>Why don't *you* explain to *us* how banning gay marriage
>"supports a value called 'sanctity of life.'"

Are you joking? It doesn't. How could it? To my knowledge, no one is being executed at gay weddings, correct? What are you talking about?

>Then you can let us know how it supports this "sanctity of
>life" to kill anybody who can't convince a jury of his
>innocence.

Tell me, if life truly has "sanctity", how do you communicate this value in the form of a punishment for taking of lives?

See, both sides agree about the "sanctity of life". But only one side's opinion about punishment reflects that sanctity.

By the way.. by "can't prove they're innocent", do you mean those that are "actually guilty"? Or do you just mean those that are "unable to prove that they're innocent"?

There's a difference you know.

You seem to ascribe the latter as the reasoning of "pro death penalty" people. That seems like a mistake on your part.

If you KNEW.. if it was PROVEN to you that "this man" killed your brother, would you believe in the necessity of his execution?

If not, then you can hardly argue that you believe in "sanctity of life".

You're upset cause the legal system is imperfect and innocent people die as a result of that imperfection. But how you jump from that to "no one should ever die for killing anyone" is BEYOND me.

It completely negates your claim that life has sanctity.

peace.


>I think you're the one who needs to think a little deeper
>here. And until you convince me otherwise, the burden of
>argument is on you.

is it?