It's not that you have failed to justify your position "to my liking," it's that you have failed to justify it in any manner that makes any logical sense. Your justification consists of nothing but special pleading, spurious excuses, and ridiculous logic-chopping that nobody who isn't desperately trying to believe that homosexuality is wrong would credit for a split-second. It's not just me that would reject your argument. It's anyone with a brain that works.
Once more: your argument was that homosexuality is wrong because, "in universal application" -- that is, if everyone was gay -- it would result in the extermination of the human species, because nobody would have children.
What's wrong with this argument? Two things:
1) What you have presented is not an argument that homosexuality is wrong, but an argument that homosexuality WOULD BE wrong IF everyone was gay. Since everyone is NOT gay, it follows from this that homosexuality is NOT wrong.
2) The same argument applies equally well to being a plumber. If everyone was a plumber, nobody would be a farmer, there would be no food produced, and the human race would die out because everyone would starve.
It is no more true that homosexuality is wrong because if everyone was gay the human race would go extinct, than it is that being a plumber is wrong because if everyone was a plumber the human race would go extinct.
Nor is being a plumber the only such example. There are a great many things that people do or are all the time that would be very bad if everyone did them. Any occupation that doesn't produce food falls into that category; so does being a monk or nun. "In universal application," any of these would result in the extinction of the human species. But that doesn't make any of them wrong when NOT practiced universally. The same is true of homosexuality.
The entire argument is specious and no basis for concluding that homosexuality is wrong. It is, in fact, the most ridiculous such argument I have ever seen, and that's saying something.
Since I am not trying to argue that gay sex is morally superior to straight sex, that's hardly necessary. You're the one trying to condemn a type of sexuality. You're the one who has to do that sort of thing, not I.You have failed to demonstrate what moral standard acts of homosexuality meet that cannot be met with heterosexual acts.
What I meant was, the overwhelming majority of possible actions I might take are morally neutral and nobody else's business, and do not have to be justified. If anyone wants to condemn any action of mine, THAT is what has to be justified.Not freedom from moral responsibility.
EDIT: I just realized something. You have absolutely the wrong posting name. John Locke was a champion of liberty. You, on the other hand, are a champion of tight-lipped restrictive anti-joy morality totally foreign to Mr. Locke's philosophy.
You should change your name to John Calvin. That would be far more appropriate.