Group items tagged

It would be a violation of the first amendment if the family was forced to remove their decorations, but I think they should , out of courtesy, tone it down a little bit because kids are being scared by it. And it doesn't really look like Halloween decorations it is just graphic and violent.

I think they should take it down since they live near a school and little kids probably walk past and get scared. I think it would be fine if they put it up on Halloween because other people are probably going to have scarier stuff out.

I don't think they should have to take it down. Everyone decorates their houses in different ways and that is how they chose to decorate their house. What if someone had a blow pumpkin with a face that would be considered scary to a group of two year olds? Should that neighbor take down that blow up pumpkin?

I don't think the family should have to take this down. Everyone has their own views and opinions. I would be violating their freedom. They may be able to make it a little less scary for the children's sake but they shouldn't have too.

well no person should destroy this, its a work of art, if parents don't like this they can make their children stay home or look away but this is and can be a form of speech. so it can be lowered but it can't be taken away.

This is their own option to make it scary. Parents should be able to shield their kids from what they don't agree with.

Being forced to take it down would be a violation of their freedom of speech. They have the right to express themselves.

The family put a lot of work into their decoration.

It really isn't fair for the family to have to take down their decorations, because some parents don't agree with it. If they don't agree with it they don't have to pay attention to it. The family shouldn't have to adjust their halloween fun and decorations to make someone else happy.

The United States is based off the freedom of expression, and if the Ohio family wants to set up decorations for Halloween they are more than allowed to do so. Because of this freedom of expression it wouldn't be fair to have to take down their decorations.

It's hard to say because it's not right to take someone's life. I'm sure morality is a big part of why they're taking the death penalty away in Virginia. However, I've watch a lot of true crime shows to know that there are evil people in this world. Serial killers kill for fun and have no compassion for victims. It gets to the point where one wonders if they deserve their life because they've caused so much destruction. So, I guess, there's too many factors for me to have a set opinion.

I do think that the death penalty still has its uses. Though it is still flawed the most recent method of lethal injection is still done incorrectly so I believe that once we find the most reasonable way it should be in play.

There are so many different factors that go into whether the death penalty is appropriate or not. Part of me thinks that if you do something horrible enough it's fair for people to want to take your life in exchange for what was taken from them. But part of me says that it's the coward's way out, that rotting in jail for the rest of their life is better than being able to just die and get away from it. You look back on cases like that of Jeffrey Dahmer and think "wow, why didn't he get the death penalty?", but he was beaten to death by fellow inmates later on in his sentence, so either way he was going to die. You look back at Ted Bundy and the horrific murders that he committed and you're glad he got the death penalty, right? A life for a life, it seems fair. There are just so many things that go into it and it's so personal and complicated for everyone.

I think that if somebody did something where they truly do deserve the death penalty then it should stick around for those terrible people who only harm society.

I think the death penalty shouldn't be a thing anymore. Even this woman who lost her father at a young age doesn't want her father's killer to receive the death penalty. She wants justice, however not in the form of the death penalty. It should no longer exist anyway, it's cruel and people should have to pay for their crimes.

I agree yet disagree with the death penalty. First, I would say that it would give certain families who are for it justice for loved ones that were lost or hurt. Second, I would say that it would prevent future crimes from occurring if that person only had received a life sentence. On the other hand, I would say it is an "easy out" and certain families could be against it for that reason. Additionally, if that person was wrongfully killed, that would be completely on the court system and no justice would be served, it would be a longer, more "drug-out" process.

I agree with Allison. The killing of a perpetrator is not justice. The death penalty is outdated and should be abolished.

I think the death penalty should still be a thing but I think that they need to change what crimes fit the death penalty.

I think the death penalty should remain however I think it should only be if you killed another person on purpose or multiple people.

I think it shouldn't be abolished because there are still many criminals out there that have done several bad things and but I also think that the death penalty should change the crimes it's in.

I understand that there are bad people in the world and that the death penalty is sometimes used on those people. However, I believe that the death penalty is not morally right. The methods that are used can be flawed and not always go right. In the end, it's difficult to pick sides because I can see both reasons as to why it should or should not be used.

I agree with Sydney, I don't think the death penalty is morally right. Even though there are awful people in the world, killing them doesn't bring justice to the people they've hurt.

