The folks over on the religious right cite Leviticus as evidence that homosexuals are an unclean "abomination," yet they have no problem eating at Red Lobster. What gives?
In our fondness for Easter ham, we Christians have fervently clung to the surface-level meaning of Peter's vision. But we haven't been as enthusiastic about embracing the larger, more important lesson God was teaching him there on the rooftop. When the "unclean" outsiders knock on our doors, we don't like inviting them in. That, in a nutshell, is why some Christians happily dismiss one "abomination" while still behaving abominably out of allegiance to another.
(Oh, and what about Leviticus' Jubilee laws? Those were never set aside by anything in the New Testament, but Christians no longer treat them as authoritative because, um ... well, because money is pretty and shiny and let's us buy nice things.)
Thereís a lot of debate among Christians ó and itís not a new debate ó over how much of the Old Testament should be followed and how much can be ignored. Many complex theological arguments are offered for this or that position, but much of the time what I tend to see is: follow the laws we like and that reinforce our prejudices but ignore the ones that are difficult for personal, social, or political reasons.