Letters

The views expressed here are those of the writers. ONE's readers cover a wide range of geographical, economic, age, and educational status. This department aims to express this diversity.

ABOUT THOSE "BODYBUILDING

MAGAZINES"

Dear Sir:

I have read and enjoyed ONE for several years now. I am a college student and my gay life is somewhat restricted. This too explains, in part, why I enjoy your Magazine and others like it.

A particular letter in the November '64 issue of ONE caught my attention. The letter is from Mr. R. B. of Flushing, New York, who says some unusual things about (1 quote) "body building magazines." He says in his letter that these magazines should be more discreet in their subject matter because they are "open to the public."

I do not agree with him. I believe that these type magazines are obviously directed at the gay set and thus are not "body building magazines" nor "open to the public." Not only the stories in these magazines are of a gay nature, but also all of the advertisements, which pertain to gay literature (books, records, directory guides, etc.).

I think that if a survey were taken to find out who actually buys these magazines, the results would prove that an overwhelming majority are gay.

THERE'S A DIFFERENCE Gentlemen:

Mr. H. Warren, Ohio

ONE's article on the 1964 ECHO conference states that most of the clergymen on the religious panel regarded homosexual acts as sinful, and looked upon homosexuality as a sickness. This is untrue. A cursory reading of the Conference transcripts will show that most of the clergymen were extremely liberal, and that most of them, with the exception of the Roman Catholic priest, believed that a man can have a definite right to be a practising homosexual.

one

ONE's article bears no indication of authorship. If the author was present at the Conference, and if he attended the religious panel discussion, he did not listen carefully, or his impressions were thoroughly distorted.

The Committee on Religious concerns of the Mattachine Society of Washington hopes that ONE Magazine will correct its error. It is difficult for us to understand how this kind of a mistake was made. We are notifying other homophile organizations throughout the United States so that they will be aware of the error.

Warren D. Adkins, Chairman

Committee of Religious Concerns

The Mattachine Society of Washington EDITORS' NOTE: To say that the ministers believed "that a man can have a definite right to be a practing homosexual" is in no way an argument against the fact that "most of the clergymen on the religious panel regarded homosexual acts as sinful, and looked upon homosexuality as a sickness."

ONE's two reporters in attendance throughout the ECHO meetings may be in error as accused by the Mattachine's Committee on Religious Concerns, but until shown otherwise, we will have to assume that they reported accurately.

EDITORIALS APPROVED

Dear Friends:

I thought your editorial in November '64 was quite to the point and well expressed. Also there is quite an eyeful, or rather thoughtful, in "Innocent and Curious Bystander" by P. E. Britton. The account details, with graphic and poignant clarity, the cunning treachery and ruthless brutality of the police agents provocateurs in ensnaring the hapless homosexuals.

Mr. M. Dallas, Texas