of paying rent, you are now building equity and acquiring assets.

Should the need arise for repairs or renovations, those credit references will stand you in excellent stead if you don't have the ready cash.

To my friend and myself, as well as to a number of other couples we know, partnership has made possible a business from which the partners are able to derive economic security. Very little can be said in the way of advice due to the many tremendous differences that are bound to exist from case to case. A business venture that might be ideal for one couple could well be impractical for another. I can think of nothing more desirable for the homosexual (single or otherwise) than a means of self-employment that will give him economic security and freedom from the worry of losing his job should he be "exposed," not to mention the even greater problem of finding work following such a tragedy. Alone, it would be virtually impossible, but together the establishment of a business is within the reach of probably most partnerships. It should certainly receive the most sincere and searching consideration, for apart from the financial security there is no doubt that a successful business will prove a potent force in maintaining the partnership by offering concrete proof of its positive, inherent worth and value. Bear in mind, again, that those earlier-acquired credit references may prove most advantageous in obtaining stock, furnishings or equipment for a business

venture.

I have no doubt that many will read these comments and say, "It looks good on paper, but I doubt if it will work." I can only say that it will "work" if you want it badly enough and are prepared to go after it. It worked for me, it worked for many of my friends and there is nothing in the world to stop it from working

one

for any two men or women who are determined to make it work. There is one point that I want to make abundantly clear; the permanent relationship is simply not the right way of life for all homosexuals. This article is not written with any idea of "converting" anyone. I have many good friends who could no more make a success of this way of life than I could shake hands with Bergler. Their chief criticism seems to be in regards to the responsibilities and various problems that must arise in the acquiring of a home, establishing of a business and in such things as painting the kitchen, the dog having pups or which variety of tomato plant to set out this year in the garden. "I've got enough to worry about right now without making any more problems," or "All these tedious worries are not worth the sacrifice-what about my trip to Cape Cod I couldn't possibly give up my fabulous two week's vacation for some silly house." And they are quite right in one sense-the life is simply not for them and it would, in most cases, be foolish for them to try it. But what this type fails to understand because they have no interest or desire for permanent partnership is this:

Those troubles and problems, labors and responsibilities, when mutually shared lose much of their punch. With faith and love and implicit trust in the worth of the partnership there is little that two men cannot overcome, few responsibilities they are unable to assume, few mountains too high for them to climb or goals too distant for them to reach. And it is in this very process of standing shoulder to shoulder in the face of whatever problems life has to offer and overcoming these problems, in seeing the tangible results of living and loving together through the years a home, car or business-that the true worth of the relationship is

22