Dan Savage was Right; the Bible Gets Many Things Wrong

Depending on which version of the description you read on this video, or which news article you see about it,  Dan Savage is 'cursing' Christian teens (he is not) and 'ripping' the Bible.
I think the phrase 'pansy ass' is rude, but on the spectrum of offensive terms it is a rather mild epithet of the many disparaging phrases often applied to gay people. It is perhaps mildly insulting, but hardly rises to the level of cursing.
The comments Dan Savage makes regarding the content of the Bible, as well as the use of the Bible to justify the legality of slavery in the U.S. Constitution and the use of the Bible by the slave owners and their supporters in the South in the Civil War is factually accurate. It is an unpleasant and 'incovenient' fact about which Southerners have mixed feelings. But it is factual. Christians owned Christians. Whites owned blacks and bi-racial or multi-racial people, who were often not so very genetically different than themselves, sometimes slaves who were even quite closely related to themselves.
Pointing out that fact, pointing out that we have no qualms whatsoever in agreeing universally that slavery is wrong, and that therefore the BIBLE IS WRONG on this point, or that it is now obsolete not to eat pork, or shrimp or crab meat. The Bible prohibits eating meat and milk together; according to the Bible, it is wrong to have a hamburger AND a milkshake or carton of milk in the same happy meal. But you won't see any of these kids protesting someone disagreeing with THAT, which makes them hypocrites.

Just to be clear, either these kids who are leaving are in fact apparently ignorant of these passages in the Bible, which is quite likely, or they have been mislead into thinking, wrongly, that it is not permissible to challenge those parts of the Bible like slavery.  Wikipedia has an entire entry on the Bible and slavery.
Here are some of those passages. You decide if YOU agree with them. 

As you contemplate the passages, consider how you wold feel as the owned party described, not just the owner.   As the following passage shows, the word slave is the accurate translation, not servant.  The wording used refers to one person owning another.  It clearly describes breaking up families through buying and selling children, specifically.

However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you.    You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way. (Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT)

Slavery applied to wives and children when a man was a slave.  What do you think of the morality of giving someone the choice of their own selfish freedom or their family?  Remember, if someone does choose to be a slave to be with their wife and kids.......there is no guarantee whatsoever that they will not be sold, or the wife and kids won't be sold after he makes that choice.  Is the Bible MORAL in this respect? I don't think so, and I don't believe they think so either.

"And if a man sells his daughter to be a female servant, she shall not go out as the male servants do. If she does not please her master, who has betrothed her to himself, then he shall let her be redeemed. He shall have no right to sell her to a foreign people, since he has dealt deceitfully with her. And if he has betrothed her to his son, he shall deal with her according to the custom of daughters. If he takes another wife, he shall not diminish her food, her clothing, and her marriage rights. And if he does not do these three for her, then she shall go out free, without paying money."

—Exodus 21 7-11

Then we have the issue of sex trafficking intersecting with slavery in the Bible. Once you were a slave, if you were female, it appears permanent even if you were Jewish but did not become a permanent slave by your own choice.
Do you condone selling women for sex?  Do you agree with men  being allowed to sell their daughters (or sisters)?  It is clearly part of the Bible; these are not sections disputed by either Judaism or Christianity as authentic.  With the exception of some weird ideas among the more extreme conservatives about women being submissive to men, it is generally accepted worldwide, that women are equal to men not submissive to them -- contrary to the Bible -- and that sexual exploitation of women or girls is wrong.  No 'ifs', no 'whens', no excuses, justifications or anything else.  Women must consent to sex, and any non consensual sex is wrong.  A woman clearly cannot say NO to a person who is legally allowed to rape, or beat or even kill her.

When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are.  If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again. But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her. And if the slave girl's owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave girl, but he must treat her as his daughter. If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or fail to sleep with her as his wife. If he fails in any of these three ways, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment.  (Exodus 21:7-11 NLT)

And lets not forget that the Bible makes it acceptable and legal to beat people who are owned property even if they are beaten so brutally they die from their abuse. Lets not pretend that kind of a beating is anything but Biblically approved BRUTALITY and ABUSE that we now define as murder. The whole 'thou shalt not kill' thing in the ten commandments -- there is an exception for slaves, if you feel like it.

When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property.  (Exodus 21:20-21 NAB)

