I’d have to say the article misses a big point in the whole focus on “sex”. That in the medieval period and before the Victorians, many people lived together unmarried, had children and so forth. This was a norm, and they would wait for the priest to turn up and then maybe get married.
I’d say the issue here is the need to re-evaluate the Victorian morality that we have inherited. Go back to the approval of monogamous committed relationships – and the encouragement to come before God and people to celebrate this.
As to the second point of rational thought, then I don’t buy this ether. I know many rational people who believe, the bigger issue is the language gap between “church and world”. That people don’t know the stories and thus the model we work in does not cope well with this (it still works in general on people having a background understanding). Also may people will be more willing to listen once they see things happening (the Frances effect).
Also I am reminded of something that Anglican Memes came up with.