Well I don't agree with that. I just have a different exegesis than you in this matter. Plus, while most of the moral commandments in the law can be reasoned and it clearly shows how they make sense in creating a working social life, this does not apply for homosexuality. Paul remarked how love fulfills the law because it does not do harm. So one prime purpose of the law is to prevent harm, and that is again something that I see in the 10 commandments and in the love commandments. But in the commandment against homosexuality, there is no harm being prevented.
You speak about categories, and that makes sense, but let me show you that your logic still doesn't apply universally. I mean, we have a commandment in the mosaic code that in a congregation, those are not allowed to enter who have crushed testicles. Is this moral law? Ceremonial law? Whatever it is, we don't keep this law any longer and welcome everyone into the church, no matter of his diseases or ailments, whatever.
I think in the light of Jesus' love, in the light of virtue and in the light of the human dignity that we believe in, it is wrong to disallow someone in the church. I think that much is clear. And that is why I think the church decided to abandon this commandment in the mosaic code, although I am not aware it did this on a prophetic command of God, like it was the case with dietary law where we could say Peter had a vision from God which settled the matter.
I think the case with homosexuality is the same. It does not hurt anybody and like the testicle law it is now irrelevant in sofar as the reasons for disallowing someone from the congregation are not there anymore. With that I mean, the testicle law probably had its place in Israel, God needed warriors, God ruled harshly sometimes, and the people of that time were primitive compared to us, there were no human rights back then and no belief in a universal human dignity. People with crushed testicles were seen as unmanly, and in a congregation they would be ridiculed and made fun of and laughed at. It's similar to modern schoolyards where gays and lesbians are constantly ridiculed and made fun of, something that is very painful for them. So God simply decided to keep people with crushed testicles in their families and out of the congregation, and so they had this commandment.
But now in our age this commandment has become pointless, and in the light of human dignity and the revelation of Christ it would actually be sin to forbid persons like this in the congregations of christians. And again, I think it's the same with homosexuality, in the light of how we christians are supposed to treat each other we are not supposed to oust homosexuals, and we don't have to invent another law against them. To be a homosexual doesn't violate our human dignity and in fact if we suppress them and accuse them of something that is not relevant anymore, we actually sin against their human dignity.
As a final note though, the reason why people speak against homosexuality is probably because it is not really natural. A man has a penis, a woman has a vagina, and physically that belongs together. So there is some sense in considering homosexuality a disorder. But this disorder does not cut them off from God's love and they are still healthy insofar as they love their neighbor and don't cause harm. And fact is we have a multitude of disorders in this world, for example depression is a disorder too because naturally we're not supposed to be depressed, no animal is depressed if it is healthy. But still a depression is not sin for a christian and he is free to treat it like he wishes, including writing dark poetry or something. Likewise I think a homosexual is free to treat his disorder like he wishes, he is not violating a moral law with it. Morality is about distinct good and evil, about the prevention of harm, and homosexuality does no harm.
But I will add that this is my opinion, I haven't had God speaking about that to me personally. I just think there are things, some of them in the bible itself, that disallow continuing to consider homosexuality as a sin. It's like with the issue of slavery, it's a matter of progress and history. Paul argued how sin is that which is not from faith, and as it is abundantly clear, there are gay christians who have a relationship with Jesus and who do live in the light with their brother without hatred, and that's what matters. After all a pretty high percentage of gays couldn't shake their homosexuality even if they wanted to, as they cannot force themselves to bond with women, and it would be wrong for them to do so anyway because a truly heterosexual woman would really suffer in such a marriage.
I suppose you are thinking, why do you make it so complicated, why do you not simply go by a simpler exegesis, and to that I must say that this is the wrong way of going into scripture anyway. The jews didn't do that with the mosaic code either, the law demanded eye for an eye, but the jewish men of spirit quickly concluded that what was better in God's sight than the principle of avenging mutilation, was to demand a financial compensation. I think that much of the law is didactic really, and if society works right and love is people's principle and God is honored and sought and beseeched in prayer, then the harsh penalties that the law proscribed were often unnecessary to be carried out. And to close this text, every really serious sin has been dealt with in the prophetic books of the bible, God was showing what is really wrong and what brings people away from him. And never once do the prophetic books deal with homosexuality, it's always other things.