Yes, we agree. But you're conflating again (or maybe you're saying progs are conflating). The Bible is not a religion. Islam, Buddism, Lutheranism are. Bible is truth; religions are fallible. There, I think we settled that one.So you see the Bible as the truth but see the individual churches as fallible? If so- we agree. Many progressives view the Bible as one story, Islam has another, Buddhism is another and they are all equal with each prog making their choice- so that's not you?
Would you further agree that Jesus is the one true vine (no other route to salvation exists) and the salvation to those who accept him as Lord?
Homosexuality is not part of God's natural design. The Bible is clear on that. Abomination is the word used- that's pretty strong, perhaps more than a suggestion. Sin came into the world and set a lot of things in motion but that did not change right and wrong. By the same token, despite the promiscuity and unusual happenings described in the Bible, monogamous marriage one man, one woman was God's plan and not to be broken. It is no more a sin to be having sex in a homosexual relationship than it is to have sex outside of marriage. It is all sin and it puts us all in need of Christ's sacrifice, should we accept it.
Now this is where we diverge on a core believe. Yes, Jesus is the vine to salvation. But not only to those who accept it. Yeah, I know, John 3: 16 etc, etc. But I interpret that passage within the broader context to include salvation for all, whether they acknowledge it or not. I don't expect you to change you're belief; you may very well be right. But I'm not changing mine. That difference probably informs a lot of our other differences.
Ok, back to homosexuality. I don't see the Bible as clear as you suggest. I prefer to err on the side of inclusivity and love. Otherwise, we start to sound like we're speaking on behalf of God, which you and Paul warned against.