And so it was a gratuitous, meaningless, hypocritical, cynical, dishonest attempt to differentiate homosexual candidates from heterosexual candidates.
Or, as in your original post, it doesn't ask anything different of homosexual candidates from what it asks of heterosexual candidates.
You don't seem to have a fix on which of those interpretations of the document is correct. That's because the document itself is an exercise in gibberish.

In a different thread, only tangentially related to this issue, I posted some thoughts about this document. I'm going to repost them here as responses to this post.