The Truth...
http://www.fredsbibletalk.com/eunuchs.html
Is the Word "Eunuch" Really the Bible's Way of Saying Homosexuals?
There are gay "evangelical" apologist who defends the idea that God approves of homosexual relationships, and the Bible, rather than condemning homosexuality, genuinely commends same-sex couples and homosexual behavior.
They will further argue that the current debate against homosexual inclusivity into the Christian church is due in part to bigoted Christians who have mis-read the Bible and have warped Christ's teachings that affirms same-sex relationships.
These apologists will claim they affirm inspiration and biblical authority, however, their apologetic argumentation is heavily dependent upon liberal theology and hermeneutics.
Much of their argumentation is revisional, meaning they re-interpret the Bible, as well as church history, twisting the Bible's teaching on sexuality to include homosexuality. A clever example of what I mean is how gay apologists have re-interpreted the word "eunuch" in Matthew 19:10-12.
That passage reads,
His disciples said to him, “If such is the case of the man with his wife, it is not better not to marry.” But he said unto them, “All cannot accept this saying, but only those to whom it has been given: For there are eunuchs who were born from their mother's womb, and there are eunuchs who were made eunuchs by men, and there eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to accept it let him accept it. Matthew 19:10-12
According to the gay "evangelical" apologists, Jesus is exempting three groups of people from the Adam and Eve marriage paradigm he just mentioned in 19:4-6 that limits marriage to just one man and one woman. The three groups are,
1) Eunuchs so born from their mother’s womb.
2) Eunuchs made so by men.
3) Eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake.
They go onto say the term eunouchos did not simply mean someone who was castrated. The eunouchos so born from their mother's womb are men who do not have inherent sexual interest in women and are even repulsed by them sexually. In other words, gay men, and by extension, gay women.
This is the reason male eunuchs were placed in charge of the female royalty, because they would have no sexual interest in them. By saying they are eunuchs "born from their mother's womb," Jesus is exempting gays from the Adam and Eve marriage paradigm of only one man and one woman.
Gay apologists further argue there are historical sources which refer to eunuchs as being homosexuals. Clement of Alexandria, for instance, reveals this perspective of eunuchs most clearly when he writes in his work paedagogus, (The Instructor):
“…a true eunuch is not one who is unable, but one who is unwilling, to indulge in pleasure…” (Paedagogus, III, 4.)
And then The Stromata, or Clement's miscellaneous writings,
“Not all can receive this saying; there are some eunuchs who are so from their birth, others are so of necessity.’ And their explanation of this saying is roughly as follows: Some men from their birth, have a natural sense of repulsion from a woman…” (The Stromata, III. 1.1.)
Considered on its face, the argument looks rather impressive, but does it hold up under any serious scrutiny? I don't believe it does at all.
What exactly is a eunuch?
The Greek word for eunuch is a compound word that means literally "bed holder," or simply put, "a holder of the bed." The historical understanding of a eunuch is a man who had been castrated or had his genitals mutilated in some manner that prevented him from becoming aroused around women. These men were commonly used as guards in royal harems, what would be known as a "bed guardian."
Three of the standard theological and lexical works on the Old and New Testaments: The New International Dictionary of N.T. Theology, Kittel's Theological Dictionary of the N.T., and The International Dictionary of O.T.
Theology and Exegesis, all state the standard, historical understanding of the word eunuch is of a castrated man used as a harem guard. I glanced through a handful of other theological and lexical works and all of them also affirmed the typical understanding of the word.
None of them, including a few other works I consulted, remotely suggested "homosexual" could be an alternative definition. In addition to the idea of a castrated harem guard, the word eunuch did expand in meaning to include high court officials who held prominent positions in a royal court, but may not necessarily be castrated.
Again, none of these works implied the word could be used to describe a person disposed to homosexual persuasion. This is something of a novel, modern invention. 
Yes this is the truth. They are not seeing being gay as a sin, which is what it is. And also as all sin, Jesus paid the price in full for their deliverance from it. 
