Ok..... I would agree with you on these points in a general cautious manner. However, I would also say:

1) "Divine revelation" is often an excuse for political expediency. Examples would include for example the abandonment of polygamy by the mainstream LDS folks. Where these are more obviously separate, they often get confused over time (Quaker rejection of "outward struggle" for example). I am not saying that either of these changes were bad but often there is a very fine line between politics and revelation and that line is far finer than most want to admit. Remember this point: communication is intersubjective and therefore all divine revelation exists within the subjective sphere just as interpreting meaning from this post does as well. One cannot separate revelation from its political environment, nor can one separate the self and one's own ideas and interests from it.

If one believes that God is talking to him or her, this has all the same problems as any other form of communication....

2) Since communication is intersubjective, this affects written as well as verbal communication. The meaning of scripture is also inherently subjective and does not exist apart from our interpretation of it. Hence at best we can have views grounded in the words of scripture, but arguing over what something means as if it can only mean one thing misses the point.

BTW, both Heisenberg and Einstein also argued that scientific theory was subjective rather than objective, and the only thing objective was the specifics of experiments, results, and measurements. So this problem is not at all limited to theology.

The other problem is that no communication carries with it a singular irreducible meaning. If say to my son, "Stay out of the flower garden" this looks like a simple instruction but it could be carrying with it additional meanings too. Tone, inflection, and wider context, largely reduced or missing in written forms of communication provide important aspects of a communication.

When I start hearing the same preachers who talk about a "gay agenda" talk about a "cotton-polyester agenda" or a "hybrid crop agenda" then I will accept that there is a balanced and largely politically neutral approach to scripture (since clothing made of mixed materials and breeding of hybrids like mules are prohibited in Leviticus in a similar manner to male homosexuality). However until that point, I have to conclude that the issue is not one based on a balanced interpretation of scripture

Again, this is just an amusement for me. I am a Norse Pagan and happy with my religion.