Ryan Mauro has a very thoughtful discussion of a TV show I'd never heard of in an essay titled "A Sermon Inspired by The Real World: Washington, D.C. -- A bisexual Christian on MTV's reality show illustrates the true meaning of the faith."

I don't normally associate MTV with bisexual Christians (whom I assume could expect to get untold grief from so many single issue activists on both sides that it boggles the mind), but hey, maybe the times are changing. Or maybe MTV thinks something like that would generate audience interest. I don't know, as I am out of touch with the times and MTV.

While Ryan Mauro found the character (Mike) refreshing, he also touched on something that has long puzzled me -- the interplay between sexuality and what a number of Christians to be the difference betwen right and wrong:

Mike makes a greater point, one that all Christians should embrace. Mike explains how the idea that his bisexuality means "you can't be religious, you can't follow the Bible, you can't follow God ... is stupid." This may sound like a hippie version of Christianity that means there is no objective right and wrong, but he further explains.

"My church is come-as-you-are and we'll teach you Christ and we'll make you better and if you're flawed, everybody's flawed, just do what you can," he says, and then he goes onto explain the concept of Christ's sacrifice and God's love. Again, this sounds like an acceptance of sin, but if you listen closely, he's acknowledging that we're all sinners and in need of salvation. And as all sinners require God's mercy, this means we are all on the same plane -- whether you're a bisexual, or lie, or act selfishly, or ever step into any of the pitfalls that all of us have -- unless you think you're perfect, which is a pitfall in and of itself.

In other words, Mike, despite how some Christians would unfortunately look down upon him, articulates the most important premises of the faith that go beyond any debate about its specific tenets, such as the one regarding sexual orientation. At least for me, it was simply inspiring.

Having no objective sense of right or wrong would mean total nihilism. Which would mean that murder, robbery, rape are not wrong. Why would a belief that that there is nothing intrinsically wrong or evil about someone's choice of sexual partners mean such a thing? Unless "objective sense of right and wrong" means all-or-nothing acceptance of every law said to come from God, and that not believing in one means not believing in all, I'm just not getting it. It's about as logical as saying that because someone doesn't think violating the Sabbath is wrong, that he has no objective sense of right and wrong.

This is not to say that right and wrong are not implicated in the area of sexuality. The sordid case of Senator John Edwards will serve as an illustration:

In an earlier interview with ABC News that will air Friday, Jan. 29, Young also claims that it was Edwards who proposed an elaborate cover-up in a failed attempt to hide the fact that he fathered a baby girl with Hunter.

Edwards finally confessed today that he is the father of Hunter's daughter, Frances Quinn. But his statement did not stop fresh revelations from emerging about his attempts to keep his paternity secret.

Young initially tried to protect his boss' reputation and political career by publicly stating that he was the father of Hunter's infant, a story that Hunter did not dispute.

"The senator made the full pitch," Young told ABC News' "20/20." "Not just for me. I mean he didn't just have to convince me that I was going to take paternity. He also had to convince Rielle that she would publicly claim that I had been the father."

Young said Edwards, a former North Carolina senator and Democratic presidential contender in 2008, asked him to steal one of his daughter's soiled diapers as part of a DNA strategy.

Even if you don't believe that consensual adultery is inherently wrong (I think cheating on a spouse is always wrong, but if the spouse consents, that changes things), that still would in no way justify the man's loathsome behavior. He was quite willing to ruin lives, careers and ethical reputations of other people, simply to preserve his own career. It frightens me that such a man came within a few electoral votes of being next in line for the presidency. And I think focusing on his conduct as "adultery" misses the point in a rather major way.

Edwards strikes me as a man who does not care at all about right or wrong. But what he did does not follow from adultery, or the belief that consensual adultery is OK -- any more than his adultery would give him the right to commit murder.

While I recognize that there are people who would argue that if adultery is OK, that means murder is OK, I think that view is horribly mistaken, and encourages nihilism on both sides.

The ability to know right from wrong no more revolves around sexual views than it does on views of breaking the Sabbath, or for that matter, coveting.