The death penalty I feel is an oxymoron on its own. How are you going to prevent killing by killing? It makes no sense. I feel if the crime was super severe, maybe the family of the family could come up with a punishment. I just don't think it should be allowed, especially if it is for a petty crime. We are the only developed nation in the world that still has the death penalty.

They should punish the people that do bad things instead of giving them the death penalty because death is not scary

I think that the death penalty is a sort of necessity. If we don't have it, then murders and serial killers will be able to live, even though they contribute nothing to society.

I think that if someone committed a terrible crime such as murder or rape, the death penalty is reasonable. How can you let someone of that nature still live? I personally believe it would be giving them what they deserve, prevent it from happening again from that same person, and save jails money rather than basically giving them free food and shelter. Of course with major restrictions on why someone should get it, but I think it should most definitely still be around.

I have mixed emotions about the death penalty. I know some families would consider the death penalty justice for those who have lost loved ones due to a murder or something of that sort. I also believe life in prison can have more of an effect on the person who committed the crime and they would have to think about what they did for the rest of their life knowing they will no longer have freedom. I don't really have a definite stance on the subject.

I dont agree with the death penalty. I dont think that they should have the power to take someones life away. And in some cases people used be given death penalty for things that they did not even do. I think that a life in prison is would be better because the wont be free they wont have a life anymore and they will die there. and in my opinion that is a good punishment.

I think the death penalty should still be around. There are some extremely disgusting or disturbing things that people could do that deserve death. The only problem is that they need to be 100% sure the person is guilty so they don't kill someone for no reason.

I believe that the accused should be able to decide between life in prison or death in these situations.

I think the death penalty should still be around. Personally if I had one of my family members killed I would want the killer to have to suffer for life in prison rather than not having to face their consequences. The death penalty is just way of reassurance to make sure they wont do anything bad again.

I believe that the death penalty has its uses in certain situations like on terrorists or mass killers. It's simple they killed many and it shouldn't be allowed to happen again and that's the cruel but necessary action. If someone that I cared about was gone because of someone id want my peace.

I think they should have kept it for certain times where it was the best course of action.

I understand there rage towards the gun company, but you can't sue them for selling a gun. that's what there job is, that's just what they do. they didn't intentionally sell it to that guy knowing the terrible things he was going to do.

I think the gun makers should not allow that gun to be to sold to the public. Its too powerful. But on the other hand the shooter could just get another gun. I don't think its the gun manufactures fault. People do crazy things, and it just happened to be their gun.

I agree that the gun should not have been sold to a civilian and the maker/seller should be sued for the crime.

They shouldn't sue the maker/seller, it was legal to sell that type of gun at that time. The seller didn't know that Lanza was going to shoot 20 first-graders and 6 teachers.

I agree that it is wrong to sell such a powerful weapon to the general public. Never the less, you still aren''t going to get back some of those guns they have sold. A military issued weapon should not be sold to the general public, it has no good use for the public. But at the same time, I believe there is no reason to sue the company. The company didn't know this was going to happen.

This whole massacre just absolutely angers me. I cannot believe that a gun that would be used in the military was used by a young, inexperienced man to kill 20 children and 6 faculty. Yeah, the gun-maker didn't know that Lanza was going to go out and do this, but they could have sold a different gun (a gun that would NOT be used in the military.) I think the victims' families did the right thing by sewing the gun-maker. He killed children and wives/husbands....LOVED ONES. That's not okay.

I agree that it is wrong to sell such a powerful weapon to the general public. Never the less, you still aren''t going to get back some of those guns they have sold. A military issued weapon should not be sold to the general public, it has no good use for the public. But at the same time, I believe there is no reason to sue the company. The company didn't know this was going to happen.

I agree with them with the thinking that such a powerful gun shouldn't be sold to just anyone, a gun like that only has one purpose and it isn't hunting. I don't think its fair to sue the gun company, just because you buy a gun doesn't mean you are going to do what happened on that terrible day.

I think that we should have better background checks before people are sold guns. Also the gunmaker had no idea that Lanza would do something like what he did. The families have a good case because he shouldn't have had the gun at all because it is a very highly powered weapon.

I do believe that such powerful guns should not be allowed to the public, especially for recreational use. I also do believe that before guns are sold to civilians we should issue many different back ground check systems. This is to ensure no gun is more powerful than the ones the law has and no one who is dangerous has a dangerous weapon.

