St. Paul was talking about marriage. He would never ever justify gay unions as a way to solve the passion problem.
What is the specific basis of you making this claim? Where did Paul indicate that he would "never ever justify" marriage, even same-sex marriage, as the prophylactic for Passion. As I said, my basis for claiming that he would is found in 1 Corinthians 7:1-9, especially when considered along with the promise in 1 Corinthians 10:13.
Secondly homosexuality is more a issue of lust, than it is of passion.
I agree that Paul was not speaking about "passion" as many people today use the word, but about the sin of Passion, which includes inappropriate sexual lust, but also other carnal lusts such as gluttony and greed. But he did
not automatically associate "homosexuality" with this sin, as can be seen in Romans 1:26-27, where he took one of Plato's examples of unbridled Passion, and carefully emphasized the fact that it was describing the sin of uncontrolled Passion, and just as carefully distanced the sin from the embedded ethnic/gay joke.
Lastly there are some things in this world that we have to bear patiently with fortitude, temperance, diligence, and chastity.
Again I agree.
But throughout the Scriptures we are warned against making vows and promises that we may not be able to keep, because God takes the making of these vows very seriously. (See Leviticus 5:4; Numbers 30:2; Ecclesiastes 5:4-5; Ezekiel 16:59; Matthew 5:33-37; James 5:12 -- and when the spies promised to keep Rahab and her household safe during the sacking of Jericho, they made their promise conditional because they did not want to be forsworn if the promise could not, for whatever reason, be kept exactly as agreed [Joshua 2]).
Many Protestants, starting with Martin Luther, feel that it was wrong for the Catholic Church to declare that priests and those in religious orders had to vow chastity. It was insisting that they make a promise they might not be able to keep. But at least those that are called to serve in this way have a choice. If they do not feel they can keep such a vow, they can choose not to join the order and to marry instead. Indeed, some religious orders have branches that admit "lay" brothers and sisters, who have not taken all the vows.
But what of gays? They cannot choose not to join their "order." Nor, according to many churches, is the alternative of marriage available (at least not a marriage that can help bridle their particular form of Passion).
And yet, before many churches accept them as "true Christians," they insist that the gay Christian assure them that he will live celibate life. Otherwise, they claim that he is "unrepentant." And what is this assurance if not an oath or promise? Rather than building him up as a brother in Christ, they are setting him up for failure and condemnation, if he cannot keep the vow.
