Very few of us get it right the first time and never have to change our opinions. I am currently reevaluating my position concerning the nature of the eucharist; transubstantiation, consubstantiation, memorialism, real presence, physical presence. I’d like to address those 3 issues you mentioned. They are not a job lot; accepting one does not mean that the others necessarily follow. I find that women’s ordination rests on very limited scriptural evidence either way. There is only a single passage that prohibits women in authority (plus a few other indirectly) and that’s a narrow base. However I find the egalitarian arguments are also weak; even weaker. However it's not a hill to die on. The scripture is much stronger on homosexuality with a continuity from OT to NT. I accept but do not affirm homosexuality. I’m not sure what you mean by "literal interpretation of scripture" but I do know that those who abandon the authority of scripture build their faith on sand instead of rock. They become prone to believing what they want, rather than what God wants, following those philosophies of man that appeal to their itching ears. I don’t interpret the bible "literally" because I recognise that it comprises a variety of literary styles composed in a range of historical and cultural contexts, but I still accept it as authoritative. I try to understand the historical-grammatical context to understand the author’s meaning, not to rewrite the meaning to suit my preferences. Please persevere in the Faith. Like a Berean test ideas against the scriptures to see if they are true or false.