My proposition is simpler, and is based upon simple pragmatism: love makes sense. The possibility of intellectual, emotional and physical harmony between two individuals (of whatever sex) is undeniable. This, in the last analysis, is what love is based upon. The intensity of love depends upon the degree of harmony; love's depth is a function of time, and grows with the awareness of harmony. It will be seen that this formula in no way implies exclusiveness of object (which we misname fidelity: true fidelity depends upon attitudes, not upon actions), nor what is more important

does it involve identity of views. It is perfectly possible for one person to be in harmony with two or more others at once; it is not possible to have a complete identity of views with any other person, ever. The failure of most loves, heterosexual or homosexual, is the failure of one or both lovers to recognize these facts. There are sides to every individual's life that no other can completely share; this stems automatically from the truism that no two individuals are alike.

I suggest that the fear so many of us have of "getting involved," this unreasoning flight from any longterm intimate relationship, results from a fundamental misunderstanding of the true nature of love. More: I suggest that those who are "afraid of getting hurt" are those who would be most likely to make a success of marriage,* a long-term relationship equivalent to the parallel heterosexual link.

As in heterosexual marriage, homo*By marriage I do not mean the sacrilegious and obscene simulacrum indulged in by some of the wilder of our queens with the complicity of men who are a disgrace to their cloth. I mean the coming together, in all solemnity and reverence (religious or not) of two indivduals who desire to spend the rest of their lives together.

sexual marriage requires sexual compatibility. It requires the existence of mutual taste and mutual respect. And it requires above all an awareness of each partner's responsibility to the other.

This is not a pipe-dream: it happens every day. All of us know couples who have been together, happily, for years. Certainly it is not always easy: the instinct toward paternity seems to be very strong among many of us, and this must by the force of things be doomed to frustration: often it is difficult for us to rationalize away our jealousies; many of us are too egotistical-or too spoiled-to make allowances for another's peculiarities, while remaining too tolerant of our own; let's face it-many of us lack the emotional stability which we would require in order to make a success of marriage or of anything else.

I believe, however, that the fear of loneliness can by itself furnish us with a powerful incentive to re-examine the entire marriage question. "I'd give anything not to be alone!" Good! Then, with only a little understanding and generosity, marriage becomes not only a possibility but a good bet.

But not such irresponsible marriage as is so often contracted nowadays among heterosexuals marriage as it was conceived of formerly-not indisoluble, surely, but to be dissolved only in very exceptional cases, and therefore not to be entered into without due reflexion. Just as a man decided whether a given woman had the qualities he wanted in a wife (is she beautiful, rich, intelligent, a good housekeeper?), and just as a woman knew what she wanted in a man (is he handsome, gallant, ambitious, a good provider?), so should fix our standards according to what we want in our mate: a certain similarity in tastes or a sense of

7