You are generally correct- But priestly pederasty was aberrational not part of official Church doctrine.
The Reformers argued that the individual could interpret scripture for himself. So first he needed it in his language, if he didn’t know Latin or Greek or Hebrew. Thus to each, his own interpretation. While Luther did admit to the sin of heresy it was a fluid concept that was in contradiction to his own theological view of Scripture. This is the “original flaw” that has now run it’s course to corrupt whatever doctrinal basis might exist in support of an orthodox (homosexuality as a sin) “Church” teaching within the Protestant community.
Again, I caution you not to think of Protestantism as a monolithic movement. There was not one Reformation, but many Reformations. If Martin Luther had never existed, these Protestantisms would have existed. The Anglican Church was originally a structural change in which Henry made himself the head of the church instead of the pope. The primary influences were Zwingli and Calvin, not Luther. Luther had nothing to do with the Anglicans, and he despised Zwingli, and he never met Calvin. The Anglican Church never accepted any of the teachings of Martin Luther, such as Sole Scriptura or Justification by Faith. Anglicanism is not really part of the Reformation in my view. It marches to its own drum. If anyone can find Luther defending homosexuality or making it part of the Lutheran doctrine, I would really like to see it. Luther was a student of Augustine and Thomas in may areas, and he believed strongly in natural law, which homosexuality violates. The churches that are accepting homosexuality are not basing this on the Scriptures but upon secular grounds, such as justice and equality. There is nothing Protestant about these churches.