You know, normally I reject this kind of 21st century thinking, but this is actually an interesting interpretation. It's certainly not absurd given the nature of the Victorian era which was all about repression and had sexuality of all kinds expressed in code. Dracula, which came out near the end of it, was viewed as obscene not because of the grusome nature but because of the very clear sexual references that Stoker barely hides in his prose.

And it's not like all of these people were all models of decorum. People bought and did cocaine and morphine which was legal, actresses were considered little better than prostitutes (and we all know what was happening in Whitechapel) and Oscar Wilde was only able to flaunt the rules of his day for so long before he was imprisoned.

So it is something to consider. I suspect their were other characters in Dickens' work who were more likely candidates for homosexuality. Incidentally an FX limited series adaptation of A Christmas Carol produced a more interesting portrayal of Scrooge and the nature of his monstrosity. It argues, however, that Scrooge chose to be more or less a voluntary celibate.