Group items tagged

RBG is someone to definitely look up to, I admire her perseverance to reach her goals for society. She deserves to be remembered as she wanted to be. Hopefully, as a society, we can all preach together what she fought so passionately for.

RBG was a key aspect of women earning some very basic rights in this country and should be looked at as nothing less than a catalyst of equality. This vacancy does pose some concerns as to who will be appointed and whether or not Trump even holds the right to place someone on the court at this moment in time

I think that it is time for the Supreme Court to rule on this issue. This is an issue that is important to a minority group that has never really been ruled on by the Supreme Court. I personally want to see how the Court applies the Loving v. Virginia case to one or all of the cases they may hear. I just don't expect anything until after the election in November because it has become an important issue this election cycle. Payton I don't think that the Supreme Court could end same-sex marriage. Marriage licenses are left up to each individual state and I can't imagine any possible outcome that would result in the Supreme Court taking away a State's right to issue a marriage license to whoever they want to grant a license to. I can see them saying there is no right to marry at the federal level or that the Federal Government doesn't have to recognize same-sex marriages but I don't see them telling states that they can't issue a marriage license to a same-sex couple if the state wants to.

Jeremy, what I am saying is that same sex marriage, if ruled against, will have almost no chance of reversing the choice for a very long time. Based upon our constitutional values though, I doubt that they will rule in favor of those that oppose same sex marriage though.

I'm still like . . . trying to figure out why exactly some people hate the idea of gay marriage so much and want to make sure that it's not legal. I mean, even if it's for religious reasons, like their religion doesn't support gays and lesbians, it's not like they would be getting married in their church or that they even want to. It doesn't affect those against gay marriage at all. It really only affects gays and lesbians and it makes them happy.

I think whatever the outcome and effects of the ruling will be a new direction in our lives as Americans. I'm interested in how this will effect us in the future.

http://gaymarriage.procon.org/ I know I got a little confused about why some people think same sex marriage marriage is bad and I found this to be very helpful in understanding it.

I, myself, do not agree with gay marriage, or being gay at all. But that is my personal beliefs. I don't want people to try to tell me that I'm wrong, because I'm not saying I am right. I know this is a big issue in the U.S and it does need to be addressed, but I do think it is more of a state issue. As for gay marriage, it will probably be passed to be legal, and that's fine because it really doesn't affect me, I am straight. But from a conservative viewpoint, here is why some don't agree with gay marriage, not just because of religion. It is because it defeats the whole sacredness marriage was and still is meant to be. To me it is for man and wife. Not man and man or woman and woman. I am not intending to offend anyone at all, if someone wants to be gay, then be gay. I will not discriminate, I just will not support it, because I don't agree with it.

You do realize that times have changed, right? And there are a lot of things that have changed as times have gone on, like gender roles, for example. It used to be that women were raised to do all the housework and mothering and such because "things were meant to be that way". Meanwhile, men were raised to fight and work on the farms because "things were meant to be that way". Now women, while payed less, are allowed to have jobs and have gotten the right to vote, but even so still have to fight to gain and keep other rights. Honestly, unless you're white, straight, and male, you haven't really gotten rights until sometime in the late 19th /20th century, and for some in the 21st century. Also, how would a homosexual relationship ruin the sacredness of marriage? When you really consider it, marriage isn't all that sacred, especially these days because there's money and materialism involved, and then of course sex too. Of course, sex is okay so long as you're married, but if you're not married and you've had sex, it's considered immoral, according to society. And even though people these days marry for love, those things are still involved in it. And if marriage is sacred, then why are divorces allowed? Aren't sacred things supposed to be protected no matter what? Divorce obviously doesn't protect marriage. It just ends marriages. If marriage was considered sacred then divorces wouldn't be allowed, and divorce is necessary at times.

I think that if a man and a woman hate each other but still have more rights to get married than two homosexuals who actually love each other, then we should definitely legalize it!

