do you know, this is ironical, for truth is the only means to the end they are seeking. Let there be any amount of distortion, any amount of false structuring of their research, any amount of suppression, and it will mean that not only is their work going to be challenged, and that it is going to topple in the end, but that the entire end they are seeking will be set back by the poverty of that work. Truth means objectivity. If a movement that has set itself certain ends cannot support those ends by telling the truth, and the whole truth, as they see it, then something is wrong with the ends they have set for themselves, and they had better re-evaluate those ends. And I say, I believe in those ends, and I challenge anyone to stand up for them as much as I do today and as I have in the past. But I do not believe that distortion is going to lead to them. I believe that they are goals which will be supported only by the most objective research and the most objective seeking for truth. If, in the course of this seeking, some of the material that is unearthed seems to create difficulties, I say these difficulties are small compared to those that we will face if we do not reveal this information. Unfortunately there are, on both sides. of the fence, people with a certain perspective, with a certain relativistic point of view, who are all too ready to scoff at any other point of view. This is, as I have already said, true of those inside and outside the movement, and I will come to some specific points in just a moment.

Next, I would like to say that a rational point of view on the part of anyone engaged in such a movement must presuppose the attitude that repressive measures against a group are wrong, not because they themselves happen to be members of that group, but because repressive measures against any group in society are,

one

in and of themselves, wrong unless that particular group is interfering with the major aims of society itself. Unfortunately, some people in the homosexual movement have not yet seen the necessity of understanding the attitudes toward other minority groups, and I do not mean only the racial minorities. Within the homosexual movement itself, I have seen, unfortunately, the same sneering, hostile attitude toward certain minorities within this minority that society at large exhibits toward the minority as a whole. I refer to the very serious and disturbing problem of the extremely effeminate homosexual. This is a very serious problem. I know there are reasons for this attitude; there are always good functional reasons for anything that anyone does, otherwise he wouldn't do them. But the irony of this is apparent. Just consider how narrow must be the liberation of certain minds if they cannot see how necessary it is, in extending a friendly social attitude toward homosexuals, to extend it to all those involved and not to just a few or even to a majority of those involved. These particular people of whom I speak advance to others the problem of association. It's a frequently heard argument, but what a peculiar argument it is when one stops to consider it, because it is exactly the same argument that is heard in Washington, D.C., against having any homosexual on a certain job, or in an Army post, because of the association with that person. "We are not against that person," they say, "but just think what they will think of me when they find out about him." It is a peculiar thing that people who are engaged in this movement have not been able to grasp at times the full implications of guilt by association even though they glibly and frequently utilize this phrase.

I would like to state, furthermore, that a rational approach to homosex-

8