# Dan Savage's "We can learn to ignore the bullsh!t in the Bible about gay people..." incident **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [May 2, 2012, 12:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dan-savages-we-can-learn-to-ignore-the-bullsh-t-in-the-bible-about-gay-people-incident/620588 "2012-05-02T00:35:32Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![dngnb8](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/977dab/32.png) [@dngnb8](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dngnb8)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2012, 1:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dan-savages-we-can-learn-to-ignore-the-bullsh-t-in-the-bible-about-gay-people-incident/620588/41 "2012-05-02T13:36:15Z")
The Bible also teaches that we are not here to judge. All those “Christians” who use the Bible as an excuse to Hate are confused (or theyre not and they just would rather Hate). The Bible doesnt tell Christians to Hate, it tells us to Love our Brothers and Sisters. These people are using the Bible as an excuse for their bigotry. When ever people use the Bible in pieces, they will derive incorrect interpretations. The Bible is a complete work, not a snippet. Old Testament and New Testament are completely different works as well. The first is history, the second is clarification. ---
**Author:** ![Steve\_MB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steve_mb/32/5339_2.png) [@Steve\_MB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steve_MB)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2012, 1:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dan-savages-we-can-learn-to-ignore-the-bullsh-t-in-the-bible-about-gay-people-incident/620588/42 "2012-05-02T13:44:30Z")
> [@Inner\_Stickler](#): > > I must be one cranky SOB because if I were Savage, I probably wouldn’t have apologized. I would have – something like, “I’m sorry we have to defend ourselves from your ignorant bigoted attacks. I’m sorry you’re incapable of understanding that the writings of three-thousand-year-old goatherds are not the be-all and end-all of moral philosophy. And I’m sorry I waited as long as I did to put it this clearly.” (with apologies to J. Michael Straczynski) ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2012, 1:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dan-savages-we-can-learn-to-ignore-the-bullsh-t-in-the-bible-about-gay-people-incident/620588/43 "2012-05-02T13:52:51Z")
> [@Gary\_Kumquat](#): > > Because, you strangely angry person Keep comments like this out of GD, please. ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2012, 1:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dan-savages-we-can-learn-to-ignore-the-bullsh-t-in-the-bible-about-gay-people-incident/620588/44 "2012-05-02T13:57:45Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > I’m not sure it’s a good idea for an anti-bullying advocate to call anyone “pansy ass.” Especially high school kids. On the broader issue, though, he’s absolutely right, and you can see it from the instantaneous reaction to what he said. Everybody picks and chooses from their holy books, and fundamentalists _really_ hate it when somebody points this out. It undercuts their sales pitch and their special-ness, so they have to react harshly - it’s either that or be reasonable about it. And yes, if they want their views taken seriously, religious people need to ignore the anti-gay bullshit the same way they ignore the other parts Savage mentioned. You can’t abdicate responsibility for your beliefs and actions by saying you got them straight from an ancient text - particularly when you didn’t, and you get them through various schools of thought about that text. Dan Savage made a perfectly good argument, but he made it badly - in such a manner as to ensure that the message will not be heard by the audience he is presumably attempting to convince. There is no question that pretty well all religious believers pick and choose what bits to believe. It is a perfectly good and valid argument to point out that the anti-gay bits of the Bible are by no means an essential teaching of Christianity or Judaism, any more than (say) those odd bits of Leviticus concerning the proper role of priestly sacrifices at a temple that no longer exists, Paul’s strange obsession about women’s hair, or the stuff telling slaves to obey masters. However, you gotta engage the audience. The people you want to reach are presumably those who are actually being mislead by religious qualms into thinking homosexuality is condemned by God. To those people, it is going to be a lot easier to convince them that God has nothing to do with it - that the Bible, written by humans, contains lots of stuff specific to the time and place in which it was written and not to the modern world - than to simply use terms like “bullshit” (even if it is true). The former message may plant some sort of seeds, but the latter is just going to seem like a sneer. I’m not saying that you can’t sneer at religion - I’m saying there is a time and a place. Sneering at religion isn’t doing any favours in that time and at that place. It will not advance the anti-bullying project. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2012, 2:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dan-savages-we-can-learn-to-ignore-the-bullsh-t-in-the-bible-about-gay-people-incident/620588/45 "2012-05-02T14:05:47Z")
