You don't have to.
Here, Goshin, is something I think is most interesting. Speaking of marriage:
"But He said to them, 'Not everyone can accept this teaching, but only those to whom it is given. For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Let anyone accept this who can.'" (Matthew 19:11-12)
Before you head-desk yourself into oblivion, let me tell you the history of "eunuch."
The Greek eunouchos was translated into the English "eunuch," but as the passage itself eludes to, our understanding of "eunuch" is not what this passage refers to. In modern English, we take "eunuch" as an artificial physical state in which the testicles of a man are cut off -- castration.
But the Bible lists "natural" eunuchs, and if we are taking this to mean "male born without testicles," or testicular agenesis (and already, that would take us totally outside the modern understanding of the word), this so incredibly rare that there is unlikely to be even one out of tens of millions, and there is no good reason for them to be specifically listed. It also lists those made so at their own hand, but if this is referencing celibacy, what is the necessity of literally cutting of the testicles? Most ascetics didn't do this, and there is no ritual for doing so in Christianity. Also, the Bible uses different words in reference specifically to castration.
The context clue, it turns out, is in the original meaning of "eunuch," which could refer to castrated men, but also refers to a chamber servant who is trusted with women of harems, or a man with no desire to marry. Some were "eunuchs" by way of an aversion to sex with women.
A eunuch did not need to be missing their testicles. They may be fully intact, and even sexually capable. Their only universal characteristic is they were not married, and they were generally considered safe to be around women.
The meaning of the original eunouchos had even less to do with castration, translating simply to "trusted ones," and in some cases even seemed to imply homosexuality and asexuality. This word was usually used to refer to either a trusted official and/or men without sexual interest in women who could therefore be trusted around them. Actual castration was seldom implied.
The passage seems to be speaking of the lack of desire for relations with women -- union, or marriage -- and not necessarily physical castration. It lists many different reasons for this, including a side-effect of castration, a commitment to God, or even... natural inclination.
This cannot necessarily be taken as a permissiveness of gay marriage, but it can potentially be taken as a permissiveness of those who are either asexual or homosexual.
The permissiveness stated by Jesus in Matthew stands in line with the general tendency for Paul to be more severe and damning in its gender and sexual-based condemnations than Jesus himself ever was.
There is good reason to believe, for both linguistic reasons and his general stances compared to Paul, that Jesus was referring to a class of people that included homosexuals, when he referred to "eunuchs" who do not receive marriage.
Even if you don't take this as definite -- and admittedly it is slightly vague -- we do know Paul had a very different view of many types of sin, including sexual, than did Jesus, and that by itself warrants consideration of how seriously to take Paul. Paul was often not in line with the teachings of Jesus, throwing strict tenants of Hellenistic Judaism into the mix at will (as you stated, things you have no mandate to follow). Even Paul's idea of what brings salvation is completely divorced from Jesus' teachings.
However, it does seem to me, based on historical definitions, that homosexuality was sometimes included under the umbrella of eunouchos. It does not specifically mean celibacy, and it does not specifically mean castration. It only means either an official, or a man who is safe to have around women, sometimes due to disinterest in sex with women.
Homosexuals would fit this definition, and there seems to be a quiet recognition of that in the original word.
