RESEARCH and DEVELOPMENT

Your December issue is indeed a thought-provoking one, except for those dogmatic individuals who can entertain no other views but their own. With this issue, you hit the nail on the head. You have perhaps gotten to the basic difficulty of civilization, not only for homosexuals, but for all men the age-old problem of stoic vs. epicurean, Dionysos vs. Apollonios. This struggle has been going on ever since man has tried to become (but always unsuccessfully) a social being, although its manifestations have been in various forms. The struggle will probably continue as long as the human being is extant, but if any age has come close to a resolution of the problems of men, it is certainly this one.

We live in a democratic culture (although not a perfect democracy by any means), and democracy should pervade every area of life, not just the political, including the religious, social, educational and so on. At this time, I would like to make some observations on statements by various religious leaders, as quoted in your article The Failure of The Church.

Mr. Jensen (p8) says . . homosexual activity . . . has always been regarded as immoral and a psychological illness. These people as I understand them are emotionally sick." Mr. Jensen's dogmatic use of the word 'always' belies his ignorance of world history, and world anthropology. Other important issues are raised.

In the first place, that which is a psychological illness cannot be immoral. An illness is a physical or functional malady which is causing personal dysfunction; it is something over which the individual has has no control, such as smallpox, or schizophrenia. This principle has long been a principle of British and American civil and criminal law. Homosexuality can therefore be either a psychol-

one

ogical illness or immoral, but not both.

This brings me to my next consideration. Dr. Brown (p8) said that "homosexuality [is] anti-Biblical and anti-Church; that 'normality' [is] 'basic Christianity.'" The lack of insight, hindsight, and foresight of some reputedly responsible men amazes me. The fact is that 'normality' has nothing to do with Christianity. This seems so obvious that I fear I am being redundant. 'Normality' is a fairly recent mathematical (statistical) concept, which refers to average expectable behavior. No human individual is expected as such to be 'normal', but this concept rather is used to provide a convenient reference point whereby to compare one man's behavior with that of his fellow men.

Homosexuality is definitely antiChurch, but merely because the Church defines it this way. In doing so, however, the Church is being anti-human, which may or may not be betraying its own ends. The Church has established a set code of behavior, which all of its members are expected to follow, just as any club would do. When a man joins a club, for instance, he is expected to go by the rules, or he will get kicked out. Unlike other clubs, the Christians. maintain that their rules were made for everybody-non-members as well as members.

As for homosexuality being antiBiblical, it is a question of what Dr. Brown means, and a large number of answerable questions are raised. In the first place, does he mean the modern Bible, and if so, which one? If he means by his statement that references to homosexuality are not to be found in the Bible, clearly he is mistaken. Historically speaking, homosexuality has been a practice as long as there has been animal life on the earth (not just human life), and, referring to the history of the Bible,