Whoa, I never said anything about the roles of men and women, sex or divorce. I was stating my opinion on gay marriage, and I will continue to do so in this comment. Again, not intended to offend anyone, just my take on what I think about gay marriage and being gay in general. Kirstina, you just proved my point for me that being gay isn't right by saying it depends on how people are raised that changes how they will be like when their older. So are the way people are raised now, affecting if they are gay or straight? If someone were told tell me that people are born gay, I would say they are wrong. (I'm bringing this up because that is probably what you and many viewers believe) Here's why, when you're a little kid, you don't think about which gender you like. You think about having friends with whoever and don't even know about how to take friendship further than that, as a child. There is no gene in your body that makes you gay.Plus, no one that says they're gay, knows until they are teens or older. That is because they observe how others are, think about how they are treated by the opposite gender and make their decision. And why are there all of the sudden so many gay people? Why weren't there any back then? Not because it wasn't allowed, because it wasn't not allowed, it was just unheard of. It's (to me) because it isn't natural. It is a life CHOICE that people have made for their OWN reasons. Some for attention, some to fit in, some because they can't find someone of the opposite sex that is interested in them and some for reasons I don't know. People are put on this Earth to make more people, just like animals are here to live, provide for people and make more animals. Two men or two women physically cannot make more people. Man and man and woman and woman are not meant to be together. What is and/or was meant to be can't change. Because whatever is meant to be is just meant to be and you can't change that, no matter what time in history it is. Gay marriage d

Gay marriage does ruin the sacredness of marriage because a married couples are supposed to stay together, reproduce, carry on the human race, and be a happy family. I know, sounds a little far fetched in this modern day, but if America could go back to that, this country would be so much better off. I'm not saying divorces don't happen, or are wrong because my parents are divorces and my mom is remarried and that doesn't make them bad people. But I am saying that they made a mistake somewhere and did, in turn affect the sacredness of marriage. Divorces should not be illegal, but people should think twice before getting married. Also, I'm not trying to squash the dreams of gay couples, or tell anyone that I'm right and their wrong, that is not my intention.

Alex I would just like to point out a few things you may have over looked or may not have known. The first thing is that there aren't "all of the sudden so many gay people?" There have been homosexual and bisexual people throughout history. One example is the first gay couple to be joined by Civil Union in the world, in Denmark, in 1989 and had been in a relationship 40 years prior to their Union. The reason we don't hear much about homosexuality in history is because it used to be a crime that if found guilty of being homosexual you could be put to death or thrown in jail for it (the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy has more information on this particular subject). It is reasonable, then, to believe that homosexuals would keep their homosexuality to themselves as to protect themselves from violence. Another thing you seem to overlook is that there are heterosexual couples who "physically cannot make more people," for one reason or another without using alternative methods such as surrogates and/or in vitro fertilization. that still enjoy the benefits and legal aspects (such as inheritance and the right to hospital visits and end of life decisions for their spouse) of marriage. These same options are also available for Same-Sex couples and they have the option to have children that are the biologic child of one of the parents just like families where one of the parents is infertile. Homosexual behaviors have also been observed in natural populations in a large number of other animals have shown homosexual behaviors while observed in their natural habitats and also in unnatural locations such as zoos. So to say that homosexuality is unnatural ignores that these observations have been made in the "natural" world. The finial thing that you brought up was about when people form, or in your words "choose", their sexuality. The American Psychological Association says that a persons sexual orientation can start to form in middle childhood and early adolescence a

Alex . . . you totally missed my point with me saying how people used to be raised. This is what I said: "And there are a lot of things that have changed as times have gone on, like gender roles, for example. It used to be that women were raised to do all the housework and mothering and such because "things were meant to be that way". Meanwhile, men were raised to fight and work on the farms because "things were meant to be that way". Now women, while payed less, are allowed to have jobs and have gotten the right to vote, but even so still have to fight to gain and keep other rights." I was merely giving that as an example of how times have changed and how things have changed. If women and nonwhite races can get rights over time, then why can't homosexual people? That doesn't seem fair. Marriage has now become a legal thing, and even if you don't want to, you have to accept it as it is - a legal thing that's nowhere near sacred. So what's so bad about gays having the the same legal rights to get married and all the legal things that come with it? Also, at dinner tonight, my dad told me that marriage used to be a property thing. Women/wives used to be considered property and not human beings. African Americans became slaves of the American white people, and therefore were also property. Now slavery is illegal, and marriage happens between two people who love each other and are willing/want to be legally bound. Also, therefore marriage has never been sacred. I also agree wholeheartedly with what Jeremy said.

