Okay, sure, he used some bad words. But is he wrong about the hypocrisy?
I'm pretty certain there is no one on the planet, not a single person, who follows to the letter the demands of the bible. The dietary rules alone eliminate probably ninety-nine percent; even most Jews don't make it. Killing the bride because she's not a virgin? Killing your son if he mouths off, doesn't keep the sabbath? Heck, those jihadist Muslims follow biblical teachings more than their Christian brethren, and they're reading a different book!
So why the selective clinging to the word as it supposedly applies to homosexuality, among all the others that are ignored, deliberately, happily, unrepentantly? Literalism, it would appear, applies only when it conforms to your prejudices, and to what's not too hard. Only when it's convenient.
Given how profligately it's otherwise ignored, using the Bible to justify legislating or voting against same sex marriage is no more than a rationalization for fear and hatred; every one of the people using that excuse are guilty of disregarding dozens of other biblical admonitions, every day of their lives. And I've yet to hear a cogent explanation of how it threatens the institution of marriage, nor acknowledgment of how the rampantly polygamous biblical version of marriage differs from the one they claim they're trying to protect.
Considering what he's up against, I'd say Dan Savage was admirably mild-mannered. Wouldn't you?
