I was investigating the case of the missing table tents.

The flyers, promoting Creighton’s Knights of Columbus speaker Dr. Janet Smith, began disappearing from Java Jay and Wareham food court tables as early as March 18, even though Knights of Columbus had reserved the spots until March 23.

Once I located one, their disappearance became more obvious. Smith planned to speak on homosexuality, “its causes, effects and treatments,” and all of this was funded in part by my very own Creighton Students Union.

I could understand why the idea of our student government paying for this speaker, whose ad effectively implied that the Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgender community was disease-ridden, lingered with a disconcerting aftertaste.

I arrived at the talk a little bitter after realizing her Web site recommended the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality “for more information on homosexuality.” But I left pleasantly surprised.

Smith’s basic argument was that homosexuality does not mean eternal damnation, but rather fulfilling a homosexual desire is a sinful, disordered act. In other words, feel free to love your fellow man, just don’t touch him.

She then used numerous public health and psychological data to argue that this Catholic teaching is rooted in reason. I would have used other data and drawn different conclusions, but her argument, for the most part, seemed understanding and thoughtful.

While I disagreed with Smith considerably, especially her statement, “If you can say two partners is natural, I would say this means heterosexuality is natural” and her “treatments,” which included journaling, praying and forsaking caffeine, the level of open, intellectual discourse startled me.

The audience engaged Smith in a mature discussion about topics that would normally make me snicker under my breath: such as anal sex, masturbation and wet dreams.

At her most empathetic, Smith said, “The Church should be eager to accept homosexuals and make sure they do not feel alienated, isolated from the community.”

When a student started to say, “the gay advocates on campus who preach acceptance but are highly critical of…,” Smith interrupted and asked the student “not to ruin the good thing we have here.”

When she finished her impressive hour long question-and-answer session, Smith thanked everyone for “positively contributing to the discussion.”

This comment left me considering a scenario that would continue her discussion: If a student organization wanted to host a speaker that would encourage the Church to accept homosexuality, would that speaker be met with CSU funding and, more importantly, a respectful, civil audience? The answer does not seem so reassuring. So for now, I will only ask easier questions. Why does CSU not pre-approve all advertising displaying its logo, who stole those table tents and did they at least recycle?