Last night, after watching the movie Man on Wire (which I highly recommend, by the way), I had an interesting thought as I was trying to go to sleep. It is this:
Would Heavenly Father's Gospel really be one in which members cannot have the opportunity to fulfill their basic, unchosen, inborn needs?
Looking at the Church in general, it is set up to fulfill a host of members' needs. Obviously it aims at fulfilling spiritual needs. It provides the framework to fulfill familial, sexual, emotional, and social needs (at least for straight members). The Welfare System is designed to help take care of temporal needs. So there seems to be an inconsistency when it comes to the package of needs that accompany a homosexual orientation. It's not that the Church doesn't address these needs, it's that it specifically forbids them from being met!
Some might protest with opposing examples; let me try to address them:
-Alcoholism (along with other problems like it) is not an example of one of these needs because the alcoholic must first choose to taste alcohol before the effects are "activated" to their full strength. Meanwhile, no one chooses to experience his or her basic social, sexual, and emotional needs.
-Because there are simply more worthy young women than young men in the Church, there are bound to be some straight members whom the Church expects to remain celibate because, through no fault of their own, they are unmarried. (This could also include members with special needs or other handicaps.) However, these groups do at least have the hope of marriage since it is not as if the Church expressly bans their marriages, as it does those of gay and lesbian members.
-Some live in poverty with obstacles resulting from the circumstances of birth; their needs are clearly not met. Yet even for the most destitute, there is always hope for a change of situation, and the Church certainly doesn't prohibit the opportunity for basic needs of food and shelter to be met (instead often providing the means whereby those needs can be met).
Any thoughts? Am I missing a significant exception or piece of information?