For four hours yesterday, representatives from more than 20 campus groups pleaded with the University to do what they think is right.

The representatives testified before the University's Non-Discrimination Policy Review Committee about the feasibility of adding a sexual orientation clause to the University's non-discrimination policy.

The committee will make a recommendation to the University Faculty Senate when it finishes reviewing testimony, committee chair Donald C. Rung said. Rung did not know when that would be.

While most representatives want a sexual orientation clause, four speakers representing campus religious groups condemned the inclusion of the words "sexual orientation," citing religious objections.

"Homosexual behavior is immoral, self-destructive and harmful to the well-being of the community," said William Saxton, adviser of the International Christian Fellowship. "We wonder why Penn State feels compelled or qualified to add a sexual orientation clause."

A sexual orientation clause endorses homosexuality, Saxton said.

But Andrew Sicree, representing the St. Thomas More Catholic Association, suggested that a sexual orientation clause would be acceptable if it was modified to distinguish between homosexual orientation and practice.

"We love the sinner, but we hate the sin," Sicree explained.

Sicree and Saxton favored the blanket clause proposed by University President Joab Thomas last semester, saying it guaranteed protection for all.

Thomas' clause states that the University will protect all students, faculty and staff from harassment, abuse or assault, and that ability or qualifications -- not personal characteristics --are the primary considerations in educational and employment decisions.

But the majority of speakers rejected Thomas' clause and favored adding the words "sexual orientation."

"The issue is apparent to all fair-minded people that the University should take a stand and do something that is right -- it's just a question of human decency and fairness," said Reggie Brooks, director of minority affairs in the College of Education. "It seems to me that it should've been something that was dealt with years ago."

Representatives supporting the inclusion of the words "sexual orientation" called Thomas' clause vague and confusing.

"It really just opens up a can of worms," said Black Caucus Vice President Gerard Louison. "There are just so many ways it can be interpreted and used against someone. That's just the problem -- who's to judge (personal characteristics)?"

"I think it's time we quit playing games and call a spade a spade," Brooks agreed. "There is a significant group of people who have a specific orientation, and people of a different orientation are worthy of the same protection as anyone else."

Without a specific sexual orientation clause, some speakers said gay men, lesbians and bisexuals cannot be adequately protected.

"There's a fear and dislike of the unlike," Brooks said. "As a victim of racial discrimination for 47 years, I can tell you that it's a very difficult life to live."

Lori Ginzberg, an assistant professor of history and women's studies, agreed. "The best defense against bigotry is visibility."

Several gay students attending the hearing scoffed at statements made by some representatives of religious organizations.

"I'm insulted because I have to sit here and listen to these people discuss whether who I am is a justifiable reason to protect me," said Jeff Kemp, social-political co-director of the Lesbian, Gay and Bisexual Student Alliance. "We're all really tired of fighting and pushing. I just think that somebody better be giving us some answers soon."