The morality of tattoos is a discussion that will likely never end this side of Heaven. Can we get them, or should we avoid them? I doubt the Church will ever unite. Suffice to say, as I have 3 myself, I fall on the "yes" side of the debate. But many of my brethren fall very strongly on the "no" side.
The first thing to note about this debate is that the Bible doesn't actually give us much to go on in this regard. There is a grand total of one verse in the entire Bible that addresses tattoos. That verse is, of course, Leviticus 19:28, which the "no" crowd are quite quick to point out basically says "you shall not get tattoos". This should be cut and dry, right?
The first problem with using this verse is that actually, the verse itself isn't necessarily opposed to tattoos. Let's read it: "Ye shall not make any cuttings in your flesh for the dead, nor print any marks upon you: I am the Lord." ("Yes" crowd please note: The KJV, which is cited here, is the only version which omits the word "tattoo". Every other major translation does use it, so tattoos are in view here).
Note first the words "for the dead". From this, we get the impression that motives of a tattoo altered the moral implications, even within pre-Christian Israel. We acknowledge this concept with other morals. You can't pray to other gods, you can pray to God. And so we must ask whether Leviticus even applies to all tattoos.
But the second problem with using this verse against tattoos is illustrated by my lovely assistant in the header image, who ironically is nicknamed "Bacon". I asked her to send me a picture of her eating a bacon sandwich while shooting a judgemental glare. Of course, the caption alludes to Leviticus 19:28, but underneath the image, another Levitical law is noted: "You shall not eat the flesh of pigs". This illustrates a very common act of hypocrisy from the "no" crowd. Leviticus is filled with a number of commands, all of them designed with the specific intention of keeping Israel religiously separate from the other nations, that are not obeyed today. Even if the tattoo opposer doesn't specifically eat bacon, there will be many Levitical laws they neither obey, nor call others to obey.
But this is where the issue gets complicated. Even with the hypocrisy of the "no" crowd, the "yes" crowd may also be accused of hypocrisy. We have (or at least support) tattoos and eat bacon. The fact that we don't obey Levitical law doesn't change the fact that it is Levitical law. So really, this just shows we're both hypocrites, right?
According to the New Testament, no. It tells us that we are no longer under the law. See, classically, there are 3 categories of law identified in the Old Testament: Moral, Civil, and Judicial. Personally, however, I like to divide it into just two: Moral and Covenantal. Moral laws are genuinely binding upon all people for all time. "You shall not murder", for example, is a moral law. It has never been, nor will it ever be, acceptable to take the life of an innocent human being. Covenantal law, by contrast, effectively concerns the terms of a contract. Think of it this way: When a man rents a house, there are certain terms he agrees to. He must pay a certain amount of rent, he can't make certain alterations to the house, he isn't allowed certain types of pets. Now, suppose you rent a house, and one of the terms is "no dogs". How illogical would it be for you to then tell me "you're breaking a civil contract, because you have a dog in your house, but my rental contract tells me I can't have dogs"? Answer: Very. Your rental contract is with you and your landlord. The terms for me living in my house are very different.
Covenantal law is much like a civil contract. It is a "contract" between God and a specific person or group. To illustrate this, let's compare the dietary laws of four separate groups: Adam and Eve, Noah and his descendants, pre-Christian Israel, and us.
In Genesis 1:29-30, we read "And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat. And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so." This was the covenant with Adam and Eve. It is interesting to note that in God's covenant with Noah, we see the interpretation of this one. After the flood, God tells Noah "Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the green herb have I given you all things." (Genesis 9:3).
Already, we see a great divide. Whereas Adam and his descendants were vegetarian until the flood, the only food Noah was not permitted to eat is that which still contained its blood (Genesis 9:4). But as we've already seen, this isn't how things remained for Israel. To the Jews, many food laws were given. This was to the extent that even New Testament Christians debated the issue. But Romans 14 definitively settles the issue of dietary laws when it effectively says whatever you eat with thanksgiving is good. The New Testament is flooded with similar claims.
So how do we distinguish between the two types of law? Well, in 2 Timothy 3:16-17, Paul tells us "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works." In other words, if you want to know what you ought to believe about any given issue, especially moral ones, scripture is the place to go. Now, if tattoos were really that bad, Leviticus 19:28 would not be the only verse addressing it. We see a range of actual sins listed in scripture. We are told, for example, that "...the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God." (1 Corinthians 6:9-10). That's all rather clear. Idolatry, theft, adultery etc. are all violations of moral law. Thus, if you see "thou shalt not steal", it doesn't matter that it's in Exodus 20:15, stealing is still a sin, and it didn't become less of a sin now that we are no longer under the law. But since the only verse regarding tattoos is in Leviticus, we can safely assume it is not.
But let's say you find all of this unconvincing. You fail to distinguish between moral and covenantal law, you reject the freedom Jesus bought for us at the cross, and you insist that Leviticus 19:28 is a clear condemnation against tattoos for all people at all times. Now you've created a bigger problem for yourself. See, the Bible is quite clear on the severity of every crime. To break any of it is to break all of it (James 2:10), and to be bound to the law is to be bound to it all (Galatians 5:3). This is very problematic for those who seek to be bound to the law. See, if you are bound to the law, Christ is of neither profit, nor effect to you (Galatians 5:2, 4). But the law is of no effect to you either, because you have been bound to keep the whole law, yet you have offended way more than the one time it takes to break the whole law.
Thus, those who continue to use Leviticus 19:28 are actually being far more harsh to themselves than to anyone with tattoos. We who, in good faith, have tattoos, have embraced the freedom we have in Christ, and so shall be judged not by Levitical law, but by the law of liberty (James 2:12). But those who continue to use Leviticus 19:28 are saying "let us be judged by the law of Moses!" But that law is weak in the flesh (Romans 8:3). It has no power to save sinners because it was given only to bring about the knowledge of sin (Romans 3:20).
Now, to be fair to the hypocrites, most of them do not see their own hypocrisy. They are not explicitly saying they wish God would judge them by the law of Moses, or that they feel they would pass such a judgement. Most of them still believe they are saved by grace, through faith, not by works, and so their question is really about "what are good works". So, especially for the most overzealous members of the pro-tattoo crowd, it is important to remember that this is not a Gospel issue, and no one will be going to Hell over it.
Ultimately, regardless of how much you disagree with tattoos, I believe I have conclusively shown that Leviticus 19:28 does not justify that opposition. It is entirely acceptable for a Christian to disagree with tattoos, and needless to say no one should be compelled to get one. Indeed, if someone cannot be convinced that tattoos are morally acceptable, it's not a bad thing until they start abusing that disapproval. Ultimately, only three things matter in this issue: Love God, love your neighbor, and taking scripture in its proper context. To love God and your neighbor is the fulfilment of the whole law, and to properly exegete scripture is all that is necessary to do either of these.