I agree that these guns shouldn't be sold to the public and in fact only used for military purposes. But I do not agree that the maker of the gun should be sued. He just made the gun. He didn't influence the carrier of the gun to do what he did with it. It's like suing a company who makes knives in the same situation. It's all about the user, not the maker.

While people in Texas are struggling for power, on top of a global pandemic happening Ted Cruz should not be leaving for Cancun.

This is especially sad as well because up until now he denied climate change, and when he was proven wrong, instead of helping, he just left.

I think that him and his family are wrong because he didn't believe in climate change and not that he knows that iyts real hes not going to do anything to help, hes just going to leave.

I don't think what Ted Cruz did was okay. It shows that he doesn't care about what the people in Texas are going through and just makes him look bad in general.

I feel like if you are someone who is viewed as a leader, you should not run away from the problems at hand. He is a congressman in Texas and I feel like he should've stayed home with his people and not go stay in Cancun while his state is under duress

I think Ted Cruz leaving to go on a trip to Cancun with his family was extremely immature and inconsiderate. He is a well known politician with a large following that leaves a lot of people looking up to him. As soon as things got bad he decided to leave when instead he should have been helping and thinking of recovery plans for the people in Texas.

I think that Ted Cruz leaving was really dumb on his part. Peoples houses are literally falling apart and flooding and people are dying and he is doing nothing about it. So unless he's out there making plans on how to save everybody, he doesnt deserve the title he has.

I feel like this was not right of him to do. Ted Cruz is an important figure there in Texas and if he can't be there to help during the bad times, he shouldn't deserve to be there for the good.

I understand that even if he had stayed most likely it wouldn't have had that much of an effect on the situation but it's basically a slap in the face to all the people who didn't have the fund's in Texas to even heat their homes if that was an option and could only dream on going on a vacation to Cancun. He at a minimum could have donated the money the family spent on the trip to help some of the people freezing to death and losing their homes.

I believe he did not do the right thing in that situation and he should have stayed and helped Texas instead of running away like a little baby.

This made me so mad. I know that he was just trying to be a good dad, but he's not just any dad. He's a senator. And there's a crisis going on and he's flying to Mexico while people are literally dying.

He should've stayed in Texas to help the texans in crisis instead of going to cancun for warmth.

Personally, I don't think Ted Cruz should have left Texas because it was a time that people needed help from the government most and he wasn't anywhere to be seen.

Ted Cruz should not have left but there was not much that he could do being a senator in DC. The most he could have done much like Dan Crenshaw was hand out water, or food. And that is better than nothing but he had no control over what was going on or had no way to actually help bring the power back.

I think it's ironic to say that Joe Biden was hiding during the campaign trail in the 2020 election. Then proceeds to "Hide" in Cancun when his state was in a crisis.

This especially makes me mad since most of my family lives in Texas and they had no power and no running water and he just left them alone there to go to Cancun. This is a situation involving his own state and he doesn't even show the decency to pretend to care about the people there as their senator

This student's name is Zach Wahls and this was a very powerful speech. Here is another link for the story with some more details http://goo.gl/LfiKK . I also know that he did a reddit AMA recently but I can't find a link right now.

"marriage- ... 3) an intimate or close union" i think that if you asked a random person on the street what they thought marriage was this would be close to what they said, so why WOULD we be against it?

If they are together the same as a man and a women are, why shouldn't they get the same benefits? I mean their relationships generally last longer then "legitimate" marriages so why shouldn't they be treated the same? By not allowing them to get married, are you doing anything? Besides denying them the benefits of that little piece of paper...such as lower insurance rates, higher health benefits, what happens if their partner dies? Then simply because they weren't ALLOWED to be married, the living partner does not get their belongings unless it is in the written will, they wont get any of the insurance money because that only goes to family, so if they are just "dating" they don't get any money to help them through the hard times...I think they should allow same sex marriage simply because if they are going to be together whether or not you allow them to get married, they should get the same benefits as everyone else.

I don't mean to start a fight or anything like that, I just don't think it's right in the biblical sense. I am very close minded about this topic, and can't seem to change and I don't plan on it. I can see where people come from, but I bet some of those people don't believe in God, or the bible. It even states it in the bible that is wrong.

