It's actually not quite the same thing, redux

About a month ago I did a post explaining why I don't like it when people try to say that asking homosexual members of the church to remain celibate isn't any different than asking single members of the church to remain celibate. My sister and I had an email conversation that helped me flesh out in more detail why they are not the same thing and also why I think it's important to understand the difference, whether you are gay or not. Below are some of my explanations. I'd like to state again though at the outset that my purpose isn't to try and portray one as being more difficult than the other or that homosexuals win the hardest lot in life award.

We draw the line of appropriateness as no sex before marriage but really the line is never quite that clean and well defined. Speaking strictly in terms of heteros, I'm sure different couples would draw that line in different places. I've heard of couples who share their first kiss over the alter. Some couples are probably comfortable doing quite a bit more than that before marriage. There's no clearly drawn line for what is/isn't appropriate. Sure, the further along you get, the more clear it becomes that you've crossed a boundary, but that's going to be different for different couples.

Generally speaking, the same isn't true for homosexuals. Is it ok for me to cuddle with another man? Or hold hands? Is it ok for us to kiss? None of that constitutes sex before marriage and I feel confident in saying that most people in the church would say it's perfectly OK for hetero singles to engage in any of that activity before marriage. Would they say the same thing about homosexuals? I also feel fairly confident in saying that if I were to engage in those activities with another man it would make most, if not all my bishops very uncomfortable, probably to the point of taking some kind of action against me. I would also add that single heteros haven't grown up being taught that their very attraction that they don't have much control over is evil. The church is stepping away from that now and drawing a line between the attractions and acting on the attractions, but you can't undo years and years of entrenched beliefs over night. I think there are still many in the church who still believe that the attraction itself is evil.

I think if we fail to seek tounderstand the unique trials faced by different groups and more specifically individuals, then we will also fail to effectively minister to individuals. If a bishop looks at the single women in his ward and the homosexuals in his ward and lumps them together in his mind as being pretty much in the same boat, he will be less effective at ministering to their needs in a way that will be helpful to the individuals. As a matter of fact, I think this is one of many reasons why gay members have a hard time feeling like they have a place in the church.

Generally speaking, priesthood leaders have a hard time grasping and understanding the plight of gay members in a way that enables them to minister to them effectively. I've felt that time and time again first hand. As a matter of fact, I would say none of my bishops have been particularly helpful on this issue, and some even very unhelpful, as good as their intentions were. I'm willing to admit though, that I could probably do more to engage in dialogue with them that helps them understand a little bit better. I think we all fail to some extent to fully and elegantly express what we are feeling, and what the desires of our hearts are, in part because sometimes we don't understand ourselves and what we're feeling at times or what the desires of our hearts are.

On the other hand, I feel like the plight of single members is more within the grasp of most priesthood leaders and more generally understood. Their understanding probably isn't perfect, but much more so than their understanding of homosexuality. I wanted to speak out for a group that I feel is much less understood.