Seems silly
You say that this argument is invalid? Let's take a closer look at it. The argument is an a explanatory one, and the explanandum is that some humans have a homosexual drive. Here's how I reconstruct the argument: P1. A certain class of God-given properties are given to us for the purpose of overcoming them. P2. Homosexuality is one of these properties. C. Homosexuality is given to us for the purpose of overcoming it.
Your objection is that there are cases of homosexual behavior in the animal kingdom. This doesn't seem to be saying that the above argument is invalid, but objecting to either P1 or P2. If you are right, then the argument is valid, but unsound.
The ex-gays would probably reply to your objection like this: Why do animals rape and murder their conspecifics (which there are also clearly documented cases of)? Just because animals don't have free will (a claim I wouldn't endorse, but the group(s) we're talking about might), it doesn't follow that their behavior is a good model for how God wants humans to behave. Ex-gays, creationists, and Christians in general might need to give an different explanation of immoral animal behavior, since P1 doesn't apply, but it doesn't make their explanation of human desires invalid or necessarily unsound.
A 'pro-gay' Christian would probably object to this argument by denying P2 - that homosexual actions are not in the same class as murder and rape. Anti-gay Christian groups support P2 by citing 'clobber verses.'
There are no "ex-gays" only people in denial, people shamed by doing things not usually their behaviour and out their faces on narcotics, or utter hypocrites. And, quit inventing idiotic words that show you as an inept apologist for some fag bashing "church".
As "God" is my co-pilot, we crashed in the Andes and I had to eat him to survive; you fail utterly at presenting an argument to support your worldview. Have a nice diurnal anomaly!
"The world will not know peace until the last stone, from the last church, falls on the last priest".
Rationalize ancient proscriptions against homosexuality as the generally ignorant observing that anal sex carries a far higher risk of spreading STIs. Would "God" not actually be that honest to the one species granted 'free will'?
"There are no "ex-gays" only people in denial, people shamed by doing things not usually their behaviour and out their faces on narcotics, or utter hypocrites. And, quit inventing idiotic words that show you as an inept apologist for some fag bashing "church"."
I quite agree with you on your first point. I'm not sure what you mean by inventing words. Are talking about "explanandum" or "pro-gay"? I assure you, explanandum is a word I didn't invent, you may wish to look it up. If you're talking about 'pro-gay', do you have some other term for "pro-gay" Christian you would like to use? There is a reason I left it in scare quotes, because to me it sounds as silly as calling a Christian who doesn't follow kosher laws 'pro-shrimp' or 'pro-cheeseburger,' but I'm not sure what other term I could use.
Have I said anything that would give you any reason to believe that I am myself a Christian of any kind? As it happens, I'm an atheist and a Discordian. However, it might be easier to convince members of the ex-gay movement to stop bashing homosexuals than to convince them that God is dead.
"Rationalize ancient proscriptions against homosexuality as the generally ignorant observing that anal sex carries a far higher risk of spreading STIs." Given that some of the clobber verses are right next to and have the same form as the kosher law verses, I doubt that there is even that much of a rationale for said ancient proscriptions. Why didn't God warn use not to eat shrimp because of mercury poisoning? What scientific rationale is there for not eating cheeseburgers?