If a faculty advisor censors an article written by a gay student, he is following his traditional views against the homosexual lifestyle. Several researchers have addressed the issue of sexual preferences and resulting discriminatory beliefs. According to research by Herek (1987), religion is one of the most important social agents in defining points of view against homosexuality and its intolerance is reflected both on the academic community and on the entire society. As a moral realist, I cannot form prejudices because the main rule of moral realism states that objective truth is not related to subjective beliefs. Perlocutionary analysis will be used to evaluate and answer the question because my goal is to persuade the faculty advisor that censoring articles based on the author's sexual preferences is morally wrong. In the letter, I will aim to persuade the faculty advisor that the ethical decision-making model underlying the article's removal is flawed, and I will explain both personal and community worldviews that support diversity, avoiding blanket statements to preserve the relationship with my dear. other.The Church follows ethics because it considers its own rules absolute. From a deontological position, the Roman Catholic Church operates under the assumption that God Himself is against homosexuals, so people should follow His rule that homosexuality is a sin. However, I believe there are two types of deontological positions in this situation because I have observed two types of deontologists. While all deontologists consider rules to be absolute and follow them regardless of external circumstances, some deontologists follow rules and norms established by other institutions... middle of paper... to homosexuals by letter. My concern is to persuade the counselor to encourage true values, such as unconditional love and compassion, while preserving my status in the community. Another reason why I should choose my words carefully is to preserve the relationship with my significant other and avoid potential conflicts. Even though I am ostensibly attempting to promote a blanket ethical statement, my significant other should not be concerned about my actions if I make my statements subjectively. Noncognitivism is opposed to objective, universal truths because subjective views define truths, but accepts claims that reflect subjective worldviews (Garner & Rosen, 1967). If I write the letter about equal human rights for all as a personal point of view, I should avoid conflicts with my significant other regarding the expressions used in the letter.