I'm going to quote the REB, but use any translation you like and see if you find any substantive difference.

NO ONE chooses their sexual orientation any more than they choose their eye color ,height, etc. If it was not man's choice, who made a homosexual male that way?

"Who do you think you are to answer God back? Can the pot say to the potter, ‘Why did you make me like this?’? Surely the potter can do what he likes with the clay. Is he not free to make two vessels out of the same lump, one to be treasured, the other for common use?" (Rom 9:20-21, REB)

No one thinks divorce is good, but in this fallen world Jesus gave permission in the case of the unfaithful spouse, yet, it was not like that at the beginning, the created order:

"He answered, ‘It was because of your stubbornness that Moses gave you permission to divorce your wives; but it was not like that at the beginning. I tell you, if a man divorces his wife for any cause other than unchastity, and marries another, he commits adultery.’" (Matt 19:8-9, REB)

Don't misunderstand, my color blindness is not the created order, it is a defect of my vision and it is not immoral just because it is not like in Eden. My sexual orientation in life is a defect of my sexual and personal nature but it in itself is not sin either and it was not my choice, it appeared at age 6 or 7. But, I sure can express it sinfully and have many times in life, but my loving another man including intimacy is not sin in that alone. Psychology says it is not abnormal, but it surely is not in accord with the perfection of Eden, so in this sense it is not natural and I don't recall ever saying it is. There is an interesting story in the OT:

"1–2 That same day, when Saul had finished talking with David, he kept him and would not let him return any more to his father’s house, for he saw that Jonathan had given his heart to David and had grown to love him as himself. Jonathan and David made a solemn compact because each loved the other as dearly as himself." (1Sam 18:1-3, REB)

That can be seen to be a very close, platonic friendship, but the lament of David below is another story.

"I grieve for you, Jonathan my brother; you were most dear to me; your love for me was wonderful, surpassing the love of women." (2Sam 1:26, REB)

Against the background of the verses in 1 Samuel, I am struck by the phrase "love of women". It does not say "love of mother", "love of brother", "love of father" or even "love of wife/wives"! Most commentaries through the years have said it means the love of a wife or wives for their husband, but those words were available and there is no English translation I am aware of that translates by using "wife" or "wives". But, the translators of one version saw the problem as they translated, the Douay-Rheims version and they solved the problem this way:

"I grieve for thee, my brother Jonathan: exceeding beautiful, and amiable to me above the love of women. As the mother loveth her only son, so did I love thee." (2Sam 1:26, DRC)

The Douay solves the problem by inserting a totally fake, fraudulent sentence which I underlined. That way they introduced the idea of "love of mother". The fact that they resorted to this trickery shows they recognized exactly what the verse states, there was some sexual dimension to the love of Jonathan for David, however slight or expressed.

The Hebrew for "love" here in 2 Sam. 1:26 and 1 Sam. 18:3 is: "H160" and when following from the first occurrence, that Hebrew word as it is applied to human to human love, it is interesting it is used of male to female love at the first occurrence in Gen.29:20 where it refers to Jacob's love for Rachel. The next 3 occurrences of human to human love using this Hebrew word are of David and Jonathan in 1 Sam. 18:3; 20:17; and 2 Sam. 1:26. After those 3 references, the very next use of the word is in 2 Sam. 13:15 of the sordid "love" of incest of Amnon to Tamar.

Even if one still believes it is sin, it is the most moral option that I've found. This writer on Christian ethics agrees:

"I think that homosexual people are not responsible for their sexual orientation toward loving people of their own gender.
I think that, as a class ,homosexual people are as moral, as spiritual, as decent and good, as creative, and as much in need of the grace of God as heterosexual people are.
I think that homosexuality is not the sexual orientation that God intended in creation. It is a genetic lapse. It is nature gone awry. There is tragedy in it. And homosexual people are called to live as morally within their tragedy as the rest of us are called to live within whatever may be ours.
I think that homosexual people merit the same rights and bear the same responsibilities within society that anyone else does.
I think that, if celibacy is not possible, it is better for homosexual people to live together in committed monogamous relationships of love than not. Homosexual partnerships that are committed offer the best moral option available." page 243 of "Sex for Christians" Revised Edition 1994 ... Dr. Smedes (1921-2002) was professor emeritus of theology and ethics at Fuller Theological Seminary, Pasadena, California... a Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co. book.

The German theologian writing in 1964 surely hit the nail on the head:

One of the early discussions of homosexuality in Christian ethics, was by the German theologian Helmut Thielicke in his 1964 book, "The Ethics of Sex". The first statement he makes at the beginning of the chapter on homosexuality is as follows:

"One cannot expect to find in the theological ethics of German-speaking Protestantism a clear, consistent attitude toward homosexuality simply because hitherto the writers on ethics have taken little or no notice of the mere fact itself and therefore a body of opinion -- to say nothing of the unanimity of judgement -- is almost non-existent." page 269 and also...

"Doctrinaire prejudices, which at the same time distort the theological problem presented by homosexuality, manifest themselves also in the fact that the value-judgment "homosexuality is sinful" is not isolated from an objective assessment of the phenonemon but is rather projected into it, and the result is that one arrives at an a priori defamation of those who are afflicted with this anomaly." page 270