The film offers a priceless experience of the excruciating pain suffered by a young man, Simon Harvey, who found it impossible to reconcile his homosexual orientation with his religious/moral convictions. Feeling himself condemned to a life without love, the only solution he saw was suicide. It is a very, very sad-indeed tragic-story, made all the more painful by the quotes read throughout the documentary from his suicide note, diary and letters.
The film tries to be balanced and for the most part succeeds: it comes across as neither pro-gay nor pro-Christian. It seeks, through questions posed to friends and family, to understand and find a solution to Simon's dilemma-but doesn't. The final message is to "accept people as they are". But what that means, and how to do it are questions that are left open. And that's a flaw in the film (as far as seeking a solution to Simon's problem). For proponents of the gay movement, "accepting people as they are" generally means having them first accept themselves as gay and then everyone around them doing the same. Because the gay movement has been so powerful in promoting its solution, nowadays society at large tends to follow suit. In the film this is made clear by one of Simon's friends as well as by the psychiatrist. But many homosexuals reject the gay lifestyle (as did Simon). What do society, psychiatric professions and church people have to offer them? This question remains unanswered in the film. Indeed, another flaw in the film is that it fails to distinguish between "homosexuality" (an orientation not chosen by the person, morally neutral, a given) and "gay" (a lifestyle choice, a moral choice). Simon likewise failed to make the distinction, as evidenced by quotes from his letter.
But there is another interpretation of "accept people as they are". It is to accept them unconditionally as they are (the humanistic psychologist Carl Rogers' term was "unconditional positive regard"), with complete respect for them, their dignity and their choices-including the choice not to follow the gay lifestyle. This is not discussed in the film and needs to be. But the film, by presenting raw data of a real struggle, provides material for viewers to ponder the unanswered questions themselves. Ultimately, Simon took his life because he came to the conclusion that love was beyond his reach-except as offered by the gay lifestyle. Since he rejected the latter, love was (as he saw it) impossible, and he despaired.
The film tries to be balanced and for the most part succeeds: it comes across as neither pro-gay nor pro-Christian. It seeks, through questions posed to friends and family, to understand and find a solution to Simon's dilemma-but doesn't. The final message is to "accept people as they are". But what that means, and how to do it are questions that are left open. And that's a flaw in the film (as far as seeking a solution to Simon's problem). For proponents of the gay movement, "accepting people as they are" generally means having them first accept themselves as gay and then everyone around them doing the same. Because the gay movement has been so powerful in promoting its solution, nowadays society at large tends to follow suit. In the film this is made clear by one of Simon's friends as well as by the psychiatrist. But many homosexuals reject the gay lifestyle (as did Simon). What do society, psychiatric professions and church people have to offer them? This question remains unanswered in the film. Indeed, another flaw in the film is that it fails to distinguish between "homosexuality" (an orientation not chosen by the person, morally neutral, a given) and "gay" (a lifestyle choice, a moral choice). Simon likewise failed to make the distinction, as evidenced by quotes from his letter.
But there is another interpretation of "accept people as they are". It is to accept them unconditionally as they are (the humanistic psychologist Carl Rogers' term was "unconditional positive regard"), with complete respect for them, their dignity and their choices-including the choice not to follow the gay lifestyle. This is not discussed in the film and needs to be. But the film, by presenting raw data of a real struggle, provides material for viewers to ponder the unanswered questions themselves. Ultimately, Simon took his life because he came to the conclusion that love was beyond his reach-except as offered by the gay lifestyle. Since he rejected the latter, love was (as he saw it) impossible, and he despaired.
