THE FLESH AND THE SPIRIT

Dear Sirs:

Being metaphysically and spirituallyminded, I enjoyed the Magazine (December, 1960) very much. One reference said that Christ never condemned homophiles; they, being a minority, weren't mentioned, but I'm certain he felt that true, spiritual love between two persons of the same sex could be just as meaningful and true as between two persons of the opposite sex. Also, I'm sure that sexual expression between two persons of the same sex is no more wrong than between two people of the opposite sex.

In God's sight I feel sure that two people of the same sex are just as much married as a married man and woman, if they pledge themselves to one another and are deeply in love. The love of David and Jonathan was of the highest type and deemed very good and moral.

The type of homosexual activity that was considered bad in the Old Testament (Sodom and Gomorrah) referred to acts of extreme passion and lust between males who were supposedly heterosexual and were going against their natures and perhaps interfered with their responsibilities to family, children,

etc.

Inverted people, who are not married and don't have the family responsibilities will find nothing in the Old or new Testaments to interfere with their love and friendship for one another. True inverts shouldn't be damned, as were those men of Sodom and Gomorrah.

In the New Testament, St. John felt great love for Christ and I believe it is in one of the Gospels that John used to lay his head on Christ's breast.

Sirs:

Mr. F.

San Francisco, Calif.

Your recent (December, 1960) issue has been brought to my attention, and while I am far from willing to extend the same attitude generally, I find this issue highly commendable for its willingness to present a variety of viewpoints. If the willingness truly to work for the objectivity which you profess can be as much more shown in future issues as it has been in this one, then I think I could very well come to respect the Magazine (as I now don't) and recommend it to any-

one.

If you would like to know the kind of thing which distresses me and dampens the respect I might have I could cite this extract from your editorial, "Non-religious persons may even feel that any situation which points up the shortcomings of religion in modern society, and which turns people from such superstitions is ultimately to the good."

A better phrasing might seem to have been something like, "which turns people against

what they themselves believe to be mere superstitions." You see, I AM religious, because I am concerned with the truth and believe that in religion there is a truth which cannot be denied any more than a truth which is non-religious. Only by looking at each truth squarely, wherever one finds it, do I find that we can know what is essential in either one for its trueness.

Dear Editor:

Mr. M.

lowa City, Iowa

I have gone to a number of different churches, not out of any need for "organized" religion, but mainly out of curiosity, and I must take issue with one of your editorial statements. You say (December, 1960) that "homophiles (are) conspicuously unwelcome in most churches-Catholic, Babtist, Unitarian, whatever."

It has been my experience, and I have travelled over a great part of the world, that the Unitarian people have made me the most welcome, even when they definitely knew my taste and preferences. European. Catholics I have also found much more tolerant than the Baptist, Methodist, Presbyterian, and Lutherans.

I do think the Unitarian attitude is generally very broad and tolerant toward nonconformists. I remember being in Miami quite a few years ago when the mayor went rather berserk on a "clean-up campaign," and there. were lots of arrests and trouble. The only church which did anything to help toward a fair and balanced judgment was the Unitarian, which opened its doors for a series of evening forums and lectures, giving each side an opportunity to be fairly heard. These were well-conducted and should have made the mayor quite ashamed.

I think you and your colleagues are doing a splendid and wonderful work generally in having such a Magazine as you bring out. I am sure it must take a great deal of courage to so openly face so much much limited knowledge, intelligence and emotional immaturity.

Mr. L.

East Dennis, Mass. BOUQUET FROM A SUSSEX HEDGEROW To the Editor of ONE:

This morning the postman brought me a parcel from Over the Ocean. What a simply lovely lot of literature you have sent me. I think it is a wonderfully run little magazine; always so fresh and full of spirit, and to my taste you make just the right selection between too highbrow and too childishadmire the editor very much.

One thing that surprises me is that homophiles use the word Gay to describe themselves. I would have supposed them, as a class, inclined toward sadness, waves of de-

31