The author isn't arguing that homosexual acts are not sinful. He's not even arguing that there aren't some folks who are more tempted to these sins than others. He's arguing that the reification of “sexual orientation” is a false, pseudo-scientific notion.
What he's saying is that there are certainly folks who commit sins of homosexual acts, but calling them “homosexuals,” and proclaiming them to have a stable identity as such is false. An analogy is someone who commits, say, adultery. Someone who often steps out on his spouse, while he is engaged in those activities, is justly called an adulterer, a philanderer. But suppose a man, at some point, decided that such behavior was unbecoming, and he ceased his immoral activities. And five years hence, he had not repeated his prior sins. And 10 years later, he had not.
Would you still call that man an adulterer?
Or someone whose weakness is alcohol, and for many years, often winds up drunk. You might, while he actively pursues the bottle, rightly call him a drunkard. But then, he gives up the bottle, or manages to learn to drink in moderation. Ten years later, when you see him sip a single glass of wine at dinner, would you be just to call him a drunkard?
But, as the author points out, the current model includes a supposedly scientifically-backed notion that sexual orientation is a permanent, stable feature of the personality, rather than saying, some folks are tempted toward this sin, others toward that one.
Try to read the article from that perspective.
sitetest
OK, I think I understand the point being made. It goes with what I've often said that "gay is something you do not something you are."
Seems to confirm the general concern as well that if we normalize homosexuality as a lifestyle, the same thing can happen by the same means for pedophilia, polygamy, bestiality, etc.