From a strictly logical perspective, this argument is more bogus that Bill and Ted's average journey. Taken to its eventual necessary conclusion, Old Testament laws against murder and stealing are likewise outmoded, merely by their association with Leviticus. In actuality, both sides are simply making non-credible sound bites appeals; ignored completely is the important question of what sort of law Lev. 18:22 actually is (see article here), and whether indeed, objectively, homosexuality is an immoral act. The answer to that question is beyond our scope; suffice to say that neither side is offering anything in the form of a sound argument. Dr. Laura's/President Bush's side merely appeals to Leviticus as authority; but this works only if one has reason to grant authority (religiously speaking) to Leviticus in the first place. On the other hand, the "Dear So and So" side argues more fallaciously from association. (The first side is at least consistent within their own paradigm, if nothing else!)

I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some other elements of God's Laws and how to follow them

Those with a sincere interest in what relevance indeed the Levitical law may have for today are encouraged to see here. In terms of the specifics:

1. Leviticus 25:44 states that I may possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?

Aside from the same matter of presumptive equivocation noted above, we would refer the reader to the essays here. OT "slavery" is more properly a form of indentured servitude -- and a mechanism of survival for the destitute of the ancient world, who, unlike a modern Westerner, did not value individualist freedom above all else. A famine in a neighboring nation made the indentured servitude of a person in that nation, to one in a more fortunate nation, a viable and desirable option. Likewise, famine in one's own nation made Ex. 21:7 a way to ensure that your daughter didn't die. The hauling up of the emotionally-loaded word "slavery" is a simplistic form of argumentation in context.

3. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord - Lev.1:9. The problem is, my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

Preferably, the author should smite him/herself for such miseducated misanthropism! Only comfort-stricken moderns would make much of an odor to begin with; but at any rate, the question to ask in reply is, "Who is more important - the Lord, or your neighbors? Whom should be obeyed?" The question begs an implication of animal sacrifice as primitive and backwards, performed by bone-in-the-nose savages who also ban enlightened activities like homosexual sex. Of course, if you did happen to use a barbeque grill this past weekend, you're no more sophisticated in practice.

4. I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2.clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself, or should I ask the police to do it? How can I help you here?

This one and the remaining four all show soreful neglect of the conception of ritual purity - see here. The purpose of laws such as these was to set Israel apart from other nations by making them different. Linked into this is a concept of holiness, or set-apartness (see here). Why are these ritual purity laws not followed now? For an answer, see here. For why neither we nor the police are obliged to execute such a person now, see link above on the role of the law.

5. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination - Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this? Aren't there 'degrees' of abomination?

The point of this question - aside from the matter of not knowing what ritual purity is all about - is lost; if there is a sincere interest in knowing if there are "degrees" of abomination, just ask this simple question: Are there degrees to which things may be found "abominable"? Are the works of a robber baron not less abominable than those of a murderous dictator? In any event, if shellfish is a matter of ritual purity only, and homosexuality is a matter of higher morals as argued, then indeed, eating shellfish would have been a lesser abomination. (Indeed, the fact that the words used for "abomination" in both passages are different suggests that by itself. The word used for the shellfish is used only a few times in the OT, always of unclean animals, whereas the word used for homosexuality is used for things like bestiality, incest, and child sacrifice!)

6. Lev.21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle-room here?

None at all. As for the matter of that sort of law, see here.

7. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev. 19:27. How should they die?

Preferably by means of a painful lecture from whoever wrote this response! Scholars today recognize that Lev. 19:27 was written against specific cultic practices of the pagan world around Israel, which honored the pagan gods with ritual cutting of hair. Thus this reflects a culturally-applied universally (as opposed to a strict universal, as it is argued homosexuality is).

8. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

See above on ritual purity; no more needs be said.

9. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev.19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? Lev.24:10-16. Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair, like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev 20:14) I know you have studied these things extensively and thus enjoy considerable expertise in such matters, so I am confident you can help.

We may of course savor the irony of the praise given my one who obviously hasn't studied the matter one lick. The planting of crops and the wearing of threads is likewise a matter of ritual purity; as for the rest, it is again a matter of the role of moral law today. In all of this we have yet to see anything resembling an objective argument for (or against) homosexuality as moral or not... and it is doubtful we ever will, since reasoned discourse tends to lack the emotional impact needed to convince the average voter to vote your way.