I am glad to see opinions on both side of this issue in the comments. Discussion groups like these can easily turn into arguments with little information on either side. Thanks for being respectful in your comments! To continue the discussion, Americans are almost equally divided on gay marriage. Here is the most recent poll data to see how we have changed our opinion since 1996... http://goo.gl/BFKIo

I don't think that religion can play a part in what marriage is in today's world. Marriage now in the eyes of our government is a way for 2 people to share benefits that the government gives them.

casue it sthe same sex it shold not be

this is a hard question to answer. I believe very strongly that gays have the right to be together and form a union, so i think that marriage is all well and good, but there is another issue. No matter what the dictionary says what the definition of marriage is, it doesn't take superiority over the bibles definition, which clearly states marriage is only to be formed between a man and a woman. Some say that the bible was not very clear on that, and that it is up for debate, but if one looks at leviticus 18:22 it states "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination." I don't think it is abominations, but the concept of christianity, and judaism does, which is where it gets tricky. Does the government have the right to force the church to do things against their belief such as allowing gays and lesbians to marry? quite frankly i don't think so. Its not like the pope can just say, hey gays are ok now. It would be blasphemous. the only way gays would be allowed is if God himself came down from heaven and made it publicly known that he has changed his mind on the concept. If i was lets say jewish and had my own resteraunt, and i didn't serve pork due to my belief that pork was a dirty meat, would you go to the mayor and convince him to force me to change my rule even though its against my religion, and causes the lord to look down on me with disdain? I dont think you would because its preposterous. So i believe we need to meet in the middle. Make a union that gives gays all the same rights and privileges as regular marriage, but make it a different term than marriage, or at least make it known that the church is not ordaining it. The trick is not to force people to do things against their will, but to find new methods to do things so that we can all co exist without such petty argument.

I just think people come up with poor excuses for gay marriage not to eligible..

they do, but many people are scared of change. its going to change i believe, but its going to take time.

I think that if a gay couple want to be want to be married, why can't they? There isn't a negative effect of a gay marriage, and you can see from the young man in this video that they can be just the same as a straight marriage. Infact I think that man was in more successful than any of us coming from opposite sex parents would be at that age. I also think that they provide a better family life for their children as well. His family seemed alot closer than most families today. So theres no reason a gay couple can't be married. Sure you can say that its wrong because its against Gods will and all, but being gay isnt a choice. Its who you are. God created man, and if being gay is really as terrible as they say it is, then God wouldnt have made them gay. And to the guy who says people that are for gay marriage aren't christian or don't belive in God, guess what? I go to church, believe in God, and I am for gay marriage. Who's to say that gay people can't have the same rights as straight people? The only difference is the gender we prefer. Why should gay marriage be outlawed and ridiculed? Where has prejudice ever gotten us?

I do not think religion has anything to do with marriage. After all atheists can get married can't they? Also if you have read the entire bible there are more things that god has said is wrong then gays, and i guarantee everybody has done something god has said is a sin. It is up to the people getting married whether they want their marriage to be religious or not. If we let religion be a part of our everyday lives we would go insane with all of the "rules" the bible states. Who is to say that gays shouldn't have the right to get married? If that is the case then maybe we should limit what straights can do.

Dakota, If you look at Americas past there has always been prejudice. And in the end it united America. Look at the way people treated colored folk, or women for that example. There has always been prejudice in the past and there will always be in the future. People are going to voice their opinions no matter how ignorant or naive they are.

I am against gay marraige but I also think that people have the right to chose what they want. they can make their own choices and I will make mine. I have friends that are gay and I have no problems with them or the way they act. I may not like it but im not going to hate them for it.

i actually have read the whole bible, and i spent 7 years of my life in a private christian school. it doesn't matter if you stole an orange or killed a man, a sin is a sin. what you dont understand is that god weighs all sins the same, and quite frankly if i really should tell the truth gay people are going to burn in a pit, just as that guy with the orange will if they dont change their ways and repent. The church is like a private club, and they say gays cant marry. end of story. they dont care if your not christian, they care about anatomy. anything else people want to ask questions about so i can answer them? or how about making false statements i can shoot down? listen unless we find an alternate to marriage, we should not and i will not stand up for gay marriage. perhaps if it was termed differently and done done in the name of god, i would just say more power to them. no matter how much you want to, you cant change the laws in the bible and call them legitimate.

