not assume that that shift can be forward and progressive. As it occurs, politics may make most of the thunder, but a more basic force and one to be more concerned about may be private and erotic.

What has this to do with the homosexual? In this crisis he may be cast again in his accustomed role. Circumstances have put him in a position where he not only is compelled by necessity to experiment, to try and to test, but he also has the requisite freedom. The homosexual has never been allowed formal marriage, despite the fond hopes and dreams of many, and this may turn out to be a blessing to himself and a boon to his community. For that inability to settle down in a legalized marriage has compelled him to seek some other workable basis for association, and has kept him free to experiment.

Probably the part of marriage that has appealed to the homosexual is its stability, the taking of vows which are to insure that two persons will be loyal the "til death do us part" clause. But would marriage for homosexuals be the answer? The twentieth century heterosexual can reply to that question. He's abandoning marriage, at least of the "til death do us part" variety. Should we pick up the remnants of a system he is casting off? His reasons for cracking and shedding it may be quite sound. Often marriage has served as a legal sanction for possessing another human being, or for being possessed. At times its rights have resembled property rights. It has enforced a one-to-one association, meaning not infrequently a thoroughly in-grown life. It has done anything but restrain our human tendency toward jealousy. It has divided the community into separate and often contending family units. It has held rights and powers over its members

that have too frequently run counter to the best interests of the community or of the individuals within the family itself. It has made itself the enemy of variety and experience, two prime requisites for growth.

So the heterosexual is breaking free of a system so old we had quite taken it for granted, and so interwoven with our mores as to seem holy and beyond criticism. He is demanding freedom, variety and experience. If one believes in growth and the continuing evolution of man, this may be to the good. It can be a step in the right direction, toward a higher ethic that is, if the heterosexual can find (or has provided for him) something to put in the place of the family to give order and purpose to his relationships and cohesion to his community.

Here the homosexual comes in. He's never had marriage, so he's one jump ahead both in encountering and, let us hope, in solving the problem. He has been sinking or swimming for years according to his ability to find some other basis for association, something other than legalized ownership and jealously guarded rights. He's already tried promiscuity-the step the heterosexual is up to his neck in right now. It hasn't worked too well. Many homosexuals know that while there is much to be said for variety of experience and against settling down in one-to-one contentment (or mutual toleration, as the case may be), there is little to be said for promiscuity. When the kicks are losses in personal development and happiness are greater than the gains unless there is found some order, some continuity, some agreement between the sexual partners. Promiscuity cannot be offered as an answer.

over,

Besides the problem of discovering an alternative better than purposeless promiscuity, there is another

7