Even if what you said were true, consider this ---
My father in law once told me that seven years after his last cigarette, the urge for nicotine still "called" to him on occasion. So then, would we be justified in putting quotes around "cured" when referring to his ex-smoking habit? Would it be false to refer to him as an "ex-smoker"?
Suppose someone considers himself an "ex-adulterer" because he has managed to remain faithful to his wife for many decades now. But suppose also that pretty women still catch his eye: Can we therefore confidently inform him that he remains an adulterer because the thoughts are still there even if he does not act on them?
Is an alcoholic always an alcoholic - even years after his last drink - if the urge to imbibe still hits him on occasion?
What is at issue here is embracing a deviant practice as morally equal.
All sins have a lustful power, from gluttony to sexual deviancy. A glutton has food cravings which need to be tempered...well...that is, in order for him to enjoy true health. To teach the glutton contrary, that over indulgence is his only option, is to enslave him forever in his unhealthy sinful behavior.
The homosexual humanisms teach all that they MUST celebrate their every urge as natural and equal. We shouldn't buy this false teaching for a second. It is God who has taught me better than that! I did not learn it on my own and such false teachings have not built our Nation.
Homosexuality is one devilish decadent indulgence among all the other vices and to think that anyone can be a wanton consumers of his lusts and still remain an equivalent moral member of society is pure crap.