approach. It was conceded, however, that our om economic independence must be established before we can go forward. Entering the field of civil service was to be discouraged as fear of one's job would necessarily hamper activities in the move for social reform. And solidarity and unity of numbers is necessary before any such movement can hope to bring any influence to bear. As for present laws that are directed at the homosexual, it was suggested, "Conform to laws publicly. Privately? Do the best you can."

PROMISCUITY:

1.

2.

3.

WRONG OR RIGHT?

Religious views

Is it a psychological or biological necessity?

Social and legal dangers

4. Can it hold a partnership together?

The moderator began by using the Webster's definiti on, leaning heavily toward the word "indiscriminate". Promiscuity: indi scriminate distribution, application, intercourse; irregular, casual standards.

In the area of religion it was observed that Jesus made no statement on sex directly. The "vow" or "pledge" is the concern of the concept of sin. Only in connection with a promise does a moral issue enter in. Sex was not incorporated into the moral system until the Judaic system, and there the concept of sex existed as a concern of the ethical area rather than a part of doctrine. Our personal views will no doubt conflict with the views of the Church, but the Church is not necessarily the proper and true spokesman for the religion.

The question "Is promiscuity a psychological or biological necessity" achieved little comment other than that some people held it is possible to live without sex entirely and others felt that for the single homosexual promiscuity was the only outlet not to be interpreted necessarily as promiscuity if the element of "indiscrimination" were part of the qualification.

The social and legal dangers of promiscuity were held to be obvious. The relationship of fear to necessity was discussed but it was not determined why a man vill pocket his

22