Now, while I claim the right to rant and rave in favor of homophile marriage and the right to rant and rave against the trouble-causing promiscuous single set, I sure am not claiming that all homophiles should be married. Not everybody is suited for marriage, including plenty of heterosexuals. I think the two viewpoints are put well and wittily by Shaw's saying that "Marriage is the most promiscuous institution ever inventedthat is the sucret of its success", and Wilde's saying that "Marriage affords the maximum opportunities for sex but with the minimum of temptation.

One viewpoint finds marriage enhancing sexual enjoyment; the other, not. It is, simply, a matter of taste.

One thing is for sure about homophile marriages the number taking place can only increase in the future. With the continued lessening of discrimination, such as the change in the legal code of Illinois, it is going to dawn on more and more homophiles that they can quit sneaking into bars, urinals, bathhouses, etc. the very places where they get arrested (and no law change is going to alter that!)

but that they can with complete safety consort with one another in large or small gatherings of other homophiles, whether it be at a gathering sponsored by a homophile organization, or in homes, or both. And with that increased social communication among homophiles, the mathematical chances of homophile marriages soar.

It seems to me that when society finally accepts homophiles as a valid minority with minority rights, it is going first of all to accept the married homophiles. We are, after all, the closest to their ideals. Now, I have always been rather vehemently "gay," and before my marriage I really never had much truck socially with heterosexuals. I was accused, and admitted, of having a prejudice and a chip on my shoulder where heteros were con-

cerned. And when I saw that my marriage partner had quite a few hetero friends, I cringed, and before each social get-together I was all bristly and quivering to be very sensitive at each slighting remark. If heretos didn't like homosexuality they could lump it, was my attitude. I knew they would "know," because almost only an idiot can miss the significance of two men in a big house, especially ours with that statuary, those books in full view, and those paintings.

In short, I was flabbergasted to find (I don't think any social fact ever surprised me more) our homosexual marriage well, "accepted" may be misleading. We have never discussed homosexuality with them, and I would think that only after a frank discussion with each heterosexual you meet could you then say a heterosexual "accepts" you. "A degree of acceptance" may be the right term. "Toleration" is too negative a term to cover the situation I found, though I feel there is some "toleration" involved.

But, anyway, this degree of acceptance I was so amazed to discover has existed over many years from many different heterosexuals, both married and single. And my real eye-opener occured when these heteros, with a cool nonchalance that made me feel woefully unsophisticated, started calmly pulling out from their social backgrounds, and introducing us to, other homophile married couples!

As they say in the comic strip Peanuts, I felt like something akin to a fool. I had been taken in by prejudice and preconceived judgments, which I learned are not solely the properties of heterosexuals. It was quite an experience for me. So you can see that when I say it seems to me that society will first of all accept the married homophiles, I am not merely theorizing. I still have that chip on my shoulder but it sure has been whittled down!

9