sexual must stop looking to others to tell him what to think and do: above all, that he must stop allowing others to tell him what to think or do. It was on this keynote that the sessions closed.
SIX ROUNDTABLES
In two successive sets of roundtable discussions, six aspects of homosexuality as a way of life were explored, discussed, disputed. The chairman of each followed a discussion outline. which kept participants from wandering too far afield. As a result, nearly everyone felt that the sessions were both provocative and satisfying. Brief resumes follow.
I. Is Homosexuality a Social Necessity?
This discussion, with about fifteen participants, began on the question of whether there is an actual social need for non-conformists, and on this point, most of the group were agreed. A dynamic, progressive society depends on those social groups, such as homosexuals, who are forever challenging the old ways, seeking a new outlook, and resisting the deadening hand of authoritarianism.
It was suggested that homosexuality was a brake on overpopulation, and although most of the group admitted that overpopulation was a critical problem in the world today, few thought that homosexuality had much effect as an antidote.
The question was posed whether the heterosexual alone was enough for a balanced and progressive society. The group generally agreed that this had to be answered with a no, but the reasons varied. Many felt this was just another way of phrasing the first question, of whether non-conformists are
needed by society, while several felt that without the homosexual, society would never have progressed very far beyond the barnyard level. They maintained that at least the original impulse for most social innovations, for the creation of the arts and sciences came from those individuals who had to find their fulfilment outside the purely procreative and homebuilding pursuit.
Finally, there was the question of whether homosexuals are especially qualified for certain types of jobs. This brought more disagreement, though the group seemed unanimous in its feeling that this was true of at least a few jobs. Most did feel that at least an unusually large percentage of homosexuals possessed special artistic talents. A few, more sanguine, felt that homosexuals were actually better fitted for almost any job in modern society with the single exception of baby making. It was pointed out that jobs around X-rays or nuclear labs, which might endanger one's genetic structure, ought to be limited to those who aren't likely to have children. Someone else suggested, only half in jest, that family men be barred from jobs that entail lengthy travels. The idea also was brought up that the man with a family was hampered in the sorts of professions that called for an individual giving himself fully. It was also felt that homesexuals generally made good teachers, counsellors, etc.
Lyn Pedersen
II. Do Homosexuals Have Community Responsibilities?
Much of the discussion centered around whether it was preferable for homosexuals to participate in community affairs as a measure of promoting good public relations, or to devote themselves primarily to working with homophile organizations. It was agreed that while every citizen has cer-
9