Well, unlike the respected Youth??, I don't buy this idea at all (for murderers, thieves etc. yes but not for sexual orientation) -- to me it's like communism, a self-willed theoretical dogma that tried to push aside reality for so long that it became a source of amazement to all onlookers.

Different people have different experiences, but I believe most of us would have to be completely insensible to autobiography and introspection to believe this.

The root of the problem, though, is that there are scriptures condemning same-sex acts and lusts. These have often been interpreted as condemning all such acts and desires; however, I hold that if you understand the ancient world, you can clearly see that they fit best as condemnations of a particular type of act, namely the use by heterosexuals of men, or even more frequently boys, as surrogates for women. We tend to forget how common this practice was, because nowadays it hardly exists in our world except in prisons. If you read the scriptures though, both old testament and new (but particularly Romans), you will see that that there is a strong implication if not an outright statement that the practitioners were heterosexual by nature (an experience that many of us have never had in the slightest degree).

Have a look at Romans 1:27:

"in like manner also the males, having left the natural use of the female, did burn in their longing toward one another"

Literally, the males had been having natural use of the females, and then "left" this use to lust after, and by no means to love, other males.

You may think this is a literary way of alluding to homosexuality in general, but I think it is more naturally interpreted to mean just what it says. It is a direct statement about heterosexual, probably married males who leave their heterosexual partners (or, if single, substitute for not yet acquired heterosexual partners) and go to male temple prostitutes, or use male prostitutes or slaves, or take pederastically with available boys, and so on. Typically such surrogate relationships involve, to use the biblical word, a malakos, literally a 'softie' ("catamite" in King James); the heterosexual man engages as the active partner in anal sex with the softie. This practice is still very common in many Islamic countries around the Mediterranean as well as Iran and Afghanistan. It is an exploitative, lust-based relationship not similar or related to a loving gay spousal relationship or a BL/YF relationship. I correspond with an Iranian gay BL who as a teenager was exploited by two men this way, and he can assure you that such relations are not about love.

If you look at the matter this way, you can solve one of the great mysteries of Christian sexual politics: if homosexuality is wicked, then why is there so much love (which can only come from God according to scripture) in the gay and BL relationships that work?

I have been in a loving same-sex relationship for multiple decades at this point, and I can only say that it's inconceivable so much love could fail to have God at its root (especially when prayers are answered with more love.) And there is much scripture backing up the idea that love only derives from God:

for example: "Beloved, let us love one another, for love is from God; and everyone who loves is born of God and knows God." (one hardly needs to cite these things when they all google, but anyways, 1 John 4:7)

The statement "God did not create homosexuals, murderers, liars, thieves, blasphemers - these are all manifestations of our sinful nature inherited from Adam & Eve's fall" is, in the real world, a direct contradiction of "love is from God."

I will take the scripture preferentially as my guide.