>>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?

Scroll up a little if you've forgotten. Gay Marriage is a "non-negotiable" issue. The death penalty (also condemned by the Catholic church, by the way) is not. Contraception (also condemned by the Catholic church) is not. The concept of pre-emptive war (also condemned by the Catholic church) is not. We are questioning the "catholicism" of these non-negotiable issues by noting the coincidence that the non-negotiables happen to fall so neatly into the Republican platform, yet they leave such big holes in the Catholic platform.

>>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?

Maybe by holding people behind bars, where they can't commit further crimes, yet can still be freed if later evidence warrants it.

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

Oh really. So you admit that the justice system is imperfect, yet you'd rather trust it enough to cut people down out of revenge, rather than hold out enough compassion to let them come to terms with their own sins, or enough hope that they might later be exonerated.

And by the way, there aren't just two "sides" here. The Catholic church is solidly and openly opposed to the death penalty, so our little argument here is completely beside the point.

>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.

Exactly! That is my point! There is a difference, but unfortunately it doesn't always come out in the courtroom. I'd rather err on the side of caution.

>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?

No, I would not. *I* would attempt turn the other cheek. My society would hopefully lock the guy up out of concern for their own safety. But an "eye for an eye" leaves both parties blind.

And by the way, there is no absolute standard of "proof." There is always experimental uncertainty. So nothing is ever "PROVEN", certainly not in all caps.

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

Oh really! I disrespect the sanctity of life if I have a distaste for killing my fellow man, even if he's done me harm. Huh...

>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.

I don't jump from that. I jump from ordinary human decency. The manner in which you allow your culture to cloud your own inherent decency is beyond ME.

>It completely negates your claim that life has sanctity.

Tell that to the Pope.