If a person reads this article (and does not stop at the title for counter arguments) he/she will see that the author is not arguing that the bible was never used for malevolent means and never used to discriminate against homosexuals. That use for the bible cannot be denied and it isn't being denied here. Instead, the author is using biblical scholarship to show that it is not so easy to come up with an "orthodox" interpretation since the bible does not address the nature of homosexuality and whether the nature of homosexuality is right or wrong.
What the bible does address in a few instances is that the act of male with male sexual intercourse is strictly prohibited. Prohibited enough to call it an abomination and prescribe the death penalty for those caught in the act in the same way the bible calls for the death of those Hebrews who are caught not keeping the sabbath.
Having sex with your wife while she has her period is also biblically prohibited. But I don't think the writers of this rule were after a class of individuals whose nature was to have period sex. In the same way that the writers of the "no male-on-male sex intercourse" rule had no beef with people whose nature was to be attracted with members of the same sex.
That is because homosexuality was not an issue back in those days. According to biblical scholarship, the issue was likely due to a rejection of local pagan practices that involved men having sex with other men as part of religious rituals. Thus, the harsh prohibition from the priestly class who wrote the text.
Explain this to someone who claims to have an orthodox interpretation of the bible and he or she will dismiss it as "interpretation." But what the author is offering is not religious interpretation. It is scholarship that should be used not only to question what is written but also to counter the hateful who claim orthodox interpretation to use the bible to discriminate against groups of people.
The author is not merely arguing from scripture like the quote you provide alleges. He goes beyond scripture by using arguments from scholars who study the bible for its historical context, looking for clues to answer question regarding context and motives in a scholarly way as opposed to religiously.
Biblical scholarship does not apologize for the bible. Instead, it shows that it is not the magically holy book as some may interpret it to be. It exposes myths and tries to explain them in the context of their time.
So the canned answer from the quote you provide does not really refute or address what the author is trying to say. And what the article has to say is actually a great way to dismiss those who use the bible as justification for hate.
But it is hard to use biblical scholarship to support arguments when people refuse to accept it and then (for whatever reason) dismiss it in favor of their own orthodoxy whether the orthodoxy is religious or not.
= new reply since forum marked as read