Is that in the Bible?

This question, though often coming from the best of intentions and concerns, is fraught with error and mistaken.  To ask this question, usually in response to a specific belief or practice, is based upon presuppositions about the Bible. So the place to begin is with an examination of what we believe about the Bible, specifically in regards to its purpose.
Instead of dividing the Bible into Old Testament and New Testament, we need to think in terms of, and divide by, Old Covenant and New Covenant.  We do this simply because Jesus' life, death and resurrection changes everything, literally everything.  The period of the Old Covenant is from the fall of Adam to the crucifixion.  The time of the New Covenant is from the resurrection of Jesus Christ to forever afterwards. 
With that in mind, we can begin to understand the purpose of Scripture.  All the history of the Old Covenant had been given to point us to the coming Christ.  We see how God has formed, directed and helped his people, Israel.  All of the external actions and events point forward to the coming messiah.  In the Gospels, we see the fruition of all that history come out in the life of Jesus.  He completes, fulfills and finishes all of it.  The epistles then, are direction and example of what that work looks like as it spreads out into the world.
This is one reason that the Orthodox Church holds the Gospels as so important.  Jesus' work is the ultimate act of love of God towards all men.
With that in mind, the Old Covenant time is not a place to look to for life example.  Neither are the gospels.  The one exception is this.  If we understand and embrace the Gospels as part of the Old Covenant, we can then rightly use and apply them in the right context.  One could almost say that the gospels take place in an overlap period between the covenants.
So to return to the original question, something being in or not in the Bible is a valid question only insofar as the specific topic being addressed is in the right context.  Is the topic about Jesus' work of saving mankind?  Then the question is valid.  Is the topic in regards to a certain worship practice, for example?  Then one would not expect to see it in Scripture.  There is much that Jesus, the apostles and Paul taught that was not written down.  The Bible is about Jesus and his work of saving mankind.  All other questions are answered in the Life of the church, that is, in the directing power of the Holy Spirit throughout all history.
So, is it in the Bible?  Maybe or maybe not.  But a better way to ask the question is, "Is this what the church has always practiced and believed?"  If no, then reject it.  If yes, then embrace it as a Holy Spirit inspired and directed part of life.  Live it first and then understand it later.

A consideration of religious history

I have been giving thought lately to the reasons for why the different churches worship and believe they way they do.  As I have argued in other contexts and discussions, it all has to do with foundations. 
Going all the way back to approximately the fourth century, as the Roman patriarch began to take Jesus' words of "on this rock I will build my church" as referring to Peter alone, instead of all the apostles, the church in the west began to deviate.  From this faulty position, the Roman Catholic church began to embrace errors and finally in the 11th century, broke away from the four other patriarchates.
Five centuries later, Martin Luther, seeing some of the errors of Roman Catholicism, sought after reform within the church.  They kicked him out.  From this position and from the belief that people in general needed to know and understand scripture, he began emphasizing sermons.
Luther still held onto the importance of the sacraments and we this see both of these emphases in Lutheran churches today.
Calvin took the thought of knowledge and understanding to the next level (he being a lawyer) and the Reformation church service began to be centered around knowledge.
The problem here is the focus on what one considers most important.  While it is true that people should know the Bible and understand their faith, it is not true that the worship service is to be built around that.
Again, these leaders deviated from what the church had always practiced, they re-defined for themselves the form of worship and fell into error.  From the beginning, the Divine Liturgy has been about relationship and communion with God, not about head knowledge.  Imagine going to bed with your wife and proceeding to spend the next hour reading about what your wife does each day in her interactions with your children.  Studying those things is perfectly fine, but not at that time.  That is the time for marital communion.
The only way we are going to grow in our relationship with God, grow in holiness and become sanctified is by right worship, repentance and partaking of the sacraments.  Other things, while important, are secondary.

Beauty, vanity, immodesty and lust

As you can see from the title, this sequence flows downward.  It all begins with how one defines beauty.  Of course, you should know by now, I insist that one must look to the church for such a definition.  If one starts from any other foundation, the whole thing will eventually get ugly (sinful).
We are all far too self centered and prone to sin to trust ourselves with defining reality.
To tie this in with a former post, beauty cannot be defined by old covenant standards.  Beauty is not about the outside, but the heart.  When one builds his or her life upon a foundation of love for God and neighbor, he or she will be beautiful.  The person who pours time and money into externals (ie, old covenant thinking) will end up with nothing. 

