reform of something that is a peculiarly odious piece of English hypocrisy.'

It will be clear from all that has gone before that we do not regard the standards of judgment relevant here as being different from those that apply to other sexual problems. Surely it is the nature and quality of a relationship that matters: one must not judge it by its outward appearance but by its inner worth. Homosexual affection can be as selfless as heterosexual affection, and therefore we cannot see that it is in some way morally worse.

Homosexual affection may of course be an emotion which some find aesthetically disgusting, but one cannot base Christian morality on a capacity for such disgust. Neither are we happy with the thought that all homosexual behaviour is sinful: motive and circumstances degrade or ennoble any act, and we feel that to list sexual "sins" is to follow the letter rather than the spirit, to kill rather than to give life. Further we see no reason why the physical nature of a sexual act should be the criterion by which the question whether or not it is moral should be decided. An act which (for example) expresses true affection between two individuals and gives pleasure to them both, does not seem to us to be sinful by reason alone of the fact that it is homosexual. The same criteria seem to us to apply whether a relationship is heterosexual or homosexual.

It is now necessary to emphasize that we are not saying that all homosexual acts or relationships are to be encouraged. It is difficult to suggest shortly circumstances which may give them a quality of sin. But obviously first of all any element of force or coercion, or abuse of some superior position, must take an act out of the pale we have suggested above-and leave it to be condemned. Members of this group have been depressed quite as much by the utter abandon of many homosexuals, especially those who live in homosexual circles as such, as by the absurdity of the condemnation rained down upon the well-behaved. One must disapprove the promiscuity and selfishness, the utter lack of any real affection, which is the stamp of so many adult relationships, heterosexual as well as homosexual. We see nothing in them often but thinly disguised lust, unredeemed by that real concern which has always been the essential Christian requirement in a human relationship.

But it is also obvious that the really promiscuous and degraded homosexual has not been helped by the total rejection he has had to face. Society has not said "if you do that, that is all right, but as to the other, we cannot approve of that". It has said "whatever you do must be wrong: indeed you are wrong". We must consider whether it is not the relationship that matters, rather than the acts that it may involve. Then homosexuals will be helped to face the moral implications of thin selfish relationships, and society will accept homosexuals as human beings.

"I seek only to apply to my own life the rules which govern the lives of all good men: freedom to choose a partner and, when that partner is found, to'live with him discreetly and faithfully." (Peter Wildeblood, Against the Law, page 175.) Is the homosexual to have that freedom, or must he, in Housman's words, "curse the God that made him for the colour of his hair"?

steaching

matinchine REVIEW

VENEREAL DISEASE

and

HOMOSEXUAL CONTACTS

The following article resulted from an interview with public health officials conducted by William Lambert, associate edi tor of One magazine. Although the major portions have been printed in One, we reprint the entire article here because we believe it should have the widest circulation possible. Mr. Lambert's questions are in italics. The answers are supplied by W. A. Ketterer, M.D., Head of V.D. Section, California Department of Public Health.

Mattachine REVIEW would be grateful for any further questions from its readers, in order that we may compile a more comprehensive article for future publication.

How is venereal disease spread?

Venereal diseases are caught each year by millions of people in the United States. By definition, venereal diseases are spread through intimate sexual relations with an infected person. Because syphilis and gonorrhea are caused by germs that do not survive away from the body, they don't just "happen" to a person, and are not spread by water, air or food, nor by toilet seats, drinking glasses, eating utensils, or door knobs. Heavy lifting and straining do not cause venereal diseases. Since there is no immunity to venereal diseases, the infected person can be cured and quickly catch the same disease again if exposed to someone who has it, including the same sex-partner who may not have been treated.

Syphilis can be spread in another way-by direct blood transfusion, or more commonly from the blood of an untreated pregnant mother to her unborn child. This is why we have premarital and prenatal laws providing for blood tests before marriage and during pregnancy. There is no protection for the single man "built into" the law.