attitude. if not the behavior. of the majority of homophiles. They tend to agree with popular opinion-that homosexuality is wrong; that it is sinful; that it is shameful; to be vigorously curbed by self-denial. sublimation, or other methods (even masturbation). They seem to feel that homosexuals should at all costs present a public appearance of conformity and "normalcy," of asexuality, if necessary. The homosexual, and his organizations, should cooperate to the fullest extent with "public authorities." according to this view. Above all things, the individual is held to be obligated to be an all-around "good guy." "Act square." is the motto. "It's only sensible," they say.

Is it fair to term this group asexuals? It is fair in that this is the public impression they strive to convey, save for the pitiful cases which, at the behest of family, minister or psychiatrist, strive desperately to contort themselves into simulacra of heterosexuality, by marrying. Strangely enough, as their public behavior by no means accords with their private conduct, in the majority of cases their behavior might more justly be termed amoral than asexual.

Sociologists and those dealing in mental health problems never tire of telling us of the dangers both to the individual and to his society whenever preaching and the practice are found to be at too great variance.

The admitted homosexuals are a smaller group, comprised mainly of those claiming to be more intellectually sophisticated, and of the flaming queens. This group. in whatever terms. express pride in its homosexuality, finding nothing either sinful or shameful in it. They feel that homosexual men and women should be in every way as free to practice their sexual preferences as are other segments of the population: that they should enjoy the same legal and social privileges as others, no more. but also. no less. They feel themselves under no obligations whatever to conform to the particular social standards of any particular community; that instead of their adjusting to popular mores, the mores should be adjusted to their own wishes. The demands of rationalism and basic human freedoms admit of no other interpretation, they state.

This group feels that habitually to think one thing and act another breeds nothing but hypocrisy in a society and schizophrenia in the individual. They say. "I am homosexual. I am proud of it. I shall live my life according to the dictates of its nature. and neither social pressures

nor legal prohibitions (which are probably without any moral legality' anyway) will turn me from this resolve. If society does not wish to accept me, or to understand me, that is not my problem, for, to paraphrase Louis, The Sun King's, "L'etat, c'est moi." "I am Society."

This rugged individualism has an almost anarchistic quality that is yet as American as the "hot dog." It is in the spirit of that old Colonial flag. emblazoned with a rattlesnake and the motto. "Don't tread on me." This is the individualism of the queen. flaunting make-up and a bracelet or two in the face of an amused or embarrassed public, and of the intellectual, saying. "I am proud of being a homosexual." then throwing this declaration into the very teeth of public opinion.

Are such persons really serious in their views? Do they mean what they say, or are their words but a form of compensation for hurts and insults they may have endured? That we should ask such questions shows the very depth of the infection we have suffered through centuries of religious and other propaganda. If we can somehow manage to render ourselves quite objective, lifting ourselves, as it were, out of the epoch in which we live, we begin to wonder if it is not we who have been guilty of absurdities. we who are not to be taken seriously.

In this objective vein we would be forced to inquire of what the homosexual is deprived. by virtue of his homosexuality, in either realms domestic or public, moral or ethical. Is he. for instance. debarred from expressing any of the classic Seven Virtues? Is he more prone than his brothers to succumbing to the Seven Deadly Sins? Is he subject to particular bodily deformities? Is his IQ inherently deficient? Or. is he barred from "normal" sexual pleasures?

Ask any homosexual about this point. Try to offer him "normal" sexual pleasures. so-called. as a substitute and see how many takers there will be. But, says the moralist, you quite mistake the true purpose of sex, for sexual pleasures are but the means to an end. a noble end-the perpetuation of the race. This poor. shopworn argument has been around for countless centures. despite its lack of support from philosophical, biological or other evidence! Who. for instance, can be so sure that the race should be perpetuated at all? Or in its present form? Is it not entirely likely that by arranging race-perpetuation a bit better than the "sexual pleasure" prin-

ciple has done it that we might make some headway with the problem of juvenile delinquency? We just might happen also to end up with far fewer monsters, dwarfs, cretins, morons and all the picturesque horde who may delight a Hogarth but are pretty much a social luxury. Or are we being too Utopian?

But surely, continues our moralist. you must grant that in domestic and in public life the homosexual is at a hopeless disadvantage. Is this so certain? I. for one, am glad I am homosexual. glad to be spared the deadly monotonies of marital wranglings or. worse, still, the marshmallow puffiness of marital bliss. I consider myself fortunate in having seen through the deadly deceptions of the procreative cycle-devouring energies. talents. ambition and individual achievement. all in the name of that great communal juggernaut. The Family. before which church and state so abjectly debase themselves.

How darkly vicious this may all seem to us one day, this myth which sanctions the most incredible interweaving of clashing and disparate personalities by means of the semen and the blood-stream. How cleanly healthy we all may feel when at least some of us shall have purged our thinking of such ritualistic tribal vestiges. How much nearer may we find ourselves to the moral freedom which is the right of each of us. The prospect gives one the courage to pull through life's duller stretches.

That there are some domestic and public disadvantages the homosexual must endure is not denied. but these are the unhealthy manifestations of a society so sick. a culture so unsure of itself that it shrinks in horror from some of the greatest and basically elemental forces of man and nature. while striving feverishly at an impossible repression. Is it proposed that the honest man. the upright women. shall lend themselves to the furtherance of such sickness. such unhealthiness. such weakness? Should they not rather strive to lead their blind fellows out of this nasty-minded neuroticism?

If it is claimed that the root of the whole matter can be found in the realm of ethics or morality. I would ask in what respects this is so. Because homosexual relations are vile and unnatural, answers the moralist. I would meet the moralist on his own ground by quoting Scripture. "If God be for us. who can be against us?" Or. if God be so much in favor of heterosexuality as you claim. is He not to be trusted to rid the universe of things 10