"broxton anderson " so your saying that the homosexuals need their own form of union instead of marriage? I thought that most marriages were now legal constructs with religious ceremonies being a personal choice? Does anyone else think this touches on separation of church and government? Should there be a true separation between the phrases "civil union" and "marriage" or is there already and some of us just can't see it yet?

From a biblical point of view God made women for man and man for women, not man for man and women for women! #RealTalk

yes it should be a "true separation" that way it removes itself from religion which leaves religions no room to complain. I feel that a civil union should give ALL the same benefits as marriage to. must people truly complain so much over two words? its the same thing, just a different name, and can prevent millions of wasted arguments.

for those of you that say it is wrong according to the Bible, what happens if you were gay? It's not like you can change how you feel...and if "God" created all people "equal" why shouldn't they actually be treated equal? And i honestly think that simply because gays are the minority, they are being picked on...it's wrong...so why would "God create" people just to send to the deep south? ...just a thought

Broxton Anderson- You have read the bible, yet you chose to use the most uncredible source in the bible. Using Leviticus is ridiculous. Leviticus also states that it is okay to own slaves and that if one performs the act of beastiality, that person is to be murdered and so shall the animal. It also states that you may not speak to a women on her menstrual cycle and it is also forbidden to touch pig skin and for men to cut their hair. You are completely fine with ignoring these very radical notions, but when it comes to gay marriage you instantly are against it? Seems to me like there is a lot of hypocrisy in your ways. I am a Catholic, but I fully accept the institution of gay marriage. I myself am not gay, nor do I plan on becoming gay. Leviticus is outdated and does not apply to our modern lives. Do not pick apart the bible and try to sound as if you know the way people should be. Anyone can misquote the bible. If you have a problem with homosexuals, keep it to yourself. They have just as much rights as everyone else in this world and should not be denied rights such as being married. A few men who disliked gay people have started this constant circle of quoting Leviticus in order to make their way sound just. If anything, they are doing more wrong by corrupting the bible to use it to justify their personal views.

Same goes to Jay Cook. Talking on something you do not understand, or even researched, makes you arrogant and naive. If you are so fine with not allowing gays to be married, then you should be put back into slavery. Fair trade, yes? From a biblical view?

I compltely agree with you^ Most people that are against gay marriage claim to say they are against it mostly because its against the bible while over half of them have no idea what they are talking about and likly havent read the bible. I think people should be able to marry who they wish the gender should not matter.

It's too bad the bible is a bunch of tall tales exaggerated, can't trust religion for anything, it's a petty excuse for any argument.

From an evolutionary stand point homosexual relations don't have an impact other then thinning the human gene pool. Not that I'm against gay rights, but since everyone dismisses religion I thought it would be important to note that in the commonly held belief of evolution, unless a person has offspring, it's as if never existed. Just some food for thought...

Obviously what he is saying that from the stand point of evolution. He wasn't saying the homosexuals provide nothing to their societies.

If you think about it the bible states go forth and populate, and that's the premise of evolution....

Yeah thats a good point but maybe thinning the human population isnt all a bad thing. Also have you even considered how many children gay people adopted from other countris and places were they probably would have not had a good chance in living a good long heaalthy life. I dont understand how people can be so one minded about things. What if you were gay and wanted to marry a person you loved and you couldnt because judgmental people didnt approve?

I'm cool with gays as long as they don't try and make a move on me.

I agree with Brittany, everyone as a human being has their rights

i totally agree with riley its peoples life and they have their own rights

that's weird. i wonder how he was still alive if he didn't even have a heartbeat.

As long as someone still has some brain activity they are still technically alive

It must have been a really happy day for the family, and a frightening day for the funeral home workers.

Wow, I do believe miracles can happen. I would've been scared out of my wits if a body suddenly started to move that was pronounced dead, though. But I'm happy for his family who got to spend two weeks with the man (:

The stimulus bill sounds like a good deal for Americans. COVID-19 negatively impacted many people, so it's good that the government is trying to help get the country going after COVID-19.

I think this stimulus bill is necessary and will be a step forward in the right direction. Although things seem to be slowly moving in the right direction there are still a lot of people without a job and in need of assistance so I think this will help those people out tremendously.

This could go both way's as in good and bad. Good:So people can get some help from the government to help pay off debts or just put food on the table. Bad: some people can become to reliant on the government for money.

this stimulus check is going to help a lot of families especially the ones who already struggle.