Guys, Alex gave her opinion, she even said in her that is her personal belief, and that she didn't want anyone trying to tell her that she was wrong. She stated her opinion, you don't have to kill her through a website, It is her opinion, lay off.....

I would like to see this put to test in AL or Council Bluffs and see if it is still accurate.

Interesting

It was not as surprising to me that these tests have happened. To me being exposed to nicotine while they are still in the developing process is very harmful. I don't think mothers should ever expose babies to that, if they want them to have a brighter future.

if they were exposed to marijuana the would have had better reading scores

If the guns are accessible to the children how is it the child's fault? The children at that age are unaware of what a gun is and can do.

i think that if parents have little kids around they should have the guns locked up somewhere to where little kids will not be able to get the guns

I agree with Austin, Kids should not be able to have access to the parents guns. So the parents should be the one's getting charged.

The parents should be getting charged. How are you just going to let your little kid grab a real gun and shoot someone?! Not very responsible parents.

It makes me sad that this child will have to live the rest of his life with the fact that he unknowingly and accidentally killed another child, and his friend, because his parents didn't know how to lock up a gun.

My heart goes out to both families. Although it is absurd to have guns within a children's reach, ESPECIALLY loaded guns, neither of these deaths were intentional. Charging the parents of the shooter is the morally correct thing to do, but I can't help to feel bad for them. Both families now have incredibly difficult things to recover from. The tragedy of losing a child, and the fact that your child has just committed a murder. How do deal with that if it happens to come up in the future? This case would be a very difficult one to judge.

I agree that it was irresponsible to leave their guns within reach of their child, but I don't think that makes them completely responsible for the crime

It's stupid to leave a gun in an area where a kid can get a hold of it, but it's not like planned on killing his friend. Nobody should be charged it's just an accident. Not a crime.

I think the responsibility are the parents why would you let your children to grab a gun thats not a toy for play.

It's crazy that children can get their hands on a gun when I was that young I wasn't even thinking about guns and stuff. but now and days kids can shoot a gun what is this world coming to.

I think the parents need to be charged: one, because they didn't keep an eye on their kids and two, because they weren't responsible with their guns.

I also support the right to die movement. I watched a really interesting documentary, How to Die in Oregon, about Oregon's Death with Dignity Act. It's a really interesting movie and I'd suggest it to anyone.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/celebritynews/9334190/Sir-Terry-Pratchett-opponents-of-assisted-suicide-stir-up-needless-hysteria.html This article doesn't mention the movement in the U.S., but I really like what Sir Pratchett says about the opposition to the right to die movement.

Hmm. This is a very interesting and touchy topic. Personally I think that if the patient is mentally stable and capable of making this choice then they should be allowed to do it. If it was me, I wouldn't want to suffer with a terminal illness. This method is just more humane than jumping off a cliff or pulling the trigger

I very much agree with the right-to-die movement and i especially agree with Hayley.

This is quite a weird subject! I think that people should have the right.

Exactly. I'm not a pot smoker but I see the silver-lining. We would make a profit just off taxes alone. Its a gold mine, in other words.

I agree with everything they are saying. The government can make a lot of money on the taxes from selling pot and on top of t hat is it really that bad? We are accept alcohol and it is far more dangerous. How many violence issues, accidents, deaths, and overdoses have you heard of from pot compared to alcohol or any other drug. Pot is looking pretty well now compared to them.

I agree that legalizing marijuana is a good idea. After all, alcohol is a far more dangerous and more addictive drug and our society practically expects people to drink. The only problem I have with this article is that it implies legalizing marijuana will end the "war on drugs." Legalizing marijuana won't stop people from using other, more dangerous, drugs.

