It's a reasonable question. Virtue means 'manliness' -- meaning that it is good to be what we ought to be -- so that would mean hetero at the root, yes, but the accouterments of manliness, I think, should also be there. To be 'vicious' is to be 'of vice' -- vice meaning something 'instead of'. Virtue and vice.
The obvious next question is: well, what 'ought' we to be? Are there external and objective norms? Or are they all purely internal and subjective? Must I conform to some pre-existing definition of manliness (essence precedes existence), or am I completely free (even in a religious sense, not merely political or social) to decide for myself every aspect of what I 'ought' to be (existence precedes essence)?
I see design and order in creation/nature. I see purpose. I see beauty and rationality. That means a Designer, a Creator, an Artist, a Definer of existence. And I also see that this all good, and even *for* our good.
So, it's ultimately a question of whether one believes in transcendent norms of existence (i.e., theism), or not (anti-theism). Not everyone agrees with this underlying worldview, and so it's logical that not everyone will agree with the sensibilities and persuasions and propensities that go along with that. I just wish they did: it's beautiful and orderly and purposeful here. It's part compassion, and (I admit, a larger) part simple distaste.