Re animals: yes, but I think the same objection could be raised to almost any attachment of content to the idea of the image of God. Animals form relationships, think etc etc. Any qualitative or ontological status for humanity will have to cope with the similarities of all animal life. (It’s the big issue in Christian animal rights ethical discussions ins’t it?)

Re God and gender/sex. Yes - but doesn’t an understanding that the image of God is represented in male/female humanity (and not, specifically, in male - or female - humanity only)help us with this?

Re gender/sexuality. We need to avoid over simplifying, but accepting my interpretation does mean questioning the understanding that these are simply social constructs. (And isn’t this a modern rather than post-modern argument?)

Re building a case on these chapters alone. Yes - but they seem to be the normative reference point for both Jesus and Paul when they address sexual/social behaviour (and for Paul when he addresses the divine/human relationship.) And this then looks like a consistent worldview rather than a side-track.