James:

I will add it to the mix of the future posts if relevant. For now, I note it is your piece that is being referred to here  (thus, why you like it!). I also observe that I have already dealt with the issue raised in general by appealing to William Webb's Slaves, Women, and Homosexuals. It works through the very issues of a parallelism with slavery you raise.

I prefer an approach that does not pitch passages and principles as if they stand in opposition to each other. There is a consistency to how homosexuality is handled across the Bible that is at work here---and there is no explicit counter principle at work within that revelation as we see in the case with circumcision and the fresh issues Jesus raised. There also is another key distinction in that parallel. The issue was whether Gentiles who had never been asked to be circumcised would be required to be circumcised now. So the debate was not whether Jewish believers would be circumcised, but whether Gentiles would now be required to meet this as a new demand. That was the issue of your parallel in its historical setting. To realize this means that the "parallel" is not as parallel as it might look at the start. It does nto fit the "change" you see the passage makes. What we have is a question whether what was asked for Jews was now to include Gentiles, not a nullification of a previously established practice. Thus the principle you get from the example to move in the direction you do is less than clear. That is an initial take on your piece. May come back to it, if anything fresh is raised or changes.

dlb