I cannot presume to speak for Peninsula's Council. I certainly do not speak for the one Peninsula writer other than myself specifically cited in the staff position. Nor does that writer speak for the rest of Peninsula, at least not in the nuance of his arguments.

I believe, however, that the staff is incorrect in saying that the Council of Peninsula believes that homosexual activity is wrong because "God says it's wrong."

The question of whether human sexual activity morally can be used for non-procreative, non-unitive ends is a philosophical question as well as a religious one.

To argue against the "naturalistic fallacy" as the staff does is to deny that there is anything special in human beings which defines them as human beings.

If the staff's definition of "naturalness" cannot include a definition of human possibility as part of the essence of a human being, then the staff cannot actually say that anything that "is" is wrong.

Peninsula believes that what is most important about human beings is that they can be rational, that they are capable of reason, and that therefore they are deserving of respect by other human beings.

What Peninsula believes is important in the definition of human sexuality is that it is unitive and procreative. That it can be used otherwise means that it is used otherwise.

But the fact that sex is used otherwise does not mean that using it otherwise conforms to the correct definition of sex.