringement of private liberties? This "hot potato" came into the discussion. It was pointed out that America always has been a land of dissent from outmoded laws and customs; that it has been by rebellion and dissent that unjust laws have been overturned and social wrongs righted. Reference was made to the extensive study of the civil rights of homosexuals and of the whole question of the constitutionality of sex laws under way at ONE INSTITUTE.

William Lambert

III. Promiscuity: Wrong or Right?

The chairman pointed out that one definition of promiscuity (Webster) is: indiscriminate; irregular, casual standards. It was observed that Jesus made no statements directly on sex. His teaching of love implied that promiscuity is wrong, but we have a multitude of interpretations of his actual

one

statements. Some religions include promiscuity as a part of their rituals: as the Vestal Virgins, Priestesses of the Temple of Baal, ritual orgies in certain African tribes, etc. These were conceived as bestowing spiritual inspiration through physical contact.

The question, Is promiscuity a psychological or biological necessity? had varied answers. Some felt that it is possible to live without sex entirely, others, that for the single homosexual promiscuity was the only outlet. A psychologist termed this "mere quibbling," saying that promiscuity is simply the opposite of monogamy and added that man is not naturally monagamous, becoming so only by superimposed standards.

The social and legal dangers of promiscuity were cited as obvious. Increases in venereal diseases contracted in male partnerships were said to have increased 6% in 1957 over 1956.

It was also said that certain homosexual marriages could not be continued unless outside conquests were permitted; that the home was a financial and security necessity, quite apart from its biological aspects. But it was conceded that promiscuity made a continuing partnership difficult. It was said that only animalistic satisfaction, not love, exist under constant promiscuity and that the person living by such standards has an unstable and unfulfilled life. Someone compared this to the idea of playing a new piece on the piano every day without ever learning to play any of them well. Helen Sanders

IV. Should Homoseuxals Get Married?

Very lively argument surrounded the question, would heterosexual marriage aid adjustment? It was the majority opinion that the adjustment of a homosexual to such a marriage

10