BOTH the old testament and the new testament allow ownership of people who are like oneself in ethnicity AND religion.  Humanity be damned, business is business and people are allowed to be property like chickens, goats, cattle, tables and chairs.  well, except that you aren't allowed to have sex with the chicken, goats, cattle, tables and chairs.  You can damage or destroy all of those, just not have sex with them.  Savage is factually correct in his criticism of both the Old and New Testament passages in terms of them being wrong in what we now recognize clearly are the most profoundly core values of fundamental human rights.
While many of us are not comfortable with acknowledging the practice of masturbation, it is not just a very normal aspect of human sexuality, it is a normal aspect of primate sexuality, of our entire branch of the evolutionary tree.  With the exception of some badly archaic and sexually repressive and oppressive teachings by the Roman Catholic church which puts masturbation in the same category as the very worst possible sins - such as murder - no sane, rational person now believes that masturbation is a terrible sin.
As a woman, I can tell you categorically that EVERY woman I know would be deeply offended to be told she has to move out and live in a different building - as required by the Bible, - or that she is 'impure' and therefore could not go to work or classes or engage in basic experiences we take for granted such as shopping, eating out or going to a movie, playing a sport, or visiting friends, OR GO TO CHURCH during menstruation.  I would hope that every female student who left the Dan Savage presentation makes an effort to learn what he was talking about, because he was correct in pointing out that we reject, quite emphatically what the Bible states on this subject.
No one in their right mind thinks that women who are not virgins, either by choice or against their will, should be stoned because of their sexual status.  It is a facet of the Bible that we widely reject, recognizing that the reasons for when and how and with whom one experiences sex is more complex, and that aspect of sexuality is not a commodity, not something to be consumed by a husband or anyone else.  It is certainly not a justification for a violent murder, whatever the Bible states (or the Quoran or any other religious text).  We do not practice double standards for men and women regarding this aspect of sex any longer.  In this regard, whether the students leaving the Savage presentation acknowledge it or not, we broadly reject the Bible.  Sexual abstinence until the right time which may or may not be marriage is desirable for a number of important reasons, which may include spiritual purity choices; but fear of rejection by a future spouse or being stoned to death are NOT among them, and should not be. 
We emphatically reject the Bible's restrictions on mixing fibers, and on hybrids of many kinds.

"'Keep my decrees. "'Do not mate different kinds of animals. "'Do not plant your field with two kinds of seed. "'Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material. " Leviticus 19:19

That rules out any blended fiber content clothing - cotton polyester, etc.  We do so with combinations of natural fibers, and we do so with natural and synthetic blends all the time.  The single fibre content garment is far less common than any blend of two or more fibers.  This part of Leviticus also rules out any number of domestic plants used for food.  I'm sure all or nearly all of the readers of this post have at one time or another eaten a hybrid fruit - broccoli for example.  Modern broccoli is a hybrid of a more cabbage like form of broccoli and cauliflower; it did not originally have fleurettes.  I'm sure many if not all readers have eaten fruit like Tangelos, a hybrid of tangerines and grapefruit; we hybridize many fruits and vegetables and grains.  We have hybridized different kinds of animals for years, either different breeds or varieties of the same species, or entirely different species such as horses and donkeys to create mules.  In doing ALL of the above, we emphatically reject the teachings of Biblical texts. 
I would bet that all or at least most of the students who are taking umbrage with Dan Savage DARING to point out what is wrong with the Bible, what we reject emphatically in the Bible, in fact agree with him.  I'm sure that all of them believe slavery is wrong.  I'm sure all of them reject the idea of women as subordinate to men or that women should move out of their homes during their menstrual cycles or be denied the right to come and go freely.  I'm sure that most of those students are wearing or have recently worn at least one or more articles of clothing containing a mixture of two or more fibers.  I'm sure that every one of these students eats fruit or vegetables or grain products that have resulted from some form of hybridization.  I'm sure that there is not a single student who objected to Dan Savage pointing out that the Bible is wrong and obsolete on a wide variety of subjects who would assert that anyone who breeds mules (or hinnies - look it up) or Labradoodles is going against God's word in the Bible.
Their exodus (pun intended) from Dan Savage's presentation was wrong.  It was ignorant, and it was intolerant.  Most if not all of the opposition to efforts to eradicate bullying in our schools especially of LGBT students on religious grounds are trying to institutionalize hatefulness, they are trying to make it acceptable for Christianity to be reflected in intolerant and abusive behavior.  In using the Bible to justify denying full equality to people by rejecting legal marriage equality they do the same thing.  Just because something is in the Bible, or just because a religion has embraced an attitude because of a Bible passage is NOT ENOUGH.  It does not and should not replace moral judgment and critical thinking or ethical evaluation SEPARATE from the Bible. 
We do it all the time, rejecting the Biblical position on human rights issues, on food and clothing and sexuality.  Being a person of faith does not require you to check your brain at the church door and leave it there.  The Bible is a wonderful book, but it is not the only word on anything, and often is not a good word on many things.  Dan Savage was correct, and the students who left, who would not engage on important but perhaps uncomfortable facts but instead ran away - they were wrong. 
Dan Savage used the wrong word when he called them pansy -ass.  The correct term is coward, moral and intellectual cowards, because these students were afraid to face and confront facts and ideas that they didn't like and which made them uncomfortable.  That is part of education, and it is part of a responsible adult life.  It is not acceptable to have anyone else, not an individual, not an institution, do our thinking for us.  Growing up, I was taught to believe that we should challenge our own beliefs, and we should embrace such challenges by others.  As my family pastor used to say, if your belief cannot stand up to a challenge, if it does not grow and change as a result of such challenges it is a weak and worthless thing.  Weak and worthless is what 'pansy ass' is a more slang term to express.