I am not a religious person and this is not a religious issue.
That there are two sexes means only opposite-sex sexual relationships can ever make sense…there is no rational defense for them no matter how you may want to excuse them.

Every same-sex sexual relationship is a triumph of lust over common sense.I'm not saying everyone has to reproduce,or to be in a sexual relationship…we are all born into,and unless molested grow up in,celibacy before we may or may not enter sexual relationships.The "non-reproducing class of people" do not have to…

God isn't very "personal"…"God" is just a label for the ultimate reason for all that is.

If there are no anchors beyond question everything you have is built on shifting sands.

Again…everything flows from understanding and admitting the necessary implications of the species having evolved sexually dimorphic (as were predecessor species).That there are two sexes
determines that only opposite-sex sexual relationships ought to exist…if one were good enough we would not have two.Any failures to…

In fact (much as the idea terrifies you) I'm just expressing the only rational view regarding the issues involved.

Quite the opposite.Understanding of right and wrong has been reduced by a massive disinformation campaign that misrepresents abandoning people to indulgence of impulses toward indefensible activities as "accepting people for who they are".The entire usefulness to humanity of civil marriage is destroyed by failing to…

I am arguing that a certain activity ought never to happen and that those prone to it are better off realizing that it is wrong.My message (done out of love for those neighbors) is "stop doing that",which neither means "I hate you" nor "drop dead".

Again,the relationship being opposite-sex is in itself a good compared to the alternative of same-sex…it doesn't have to be procreative to be better.The necessary ideal is that all sexual relationships be opposite-sex,not that they all produce offspring.(That's a secondary consequence
that takes care of itself as long…

No,you are indulging in a false dichotomy.
Neither the unreasonably restrictive extreme of requiring procreative intent for sex acts nor the unreasonably permissive extreme of permitting same-sex sex partners have any place in common sense evaluation of sexual relationships.
Society in general is best off completely…

You are coming from a standpoint that nothing is beyond question,which is unreasonable.

"Who they love" isn't an issue.It's the refusal to recognize that when people are of the same sex,love between them must therefore never be expressed through sexual activity.This is an objective truth determined by the fact of sexual dimorphism in the species.

I want to convince people of the innate irrationality of same-sex sexual activity and (much worse) any defense thereof.

"Being gay" consists in its entirety in believing certain flattering falsehoods about one's homosexuality.Take away the being wrong and there's nothing left of "gay" identity…just the fact of having an irrelevant impulse toward indefensible behaviors.

Quit pretending my righteous agenda is "bigoted".

I live in NY state as well.
I didn't say it was up to me,I don't think anyone's opinion counts.We simply must discover and admit the right and wrong.

You shouldn't be typing what you say to your reflection on the Internet.

Quite the opposite…however much you may wish to silence truthful correction,your position is the stupid one.

Penguins may lack the intellect to understand the wrongness of same-sex sex,but humans have no such excuse.

No more so than anyone else in a conspiracy to engage in wrongdoing knows more about whether they should be doing it than anyone who knows better.