You use the words "rather than to define ourselves so harshly that some are left out." And yet my gay Episcopalian friends feel left out in churches in which they are not allowed access to all of the sacraments, as straight people are, such as holy orders or marriage. I don't see this as a gray issue at all.
What if we were debating the ordination and consecration of African Americans as clergy and bishops? Would we seek some middle ground, some compromise, some ban on African American Episcopalians to the sacraments of holy orders and marriage? Would that truly be Christ like?
Christ's message, at least as I understand it, was a radical one. It got him crucified, after all.
I can see where compromise has been necessary and even good for the Anglican Communion as well as other religious communities. But some issues are moral issues, and on that, I can't see compromise as an option. I don't think it would be moral to exclude people from any sacraments based on race, nor on gender, nor on sexuality.
I'm sure all here would agree that it would be unacceptable to ban the consecration of African American bishops if the rest of the Anglican Communion had a problem with it. But for some reason, a different reasoning is applied to LGBT people, and on no solid theological grounds at that.