prostitution-in fact anywhere that a prospect seems at all likely. No diatribe by the Church, no laws against fornication, adultery, transmission of venereal infections, abortion, or child-neglect are powerful enough to swerve these unfortunates from their objectives. (Verify this with your lawyer, or the nearest prophylactic station or adoption center.) As you yourself noted-but as an afterthought, unfortunately-heterosexuals are not paragons of virtue.

The bare fact is that cultural productivity simply has no demonstrable relation to sexual preference or performance. Your own namedropping simply indicates some kind of wish to fasten feet of clay (possibly your own?) onto certain immortals of art, literature, leadership, and science (whom neither you nor I are ever likely to equal, and whose sexual tastes no one really cares about anyway). Conversely, the same kind of name-dropping by homosexuals (presumptively, you are not) usually indicates some kind of wish that homosexuality could automatically carry with it the capabilities, and the cultural and historical distinctions of genius (regrettably, it does not).

In defense of heterosexuality, it must be remarked that, percentagewise, there are probably no more mediocre heterosexuals than homosexuals, probably no more criminals, and certainly as many worthy and/or gifted persons. Yet it must also be noted that homosexuals, good and bad, together with the heterosexual thieves, murderers, tyrants, and other assorted scoundrels who regularly plague society, necessarily make their appearance in consequence of heterosexual activities.

On one point you are absolutely correcthomosexuals are HERE! And, it might logically be asked, what socially-competent, culturallyproductive homosexual (there are many)

needs or wants your pity? If you are a male, what self-respecting male homosexual could love you under the humiliating conditions of your regard-however tolerant he may be of your views? Or what lesbian, self-respecting or not, would give a tinker's damn for your "glorious manhood?"

The complacent, sentimental hogwash you sent in to ONE is obviously well-meant, and the product of a kind heart-for which God bless you. But, buddyboy, take it from at least one kindhearted homosexual-your head needs a good soaking!

Mr. G.

Los Angeles, California

IS X THE ANSWER? Dear ONE:

A recent press release will interest you, I am sure, saying that the factor responsible for male homosexual behavior is passed on through the X-chromosome from mothers to sons. This view, held on the basis of extensive investigations into human genetics by Dr. Willhart S. Schlegel, Director of the Institute for Basic Biology and Human Behavior in Hamburg, was presented at the Freiburg Congress of the German Society for Anthropology, meeting with the Society for Constitutional Investigation.

Hence male individuals in in contrast to females, who always have two X-chromosomes -as a rule have only one X-chromosome, always received from the mother, which is thus the mother's X-chromosome, and determinant of the sex character. It is the deciding factor in male sex behavior. The long-held psychological theory that characteristically effeminate sons acquire their essential behavior patterns from a dominating mother is undermined through this finding.

Not the environmental influence from the mother, but that of the inherited X-chromosome from the mother, is responsible for what is so often called a learned response. The well-known cultural-anthropological theory of Margaret Mead thus becomes very doubtful in consideration of the X-chromosome inheritance with its perplexing signs and characteristics. The results of Dr. Schlegel's investigations were noted by the participants in the Congress as a scientific sensation of the first rank.

ANOTHER SORT OF EX Dear ONE:

Jack Argo Hamburg, Germany

In a recent issue, I read of Charles Tobin's comments re: the Catholic Church's point of view in obstructing homosexual law reform in New York State.

In my opinion, any church that claims to be promulgating the teachings of Jesus, while at the same time aiding and abetting the oppression of any of God's children, is far, far from having the right or capacity to pronounce on what is "moral" or "immoral."

I feel such "churches" should be required to pay taxes to the government for the common good of the people in society, which would help in a small way to repair the damage they have done.

From an EX-Catholic, for reasons indicated above . . .

Mr. D. Denver, Colorado

NOTICE: A Los Angeles area church asks-Have you clarified your identity? For information phone 378-1781

31