SIR,—Your correspondent Mr. R. Browning sur- prises me by omitting
to suggest that homosexuals should be horse-whipped : this would have been in keeping with the rest of his letter. But perhaps I may attempt to deal rationally with his somewhat muddled thinking—and as a married woman I hope I may escape any suspicion of having a personal axe to grind.
First of all, let us not lose sight of the fact that the proposed amendment to the law was to cover private conduct between consenting adult males. If by removing the threat of prosecution we should be guilty of 'mollycoddling' them, then surely (to follow Mr. Browning's line of thought to its logical con- clusion) we are at present also mollycoddling adulterers and those who choose to get drunk in the privacy of their own homes? So far as I know, a dipsomaniac cannot be forced even to take treat- ment, so long as he does not publicly annoy other people.
Of course homosexual relationships are 'unnatural,' in the accepted meaning of the word—and so are a number of heterosexual practices which incur no legal penalty. But the amendment of the law would not take away from the individual member of society his right, based on conscience, religious convic- tions, etc., to adopt whatever personal attitude he wished to those who deviate from the norm. That is the privilege of us all—Mr. Browning included, of course, though I hope he is mistaken in the belief that he is voicing the views of a great number of your readers.
Finally, if they achieved nothing else, the imple- mentation of the Wolfenden proposals would at least remove the present unfair anomaly whereby Lesbians are guilty of no breach of the criminal code, although, apart from the obvious physical difference, their behaviour is Surely morally and psychologically parallel to that of their male counterparts.—Yours faithfully.
JOYCE ASPLAND
Flat 7, 65 Warwick Road, SW5
Previous page
