do, that each generation passes something of value to the succeeding generations, then the reason for existence assumes purpose. Let's face it: without the family, whence the next generation? And if there arose a next generation, what would it be like? Many of the problems in our society today (and mentioned by Mr. Barnes) have been brought about by the failure of a man, a woman, and their offspring to maintain family status. History already bears me out (Sparta, Greece, Rome, and, most recently, the USSR), but perhaps biology might be called upon to illustrate: Insects are born fully educated and equipped for life-indeed, a very narrow and purely instinctive existence. The human baby is born without an education. The basic institution for instilling his cultural inheritance in a child will always be the home. Proof of this statement may be found, unfortunately, in the fact that racial prejudice and intolerance exists. This is an unfortunate example of the power that the family and the home. is able to exert over the minds of children.

Mr. Barnes' blast at the family and the home is only too reminiscent of the late Bernarr McFadden's recurring diatribes against homosexuality. In the final analysis, no problems will be solved by these means. To me, the argumentative defense of any proposition is inversely proportional to the truth contained. Many others are probably just as glad to be homosexuals as it Mr. Barnes, but, I hope, not for many of the reasons stated by him.

Mr. R. of New York writes: I have seldom read more well-intentioned inanities than in Mr. Hollister Barnes' "I Am Glad I Am a Homosexual." It is certainly well-intentioned, and there can be no argument that homosexuals have rights and that they are beginning, quite rightly, to demand them. It is inane if it assumes that there is no middle ground between being "proud" to be a homosexual and being ashamed.

I am certainly not ashamed, but I see no particular point of pride or shame in being left-handed or right-handed, in being black-haired or blond, in preferring coffee to tea or a man to a woman. The converse, of course, also holds true.

Before reaching his ultimate point, Mr. Barnes treats us to a farrago of familiar exaggerations tending to show that we are, in some way, superior to the poor home-making, bread-winning and rather stupid heterosexual slob. At least, such is the impression his piece conveys.

Now, I don't envy the heterosexual anything. To argue his merits as against my own is to indulge in a meaningless pastime. I do demand that he accord me my absolute right to conduct my private life as I see fit without infringing upon his. I very gladly accord his way of life, for him, the same right and merit as my own.

Freedom consists of the right to stretch your hands out as far as possible without slapping your neighbor in the face. Aside from being stupid, declarations of our superiority (ha!) can be just such a slap.

Educating people to accept as natural something they have been trained to see as disgusting, dangerous and immoral is far more difficult than either throwing a limp wrist in their faces or telling them how much better than they we are.

Our ultimate victory will consist of nothing more than an acceptance by all concerned that "de gustibus non est disputendum."

one

24