I feel like the stimulus is a good thing for a lot of families that have been struggling throughout the pandemic. It is also bad in the way of tax inflation and things of that nature. Although I feel like it was needed for some, it might be damaging in the future.

technically we could get 12,000 for a stimulus check but the government is not willing to do that.

I feel like this is a relatively good amount for a stimulus check because the amount of inflation it will create will be far less than if the check was bigger.

i think the check is a step in the right direction. it's giving families coverage and more cushion to their budget.

I think this is a good check cause it will help people in the mere future and possibly in the present.

So depending on who you are it could be a good thing or an iffy thing I believe that most people around our area would all agree that it's a good thing and I think so too.

I think its good cause people could use this money during this time

I think cases are going to rise very dramatically due to people getting together for Thanksgiving and Christmas.

I think that the cases are going to keep going up. People are still going to get together for Christmas and thanksgiving and it is going to go way up.

Cases are going to keep going up over the holidays.

people are still getting together in big groups for the holidays and the number of cases is going to rise more and more.

I'm sure no matter how you look at it, the cases will drastically go up in December. Especially since Christmas is rolling around, we saw how many families and people still gathered together for Thanksgiving. It's not going to be any better for Christmas.

This is just going to get worse after black friday if nothing changes.

thanksgiving and christmas are both holidays that are meant to be spent with your families so there was already no doubt that cases were going to go up. and same goes for black friday, you're shopping at multiple different stores in the span of two or three days

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.....

my opinion, i would have went off of what the tattoo said because i would have seen it as his wishes. he was pretty much gone when he arrived, plus there was no family with him. there was no one/nothing saying otherwise so i would have just let him go.

I would be lost but I think I would still resuscitate him because tattoos can sometimes be a regret and they had no way of knowing if it was legit or not.

I think it was a good call to wait until they had actual (documented) proof that he did not want to be resuscitated instead of just going off of the words on his body.

i think it was good that he was saved

Very tough situation!

Personally, I find it very wise that the doctors would have guessed that he had been resuscitated in the past. Especially due to his old age and multiple problems. It was also wise of them to follow this mans wishes and let him go.

I think they did the right thing by not resuscitating him because tattoo's can sometimes be jokes but, no one would joke about this sort of thing. In addition to that he was nearly dead when he got there so it may have been easier for him.

I think it was a good choice to wait for documentation of him not wanting to be resuscitated.

It is scary how big this virus has become and how deadly it can be to anyone. I think we need to keep trying to stay safe and help others be safe and healthy too. Especially how it was a young child that passed due to Covid is scary.

This is very horrible and I think for this reason a lot of schools are closing. It's hard to keep everyone safe when everyone is itching to get back to normal. We have to remember this is kinda real and even tho it stinks we have to try to keep everything normal.

I agree that its awful that a child passed due to the virus but I disagree when people say that they're just one of the many to come. Although unfortunately, it's true, we should use that as a reason to slow down the reopening of schools and other places. Our safety and health should always come before numbers on a chart.

This is the scary part about going back to school when there is a pandemic going on, you don't know what's going to happen, I think this is why most schools are closing and doing online because they want to keep everyone safe and still have them "in school".

that is really sad, but this is a new situation for everyone and there are no previously written guidelines for how to handle it so in reality things like this are expected until we know how to fix the problems. it's all trial and error

This is so awful and terrifying. because we all going to school 2 or 3 in week and maybe someone have a Corona and when i think that, we all have to wear mask and we should do social distance until Corona is end.

The worst thing that could happen to anyone is to lose family, That can be the worst of the pains. Also I don't think it is right to say that is was one from many to come. This is sadly true, this is not near a good think honestly they should've waited more to re open schools. I would rather keep people safe and alive then get an education!

It's terrible that this is all happening, Hopefully people listen to the guidelines that people set to stay safe and we can all get back to normal life soon. -Khuntley170

This is probably the worst-case scenario as we begin going back to school here in Iowa. The fact that this happened to a child is beyond belief. It is so scary to go to school when you are not sure if you are truly safe. We have had up to four cases here at AL, and it is only growing which is probably the scariest part.

I think it's terrible how a young child died from Covid, now his family has to mourn his death. Though there are many other cases just like this one of children dying from this virus yet schools around the country are being reopened ignoring these deaths. Not only that but opening schools could cause an impact on the spread of the virus.

