It's actually not quite the same thing

Have you ever heard the line that asking gay members of the church to remain celibate isn’t any different than asking single sisters who don’t marry to remain celibate? That statement is like nails on chalkboard to me. It completely dismisses the full reality faced by members of the church who experience feelings of attraction for the same sex.

I recently listened to this Mormon Stories interview with Natasha Parker, who is an LDS marriage and family therapist. Of the many topics they discussed, homosexuality was one of them. John Dehlin (the interviewer) explored with Natasha the options that are available to gay members. Natasha says right up front that none of the options are really that fantastic. I think she boiled them down to three options. One option is to leave the church and pursue a same sex relationship, a second option is to stay in the church and pursue a relationship with someone of the opposite sex, and a third is to stay in the church and remain celibate. Clearly, these aren’t the only options, but probably the three most well traveled paths.

At one point in the interview, John brings up the commonly stated idea that what the church asks of gay members isn’t different than asking single sisters (I also think it’s funny that it’s always single sisters and not single people in general) to remain celibate. He also mentions other scenarios, like what if one spouse experiences some kind of medical condition that renders him or her unable to be physically intimate, like paralysis. You could also say that sex isn’t everything and a lot of marriages become sexless anyway, so what’s the big deal? Anyway, John presents these scenarios and asks Natasha if that is a fair comparison to what is asked of gay members. Thankfully, Natasha responds that it’s not really the same thing.

I want to take it a step further and explain why it isn’t the same thing. With single sisters, there is at least still a hope that they will one day be able to be with someone who they love and are attracted to and either way, in the next life everything will be taken care of, right? I think there’s an assumption that that applies for homosexuals as well, meaning that everything will work out in the next life, and you won’t be gay. I don't think we magically become someone different in the next life. I don’t think we know exactly how things will work out in the next life. I believe that they will, I just don’t think we can fully know or understand how they will.

The comparison to marriages that become sexless anyway to justify marrying someone of the opposite sex doesn’t work for me either. Just because some marriages go through phases of little to no intimacy doesn’t mean I want to start out a marriage with that built in issue. Plus, the attraction to the same sex is about a lot more than just sex. I think a common misperception is that homosexuality is some kind of sexual addiction. Those are two completely different things. Sexual addiction can destroy you. I don’t think homosexuality can. Conflating the two only leads to misunderstandings that lead to failures in communication and understanding each other and what the real issues are.

There are emotional and intellectual and even intangible aspects to the attraction as well. If I had to choose between a sexless marriage to a woman and a sexless marriage to a man, I’d probably still choose a man. And it’s not because I don’t get along with women. Trust me, that has never been an issue. I went through a phase where I thought I got along too well with women and that part of curing the gay would be for me to try and not get along so well. That resulted in me slowly dying inside.

There’s just an intangible energy with men that I’m attracted to that isn’t necessarily only physical. If you are straight, try to explain the attraction that you have to your spouse or significant other or whomever you are attracted to. If it’s a mature attraction, it’s probably not purely physical and I’m guessing it would be difficult to fully explain why you are attracted. There are probably emotional and intellectual and spiritual aspects to your attraction as well as those intangible aspects that are hard to explain.

So bottom line is that the comparisons mentioned earlier just don’t work for me. To clarify, though, the purpose of this post isn’t to try and get the church to change its doctrine. That’s obviously not up to me to dictate. The purpose also isn’t to try and win the My-Life-is-the-Absolute-Worst-So-I-Deserve-the-Most-Pity competition.

In the July 2010 First Presidency message, President Eyring talks about faithful friends. He says, “When we reach out to give succor and to lift a burden, He reaches with us. He will lead us to those in need. He will bless us to feel what they feel. As we persist in our efforts to serve them, we will more and more be given the gift of feeling His love for them.” I just think that unless and until we really seek to understand and acknowledge the full reality of what other people face, there’s no way we can feel what they feel or experience true unconditional love for them. That's the purpose of this post.