(2) But if you mean "homosexual" as in "a man who experiences sexual attraction to a man," then of course a homosexual in this sense can be chaste. He resists temptation -- he resists in thought, word, and deed, by the grace of God, and does not sin.
This is why the word "homosexual" is problematic, because this verbal confusion between the two common meanings keeps recurring.
An analogy: temptation to get drunk does not make one a drunkard, but alcohol dependence syndrome (a particularly sensitivity to alcohol toxicity), does make you an alcoholic --- and it's something you can be born with (e.g. Fetal Alcohol Syndrome.) This hyper-vulnerability may be none of your own doing, but you still have a responsibility to abstain from alcohol for your entire life. Thus you can be a teetotal, sober, clean, alcoholic. But you're still an "alcoholic," --- albeit a "dry alcoholic," --- because you still have that inward vulnerability to alcohol.
This thinking is completely opposite the "God made me this way" pablum that today's homosexual activists push. I think everyone recognizes that Man has a sinful nature and we are tempted to do many things that we should not do (stealing, violence, perversion, etc.). The point of being a moral person is that we abstain from the acts which are improper.
The people who claim "I was born this way" have simply given up on behaving in a moral manner. They don't even try.
Here’s the problem. If there is a prediliction to homosexuality, a genetic or even a psychological disposition them homosexuality is a condition warranting legal protection. This is the slippery slope that has permitted homosexual marriage, adoption and fornication with children aka scout leaders buggering the children they are bound to protect. It is not for nothing that a major plank of the homosexual agenda is the corruption of children. Homosexuals are nothing more than bad little boys getting nasty.