A case in point is this comment. This guy is trying to rationalize hating gays by quoting the passage from Leviticus.
People who use the Bible to justify hatred of gays infuriate me to no end. They claim to be religious, but they do not even know what the Bible says. Let an agnostic Unitarian Universalist (that's me) correct them.
Leviticus 18:22 states: "You shall not lie with a man as one lies with a woman, it is an abomination." OK. Word of God, eh? We should then follow EVERYTHING in Leviticus. No sense being selective. Leviticus 25:44-46 tells us that we can take slaves (gentiles only). Leviticus 19:20-22 also states that sex with an engaged slave is punished by an animal sacrifice at temple. Chapters 1-7 of Leviticus tell us the collection of laws relating to sacrifices, offerings, and the like.
That said, if these people are so afraid of ruining the "sanctity of marriage," they should be worried about the high rates of divorce. Estimates are that 1/2 of all marriages end in divorce. It's not just liberals getting divorces, Born Again Christians are as likely to get divorced as the general population (source). As for "protecting" marriage, if people were so concerned about it, they'd make adultery illegal, and make divorce illegal. Divorce laws have gotten easier in the last 20+ years. Here's a hint: that has nothing to do with homosexuals. Also, how many people who voted for the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996 were divorced? Many. How many people going after Clinton for his blowjob had had affairs? Several.
My point is, if one holds so close and dear that one specific passage is enough to base views/hatred/laws/etc, they need to give enough weight to all the other passages. Why are they allowed to choose some passages over others? The rest of us think they're just goofy for giving so much weight to something that is really just a good collection of stories designed to teach a moral code to uneducated people thousands of years ago.
A large number of installed systems work by fiat. That is, they work by being declared to work. -- Anatol Holt