I hope I am not misunderstanding your post, but you are you suggesting that St. Paul would condone men marrying men in order not to burn with lust? Of course not, but St. Paul was a man of his time, his culture. In the times of antiquity, there was simply no concept of "sexual orientation." People were supposed to either remain celibate, or marry the opposite sex. So, St. Paul's council was that men marry women if they are not called to celibacy. Knowing what we now know about human sexuality, we, of course, understand that for a homosexual man to marry a woman equals the same "burning."
I don't think you give them enough credit - there were numerous cultures from before the time of Christ who had allowed homosexual relationships. They were not strangers to the fact that some men desired men, and some women desired women; but they weren't going to condone it, as they believed (and, from the Orthodox POV, rightly so) that it represented "fallen" sexuality.
But Father, isn't it true that, according to Orthodox luminaries like St. John Chrysostomos and others, ALL sexuality as we know it is fallen?
If that is so, why, based on what criterion is homosexual sex declared "more fallen than other?"
That "the key should fit the lock," etc.?
I am still under the impression that homosexuals were condemned by various cultures simply because (a) their relations cannot produce children, and (b) they are a minority. Nice, pious-sounding constructions about only heterosexual marriage being ordained by God are, I am afraid, a consequence of this age-old belief.