Now you've confused me. Does that mean that when they're not engaging in sexually perverse behaviors they're not gay?
You are twisting the words of that other person. I didn't get that obfuscated definition from what they wrote but I did get from what you wrote -- to which they replied -- that you consider a celibate homosexual suitable for the Priesthood, and equate homosexuality with heterosexuality with no distinction, but use the state of celibacy to make for the qualification or not.
It's a fallacy to accept that from popular culture and today's public educational system. Children are forced to learn that information to go forward through public schools but it doesn't mean you must embrace that as truth in your life and person. Homosexuality is sin, and to repeat what I wrote earlier, God describes homosexuality as an abomination. It's an "abomination to God."
Instead, we have today a social, cultural insistence by homosexuals -- a 2/3% of human population -- ridiculing the remaining 98/87% of humanity into accepting sin as not so, in effect, in rejecting what God says. It might make for trendy acceptance and such, but it isn't truth in the context of Christianity.
Take a deep breath and think it over. Is an alcoholic still one when he's sober?