A Panel Discussion:

MORALITY and

Informal discussion on the moral implications of the homosexual act prompted the Chicago Area Council of the Mattachine Society to sponsor a panel on this topic. Before an au dience of Society members and their guests. two panelists presented the following views as systematized vorsions of their personal codes of ethics. In the subsequent discussion. in which almost all persons present participated. many diverging and overlapping points of viow were heard. However, since since human thought and actions are as susceptible to development as human be. ings are to evolution, it would have been presumptuous for the group to decide on a code of ethics which could in any sense be considered a final statement.

Panelist 1. Emotional and Social Security:

For

or those of us who entered hom sexual society at an age of ma. turity, it has been rather difficult to understand why many homosexuais should require, or ask, a set of standards and values which differ from those society at large it may be essentially a matter of bring.ng to this new group standards which have already developed, rather than accepting habl's which may be more in accord with the new social milieu There appears 10 be Πυ 12

}

homosexuality

Reported by Robert Kirk

valid reason why homosexuals are not or should not be, able to adjust to already established standards— be they moral, emotional, social, in tellectual, or what have you I this may sound like treason in a group which is dedicated to the improve ment of our social ideas and ameli oration of the lot of the homosexual. it should be remembered that the Chicago Mattachine organization is subtitled "Council for Integration

The practical aspects of the ideal partnership", that of two individuals living together, sharing expenses, acquiring property, and or ganized as an independent house hold, may not be particularly selfish They may be based on an acknow ledgement of the interdependence of individuals in the social order and a belief that one does not live for his own particular pleasures The time and energy previously spent in the search for love can then be directed toward other goals. The emotional and social security which comes from an intentionally permanent relationship allows more time for intellectual and cultural pursuits, sel!improvement and creativity, or for some social, political or religious activity on behalf of others.

Whether based on practical or rather altruistic motives, a relationship similar to heterosexual marriage seems the most satisfactory ar-

mattachine REVIEW

rangement for personal happiness.

This relationship entails much more than sexual compatibility It must be based on personality traits quite acceptable to the social order at large Responsibility to another person for something more than the gratification of sexual pleasures is necessary in this intimately perso nal self-discipline in conforming to publicly acceptable values is more likely the cause of homosexual maladjustment than the pressure of unfair social demands. If the homosexual is ready to demand extraordinary privileges in the world in the light of his emotional orientation, he must be as ready to accept extraor dinary responsibilities.

If this program of responsibility for privilege sounds socially undesirable and philosophically unsound, it may be at least justified on some orthodox religious grounds. If a religious ethic is considered necessary for social balance, the discontented homosexual may find some basis for self-denial in his religious code Panelist 11. A Rational Approach to Real Desires:

Before we can hope to reach any

conclusions on a subject as complex and unexplored as the one before us tonight, we must first raise a few fundamental questions about the sources of moral thinking in general For to be human is to require a more thoughtful justification for one's actions than mere persona! taste, and questions of morality are on quite a different plane of seriousness from questions of taste We must ask, then, from what sources moral ideas arise What areas of human life and thought offer to define what is right and just in our behavior? Let us consider four

First, RELIGON, which defines good as that which agrees with the wishes of a superior, unseen power,

and evil as that which is contrary to His will. His will is usually established (in Christianity) by the authority of traditions nurtured and transmitted by certain formal organizations devoted to His worship. And these traditions are said to be based, ultimately, upon one document, the Bible Although most religionists would assert that God's will is not merely an arbitrary, fixed body of tradition, but can be verified and found to be consonant with human reason and with nature (religiously interpreted), essentially this will is authoritarian in nature Nature and reason are permitted to verify it but never to question or to contradict it.

As a source of guidance for the homosexual who asks, "What shall be my sexual morality?", orthodox religion offers very little specific help The most liberal Christian thought might hold that homosexuality as an emotional disposition is morally neutral (Anglican Church) Nevertheless, it would insist, homosexual acts are, in the light of Biblical tradition, clearly contrary to God's will and are, in the light of orthodox religious reason, obviously unnatural. Thus the only moral sex life for the homosexual would be one of total abstinence. If the religiously orthodox homosexual finds it pos sible to follow this advice, so much the better for his conscience If he does not, then he must live as a perpetually repentant or cynically unrepentant sinner, or piece together his own moral code from other religious commandments that deal with human relations in general. Some of the unorthodox schools of religious thought neither condemn the homosexual nor brand homosexJa! acts as unnatural or immoral.

Second, CONVENTION, which defines right as that which conforms to what almost everybody in a given 13

ļ