Since we're on the subject of homosexuality, it is worth noting something curious about this discussion: the problem of language.
Gay has "baggage" as many observe. Yet it is a term in common parlance, and it has the advantage of being quite short. Context, as always, matters--not everyone who uses it, embraces the baggage; and it's a little stilted to try to talk about this subject and never use the word.
And, as much as I rue the change in this word's meaning, that fight has been lost for the time being, like it or not.
Homosexual is a more neutral term--except that it reflects a modern mindset that tends to define particular sexualities, based on the clinical model. Such a way of thinking may be ingrained in us, but it's reasonable to ask if that's a completely Catholic, biblical way of thinking about the matter.
Also, it does invite either-or thinking, and it forces one to ask: at what point is one a "homosexual"?
Same-sex attraction and related terms are often used by those affiliated with Courage, the fully Catholic apostolate to the folks we're talking about.
This is relatively new terminology that has the virtue of not compelling either-or categorization--can someone be "heterosexual" and still have "same sex" feelings? Sure. At some point, it's a problem, and its a different sort of problem at different points. I.e., that a spouse feels something toward his or her same sex doesn't necessarily mean s/he can't give him/herself in marriage. But at some point, it does prevent that, and thus is an impediment. Ask a canon lawyer (I am not one) about the details on this one.
This latter term also has the virtue of not defining people by a facet--even a very significant one--of their personality and sexuality. Unfortunately, it's the longest terminology, and needs more explaining.
But words do matter.
P.S. Fair warning--sometime rather soon, I'm going to get tired of talking about this subject--so get in your comments now!