If Religion Is Not Just a Metaphor for Superstition,

[Major Nikon]

59. Or maybe not

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_denominational_positions_on_homosexuality#Anglicanism_(Including_Episcopal)

It's not as if the example you give is all that great as even within the denomination you mention, there's no consensus. Meanwhile the type of religion you are referring to is Christianity which has a prevailing doctrine and dogma that's quite clear on the subject. So we aren't just talking about "evangelical/fundamentalist" which isn't a religion in and of itself either. This is an overwhelmingly mainstream view for that particular religion despite the small pockets of dissent one might cite as an exception to the rule.

Meanwhile the issue is you have people trying to derive a set of ethics from a book written during a time when the most extreme forms of what is considered unethical behavior today was well accepted and perfectly ethical behavior was soundly rejected often on pain of death and torture. The very best you're ever going to hope for is the progressive rejection for things listed as incontrovertibly true, while conveniently ignoring the potential for corruption by those who are going to correctly point out their fax from god doesn't say that.

The LGBT question is just one aspect. There's also reproductive rights, child abuse, intolerance, and all sorts of other bad ideas the secular world has to pry away from organized religion. At some point you start to understand what the problem is rather than chasing symptoms while pretending the problem doesn't exist.