tarian service I can perform for the STATE, but upon my uniqueness as an individual. I will not bear children for the State. I would not ask another woman to not bear children for the State by entering into any relationship which was not natural or pleasing to her. I would encourage those who cannot find their souls in a heterosexual adjustment to give homosexuality a thought. I consider it absolutely immoral to encourage anyone capable of making a happy heterosexual adjustment to become an exclusive homosexual. I consider it worse than immoral to suggest that anyone on the face of this earth should live a homosexual (or platonically homophilic) life to satisfy the needs of the State. Strangest of all it is to me that anyone should suggest this, homosexual or heterosexual, when man has it within his grasp to produce adequate contraceptives for the race; stranger still this should be shoved forward as a solution, or even even a justification, when the great religions of the world damn homosexuality as worse than contraceptives, abortions, or planned parenthood.

The only conceivable justification that can be made is a reverse one in my opinion: Since man is not in danger of extinction for lack of babies, it can no longer be held that it is the duty of man to procreate, or women to bear children, unless the two people so joined in matrimony desire children, would love their children and would strive to be good parents to them. Many, many heterosexual people need to be freed from the onus of spawning children they don't want and hate when they get them. It is a privilege and a great responsibility to be a parent; it should never be undertaken lightly. If contraceptives, especially the oral kind. could be mass produced safely and cheaply it could eventually lead to only those people having children

one

who truly love them and have the means to properly care for them . . . providing of course that the irrational concept of the immorality of contraceptives could be broken down in the mind of official churchdom.

I was greatly surprised that the Rev. Robert Wood also espoused this position on p. 163 of his otherwise fine book, Christ and the Homosexual. From that page: "The first condition whereby homosexuality has a moral basis is that HOMOSEXUALITY IS A GOD-CREATED WAY OF PROTECTING THE HUMAN RACE ON THIS PLANET FROM THE SUICIDE OF OVERPOPULATION."

Well, Reverend, unless homosexuality is to be enforced upon people at bayonet point, there aren't enough homosexuals, potential or otherwise, on this earth to stop the deadly population explosion already in progress. Reverend Wood's second and third conditions I commend to all as being the only valid and moral ones necessary to enable any homosexual to hold his head proudly. On page 168: "The second condition whereby homosexuality has a moral basis is, MAKING AVAILABLE OPPORTUNITIES FOR LOVE FOR SOME WHO ARE UNABLE TO FIND THEM IN HETEROSEXUAL RELATIONS, A LOVE WHICH CAN TRULY BE SACRAMENTAL," and on page 170 "The third condition under which homosexuality has a moral basis is that it PROVIDES AN OUTLET FOR THE EXPRESSION OF THE HUMAN PERSONALITY FOR THOSE WHO CANNOT EXPRESS THEMSELVES FULLY WITHIN HETEROSEXUALITY." We would like to extend to Reverend Wood our extreme appreciation at having stated these two latter conditions so eloquently and having also given many illustrations of their validity.