In my opinion the biggest obstacle to widespread legalization is the lack of a quick, real-time test which allows us to determine the level of impairment. I certainly don't want people driving drunk and there are many tests that we can administer to determine if the person is under the influence right now. Tests for marijuana can show use in some cases for weeks past. There are plenty of activities that people should not do while high or drunk, but how can we be certain of misuse without a more reliable way of testing?

I understand that marijuana is not addictive or has as bad of an effect as drinking, but there is no quick test or "legal limit" like there is with alcohol, so how could we make it somewhat safe? Being high impairs your reflexes and ability to function normally, as does being drunk. I for one, wouldn't want to be anywhere and have someone just start smoking a joint and have to breathe in the smoke and worry about getting contact high. Smoking marijuana would have to obey the smoking cigarettes law of not being able to do it in businesses. And what would the age limit be, 18, 21? Smoking pot around children would need to be against the law because they wouldn't be of age to breathe it in. And what about the people like me who don't want to be around it? I could understand if you do it in the privacy of your own home, because that doesn't bother anyone. Also, would you be able to drive while high? Does every user know the effects it has on their body like cigarette smokers do because its on each packet? There are many situations that would have to be considered in the legalization of marijuana. I see no problem with it if it's in your own home or a place, like a bar that is for smoking pot, because isn't that what bars are for, drinking alcohol? So keep all possible situations in mind when forming an opinion on the legalization of marijuana.

Voters in several states legalized pot use yesterday: http://nbcpolitics.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/11/06/14977250-colorado-washington-approve-recreational-marijuana-use?lite

Legal or not people will continue to smoke pot when they please no matter what the age.

What are the states who legalized it going to do when out of state people come and smoke their pot there?

I can understand maybe being prescribed marijuana for medical purposes, because I know that does happen, but I'm not too keen on making it legal in other ways. Even if it has no addictive effects, it smells really bad. And there's also the getting high part.

weed is from nature. it wasn't made by humans is dose not harm you.

A great number of things from nature are extremely harmful.

If stuff from nature isn't harmful that means I can finally try eating belladonna and hemlock! And get the pet cobra I've always wanted. (They ARE from nature)

I believe pot should be legal because its grown in nature and it does less damage to your body than cigarettes and alcohol.

It is a women's choice to choose abortion but you have to make sure it's what you want. if you feel you made the wrong choice, you should deal with it because the doctors did what you wanted.

I think that this is stupid because the article says that it's a difficult decision for the woman, and that they should get a recourse if they have mental health issues because of the decision. It's the woman's choice to have it done so why should she get money back for her mistake, the doctor has no choice in doing the procedure so they should not get sued for doing their job.

It was the women's choice to get the abortion in the first place. Which means that they wanted the doctor to the procedure. It is NOT the doctors fault if you get an abortion and then feel bad about it. You should NOT be able to sue the doctor for emotional damage. I can understand physical damage only if the doctor did not do the procedure right and the physical damage is because of that. But emotional damage is total ..... Anyway, in the article it says "that many studies show that only a small percentage of women regret their abortions." Regret is NOT the same as emotional damage. Just because you REGRET something that YOU did does NOT mean that you can put all blame on the doctor because of a decision that YOU made. "Chelgren's emotional distress bill says a woman could sue the doctor who performed the abortion anytime during her lifetime." this means that you could have had an abortion 20 years ago and then sue the doctor. It doesn't even make sence and it is NOT the doctors fault for doing his or her job.

I agree with Kelsi because it is the women's choice to have the abortion in the first place and its the doctors job to do the procedure. The doctor did not make the choice, the women did, the doctors are just doing their job. It's like suing a dog for peeing in the wrong place. It's just ridiculous. The only thing it will accomplish is putting abortion clinics out of business causing people to try aborting the child on their own which can cause a lot more deaths.

I agree with kelsi, I don't think women should be able to sue a doctor for an abortion she choose. The doctor gives you a choose if you want an abortion. You can't blame the doctor of your mistake.Women have a choice and if they decide to have an abortion and if she regret later, then you have to deal with it.