History and romanticism

You have probably heard it said that the victor writes the history book.  One can easily see the reality of that assessment.  But regardless of what the history books say, the influence and control of oral history or history believed that is based on ideological grounds, is even more important.
The image that one holds about any particular person will be controlled and directed by the romantic.  In other words, if one believes that person x is wonderful and godly, the reality of person x's struggles and sins will be overlooked, ignored, or even denied.  Or in other situations, if someone is seen as evil or corrupt, the good or noteworthy things that person has done will be ignored as well.  I find this troublesome.
We need to strive to be as honest and realistic as possible.  Anything else is wrong.

Reconcile

I was thinking about the Lord's response to the Pharisee's question about the greatest commandment.  He said first, love the Lord your God... and love your neighbor as yourself.  My next thought was simply that if someone actually lived this out, they, in turn, would be loved by those around them.  I mean really, who doesn't love someone who is a loving type of person.  But this is actually the opposite of what Jesus said would happen.  How do we understand this?
In Matthew we read that the world will hate us because of Christ.  One would have to suppose that this hatred is directed toward the one who is actively and faithfully following Christ.   Of course, this would mean that this person is loving God and loving neighbor.  I don't know about anyone else, but that one is really difficult for me to get my head around.  Think about someone you know, who is extremely nice, loving and friendly.  Can you imagine anyone hating that person?  Is it possible then that the personalities we create, in a form that we consider nice and loving, are coming from a completely wrong perspective?
I certainly do not have any answers on this, but I do know what the church says our lives should look like.  I also know that they path to eternal life, only through Christ, is a very difficult one.  Yet at the same time, that burden is a light one.

A whole new world

We read through the Old Testament and see story after story of how God has interacted with his people.  This is the story of the Old Covenant and from this story we can learn very much.  When we read the Gospels, again, we are reading about how God has interacted with his people, this time in the person of Jesus Christ, the second person of the Trinity.  This too is the story of the Old Covenant and from this story we can learn much.
But we now no longer live under the Old Covenant.  The epistles are very clear on this point (see Heb 8:13).  Under the OC, the people of God were limited to the temporal and physical due to domination of death.  Adam's fall into sin left man in bondage to death and cut off from access to heaven.  When someone died, during OC time, that was it.  He was left in a state of separation from God, waiting until the victory of Christ over death and a release from death.  This is why all of the blessings in the OC were of a temporal and physical nature.  Blessings of land, health, long life and many children were the means that God used.
But we are no longer in the Old Covenant.
In the epistles we see a radically different state of affairs.  No longer do the blessings from God focus on the things of the earth.  Celibacy is praised as better than marriage (ie, no children).  Asceticism is encouraged (self deprivation, not fatness and wealth).  A change of heart manifested in love for neighbor is the sign of godliness and obedience, not the external following of a law written in stone.
Our reading of the Old Testament is very valuable and helpful for our sanctification but can only be understood and applied to our lives when we rightly understand this extremely important distinction between the covenants.

Re: Crying uncle

So as to avoid this response being buried in the response section, I decided to create it as its own post.
Carl, thanks for your comments.  I too believe this is an important question, simply due to the massive and long term affects this will have on our children.  The culture in which one matures will form the person. 
In regards to your semi quote of scripture, I would need to see what exactly you are referencing.  We are to be faithful in whatever situation we find ourselves, but we also need to be faithful in the raising up of our children and protect them from this bastion of depravity.
Personally, I don't believe nationalism should be part of this consideration.  It seems to me that any kind of division or racial/geographical distinctions should be rejected, instead only recognizing the distinction of "those of the church" and "those outside the church."  Racial and nationalistic distinctions are a part of the Old Covenant.
While the subjectivity of the answer to this question may be just that, I believe the criteria for making that decision is objective.  How deep of sewage is one willing to swim in?
The poetic/rhythmic nature of your last question aside, no, the Assink clan has no departure plans.