> [@cmkeller](#): > > Not everybody. Everybody who has a holy book does. I thought that qualification was implied. Maybe there are some people out there who have a two-page holy pamphlet that covers every possible situation and doesn’t contradict itself, but I haven’t heard of it. > [@Malthus](#): > > However, you gotta engage the audience. The people you want to reach are presumably those who are actually being mislead by religious qualms into thinking homosexuality is condemned by God. To those people, it is going to be a lot easier to convince them that God has nothing to do with it - that the Bible, written by humans, contains lots of stuff specific to the time and place in which it was written and not to the modern world - than to simply use terms like “bullshit” (even if it is true). The former message may plant some sort of seeds, but the latter is just going to seem like a sneer. I agree. > [@](#): > > I’m not saying that you can’t sneer at religion Many of us would be in a lot of trouble. 😉 ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2012, 2:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dan-savages-we-can-learn-to-ignore-the-bullsh-t-in-the-bible-about-gay-people-incident/620588/46 "2012-05-02T14:13:11Z")
> [@ladyfoxfyre](#): > > He’s not arguing that your list isn’t in the OT, but the contention is with your assertion that because it’s in the OT all Christians ignore those guidelines. The most often quoted passage dealing with homosexuality is in Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13, so the argument that all of the OT is ignored by Christians isn’t supported by their OT-quoted biblical justification for the stance against homosexuality. Let’s assume this is correct. What claim is thus rebutted? In other words, there seem to be two claims being used interchangeably here: 1. That Christianity has no valid Scriptural basis for condemning homosexual behavior while accepting other behavior that the Scriptures equally prohibit; and 2. That Christians may not be well-educated as to the Scriptures that supposedly guide them. It seems to me that if it’s true that the most often-quoted passage in this cause is Leviticus, you’ve made a good point in support of claim (2), but said nothing about claim (1). ---
**Author:** ![Steve\_MB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steve_mb/32/5339_2.png) [@Steve\_MB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steve_MB)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2012, 2:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dan-savages-we-can-learn-to-ignore-the-bullsh-t-in-the-bible-about-gay-people-incident/620588/47 "2012-05-02T14:16:34Z")
> [@MEBuckner](#): > > The Biblical bullshit about shellfish is definitely Old Testament all the way. As has already been pointed out, the Biblical bullshit about slavery can be found in both testaments. And, in fact, the New Testament endorsement of slavery is more damning – the Old Testament simply sets forth “this is how it is” rules; the New Testament actively exhorts slaves to accept their status. ---
**Author:** ![Steve\_MB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steve_mb/32/5339_2.png) [@Steve\_MB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steve_MB)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2012, 2:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dan-savages-we-can-learn-to-ignore-the-bullsh-t-in-the-bible-about-gay-people-incident/620588/48 "2012-05-02T14:22:14Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Let’s assume this is correct. > > What claim is thus rebutted? > > In other words, there seem to be two claims being used interchangeably here: > > 1. That Christianity has no valid Scriptural basis for condemning homosexual behavior while accepting other behavior that the Scriptures equally prohibit; and > > 2. That Christians may not be well-educated as to the Scriptures that supposedly guide them. > > It seems to me that if it’s true that the most often-quoted passage in this cause is Leviticus, you’ve made a good point in support of claim (2), but said nothing about claim (1). The argument is clearly directed at claim (1) – the religion-based rationalization for homophobia is untenable because it is based on obvious cherry-picking. Claim (2) is merely an explanation of why people are so ignorant as to advance arguments that lack valid basis, and has no bearing on the merits or lack thereof of the arguments themselves. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2012, 2:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dan-savages-we-can-learn-to-ignore-the-bullsh-t-in-the-bible-about-gay-people-incident/620588/49 "2012-05-02T14:29:57Z")
> [@Gary\_Kumquat](#): > > Because, you strangely angry person, the fact is that the old testament passages are still quoted by bigots, yet these same bigots do eat shellfish, wear mixed fabrics, etc. Hence Savage is fair enough to point out that contradiction. > > And it is then fair to point out that the NT passages that are used to condemn homosexuality are either of “arguable” interpretation (with cite given why) or also, like the OT passages, refer to it as one amongst a list of other sins which people are happy to give a pass to. > > So, just to recap…you’re flat out wrong. Hope that helps, let us know if I need to go into further detail. No, he’s not flat out wrong. Again, there seem to be two claims here, and they seem to be considered interchangeably. So far as I can tell, **Blake** is not making any arguments about claim (2) (“That Christians may not be well-educated as to the Scriptures that supposedly guide them.”) His argument goes to claim (1): That Christianity has no valid Scriptural basis