own sex." It may be pointed out that the authors seem in such cases to consider, not homosexuality, but mere sex-role inversion, and in many cases attribute the mountings to mere failure to distinguish the sex of the partner.) With female animals, he said, sexual stimulation arises when the time comes, though males can be stimulated by various means. New developments in humans, even in primitive cultures, provide several non-procreative functions for the sex drive.

Here the audience got into the fray. One person asked if, as Miss Lyon had suggested, Lesbianism had generally become acceptable in societies like the late Roman empire that were on the point of collapse. Someone else said that in contrast to the Romans, who admittedly degenerated from puritanism to licentiousness, the Greeks and Egyptians had both risen and fallen with free acceptance of male and female homosexuality. Dr. Reider observed that reports of the sexual proclivities of the ancients weren't always too reliable.

One girl described the female stage-door-johnnies who vie for the attentions of female actresses in Japan, and mentioned theatrical Lesbian magazines published there.

Dr. Zeff maintained that "all efforts to educate the public toward acceptance are projective efforts at self-acceptance... The individual who accepts himself doesn't bother to educate the public." Others suggested that self-acceptance, while necessary, wasn't enough in the face of arrests, job discrimination, ostracism from family, etc.

The panel concluded and the convention moved to the other end of the room for lunch, and heard Episcopal Chaplain Fordyce Eastburn of St. Luke's Hospital struggle with the embarrassing topic, "Can the Prac-

one

ticing Homosexual Be Accepted by the Church?" The chaplain, admitting that he'd counselled only one practicing homosexual in 27 years. of ministry (though he said he'd once had a pass made at him—and suffered no ill effects), described homosexuality as a disorder in the Divine Plan (how careless of God) and disagreed sharply with Rev. Wood's assertion (in the book, Christ and the Homosexual) that homosexual love can have a sacramental character. He was not familiar with the Church of England materials on the subject. God does accept the practicing homosexual, he said, as He accepts all sinners, and the Church must do likewise, but the homosexual can not expect to continue his practices after accepting Christ. He insisted that cure, particularly through faith, was possible, and said homosexuals must chose either chastity or heterosexual marriage, and must avoid contaminating associations with other homosexuals. "God does accept the homosexual," he said, as if thundering from Sinai, "but on God's own terms, not on the homosexual's terms. This was in quite a different key from the morning panel, and many in the audience were disappointed at what they felt was little more than Pharisaical bluster.

In the afternoon, Albert Bendich, staff council for the Northern Calif. American Civil Liberties Union, spoke on "Civil Liberties-the Homosexual's Responsibility." He said he felt the homosexual had no special responsibility in this area-civil liberties are the concern of all alike. He discussed the A.C.L.U. national policy statement on homosexuality (ONE, Apr. 57, p. 13) and expressed his personal feeling that there was substantial basis for challenging the Union's position that states have the right to pass laws "aimed at the

18