The WTS and Christendom will NEVER get this right before Armageddon (2012?)
A "eunuch" in the Bible is a reference to a gay person. Being "gay" is considered to be a GIFT, but a gift of singleness. The context of that is that men will form close, loving relationships with each other in deference to romance with women. But at the same time, they are expected to masturbate (1 Thess 4:3-8) to alleviate any physical sexual tensions, not sodomize any close single male companions they might have fallen in love with.
Therefore, preferring men to women, not liking women sexually (or visa versa for lesbians) is NATURAL.
God condemns ALL SEX outside of marriage. It is clear god designed sex between men and women, often the result being procreation. Does that mean God designed men to enjoy oral sex with each other or sodomy? I'm not going to answer that other than it appears that "sodomy" between two men is not something designed to be enjoyed to honor god.
But that doesn't mean two men can't fall in love or kiss or be "companions" with each other without being intimate.
Thus the homosexuality in the NT in particular deals with those who worship the physical body and insist upon that level of iconic sex. You know, the worship of the perfect body and face, etc. that we see in gay icons. In that case, God is said to make the sexual desires intense and cause them to become wildly obsessed with that kind of sex.
So you have to take this into context. I'm not saying God approves "gay marriage" though he clearly does not condemn an aesexual gay marriage. But that is a far cry from some who in the gay community go to gay bath houses every night and have sex with 5 or 6 or more strangers in orgy rooms. Some in a rather standard gay lifestyle in some of the larger cities have sex with as many strangers as a female prostitute would. That kind of sex is out.
So most gay sex would be condemned anyway outside of marriage. Without dealing with the topic of whether God would approve monogamous sex in a gay marriage, there is a lot of sexuality that would be condemned even if that was considered a concession.
So it is difficult to defend "homosexuality" when you don't consider specific lifestyles. Does that mean it's okay for an adult priest to sodomize a young altar boy? No. Homosexuals don't want to defend that behavior. That's a given. What about the right to have sex with another man as a consenting adult, as with a man and a woman. Well sure, but the Bible condemns even heterosexual sex outside marriage. There is the LEGAL and MORAL issue, therefore.
Anyway, Christendom and the WTS can't get past sexuality as represented in the Bible that is NOT CONDEMNED which is (1) polygamy and (2) masturbation, so they certainly can't conceive of the fine line between just being "gay" and being a "practicing homosexual" or that being a "eunuch" (gay) is considered a "gift."
So yet another thing that we'll have to wait on Judgment Day for. I imagine though gays on formal marriages and monogamous reliationships will fair better than gays who enjoy the promiscuous life, that is, as long as they can before dying from AIDS as many have. But along with them will be so many heterosexuals who aborted their babies and who are having sex outside marriage.
Just my 2 cents.