Dear Mr. Slater:

It seems to me that Miss V., of Pasadena (February, 1959), has missed the point completely as to the logic on which the entire case for homosexuality is based. Since-by implication she is undermining the whole structure of our struggle for social and legal acceptance, I believe that it is the fallacy in her thinking that must be faced and resolved.

The crux of the matter is not that the homosexual urge is imperative and that its denial wreaks physical, mental and moral havoc," nor that such love can be beautiful and, ergo, right. Plainly, the issue at stake is not whether ANY urge per se, because of its intensity and instinctive nature, is to be allowed unlicensed, indiscriminate gratification, but whether the drive in question is to be examined and judged on its own merits.

Miss V. is grouping homosexuality with a deviation which involves the satisfaction of an urge for sexual intercourse with someone not of legal age for consent, who could hardly be expected to grasp the significance of such an act or judge whether it were right. On the other hand, the strongest point in our favor in trying to extricate ourselves from the damaging legal classification with all other sexual deviates is the very fact-as stressed in the Wolfenden proposal-that homosexual acts in private between consenting individuals of legal age should not be considered wrong and persecuted along with sexual deviations which are clearly of a criminal nature.

Miss V. is trying to lump us in with a category of sex deviates who violate the rights of minors as outlined above. Adult homosexuality does not belong in such a group. Why? Because we are of a legal age and capable of understanding the significance of our acts, and we consent freely under no influence but that of mature love. Wherein, then, is the comparison valid?

Dear Sir:

Miss B.

NEW YORK, N. Y.

The January Editorial is well-timed and worth its weight in gold. From what I notice in these parts with regard to the younger homosexuals from 14-18 we almost need legislation to protect the adults. I can go along with the letter about having good guidance from the beginning. I wish so too, for no doubt my arrest on my "coming out party" could have been avoided. Nothing serious resulted because of lack of evidence, but the anxiety of it all would no doubt have been avoided had I had the loving understanding and advice of an older homosexual when I was say 14 or 15.

I particularly enjoy the "Letters" and "tangents" although I have often hoped to see something concerning homosexuals in Can-

one

ada. I noticed one letter from a writer in East Orange, N. J., touching upon something I would like to see more of, and that is articles or essays along a religious line concerning the homosexual.

I have noticed time and again when something arises which needs the authoritative voice of a member of the clergy-every time they remain silent for, no doubt, as the writer from East Orange said, "Our clergy are in the dark." Regarding the ever-popular catchall with regard to anyone being homosexual and categorized under the heading, "dwellers in the Cities of the Plain," I have tried to go through the Bible, with a good Concordance and the dictionary to get intelligent answers to this popular belief. I strongly feel that Sodom and Gomorrha and sodomy as we know it today had no connection. There is something far more profound in the Bible references to Sodom and Gomorrha than the mere fact of homosexuality. I believe the references are to pagan nations, or those who do not believe in the living God.

A lot of us, no doubt myself as well, put too much emphasis on homosexuality and tend to make it appear as something allconsuming in our midst, but I suppose when one is trying desperately to get rhyme and reason for something then this phase of our lives tends to assume giant proportions. Mr. L.

Dear Sir:

HALIFAX, NOVA SCOTIA

It appears to me that a majority of Americans, both heterosexual and homosexual, lean heavily upon religion and conformity, especially religions which strive to promote conformity, and conformity promotes intolerance. Those who try to rationalize religious teachings, especially those on morals are ludicrous. They are only trying to appease their own hypocrisy. It is truly fantastic to me that in the 20th century man still leans upon some ghost in the sky, as a child will lean upon a parent. Man is yet unable to be a human adult.

I was pleased to read the article "It Is Natural After All" by Christopher Wicks. (January, 1958), whereby he thinks that homosexuality is genetic. Why wouldn't this be possible. Haven't scientists somewhat proven genes produce color and characteristics in the offspring of animals?

Carol Robin in "Why Do They Persecute Us So?" (September, 1958) seems to have such strong conformity that she refuses to note that there are homosexuals and inverts who have slight differences. I cannot see how we can strive for and expect tolerance from others when we do not have tolerance for our own kind. Perhaps she would have a cure-all solution for our racial prob-

30