Gays are an “abomination” and should “surely be put to death”: Leviticus says it, Miss Beverly Hills 2010 believes it, and that settles it?

Lauren Ashley, Miss Beverly Hills 2010, shares her thoughts on the Bible and gay people with Fox News:

“The Bible says that marriage is between a man and a woman. In Leviticus it says, ‘If man lies with mankind as he would lie with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to death and their blood shall be upon them.’ The Bible is pretty black and white. I feel like God himself created mankind and he loves everyone, and he has the best for everyone. If he says that having sex with someone of your same gender is going to bring death upon you, that’s a pretty stern warning, and he knows more than we do about life.”

Black and white, indeed. I find it curious how Miss Beverly Hills’s logic drifts about in the above comment. Notice how listening to the voice of God—presumably a good idea—is simply assumed, without evidence, to be the same thing as listening to the voice of the anonymous Bronze Age author of Leviticus. And also notice that the Leviticus command to execute sexual offenders becomes, after passing through the brain and out of the mouth of Miss Beverly Hills, a mere public service announcement from God: you run the risk of death if you engage in gay sex—and “that’s a pretty stern warning” from somebody who knows a lot more about life than, say, Miss Beverly Hills.

About Santi Tafarella

I teach writing and literature at Antelope Valley College in California.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

10 Responses to Gays are an “abomination” and should “surely be put to death”: Leviticus says it, Miss Beverly Hills 2010 believes it, and that settles it?

  1. The Bible says a lot of things. I’m not sure Miss Beverly Hills has actually read the Bible (someone may have told her about the stoning thing). I don’t know if she has the intelligence to actually read. Hmm…

  2. Just because an idiot believes it, doesn’t make it wrong. Homosexuality is obviously wrong. It’s a kink, a perversion, people get off on doing things that are wrong. I don’t understand why all the gays want everyone to accept homosexuality, it’s just going to take all the thrill away from it. seriously

  3. santitafarella says:


    You are certainly correct that, in the human psyche, the forbidden in sex is more stimulating than the permitted. But shouldn’t your logic lead you, if you frown upon gay pleasure, to the approval of gay marriage? In other words, if you make gay sex legal, and remove from it the politics of disgust (such as people like Mike Huckabee practice), gays will be as bored in the sack as married heterosexual couples—and so they will be condemned to normalcy. Gay desire will be tamed—and so constitute an indirect victory for the religious right!


  4. santitafarella says:


    Thanks for that hilarious link. Brilliant.


  5. marriage? no, it’s not a marriage

    I’ll jump up on any soapbox in any public arena, demanding at the top of my lungs

    let them send their insurance claims, retirement funds, lottery winnings, anything they want to whomever or whatever they want!

    If they’re sick in the hospital, then they can have anyone they want come visit them. (actually close relatives are prolly the worst ones to be able to visit)

    if there are some rights i’m missing here I’m sure I wouldn’t mind them either

    taxes are a sticky one just because of the complexity of a retool, but hey that’s pretty murky stuff to begin with.

    it’s just not a marriage, it seems silly to me that it’s even an issue on so many levels.
    allow gay marriage, the next step is women marrying their box of plastic toys they keep hidden away

  6. santitafarella says:


    Who died and made you the language police? If you want to call gay marriage “not marriage” you are free to do so, but the state (in my view) should not be discriminating between tax paying citizens in the way that you suggest. I’m glad you are for equal rights for gays, but what is the hang-up over them not being able to apply equal terms to themselves? Marriage is not, in many cases, about reproduction. It’s about love and pairing. If two men or two women want to pair up and they can find a church or other group to marry them, how does that harm society in the least? It seems to me that by not giving gay people access to the word “marriage” that you make society more brutal and less humane. We need to open the circle of human bonding, not treat some forms of human bonding as “more equal than others.”

    I would, if I could wave a wand, take the state out of the marriage license business and leave it to religious groups to decide who they will and won’t marry. In history marriage precedes the state. That means marriage does not need the state. The state could get out of the marriage license business tommorrow and it wouldn’t harm marriage at all. And if gay people wanted to marry, they’d find clergy to do so. And if you didn’t want to recognize their marriage, you would be free to do that as well. The conflict is really an artifact of the state getting involved and discriminating against one group (gays) while favoring the other (heterosexuals).


  7. wow comin back a little strong at me there (“Who died and made you the language police?”)

    try to take me in as much of neutral unbiased devils advocate way as possible (what i post is not necessarily what i believe)

    I’m going to research this a bit more and come back with another more informed post (this is a subject I’ve put very little thought into and i want to respect your feelings and knowledge of it)

    I’ll leave you with this

    why is it soooo important to gay couples that they get the word and the state verification of this, I seriously don’t understand this?
    I’m sure a large percentage of them could care less about the “getting married in God’s eye’s” part, so that percentage of the group is really just interested in “getting married in The State’s eye’s” so they only care that something that represents ALL of us recognizes their union, correct?

    It not about any of the rights?
    just the fact that it is called a marriage?
    I just want to make sure we’ve boiled off all the rights, I’m serious about this because i give you all the rights you win there, have them your ok

    but the name, I’m still not convinced

    ok I’m off to research this more (thanks for the interaction)

  8. Pingback: Etymology of the word marriage « God's Will?

  9. santitafarella says:


    The importance is equality: if gay people are part of the human family then you treat them with the basic respect of family members: you respect their choices and give them the courtesy of self-naming.

    It requires an act of imagination and human sympathy for a heterosexual to understand same sex attraction. It requires an exchange of disgust for humanity (in Martha Nussbaum’s formulation). I simply ask you to make that attempt and imaginitively walk in the shoes of another. Such gestures are the hope of the world. People don’t have to share tastes, beliefs, preferences, and desires to recognize them as valuable for others.


  10. Pingback: We know that gays are out of compliance with Leviticus, but is Miss Beverly Hills out of compliance as well? « Prometheus Unbound

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s