sexual completeness, to receive the only real self-surrender possible for similisexuals. That bizarre, sterile union is to-day, as a legal tolerance, only a fantastic dream of such enthusiasts as Ulrichs. It is likely so to remain, even were modern conceptions of social and sexual ethics more amenable. It abides a fantasy, not easily to be made more harmonious—even as a theory. The world revolts from such a suggestion. But if there can be no social or legal acceptance of intersexual marriage, the currents of constant and elevated uranian loves find their way the world around, century by century, in obedience to high impulses of intersexuals and of their unchartered rights. Students of them, who have religious convictions on lines of Christian theologies, can even believe that such emotions and their mystic unities refer themselves to ties more enduring, more purely spiritual than those of our earth; their essence defined by Christ when he dismissed the idea of normal marriages for disembodied spirits, in the phrase "—neither marrying nor giving in marriage but all are as the angels of God in heaven."
— 554 —
