Another point worth making is that the conservative, modern-Christian presumption that Paul was railing against homosexuality is pretty hard to support historically/textually. Passages from Leviticus as interpreted by modern Christians are even harder to uphold as general condemnations of homosexuality.

Christianity evolved over centuries to take on those hardcore cries of hatred against queer people. Biblical translations have been influenced by that Christian hatred, and Christian theology has also been so influenced by hatred.

Progressive Christians reject the hate. They teach the same philosophy of lovingkindness that the Jewish reformer Jesus taught and modeled — the same central philosophy that rabbinic Judaism evolved to center, though not influenced by the reforms Jesus urged during his lifetime.

Jesus taught that the Pharisees and the Sadducees (two competing sects or centers of Judaism during his lifetime) had grown legalistic and judgmental, forgetful of central principles of Judaism that urged love of neighbor as self.

All modern, rabbinic Jews (meaning most but not quite all contemporary Jews) are philosophically descended from the Pharisees. How ironic that Jews themselves have grown to embrace at least the central themes that Jesus taught about, while most Christians have evolved to embrace the judgmentalism Jesus taught against. (Again, I must hasten to clarify that rabbinic Jews developed their philosophies without input from Jesus's teachings, of which they were mostly unaware, and wouldn't have cared if they were aware.)

Anyway, that would sort of be my response to Joe Duncan, but I'd also like to point out that I had a discussion like this just this morning with queer Christian Esther Spurrill-Jones, who is a P&P editor.

I often have constructive interactions with Esther and other progressive Christians, whose values/philosophies I appreciate and respect, even though I personally reject any concept of spirituality or religion, which to me mean the same thing — because I reject any notion of the supernatural.

I don't believe spirituality is real and I don't believe religion is real, not because I choose not to believe, but because I am unable to believe in the supernatural. I could not be spiritual if I wanted to. I could not be religious if I wanted to. (And I don't understand the difference between the two, other than that religion is perhaps more organized and structured than spirituality, which runs an astonishingly diverse gamut of supernatural beliefs and practices.)

I can't choose belief. I simply don't believe in the supernatural, and there wouldn't be anything I could do about that even if I wanted to.

Even as I recognize that lack of volition in myself, I understand that Esther and others (like you) who believe in either religion or spirituality likewise are not choosing to believe in the supernatural. You just do.

I'm fine with that!

I'm even fine praising religious or spiritual philosophies when they do something noble like centering lovingkindness.

Mostly, though, I become very bored with discussions of spirituality/religion, because I don't know how to be interested in something I just fundamentally believe doesn't exist.

My admiration for constructive/loving philosophy can only take me so far, and I think that's probably fine.

I mean, you won't find me running around evangelizing atheism, because conversations about that topic bore me silly. I don't have the slightest interest in convincing people to share my atheism. I don't see how trying would be constructive, helpful, or particularly fruitful.

The only time I get my dander up a little bit is when people who believe in the supernatural communicate as if that belief is obvious or necessary for human fulfillment. I actually get a little bit angry when people who believe in the supernatural insist that spirituality is a uniformly important human pursuit. I utterly disagree, and so do many atheists like me feel the same way. We do not have to be spiritual to be good people, and we reject the very possibility of spirituality.

I think so long as we don't run around trying to force people to share our views, we should be accepted as equally loving, moral, good people. (I mean, if we are those things, of course.)

Anyway, sorry for rambling after my first couple of paragraphs. I intended my comment to be about one specific thing, then I let myself write about your article as a whole.

I appreciate the opportunity for conversation!