Subject: Re: Arguing against faith
This is the best argument against the old tired Leviticus stuff I've ever
found.  It's by lesbian syndicated columnist Deb Price.  
 "An engineering professor is treating her husband, a loan officer, to
dinner for finally giving in to her pleas to shave off the scraggly beard
he grew on vacation. His favorite restaurant is a casual place where they
both feel comfortable in slacks and cotton/polyester-blend golf shirts.
But, as always, she wears the gold and pearl pendant he gave her the day
her divorce decree was final. They're laughing over their menus because
they know he always ends up diving into a giant plate of ribs but she
won't be talked into anything more fattening than shrimp. Quiz: How many
biblical prohibitions are they violating? Well, wives are supposed to be
'submissive' to their husbands (I Peter 3:1). And all women are forbidden
to teach men (I Timothy 2:12), wear gold or pearls (I Timothy 2:9) or
dress in clothing that 'pertains to a man' (Deuteronomy 22:5). Shellfish
and pork are definitely out (Leviticus 11:7, 10) as are usury
(Deuteronomy 23:19), shaving (Leviticus 19:27) and clothes of more than
one fabric (Leviticus 19:19). And since the Bible rarely recognizes
divorce, they're committing adultery, which carries the rather harsh
penalty of death by stoning (Deuteronomy 22:22). So why are they having
such a good time? Probably because they wouldn't think of worrying about
rules that seem absurd, anachronistic or--at best--unrealistic. Yet this
same modern-day couple could easily be among the millions of Americans
who never hesitate to lean on the Bible to justify their own anti-gay
--From lesbian columnist Deb Price's new book, "And Say Hi To Joyce."