I really think that this is terrible, that this and a bunch of cases like this happening in multiple states all over the country. I believe we might have opened too early to really guarantee the safety of these children and kids in class. Of course, we want to go back to normal, but we can't if we don't try to distance ourselves and make an attempt to prevent it spreading. Just because it doesn't hurt YOU doesn't mean it won't hurt others.

I think it's about perspective. a more privileged person can live without this change, they would be fine. But for others, going to college is not an option. Either because they don't have enough money, or they're just too busy with kids and keeping the house for them. Money should be livable. 1000$ a month is great for normal teens who just want some cash, but for people who work to live, 1000$ is not enough. People need to pay bills, hospital bills, food, water, shelter. It's not just "poor people", it everyone who is struggling, which is a lot more than you think.

I feel like its normal all its going to do is up the price to everything making no change besides the price to things

This can have many outcomes but personally, I think it will cause inflation and nothing will change other than the price of items

The idea of raising the minimum wage is a good idea however 15 dollars an hour is a good amount of money which is more likely to raise the cost of living bringing us back to square one.

I think the minimum wage should be raised. The minimum wage in many other countries makes so much more sense, as people can actually live off them. With how low ours is, people are struggling immensely.

I do not think raising the minimum wage is the right move because there are very many small businesses that will not be able to survive also, I believe that this will cause major inflation, making everything more expensive, so overall raising the minimum wage wouldn't be making things any better.

Inflation is making the prices of houses go up anyway regardless of the minimum wage, so we need to make the minimum wage compatible with modern prices. I don't know if I believe it should be 15$ but it should be more than it is now.

i don't think that raising the minimum wage to $15 is necessary, with the way the wage is set up now it give people an incentive to move up in life for a better job better pay. You may work at burger king for $9 an hour, that's not a lot so you want to do better and get a better job that pays 15 an hour but if you start out at 15 there is not really any incentive to move up in life when you can do better and achieve higher for your self and your family

I think it is a good idea to raise the minimum wage because it is pretty low but we should not raise it that much because It could be hard for the smaller businesses

I think raising the minimum wage would only cause a business to increase their prices on products to make up the amount of money they're paying employees so we would just have another problem to deal with.

I think that raising the minimum wage could be good but also bad. I personally think $15 would be too high and somewhere around $9-$11 would be a better option as it is a little low right now. Would raise costs of living but not by too much, and raising the minimum wage already could increase tax revenue. But from the article, it says they aim to increase to $9.25 then $15 by 2025, but I still believe by then it still is a pretty high number and prices of things will increase by a lot.

I think raising the minimum wage will only cost businesses to suffer especially small businesses because they aren't making a lot, to begin with, and businesses will have to raise their prices to make back the money they are losing.

I agree with both Thomas and Amirah we all had the same points and seem to have pretty much the same point of view on the subject.

I feel like if we raise the minimum wage people that worked for the pay they deserved will feel like they did all that for nothing and eventually all the workers will lose their work ethic and we will have worse products. On the other hand people that are already doing subpar work will be getting decent pay for terrible work. This just means there getting rewarded for doing a bad job. Just makes no sense.

I think that raising the minimum wage can be beneficial; for those who are working long days and not making enough to live without help from the government. If we raise the minimum wage, then those who are suffering will able to live a little better.

I think raising the minimum wage would just have a negative effect on smaller businesses and the economy in general. It would be pointless raising the minimum wage because of inflation. Some of you guys are saying the cost of living is currently too high so raising the wage would be a good thing for them. What some of y'all don't understand is that raising the minimum wage will also raise the cost of living.

Raising the minimum wage is a good idea. As the article says it would be over 5 years and there are many cities that have a $15 minimum wage and inflation isn't jacking up prices to an unbearable extent. No matter if the minimum wage was increased inflation will continue to rise and that will just put minimum wage workers in a worse situation with the same amount of money for more expensive food, water, clothes, etc.

It seems better because you have the chance to make more money, but in my opinion all this does is inflate everything else over time.

Raising the minimum wage will cause all businesses who have people working for under $15 an hour to raise their prices on their goods, this would make pretty much everything you buy more expensive like groceries, gas, and everyday necessities more expensive. Also across the US the minimum wage changes so for example Denver CO which is an expensive city to live in already had their minimum wage set at $14.77. There are also small rural towns in Iowa which are cheap to live in so there is no need to have a $15 minimum wage there.

