I am "trying to twist" nothing. I understand the connection between moral philosophy, public policy, and personal motivation, that's all.
I will certainly grant you that you can proclaim to the world that gay sex is a bad idea because it damages your body and, on average, shortens your life. The problem with that is that the same things are true of drinking, illicit drugs, skydiving, motorcycle riding, and jaywalking.
It's a weak case. When weighed against what this fallen world sees as the legitimate personal expression of affection and sex in people whose sexual bent differs from the norm, personal expression wins every time.
So you can oppose all you like on your grounds of "please don't do that, it's not good for you," but without grounding in a worldview that supports your position, it's just you pushing your personal opinion of what people should and shouldn't do.
I'm sorry you consider me dishonest. I do not intend to be, and if I saw where I was being dishonest I would own up to it and correct it.
Oberon: “It’s a weak case.”
So is a faith or religious based case to people who don’t believe. You can’t get through to some people with either argument. Nevertheless, the natural order of things really does exist, is objectively true, and can withstand scientific scrutiny. A faith-based argument cannot be proven, because it’s based on faith.
That doesn’t mean I don’t believe in either. I do. Homosexual sex is not only against the natural order of things. It’s a sin. I’m only making the point that natural law arguments, separate from faith-based arguments, can be made against sodomy.