I don't think this poll has much meaning. I'm not authorized to speak for the Church, and I wasn't asked how I view homosexuality.
I can't speak for the Church. Since it wasn't asked how I view homosexuality, I didn't participate in the poll.
This poll fails to define homosexuality, making it challenging to answer the poll. If one defines homosexuality as "sexual relationships with others of the same gender", it might be answered one way. If defined as "attraction to others of the same gender", it might be answered differently, both by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints and by her members.
My vote represents my opinion, not my perception of a stance that the church currently holds. The church's stance on many things has been changing, and I have no doubt that this will, too. My vote reflects my love for many LGBQT people and my feeling that God loves them as they are. I also believe that gender, although clearly having a biological aspect, has been strongly socialized in our culture, and that in a perfect state of existence, the expression of gender may look very different. My vote expresses the way I wish LGBQT ould be accepted and loved in the church so that the gospel that is available to me is also available to them on an equal basis -- i.e., they can be in a position to receive all the covenants available and live in full fellowship. I trust God to sort this out -- it is certainly beyond my ability to judge or rationalize. I think my job is to love, accept, and encourage. My cis-gender nature is not a result of righteousness -- it's something I can't help or change -- nor do I want to -- and I assume that, without social pressure, most people would feel that way if they were able to express their sexuality without prejudice.
I’m inclined to think that in order to progress to the point of continuous progression (highest degree) the masculine and feminine have to complete each other. This isn’t unique to LDS doctrine or Christianity in general. There’s a very interesting Hindu belief along the same lines.
So maybe it comes down to that? I’m not sure though.
I believe that we should stand with the Brethren in, "solemnly proclaim[ing] that marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God and that the family is central to the Creator’s plan for the eternal destiny of His children."
If a relationship does not lead to the temple, AKA Eternal Marriage, then it is not of God and should not be pursued. We need to remember who we are, sons and daughters of God, and the potential we have to be as He is. When we remember that, out eternal identity, then we have no reason to pursue anything that would detract us from eternal progression.
I voted for the most positive option, not because I believe that's currently the church's teaching, but because I believe it's the direction the leaders seem to be headed.
FWIW, I do think they have moved away from Option 1, and may be somewhere in the vicinity of Option 4. But maybe that's just wishful thinking.