If an academic 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 the discriminatory beliefs that result from them. According to Herek's (1987) research, religion is one of the most important social agents in shaping views against homosexuality, and their intolerance spills over into both the academic community and society in its whole. As a moral realist, I cannot form biases 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 respond to the problem, as my goal is to persuade the faculty advisor that censoring articles based on the author's sexual preferences is morally incorrect. In the letter, I will attempt to persuade the faculty advisor that the ethical decision-making model behind the article's retraction is flawed, and I will explain personal and community worldviews that endorse diversity while avoiding statements generalized to preserve the relationship with my loved ones. other. The Church follows ethics because it considers its own rules to be absolute. Ethically, the Roman Catholic Church operates under the proposition that God himself is against homosexuals, and people should therefore follow its rule that homosexuality is a sin. However, I believe there are two types of ethical positions in this situation because I have observed two types of deontologists. While all deontologists view the rules as absolute and follow them regardless of external circumstances, some deontologists follow the rules and standards set by other institutes...... middle of paper ...... to homosexuals in the 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 I should choose my words carefully is to preserve the relationship with my loved one and avoid potential conflicts. . Although I am apparently trying to promote a generalized ethical statement, my partner should not care about my actions if I express my statements subjectively. Noncognitivism opposes objective and universal truths because subjective opinions define truths, but it accepts statements 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 partner regarding the expressions used in the letter..