By that logic we should excuse Jim Bakker cheating on his wife with his secretary and Jimmy Swaggart patronizing New Orleans prostitutes because, after all, they fed and educated impoverished children. Why should one little ongoing sin that hurt no one bar them from Church leadership? The only difference is that when the truth came out Swaggart publicly admitted to and repented his sins (however insincerely) rather than claiming the Holy Spirit had suddenly approved what he wanted despite withholding that approval from millennia of OTHER Church leaders, and countless biblical prohibitions of his actions. Sure, Paul took a big step in expanding the gospel to Gentiles, was amid even larger steps that had already made what was formerly a Jewish sect into (wait for it) an entirely distinct religion. THAT'S definitely not without precedent in Christianity; the Unitarian Church did something similar in endorsing universalism, but ultimately admitted the fait accompli: They ceased to be a Christian church when they made integral Christian doctrine optional. They had every right to do so, of course, and it made them far more inviting to many people who'd never consider Christianity, but it still amounts to doctrine more concerned with pleasing man than God.

Change is not necessarily evolution; making something more popular does not necessarily make it more holy, nor does making it more convenient make it more godly. Christianity isn't about doing what's convenient or popular; that's the wide broad road to perdition. Peoples desires don't give us a free pass on that on, even an inborn desire; no Christian should need to be told that the natural man is at odds with the Spirit of God. Sacrificing the latter for the former isn't any kind of "reconciliation", it defeats the whole purpose of the gospel. A small minority publicly proclaiming they've put their will ahead of Gods for years and will continue is an argument against, not for, ordaining them Christian priests.

It's theoretically possible all the biblical prohibitions against homosexuality, all the opinions of Church Fathers at least as Spirit led as anyone today and millennia of Church practice and tradition was somehow out of step with Gods will and He simply waited until a few decades ago to say so. I think it decidedly unlikely and the evidence against that view far greater and more compelling than the scanty evidence for it; even were that not so I would argue that since the highest goal is pleasing God, not man, we should err on the side of caution. However, since an argument CAN be made I wouldn't expel anyone from a congregation over it; I could be wrong and I won't disqualify anyone from Christianity when that risk is present. Still, the goal is pleasing God, and that the Golden Rule is but the chief means of doing so is what separates Christianity from secular humanism, so while (significant) doubt remains on the matter I think it unwise and harmful to elevate people to the priesthood who disregard all of Church teaching and history on the grounds that the Holy Spirit has conveniently told them what they wanted to do all along isn't sinful after all.