<staff edit>
Well there are others, take for example Romans 1
"Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error."
Of course you are going to say that this is not specific to your exact situation. And this is where you are treating it as a rule book rather then a Spirit filled revelation of God's will.
Well if you can say that "it does not speak to committed relationships". I can equally say that it does speak to sustaining homosexual relationships as a norm. The qualifications for a Bishop is to have one wife. Thus excluding homosexuals from the ministerial positions that they occupy in the Episcopal and Anglican Church - and this is exegeting according to your standard. But you will also deny this as well, though it be according to your own previous principle of interpretation.
What you are essentially doing is the same thing that large corporations do. You assume that if it is not specifically named according to the parameters that you set, then it must be free game. And so where do we get the ethics on enviorment that Christians espouse? They are not specifically named, therefore by your standard it must not matter.
But of course they do, and we extrapolate that by talking about the Genesis account of where humanity is given stewardship, and then extrapolate stewardship from other places, and then we have a theology of environmental care. (Of course I am assuming you care about the environment, if you do not care about the environment, then I can accept your position just in the fact that you are maintaining logically consistency, but if you agree with my logic, then you lack a sound argument, even on the ministry hypothetical. Thus you have been caught being illogical either way and either must deny homosexual ministry or environmental responsibility.)
I would love to Skype with you just so that you can see that I am not trying to judge or condemn, but only understand. I do expect the logic to be consistent, and that is where it is lacking for me at the moment.