The money situation is what you stated it as- court. It costs a lot of money to go through the process of actually having someone put to death. If you don't understand why it's so much more expensive, look it up. it's not the $86.08 that people fuss about, its the payment of the lawyers, and judges, and court time that will cost the state and payment to outside lawyers. If you want to pay extra in taxes for people that you don't know and will never know be put to death over life imprisonment...

The court time is not inevitable, otherwise there wouldn't be an argument as to the death penalty being more expensive than life imprisonment. It's not like the murderer is put on trial for either life imprisonment or the death sentence and that's it, they go to jail or die and the costs are the same. It's a much more complicated procedure than that.

I understand your implication that some people use an insanity defense when they are really not what normal citizens would define as clinically insane. But your solution would undermine the entire justice system. Judges don't get to look at a defendant and say, "well it looks like your allaby is complete bullshit so I'm going to use my own judgement and give you the death penalty". unfortunately our diplomatic system is not like that.

"we are even giving terrorists rights where does it end?"

It ends with you having rights. By taking away the rights and freedoms of those we see fit to by labeling them as "terrorists" we undermine our system of justice. It is a far better solution to give rights to everyone and allow them to prove their innocence (innocent until proven guilty), than to revoke someone's rights and subject our governmental system to the loophole of being able to take away the rights of someone that they define as a terrorist. Where does it end?

-One example I can think of is during WWII. The government had power to imprison all Japanese living in the US up to at least 2nd generation. That means people from Japan that came here and had been living here for 30 years and had Japanese kids here who spoke English and worked here would be imprisoned because of the fear that they would somehow be infused with a fervent nationalism and try to fight America during WWII. Its this kind of loophole that causes irrational decision making and can ruin the lives of thousands through injustice.

"so those costs may be a little higher when fighting to kill the sick sob that can escape (theres been numerous escapees in maximum security btw theyve got nothing but time on their hands to get out and thats all they want) and you could be the next victim or your kids or someone YOU care about so why take that risk"

I highly doubt the backing of why you personally would want the death penalty invoked is because you're worried at home that a mass murderer is going to escape and kill you or someone you love... seriously?

The vast vast majority of murders are over money or love. Someone has a bad temper and they have a gun in the house. They just found their spouse in bed with another man, and the gun comes out. In a hostile situation where emotions are compromised, things happen. There is no reason to give that person a death penalty. And the argument of deterrence doesn't oblige either because how many people actually believe that people are NOT killing others because their afraid of getting the death penalty. Killing is more impulsive and less taking into account the consequences. Very few people when committing a crime are actually rationalizing out both sides to decide on the best solution. When someone goes to rob a store their not thinking, well there's probably a max of like $1000 maybe $2000 in the store (more likely $300-600), and if I get caught I could get 5-10 years in jail. Is the potential $1000 worth 5 years of my life in jail? THAT IS NOT THE CASE. people find themselves in a pressured situation and impulsively decide to do something.

By reading your logic it may seem like 3 is the only answer, but it seems a tad bit close-minded.

"(1) Say that God eventually decided love was better than hate, and changed his mind. (This would imply that the Old Testament God was imperfect, but that is impossible because God is supposed to be perfect.)"

So God can just decide, and change his mind? Is he human or is he God? In this logic, maybe he changed his mind and started to like homosexuals because they're nice.

The impossibility that God is supposed to be perfect. The Key word meaning supposed to be. What you need to realize is the difference between faith and actuality. You personally, and many others I assume BELIEVE that God is perfect and that the Bible is the word of the Lord and the end all be all. But not everyone believes or puts their faith that the bible is to be taken so literally, and there are many others that do not believe in the Bible, or in God for that matter. If it is stated in the Bible that God abhors gays, and it also states that he loves everyone, then obviously that is a contradiction which you pointed out was logically impossible. One possible derivation is that the Bible is wrong, and can't be taken as truth. This also lines up with (2) where the Bible contradicts itself and can't be taken as eternal infallible truth. That admittance could be resisted from those who believe every word in the Bible as its literal meaning. So you come to the conclusion that you assume what God really means and you come up with the answer that God hates fags, when the other just as equally compelling and more likely solutions are that

(1)God loves everyone and that includes homosexuals, transgenders, straights, etc.,

(2) that the Bible is not a literal interpretation of God's wishes because it's more a tale of a cultural relevance that is reaching a point of interference with the actual evolution of cultural and psychological beliefs, norms and acceptances,

(3) lastly (although there are many other possibilities), there is no God, or at least there is a different form that does not take on the personified "God" we envision as a man who sits at the gates of heaven judging those he created.

Also if "love" is a figure of speech with little meaning, how are you able to take the rest of the Bible as the literal definition of truth? In that logic, maybe "abhor" shouldn't be taken literally.

To be honest, and this is my personal opinion. The first two solutions that you pointed out seem much more possible and logical than the third.

Question to ponder:

1. If God created everything, then why would he create Gay people. (since being Gay is a quality that is infused in birth- meaning that it is not of choice that people are Gay)