The reason other examples are "fuzzy" is because there can no agreement since morality is relative and personal.
Well, that's where we differ, because I believe that morality is objective and absolute in its broadest sense. Within that broad sense, yes, each person decides for him- or herself whether a particular action is moral or not: but I can never agree that morality is situational, relative and non-binding in a wider, societal sense.
Please note, too, that I'm not only speaking about morality based upon religious revelation: obviously, since there are many religions, there can hardly be total agreement on faith-based morality. I believe that there is a "natural law" morality, that is freely available for anyone to discover, and which is universal. For example: the Christian commandment "Thou shalt not steal" has a natural law counterpart - one learns that theft is bad when one is the victim of theft! Thus, if theft is bad when committed against you, it's also clear that it's bad when you commit it against someone else. This is a logical progression of thought that is clearly objective and universal.
On a more complex subject such as homosexuality, I believe there is also a natural-law objectivity available. As I've frequently pointed out to prison inmates (most of whom share no particular religious faith, and therefore don't respond well to the "Thou Shalt" or "Thou Shalt Not" type of approach), one can look at human sexuality in terms of the natural functions and processes of the human body. I have commented on numerous occasions to the effect that "the rectum and the anus form the outlet pipe to the body's sewage system, and are NOT the Tunnel of Love!" Whilst this gets a laugh, it also makes the very valid point that these portions of anatomy have a "designed function" that has nothing whatsoever to do with sexual activity. The female vagina, on the other hand, is specifically developed for sexual activity, and the consequence of that activity, the birth of children. Natural function points to a natural law - sodomy is not "natural" or "normal", and therefore can be said to be objectively outside the "boundaries" of what is "normal" in sexual intercourse.
Of course, there are many who will disagree with me, and they're free to do so: but I shall not be adopting their perspective, I'm afraid.