Not to be rude, you know I appreciate you PS - but really is there any indication that he was straight? Isn't it more accurate that the source is entirely mute on the subject and we get to inject our own biases onto him? Sure we can play the odds and say he was likely "straight" (as if we can apply our modern cultural definitions so broadly), but we can also interpret his body of work and say he was a Stoic aesthete who rejected sexuality from a philosophical point. Indeed, he said much more against straight sex and raising a family than qualified anti-gay statements.
Actually there is nothing to make us thing he WASN'T gay, and certianly hius love for Timothy can be taken to a whole other level if we want to.
And certianly man if his ideas were very "greek", but let's be honest here and admit that Paul being gay probably was not something that could be hidden, not with so many people against him.
I think that many of Paul's letters, since they were a combination of answeres to questions and recommendations to elders and "special ones" in a given congrgation, where many times take out of context.
Paul said that a preacher CAN live off his preaching, but makes note that neither He nor thsoe with him did that.
He also advices those that have dedicated themselves to Christ, not just followers, but dedicated their lives to Christ, shoudl remain single as to not expose their families to hardship and such. Advice and opinions do NOT equal doctrine and people keep forgetting that.
Unless that advice and opinion is MADE doctrine.