remaining unmarried and childless in the light of the world-wide population explosion. It was felt by the 7 that this was primarily a heterosexual concern and that any homosexuals particularly disturbed on the mattor should work with organizations which espouse plannod parenthood or seek to make cheap, effective birthcontrol methods available to all those concerned.

CONCLUSIONS

This report is presented with the following qualifications:

1. The committee, voting 7-2, does not acoept the title "A Homosexual Bill of Rights" as a proper identification for the report they off or based on the instructions provided for the committee's activities.

2.

A.

B.

16

The committee would prefer an alternate title to the proposed bill of rights to read: "A Report on Some Homosexual Attitudes as to their Rights and Noods".

In general, we do not believe that "rights" are involved with scientific theories and desire only to see scientists and social scientists live up to their own highest ideals of their professions. If any rights have been abrogated by scientific theories, the only one we can think of is the Right to Self-Acceptance and Personal Growth, which is hindered by the all-prevailing theory held that homosexuality is "per se" an indication of mental illness or emotional meladjustment.

Regarding the matter of homosexuality and overpopulation the committee voted 7-2 against the concept that homosexuality should be advocated for heterosexually or bisexually oriented people on the grounds that it could be considered a brake on overpopulation. They felt that society could no longer demand that the homosexual produce children as a duty, since there is a population explosion, but that otherwise the homosexual was not concerned with overpopulation, eugenics, or artificial insemination, except as an interested citizen. Contraceptives were considered as a means heterosexuals should investigate, but