IF Jesus had the occasion to discuss homosexuality and his apostles and biographers were moved to record it in the cannon, He would have condemned it.
IF Paul had been presented with the issue of sexual perversion of any particular brand, be assured that he would have condemned it in no uncertain terms.
This women, and the others spotlighted in this piece, are plopped down in the midst of this subject, and yet don’t condemn it, except for its practice “in themselves.” They want to be comfortable with it, in the words of the article, but don’t want to engage in the actions.
Who wants to be comfortable with sin?
You simply can't construe vast, and especially morally defamatory conclusions, from "reading between the lines." This is not sound judgment. And you don't know whether what we have here is, for instance, Eve Tushnet's silence (she's one of the celibacy-advocates) or Sarah Poulliam Bailey's silence (she's the interviewer, the one who --- necessarily --- omitted 95% of what her interviewees said, and selected 5% for publication.)
Not that that's blameworthy on Bailey's part, either. That's the necessary reality of doing an article for publication. You have a focus. You stick to it. Otherwise you get out of journalism, because news services don't want an encyclopedic treatment of every topic, every time.
You're assumingn that Eve Tushnet, etc. are comfortable with sin, when they said nothing about these particular sexual sins, except that they abstain from them. They are celibate.
Hmm.... This thread is a context in which there's been a lot of discussion about celibacy, and yet you have not come out and endorsed it. Should we assume you're uncomfortable with celibacy?
I'm not charging you with that. That wouldn't be fair. I'm just asking.