Probably not an especially severe sentence though. Certainly not perdition. Don’t presume Anselm of Canterbury was correct in saying that any mismatch with God’s will, however slight, required multiply infinite perdition (he was running off of 10th century feudal European assumptions of repaying both physical injury and dignity injury; not much sense at the time that that hadn’t always been the way of law, even with the Old Testament perfectly accessible to him.).
EDIT: Wait, why is he including asexual as somehow ungodly? Jesus was asexual, yes? Good chance for Paul, too. So, what’s the issue? Or did he just copy a pro-LGBT+ day list without actually reading through it?