I think the confusing semantics are intentional, especially terms like “gay” and now “LGBT” which are designed specifically to avoid connection with the acts that define those identities.
It almost sounds silly to claim that a person who has same-sex attraction is not homosexual/gay unless you explain that those terms are identities adopted by those with same-sex attraction.
Yes, you have a point.
This is where I believe we compare the attractions for the oposite sex. Men and women every day overcome attractions to their opposite sex, and remain either celibate, or loyal to their spouse.
For example, the priesthood bears ordinary men in an extraordinary way. Whether these men suffer attractions to other men, or to women, or not, they are willing to be celibate and remain celibate. They have temptation in common.
All of us have said, “yes” or “no”, to temptation. Saying “no” is a good thing, no matter the semantics. :)