When Liberal 'Christians' interpret the Bible for guidance concerning modern sexual doctrine, and this criticism includes some of the most learned and eminent among modern scholars, they approach it looking for 'legal loopholes' which could be argued to allow what secular Left want to do anyway.
This applies to the two major recent issues that have riven the major denominations of ordination of women as priestesses within Christian Churches, and the extension of the post-sixties sexual revolution within Christianity.
The basic method is to assume that behaviour which is not explicitly and comprehensively forbidden - by multiple and wholly- reliable sources - is permitted, perhaps acceptable, potentially admirable. The 'null hypothesis' is that if there is uncertainty about what is forbidden, then it should be permitted.
Such a method is adept at exploiting inevitable imprecision, magnifying disagreements over translation judgements, encouraging disputes historical over historical practices - and so on.
In the end an atmosphere of the desired uncertainty is manufactured, and used to justify new practices.
But if we really want to know how the Bible wants people to behave, then the method is entirely different, much simpler, much surer. We would not ask what is forbidden by Scripture; but instead ask how the God wants us to behave as revealed in Scripture.
In relation to sexuality, what is encouraged? The answer is very obvious: celibacy, or sex between man and woman within marriage. That is what God wants us to do. Obviously! If we start asking whether other types of sexual arrangements are absolutely forbidden under all circumstances, then we have already left the path of wisdom.
And with the priesthood - there is nothing whatsoever in the Bible that could be regarded as a positive encouragement to establish priestesses in the Christian church. If we ask whether priestesses are therefore absolutely forbidden under all circumstances and for all time, then we have already left the path of wisdom.
When a question is framed wrongly, and when the wrong framing is prescribed and enforced by those in power; then there can never be a true answer. Additionally, Christian theologians and theorists are often addicted to legalism, and modern legalism is negatively framed - this approach cannot yield truth and virtue.
So long as the question is right, Christianity really is very simple; simple enough for a child to understand - but simplicity may not be welcome when it contradicts our desires and practices.