Why do we take one verse of Leviticus seriously, and the others we don't?
It isn't about Leviticus. It's about in-group and out-group, and using God as a ventriloquist's dummy to say the things you want to say with the reverb cranked up. People who feel threatened by someone else's sexual preferences get to sock-puppet God as their spokesperson to condemn it. The in-group bonds, and the out-group is demonized.
The dietary in-group was once a powerful force too (else, why would it be written in the Torah, the Bible, and the Quran?), but that train has moved on somewhat. Some Jews and Muslims still observe prohibitions on pork (I don't know about shellfish, crustaceans, catfish, and cephalopods), but Christians by and large have outgrown that particular observance.
I know there is a lot of condemnation of "a la carte Christians," both from those who fancy themselves as nonbelievers and from those who fancy themselves as true believers, but I regard the a la carte Christian as more enlightened than his fundamentalist brothers. Granted, many of them don't KNOW they're a la carte Christians -- if you told them the Bible forbade the eating of shrimp, they'd give you a blank stare, followed by the "Jesus said that stuff didn't apply to us" speech, followed by another blank stare when you pointed out that he most certainly did not. Nevertheless, they've taken the first step to ethical maturity, using reason and conscience to determine an ethical course of action, rather than childishly and unthinkingly adhering to a long list of prohibitions that can't be rationally justified.
To me, that's progress. Insignificant, but progress nevertheless.
