Concerning the New Testament, why are expected to believe in its infallibility when we don't even know who wrote some of the books in the NT? For example, the letter to the Hebrews?
So I am afraid to say, reason is as important as tradition and the scriptures. By God's grace, our reason has blessed us with tremendous knowledge and insight into science and medicine, and to disregard that understanding while studying the scriptures is a great error.
For example, our generation has a much greater understanding of the worth and dignity of women, so we now allow women to take teaching and pastoral roles in the Church in spite of St. Paul's instruction in the first letter to Timothy that women do not teach in Church. (Likewise, in secular society we allow women to take leadership and teaching roles barred to them only decades ago. For example, I am a mathematician, and my specialty in mathematical research was transformed by the work of a woman in the late 1980s, which took a small topic and made it the area of active research by hundreds of people. I am referring to Princeton University professor Ingrid Daubechies.)
A better example as to how our understanding of the scriptures has been tempered by our reason: We now allow remarriage after divorce, even though Jesus gives a direct and pointed condemnation of this practice. We do so, unlike the Catholics, because we understand that the greater principle (in the scriptures) is compassion. Jesus prohibited divorce because in his day, divorce was cruel to women. We now believe that forcing some couples to remain in marriage is likewise cruel.
And now to consider the topic at hand: homosexuality. Jesus is silent on this topic in the Gospels. But now all the major medical and scientific organizations have determined that homosexuality is, in and of itself, not a mental illness. We can no longer base our opposition to homosexuality on medicine. We are left with tradition and the scriptures, but as we have seen, these are not completely reliable and there is ample precedent for major changes in our understanding of these. So, when we observe that there are many homosexuals who form permanent, monogamous, caring relationships; when we observe that many homosexuals make many outstanding contributions to both society and the Church — we can conclude that the compassionate thing to do is to allow homosexuals into the life of the Church. Openly, that is, since homosexuals have always been in the Church (clergy and laypeople).
By now, you are wondering on what possible basis I can consider myself to be a Christian, since you have likely concluded I believe in nothing sacred. But I should affirm my faith in the resurrection of Jesus. We can read the scriptures and see abundant reason to believe in the resurrection; and in this way, we see the authority of the scriptures. (For example, we can point to 1 Corinthians 15, where Paul gives a direct statement of the reality of the resurrection, written before 60 AD — demonstrating that belief in the resurrection was not a later theological or mythological invention, but was present at the very beginning of the Church.) And I do part company with the many modernists who deny these things. (I once saw Bishop Spong speak. I found him to be completely repellent; he denied the reality of the resurrection, and he was condescending and pompous.)
So Paul is to be believed and followed when you agree with him, but ignored when you don't. But I see you take it one step further. Jesus is to be followed when he agrees with you, but to be ignored when he doesn't.
Jesus was not silent that marriage is to be between a man an a woman. See Matthew 19:4-6 and Mark 10:6-12.
Finally, I do not question your salvation. I do not have enough information to form an opinion one way or the other. I can, however, safely conclude that you have been the victim of poor teaching.
Jesus did.