Without arguing with your overall points, I have to take some issue with the statement: "The screed above is not required by the New Testament, which doesn’t mention gays." This isn't actually true. The current claim is that we've misinterpreted words in the NT that we've taken to mean 'homosexual' in the past. This is a very debatable argument, and not at all proven. It's a claim made by pro-gay NT scholars, but by no means by all NT scholars.
The only concern I have with this article is that at one point it states the issue "cost the lives of four good men." Four American men, that is. Sorry, weren't there ten Libyan men killed in the Benghazi incident? Don't Arab lives count? This is a distressing approach to such incidents, that anyone Western is counted as somehow being more important than anyone non-Western.
Without arguing with your overall points, I have to take some issue with the statement: "The screed above is not required by the New Testament, which doesn’t mention gays." This isn't actually true. The current claim is that we've misinterpreted words in the NT that we've taken to mean 'homosexual' in the past. This is a very debatable argument, and not at all proven. It's a claim made by pro-gay NT scholars, but by no means by all NT scholars.
The only concern I have with this article is that at one point it states the issue "cost the lives of four good men." Four American men, that is. Sorry, weren't there ten Libyan men killed in the Benghazi incident? Don't Arab lives count? This is a distressing approach to such incidents, that anyone Western is counted as somehow being more important than anyone non-Western.