[Sethomas]

Well, the reason for that is that the vast majority of moral issues should not be legislated. I see homosexuality as intrinsically sinful, but each person has the right to sin and so it would be pointless to outlaw homosexual relations. For how that relates to marriage, I think that marriage as a civil institution should be abolished and replaced completely with civil unions indifferent to sexual orientation. Marriage is a religious ordeal, and shouldn't be anything more.

As for other areas, I am very much pro-life, but I have been less vociferous about it in recent years on these boards. This is not because I'm afraid of being called a moron--that could be construed as a cross I am to bear--but because of the demographics of the boards would make it pointless. If this were a board prevalent with active theists, then I'd argue against abortion until my lungs burst. But, it's not. I am pro-life because I believe in a god who has endowed bodies with souls, and these souls are represented by bodies from the time of conception. However, it becomes a moot point when dealing with someone who does not believe in the soul. I still think that the argument that life can be destroyed out of convenience is a part of a superstructure that must be overcome, but this will either take a lot of time or will never happen. The best we can do to protect the unborn is to gather majority consensus, and legislate accordingly.

Since this is a thread on homosexuality, I'll add the fact that I believe that homosexual inclinations are mostly a part of genetic disposition and social internalizations. Thus, it is not inherently sinful to be a homosexual, but acting upon ones same-sex orientation with sexual acts is sinful in the exact same regard as fornication.

And seeing how more innocents have died as a result of Bush's orders than those of bin Laden's, I fail to see your point.