I agree with Sydney, this is ridiculous. It was the woman's decision in the first place, the doctor is just doing his job so I think it's unjust to sue them if they later regret their decision.

I agree with Kelsi! The doctor is doing his job and I think that once a woman has made a choice to or to not to get an abortion, there should be a contract signed that before the doctor does the actual abortion the woman can not sue later in the future. Its not like the doctor is forcing you to get an abortion they are only doing it for the sake of the woman's decision.

I agree with Sydney and Lauren. It was the woman's choice to get the abortion. Not the Doctor. They shouldn't be able to sue because they had a change of heart and thought they made the wrong decision.

I think that when women choose to have an abortion they are giving the doctor permission to kill their baby. Its not the Doctors fault their just there to make sure you have the procedure done right. Everyone is aware of the emotion damage of losing a child.

Its the woman's decision not the doctors. There just doing there job and if they could be sued for it then no doctor is gonna do it.

Women should not have the right to sue the doctor for carrying out their act kill their baby, because with their body their choice saying, their choice, their consequence not the doctors.

I don't think that women should be able to sue a doctor due to emotional distress after they gave consent to the doctor to go through with the procedure. If they have emotional distress they should blame themselves because they were the one who decided to have an abortion. Now if a doctor forced it then i can see why she would sue.

I believe that this is null and void, just because someone has the drug in their system at the time of driving does not mean that it was the reason for their impairment.

Fatal accidents involving the use of marijuana have risen ever since it was legalized. Sparking the debate, which is worse? Driving drunk or stoned? This is a hard thing to prove which one is worse, so the answer is unclear. Either way just because the drug is legal does not mean you are totally safe to be operating a vehicle.

I think that they should try and invent things to help test and see if it impairs their judgment.

If it is harder to tell whether marijuana has something to do with impairment or no then they need to do more studies on it. Once they have done more studies and figured out what effects marijuana have then they can decide on laws or regulations that they need to have.

I believe that it could have happened if they weren't using the drug

But coming up with a test to get impaired drivers off the road will be far more difficult than the blood alcohol tests used to test for drunk drivers, according to the group. While tests show the ability to drive gets worse as blood alcohol rises, laboratory studies show the same is not necessarily true with increased levels of THC,

If they are going to legalize marijuana they should come up with a test like a breathalyzer test so they can actually tell if the incidents were the cause of being stoned.

I think it is a possibility that people who are stoned are at an increased risk of crashing their car. The article said, "One driver with high levels of THC might not be impaired, while another driver with very low levels can be impaired." I think that researches should base regulations off of the people that are impaired by low levels. They should also look at how levels of THC decrease over time to see how long it would take to get down to the lowest level that would affect people.

I believe more research needs to be done. Like alcohol, there should be limits and rules with the marijuana. Because it is a drug, there should be a law about driving because it impairs your thinking just like alcohol.

I think that in order to decide what they are going to use to test the amount, more research needs to be conducted on how marijuana affects the brain. It seems to be proven that marijuana can have a negative affect on driving and can impair people who are using it and I think that's reason enough to do more research. I also think that before a state legalizes marijuana they need to find solutions to all of the precautionaries, such as driving, first.

There is currently no way of testing if someone was "high" at the time of an accident and having THC in your system at the time of the accident means nothing, you could have smoked a week or even a month prior to the accident and had it in your system! I think they should keep doing studies and try and come up with a way of telling just like they have for alcohol testing for drunk driving but "All this report really shows is that more people in Washington State are likely consuming cannabis, and thus might have some THC in their systems at the time of an accident. But since having THC in your system tells us nothing about your potential impairment, it would be like a report showing how many people involved in accidents had drunk a beer in the last week" is all that needs to be said

We probably wouldn't, and go back into the prohibition days. With all the stats they have between drunk driving and abuse, the government wouldn't think twice

Well look from olden days, if we knew all deaths of drunk driving or stupid stuff people do, it never would have gotten relegalized. This is in my opinion

i think that it would be illegal because of all of the stats they have form drunk driving, domestic abuses, child protection cases, and accidents.