Everybody but hard core fundamentalists will attempt to read the Bible in the context of the culture it was written in, at least to a certain extent. As a result most Christians are able to ignore the clearly misogynistic instructions of Paul in 1 Corinthians 14:34-35:

 [T]he women should keep silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be in submission, as the Law also says. If there is anything they desire to learn, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church. (ESV)

When I was in college my theology professors provide the historical context of a passage to help distil it’s “meaning”, for example, with the above passage they would say that it was because in that culture women were not typically educated, even by the standards of the time, and were viewed as being mentally inferior.  The modern comparison would be to let mentally challenged, mentally ill, or horribly uneducated people preach.

Then there’s 1 Corinthians 11:4-15:

Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head, but every wife who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head, since it is the same as if her head were shaven. For if a wife will not cover her head, then she should cut her hair short. But since it is disgraceful for a wife to cut off her hair or shave her head, let her cover her head.For a man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God, but woman is the glory of man. For man was not made from woman, but woman from man. Neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. That is why a wife ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels.Nevertheless, in the Lord woman is not independent of man nor man of woman; for as woman was made from man, so man is now born of woman. And all things are from God. Judge for yourselves: is it proper for a wife to pray to God with her head uncovered? Does not nature itself teach you that if a man wears long hair it is a disgrace for him, but if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For her hair is given to her for a covering. (ESV)

This is another one that is usually explained away as just reflecting the culture of the time period and completely ignored. Most Christian denominations have no problem with women with uncovered heads or short hair or men with long hair. There are of course exceptions, such as Pentecostals with hair length requirements and (at least some) Orthodox churches requiring women to cover their heads, but most Christians are able to see the misogyny of the passage and recognize it as not appropriate today.

Adventists have a prohibition on eating unclean meat while not keeping full kosher, claiming that the kosher standards were part of the “ceremonial law” around the tabernacle which are not applicable today, but the unclean meats were health guidelines that are applicable now which they support by weak anecdotes and lots of post-hoc justification of the counsel of their prophet. As a side note, they encourage vegetarianism but do not require it (except when it comes to pastors in some conferences) since it cannot be argued biblically, yet they have prohibitions on alcohol consumption even though the most you could support biblically is a prohibition on drunkenness, however this makes since when you view Adventist doctrine in the culture in which it was developed in the early rise of the temperance movement in areas and with former members of churches that were early champions of that movement.

Nearly all Christians have also been able to turn a blind eye to the pro-slavery passages of the Bible for the same reasons. They believe that it was written in a culture and time where owning slaves was a normal and acceptable part of life and the Bible just reflects that, but with the humanist values of the 19th Century and beyond it is not acceptable. Like with the earlier cases, their doctrine has developed with modern culture, even thought it goes against what the Bible says.

Liberal Christians will also take passages that deal with scientific and historical fact claims, such as Genesis 1-10 and most of the Old Testament and dismiss them as simply the creation myths and historical legends of ignorant, pre-scientific people or they’ll consider it poetic allegory and theologize how ever they want.

One objection that a lot of Christians have to many of the arguments of atheists is that we take the Bible as literally as the fundamentalists, if not more. This is simply wrong. We view the Bible in the context of the culture it was written in as the product of superstitious, pre-scientific people who recorded the myths, legends, and morality of their time. Unfortunately there are a lot of conservative Christians who want to keep our society trapped by inhumane ancient morality and ancient creation myths, so we have no choice but to call them on their bull shit.

In 100 years the majority of Christians will view the anti-homosexuality passages no different than they currently view the pro-slavery passages. The only way to speed that process is to make it too difficult, to painful for them to drag their feet so that just like they did 150 years ago, they’ll catch up with the rest of society.