for condemning homosexual behavior while accepting other behavior that the Scriptures equally prohibit. The citation’s arguments are not strong. Some scholars may feel that the Greek _arsenokoitai_ is ambiguous; that is simply not the majority view. I suppose it’s “arguable,” but let’s face it: if I said anti-global-warming sentiments were “arguable” I’d be jumped on. Because even though there are scholars that disagree, the vast weight of scholarship points to the idea of human activity being a significant factor in global warming. Here. when the fringe scholastic view represents something you want to hear, you’re happy in calling it “arguable.” When a similar weight of scholarship reaches a conclusion you don’t like, then it’s the work of “deniers.” The other arguments seem to be that the behavior is not especially condemned, but simply appears in a list of bad behaviors. True enough, but I don’t know too many Christians proclaiming that drunken revelry is a great thing, either. The stronger reaction to homsexuality is, I think, the reaction caused by debate. That is, if Christians are louder in condemning homosexual behavior, it may be because there is a strong movement arguing for its acceptance, with no such similar voice standing up for the drunken revelers. Finally, the point is made that the New Testament includes a passage seemingly accepting of slavery. Yes. So did the US Constituion. The passage does not mandate the institution of slavery. How does this invalidate anything? ---
**Author:** ![Gary\_Kumquat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/4491bb/32.png) [@Gary\_Kumquat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gary_Kumquat)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2012, 2:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dan-savages-we-can-learn-to-ignore-the-bullsh-t-in-the-bible-about-gay-people-incident/620588/50 "2012-05-02T14:31:22Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > there seem to be two claims being used interchangeably here: > > 1. That Christianity has no valid Scriptural basis for condemning homosexual behavior while accepting other behavior that the Scriptures equally prohibit; and > > 2. That Christians may not be well-educated as to the Scriptures that supposedly guide them. > > It seems to me that if it’s true that the most often-quoted passage in this cause is Leviticus, you’ve made a good point in support of claim (2), but said nothing about claim (1). What else needs to be argued for point 1? If it can be shown that any prohibition for homosexuality is identical to that applied to other forms of behaviour that christians now tolerate, what further argument could be required that there is an immoral double standard being applied? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2012, 2:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dan-savages-we-can-learn-to-ignore-the-bullsh-t-in-the-bible-about-gay-people-incident/620588/51 "2012-05-02T14:37:56Z")
> [@Steve\_MB](#): > > The argument is clearly directed at claim (1) – the religion-based rationalization for homophobia is untenable because it is based on obvious cherry-picking. Claim (2) is merely an explanation of why people are so ignorant as to advance arguments that lack valid basis, and has no bearing on the merits or lack thereof of the arguments themselves. OK, then. I agree. But since the Christian doctrine includes an explanation for why the OT mandates against, say, shellfish no longer apply to Christians, the OT passages are not valid fodder to use in support of the cherry-picking claim. I cannot say the US Constitution supports slavery now, and prove my point by showing the clauses about importation of labor, because a subsequent docuement reversed the effect of those passages. The 13th amendment prohibited slavery, and if I wanted to claim that the Constitution says anything about slavery, it has to be an argument that uses only post-13th amendment information. So, too, here. The NT supersedes the OT, in Christian thinking, and that “amendment” is laid out in Hebrews 8:8-12. You cannot argue that the Christian failure to adhere to shellfish regulations is violative of anything, or that it is cherry-picking. ---
**Author:** ![Gary\_Kumquat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/4491bb/32.png) [@Gary\_Kumquat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gary_Kumquat)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2012, 2:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dan-savages-we-can-learn-to-ignore-the-bullsh-t-in-the-bible-about-gay-people-incident/620588/52 "2012-05-02T14:37:57Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > No, he’s not flat out wrong. > > Again, there seem to be two claims here, and they seem to be considered interchangeably. > > So far as I can tell, **Blake** is not making any arguments about claim (2) (“That Christians may not be well-educated as to the Scriptures that supposedly guide them.”) > > His argument goes to claim (1): That Christianity has no valid Scriptural basis for condemning homosexual behavior while accepting other behavior that the Scriptures equally prohibit. No. Blake’s argument was simple: > [@](#): > > The the bullshit in the Bible about shellfish, about slavery, about dinner, about farming, about menstruation, about virginity and about masturbation are all in the Old Testament. They are "ignored’ because they do not apply to Christians. > > The bullshit about homosexuality is in the New Testament and is explicitly directed at Christians. > > Arguing that