and see how many takers there will be. But, says the moralist, you quite mistake the true purpose of sex, for sexual pleasures are but the means to an end, a noble end-the perpetuation of the race. This poor, shopworn argument has been around for countless centures, despite its lack of support from philosophical, biological or other evidence! Who, for instance, can be so sure that the race should be perpetuated at all? Or in its present form? Is it not entirely likely that by arranging race-perpetuation a bit better than the "sexual pleasure" principle has done it that we might make some headway with the problem of juvenile delinquency? We just might happen also to end up with far fewer monsters, dwarfs, cretins, morons and all the picturesque horde who may delight a Hogarth but are pretty much a social luxury. Or are we being too Utopian?

But surely, continues our moralist. you must grant that in domestic and in public life the homosexual is at a hopeless disadvantage. Is this so certain? I, for one, am glad I am homosexual, glad to be spared the deadly monotonies of marital wranglings or. worse, still, the marshmallow puffiness of marital bliss. I consider myself fortunate in having seen through the deadly deceptions of the procreative cycle devouring energies, talents, ambition and individual achievement. all in the name of that great communal juggernaut, The Family, before which church and state so abjectly debase themselves.

How darkly vicious this may all seem to us one day, this myth which sanctions the most incredible interweaving of clashing and disparate personalities by means of the semen and the blood-stream. How cleanly healthy we all may feel when at least some of us shall have purged our thinking of such ritualistic tribal ves-

one

tiges. How much nearer may we find ourselves to the moral freedom which is the right of each of us. The prospect gives one the courage to pull through life's duller stretches.

That there are some domestic and public disadvantages the homosexual must endure is not denied, but these are the unhealthy manifestations of a society so sick, a culture so unsure of itself that it shrinks in horror from some of the greatest and basically elemental forces of man and nature, while striving feverishly at an impossible repression. Is it proposed that the honest man, the upright women, shall lend themselves to the furtherance of such sickness, such unhealthiness, such weakness? Should they not rather strive to lead their blind fellows out of this nasty-minded neuroticism?

If it is claimed that the root of the whole matter can be found in the realm of ethics or morality. I would ask in what respects this is so. Because homosexual relations are vile and unnatural, answers the moralist. I would meet the moralist on his own ground by quoting Scripture. "If God be for us. who can be against us?" Or, if God be so much in favor of heterosexuality as you claim, is He not to be trusted to rid the universe of things "vile and unnatural"? Further, If God is so against homosexuality as you claim, how comes it that century after century homosexuals are born, and that some of the most shining stars in the human firmament have been homosexual? Without these great men and women the world in which we live today would indeed be a sad, drab place-less moral. Who doubts this knows neither religion, history, nor art.

Like other homosexuals who have self-respect and a natural pride, I am proud of being a human being, quite as capable as any of my fellows of doing good work, to the extent of my

8