be true but does not entail any particular conclusion. To conclude here that few people are naturally homosexual is simply to make an unfounded assumption about what it is to be homosexual.

It has long been recognized that the majority of homosexuals are perfectly ordinary in their physical appearance and make-up; and if one must draw a conclusion from this, a more sensible one to draw would be that homosexuality is natural to many people as a function of what makes them human, not as a function of what makes them animal. If, on the other hand, the dictum means that there are few who cannot be persuaded, bullied or otherwise coerced by society into abandoning their homosexual practices, then it is plainly not true. In fact it is very difficult to give a sense to the word 'natural' in a human context of this sort. Some people have always been homosexual, others have become homosexual after a brief heterosexual prelude, some have both characteristics, and some, having searched vainly for a heterosexual mate, settle down later in life with a homosexual one. There are a great many paths into this condition and a great many different ways of living it, which is just to say that it is an ordinary human condition.

Vicious circle

General arguments from 'nature', whether frankly metaphysical or pseudo-empirical do not, it seems to me, successfully demonstrate that homosexuality is 'undesirable.' Such arguments, when they are not merely expressions of irrational fear, are often in fact confused or summary versions of a moral view, and it is this view which I should now like to attempt to clarify. It might be briefly stated as follows: "A homosexual relationship is a poor, even a bad, sort of human relationship, and

one

it is better not to have such relationships in our society. Homosexuals are promiscuous, neurotic, jealous and generally unstable people. They should be curbed and discouraged and if possible the breed should be made to die out."

I would wish to emphasize that those of us who are acquainted with homosexuals are capable of assessing this argument out of our knowledge of human nature without the help of 'experts'; and persons who do not know any homosexuals are not likely to be helped here by a sociological treatise. It is obviously desirable that more should be known about homosexuals and that more people who are homosexual should openly declare themselves to their friends and acquaintances. Since the law and social prejudice make such behavior hazardous this particular vicious circle is hard to break. It may help to break it if people who do know about homosexuality frankly express their opinion on what is, in my view, the only plausible argument which could show it to be immoral'.

It is extremely difficult to be precise here. There are plenty of neurotic and unstable homosexuals and there are plenty of promiscuous ones. But there are a great many who are none of these things and many heterosexuals who are all of them. Let us consider the charges separately. A homosexual relationship is said to be impoverished or unsatisfying. If by this is meant that such a relationship is 'merely physical' or that such persons do not really 'fall in love.' this is untrue. Homosexuals in love can experience the same entire and unselfish devotion of body and soul to another which is characteristic of heterosexual love at its best. Joined to the charge of poverty' is the charge of 'promiscuity. A homosexual, it is said, just wants to find another homosexual. Some do; but plenty of heterosexual

8