these things are equivalent, and that because the OT gets ignored it’s OK to ignore bits of the NT is incredibly weak. There are two clear arguments from this: 1. Statements from the old testament no longer apply. This claim is demonstrably incorrect, as it is the old testament that is commonly quoted to condemn homosexuality. As such, it is important to show that the prohibition in the OT comes amongst the oft quoted bans on shellfish, mixed fabricsm etc 2. The prohibition in the new Testament does not suffer from the same flaws. To respond to this, it is important to show that either: a) They are indeed part of a list of behaviour types that do not get the same ire, or b) The translation that has been used is questionable, making it arguable whether homosexuality is actually the offence being castigated. Those are the only points that have been addressed here. ---
**Author:** ![Jas09](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/d07c76/32.png) [@Jas09](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jas09)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2012, 2:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dan-savages-we-can-learn-to-ignore-the-bullsh-t-in-the-bible-about-gay-people-incident/620588/53 "2012-05-02T14:39:17Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > The citation’s arguments are not strong. Some scholars may feel that the Greek _arsenokoitai_ is ambiguous; that is simply not the majority view. I suppose it’s “arguable,” but let’s face it: if I said anti-global-warming sentiments were “arguable” I’d be jumped on. Because even though there are scholars that disagree, the vast weight of scholarship points to the idea of human activity being a significant factor in global warming. Here. when the fringe scholastic view represents something you want to hear, you’re happy in calling it “arguable.” When a similar weight of scholarship reaches a conclusion you don’t like, then it’s the work of “deniers.” Is this an accurate representation of the weight of Biblical scholarship? I have certainly heard the argument that _arsenokoitai_ is ambiguous, but I guess it’s possible that this is only a fringe view. I would point out that there at least a few mainstream Christian churches that are welcoming of homosexual members, which would seem to give some weight to the argument that Biblical understanding doesn’t _require_ disapproval of homosexuality. There are other (perhaps “bullshit”) provisions in the NT regarding women not speaking in church or cutting their hair as well. Most Christians are happy to disregard those. And I don’t know very many sects at all that give much weight to Paul’s claim that it is better for men to remain unmarried virgins. ---
**Author:** ![iftheresaway](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/ecae2f/32.png) [@iftheresaway](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iftheresaway)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2012, 2:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dan-savages-we-can-learn-to-ignore-the-bullsh-t-in-the-bible-about-gay-people-incident/620588/54 "2012-05-02T14:39:28Z")
> [@Malthus](#): > > Dan Savage made a perfectly good argument, but he made it badly - in such a manner as to ensure that the message will not be heard by the audience he is presumably attempting to convince. > > (snip) > > I’m not saying that you can’t sneer at religion - I’m saying there is a time and a place. Sneering at religion isn’t doing any favours in that time and at that place. It will not advance the anti-bullying project. I don’t think this is completely true, for a couple of reasons. For one, it’s not like every single kid walked out. The most religious, most easily offended kids did, and it’s not exactly a sure thing that they would have paid much heed to the gay sex columnist in the first place. Secondly, my own time in high school overlaps with Dans’s career, and I can tell you that he was hugely influential on me and my friends.Remember, bullying isn’t (or doesn’t have to be) a one-to-one thing. When the kids on the sidelines have good reasons to tell the bullies they’re full of shit - or at the very least tell the bullied kids that their tormentors are full of shit - it does get a bit better. And if the kids have already been talking about stuff like gay rights & slut shaming & all kinds of other Savage Love topics, they’ve got a framework for thinking that isn’t immediately " ew, gross" when they hear about something new. ---
**Author:** ![shiftless](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e9c0ed/32.png) [@shiftless](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/shiftless)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2012, 2:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dan-savages-we-can-learn-to-ignore-the-bullsh-t-in-the-bible-about-gay-people-incident/620588/55 "2012-05-02T14:40:12Z")
> [@Sampiro](#): > > On the other-other-hand, these are high school kids. Pick on somebody your own size, Dan; I’d have FAR less trouble if you’d said that at COLLEGE Journalist association even. I’d go with this. Dan has a lot of air time to fill (see his show on MTV) and he is a bit of a smartass, which is fun. Just doesn’t work well when he is using his well honed smart-mouth on kids. It is, in fact, the very bullying he is trying to fight. Besides, I’m not sure it’s a service to gay rights to set up the whole movement as a “Gays vs. Christianity” thing. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2012, 2:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dan-savages-we-can-learn-to-ignore-the-bullsh-t-in-the-bible-about-gay-people-incident/620588/56 "2012-05-02T14:43:17Z")
