sexual must accept himself first as a man or woman more alike than different from other men and womanaccept himself as a person, as a doctor, a truck-driver, or an artist-and then, secondarily, as having a sexual adjustment that is different than the majority. I seems to me that when he presents himself in this way to others that he stands the best chance of at least not being totally rejected He will discover that he can be accepted by others, not all others, but even being accepted by one other is a highly satisfying and significant beginning.

You may make the obvious observation and criticism that he is not then really being accepted as a homosexual per se. That is exactly my point. He is not a homosexual per se. He is a person per sa. Thus he is being accepted as a person and incidentally as making a homosexual adjustment. When the homosexual permits himself to be known in this way first and as a homosexual later, he does much to shatter society's stereotype of the homosexual. Out go the ideas that all or most homosexuals possess similar personalities and mannerism. The biased and uneducated mind that thinks that he can recognize all homosexuals by the way the cigarette is held, by his dress or jewelry, his speech or his gait, his sensivity or his appreciation of the arts-this prejudiced mind is then going to have real difficulty in justifying his opinions. He is forced then to re-evaluate his former stereotype and once this is done, the old inaccurate stcreotype cannot be readily restored. But if the homosexual does not allow the solid positive aspects of his personality to be viewed first. before the stereotype is reenforced, the unaccepting heterosexual will be blocked from ever seeing these at all.

Consider members of other minority groups of which he may or may not be a part. Is the fact that a Negro is a Negro his most important characteristic? Is this true also of the Jew, the Catholic, the "other" political group member, the amputee, the blind, or any other minority group? Yet, as long as the minority group member thinks of himself primarily as just that, then he can only be accepted or rejected on that basis. But if he is really something else—a person with drives, needs, and feelings like anyone else, with talents and limitations, with likes and dislikes, with faults and virtues, then he should seek to be accepted on that basis. I do not sugges: that his homosexuality is not an important and significant part of his total personality and the homosexual himself very much wants this to be understood and accepted. But acceptance begins with what one can understand and identify, hence the emphasis on similarities rather than on differences. One must begin somewhere, if at all, and it is this beginning step that seems possible to me in our time.

A step which might be taken simultaneously with the first is one which I shall not fully develop here, but is one that I hope you wil! give your serious consideration and take appropriate action whenever the opportunity arises. Acceptance is most likely to occur when

18

one has something to offer the more precious the gift, the more likely it is to be wanted and valued. What more valuable gift is the homosexual more likely to posses than his ability to understand the feelings of other minority groups who suffer from prejudice and injustice? An act which endangers the civil liberty of any individua! is an act committed against oneself-whether or not the person im. mediately concerned is friend or foe. Although being accepted b society is a human right, it entails the assumption of certain responsibilities toward the interests of the other members of society. Wher this is accomplished the relationship between the society and the minority group member can be characterized by maturity instead of by immaturity and neurosis. The rewards and satisfactions to both can hardly be underestimated.

Can Modern America Afford It?

THE

PRICE

By JULIA W. COLEMAN, M. S. W.

of REJECTION

·

Any discussion on the topic Must the individual homosexual be rejected in our time", must of necessity start with the assumption that the homosexual is being rejected. This seems so self eviden: that it is hardly worth elaborating. However, the effect on the ind vidual of this rejection is a subject worthy of considerable elabo:ation. In many discussions, papers, books, and essays, the terrible price in terms of human suffering, measured in guilt, fear, seclusiveness, lack of confidence, interference with productive work and creativity, is being carefully detailed. Certainly, individual case histories tell the story of what rejection means in both its open, gross form and in its day to day implications that wear away the individual's ability to develop his native capacities and potentialities to their fullest extent

The primary object of this discussion, however, is to deal with the reverse side of the coin: namely the hypothesis that society and its members pay a heavy price for the luxury of indulging in rejection of the homosexual. Society and its members obviously have the right and duty to reject those individuals who threaten life and property Society has the right too, to reject those individuals who threaten and impair the rights of others, either through violence or through trickery. But the evidence of science tells us that the homosexual

17