of the human race would require that man have heterosexual relations and quite naturally the family unit would continue so that the child would have the protection and love and instruction needed to grow into a useful and meaningful adulthood.

Although love does not requre sexuality it certainly demands some physical expression as evidence or proof of love. The different forms of expression depend upon the person loved. You do not demonstrate your love for your mother in the same way that you would prove your love for your brother. Similarly the way that love of God is shown is not the same way as love of man. But in each instance a physical demonstration of love is proof that one really loves.

What actually determines whether or not your love is homosexual or heterosexual? Some point to the acts of man under certain emotional stresses which are acceptable under those conditions but unacceptable under normal conditions. For example, the sudden loss of a friend might make a man weep and the unexpected meeting of long lost friends might cause them to hug each other in public. And, we might also cite the accepted "buddy-buddy" behavior when men are under the influence of alcohol. It is said that these acts prove an underlying homosexual instinct. For others the determining factor is the sex act. It has been said repeatedly that adolescents go through a homosexual phase even to the point of having sexual relations of a sort with their best friends. Many and perhaps all men have had some homosexual contact in their life. Maybe they regret it. Maybe they prefer to forget it. We ordinarily do not consider this to be proof of homosexuality-although there are some who do. However, I think that the term has been confined to those who continue these sexual acts into their adult life.

one

I suggest that neither exclusive homosexuality nor heterosexuality is to be considered as necessarily normal expressions of love. I do not mean to suggest that a combination of homosexuality and heterosexuality is more normal. But I do mean to say that sexuality is not the necessary determinant of normalcy. It would certainly be more reasonable for society to accept any sexuality as a form of expressing love as long as it is within the bounds of decency and not exhibited in public as if it were a side-show attraction. I would stress the acceptability or homosexuality and heterosexuality as a means of expressing love.

A change certainly needs to come. Today parents will have an entirely different attitude toward their son if he becomes involved in a heterosexual scandal than if he becomes involved in a homosexual scandal.

The family is the basic unit of all society. Any nation is as strong as the family. Sociologists are rightly concerned about the breakdown of parental authority and the stability of the home. And I think that the broken home may contribute to the steady rise of juvenile delinquency, alcoholism, dope addiction and homosexuality. But too much stress warps the evaluation and usefulness of social studies.

It might serve some people well to blame social problems on an anonymous group. It spreads the blame thin enough so that no one person need think himself personally responsible for a wrong. But this kind of buck-passing is as old as the Garden of Eden. And it is no more valid now than it was then. Every man must be held responsible for his own actions.

This might seem like a radical viewpoint, but I do not see any reason for seeking explanations for the cause of homosexuality. I have not found