> [@Gary\_Kumquat](#): > > What else needs to be argued for point 1? If it can be shown that any prohibition for homosexuality is identical to that applied to other forms of behaviour that christians now tolerate, what further argument could be required that there is an immoral double standard being applied? The argument offered thus far draws from the OT list. As I explained above, the OT is not the authority that the NT is, and the mere fact that it is often quoted as the authority for the prohibition is an example of the ignorance mentioned in (2). What behaviors do you contend are not condemned by Christians, but should be, thus showing an “immoral double standard?” ---
**Author:** ![Steve\_MB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steve_mb/32/5339_2.png) [@Steve\_MB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steve_MB)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2012, 2:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dan-savages-we-can-learn-to-ignore-the-bullsh-t-in-the-bible-about-gay-people-incident/620588/57 "2012-05-02T14:49:38Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > But since the Christian doctrine includes an explanation for why the OT mandates against, say, shellfish no longer apply to Christians, the OT passages are not valid fodder to use in support of the cherry-picking claim. The _fact that homophobes cite the OT passages_ is the proof of the cherry-picking claim, not the mere existence of the passages. > [@](#): > > I cannot say the US Constitution supports slavery now, and prove my point by showing the clauses about importation of labor, because a subsequent docuement reversed the effect of those passages. The 13th amendment prohibited slavery, and if I wanted to claim that the Constitution says anything about slavery, it has to be an argument that uses only post-13th amendment information. The fact is that some people _are_ doing the equivalent of showing the clauses about the importation of labor. This is the “cherry-picking” at issue. In any case, even restricting oneself to NT citations doesn’t avoid the cherry-picking of (for example) rejecting the verses exhorting slaves to accept their status. ---
**Author:** ![Jas09](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/d07c76/32.png) [@Jas09](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jas09)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2012, 2:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dan-savages-we-can-learn-to-ignore-the-bullsh-t-in-the-bible-about-gay-people-incident/620588/58 "2012-05-02T14:53:12Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > What behaviors do you contend are not condemned by Christians, but should be, thus showing an “immoral double standard?” Well, there are a couple of pretty dodgy things about head coverings and women speaking in church: > [@](#): > > 13 Judge for yourselves: Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered? 14 Does not the very nature of things teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a disgrace to him, 15 but that if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For long hair is given to her as a covering. > [@](#): > > 34 the women should keep silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be in submission, as the Law also says. 35 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. These are both from the New Testament and pretty widely ignored, IME. They probably don’t rise to the level of requiring condemnation, I suppose, but aren’t that different from the instruction regarding avoidance of homosexual behavior. ---
**Author:** ![Steve\_MB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steve_mb/32/5339_2.png) [@Steve\_MB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steve_MB)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2012, 2:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dan-savages-we-can-learn-to-ignore-the-bullsh-t-in-the-bible-about-gay-people-incident/620588/59 "2012-05-02T14:53:45Z")
> [@iftheresaway](#): > > The most religious, most easily offended kids did, and it’s not exactly a sure thing that they would have paid much heed to the gay sex columnist in the first place. They already had something to get up in high dudgeon about. Staying to hear more would be like feeding a fish more worms after you’ve caught it. ---
**Author:** ![Wheelz](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wheelz/32/5718_2.png) [@Wheelz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Wheelz)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2012, 2:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dan-savages-we-can-learn-to-ignore-the-bullsh-t-in-the-bible-about-gay-people-incident/620588/60 "2012-05-02T14:54:04Z")
I think Savage’s word choice essentially suggests that religious people \*should \*pick and choose which parts of the Bible they want to believe in, and that weakens his argument. Instead of saying “Let’s ignore the bullshit in the Bible,” it would have been far more on point to say, “Let’s ignore the bullshit \*that is \*the Bible.” Of course, that surely would have created an even bigger shitstorm. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dan-savages-we-can-learn-to-ignore-the-bullsh-t-in-the-bible-about-gay-people-incident/620588.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dan-savages-we-can-learn-to-ignore-the-bullsh-t-in-the-bible-about-gay-people-incident/620588.md?page=4)