[loo]

You've buried the lede that the core framework does see homosexual behavior as "wrongful sexual desire", "regressive behaviour".

You can accept that or not, but it's disingenuous to equate asking gays never to have sexual or romantic relationships, to asking non-gay people just to curb excess.

That's not an equal imposition, it feels like self-equivocating ad-hominem to read "you're not being targeted here, so can you stop with the victim complex please?"

If you agree that it's better for gay people to never experience intimacy, please just say so, without labelling the concern (that gay people may feel less invited) as ridiculous

[nashashmi]

Someone who has a thirst for illicit relationship with women must also refrain from doing so.

Forbidding a person from lusting anyone other than spouse whether they like it or not is no different than forbidding a person from having gay desires. And no amount of self identification can label that inhumane.

[loo]

Under your axioms, it may be equivalent, but I think they're mistaken.

Orientation is not a choice, and is orthogonal to identification.

I believe that same-sex relationships can be as profoundly fulfilling, enriching, and pro-social as heterosexual relationships.

That marrying a straight woman with a gay man is profoundly unfulfilling for both.

And that denying a class of people something so profound, freely enjoyed by everyone else, and which does not harm anyone else, can indeed be seen as inhumane.