Assuming the basic premise of "Not all religious convictions are written in stone" it still leads to some inconvenient questions. For instance, if religious convictions are not universal and unchanging what makes them sacred? What makes them any different from any other type of belief(s)? Why should special allowances, which most theists still insist on, be made for faith? It seems to me that this is a theological catch-22. If you allow for change and accept, at least partially modernity and reality, you loose any special claims. If you don't allow for change you add to the variety and strength of criticisms that advancing knowledge inevitably pile up against religion as a whole, which results in religion's irrelevance.
This dilemma is not blunted by the author's preference to focus almost entirely on Homosexual rights. The ideas and questions implied in the title remain no matter hard theists try to deflect them with special pleading or delusional ploys.