It's not just important for the minimum wage to rise, it's a necessity. In fact, 15$ isn't enough! It's what was asked for years ago, and inflation has changed since then. Our minimum wage has, in fact, fallen over the years due to inflation. Prices won't raise by any significant margin. According to business insider (https://www.businessinsider.com/denmark-mcdonalds-pays-20-hourly-wages-2014-10), we could double the wages of employees, and give them benifits, and the prices of goods would be barely changed. Inflation will increase with or without an increase in the minimum wage, because it has increased in the past few years without one. An increase in the minimum wage would help people buy more. Finally, the idea that prices *have* to go up is bull. Nothing *has* to happen. McDonalds doesn't *have* to raise prices if wages were increased, because they would still make a massive profit, just not as absurd of one as they make now.

I believe if they raise the minimum wage they would need to increase every job as well,for example if you make above $15 and hour you would need to raise your wage as well. This would need to be done over the course of years however. We can't raise it all in such a small amount of time.

Brandon, according to your source, McDonald's "has warned that wage increases would force franchisees to raise menu prices." Also, I have read your article and have failed to find the spot where it says that after wages have been doubled and employees have been given extra benefits that prices of goods wouldn't change. It was comparing Denmark to the US when Denmark was one of the most expensive places to live in the world so it would also not be fair or accurate to compare them.

I think this will affect different groups differently. with people who never had money problem's not really being affected by this, and those who have will be greatly affected because of the change in income.

What I think is that it is good and I think it is bad in a way because if we raise the minimum wage to $15 and hour we would most likely have to raise the good paying jobs as well, and I want to think it is good because for the people who do only make minimum wage right now they would be able to afford more and be able to live better and not have to worry as much but then again, I think that would raise the prices to live and its would just be a big loop coming back to this.

We should increase minimum wave because those who have money problems or are in debt will be ebal to get back on their feet quicker and with less help.

It would seem useless to a lot of people, but I kinda see it as an opportunity for teens who are saving money for the future. With that additional money, a teen can save much more than they usually do. The minimum wage might not help people who are struggling to get by, but for teens, it would be a nice boost.

I think raising the minimum wage is a good idea because as of right now the minimum wage isn't a livable wage. The cost of living along with inflation has been rising consistently but the minimum wage hasn't changed in a very long time. So as of now, even the richest companies have no incentive to raise wages. Forcing them to raise their wages is really the only solution to cut into the massive wealth difference between the upperclass and the lower middle class.

i think we should raise minimum wage because even now its a lot more common for teens to be left on their own to buy things they need. some teens have more responsibilities than others and the current minimum wage does next to nothing in terms of help. i know tons of people in the same situation as me where they are struggling to buy things for their children while paying other bills because the highest paying job theyre able to get is still only $11 an hour. i just think minimum wage needs to be changed to reflect current situations in america.

The minimum wage isn't enough to live on right now, and with inflation being an economic factor the price of living with follow the phasing in of a $15 minimum wage. We don't need to keep on raising the minimum wage, but instead work on lowering the cost of living.

I think we should definitely raise the minimum wage. If we raise it students can put more into savings and prepare themselves for the world. If a student makes 15 dollars an hour, works 18 hours a week, and puts half of it away for 2 years they will have $12,312 dollars after taxes. This can cover everything a graduate needs to keep on their feet for a good half-year.

I think we should raise the minimum raise to $15 dollars because $7 dollars isn't enough to help others that have a big family in their house.

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 feel like they band the flag for racism not due to religion, which I understand. But what I also understand is wanting to be able to have the freedom to your religion. And in this case their flag represents that.

I honestly believe that it is an infringement on the first amendment and these students should have the right to wear what they want.

I think that they should have been able to wear the flag because it's their freedom and they were not doing it to be racist they just wanted to be able to wear what they want because its their right.

thats so dumb they have the right to wear what ever they want as long as its appropriate to the school policy

I think the school was blowing it out of proportion. The students should have been able to wear the confederate flag. The confederate flag has historical significance. I think the school was biased. They were more concerned with the politics surrounding the flag, because it was a pretty debated subject for awhile.

I feel like they shouldn't be able to wear confederate flag apparel mainly because it makes black students feel threatened and reminds them of slavery.

Students should be able to wear the flag because they have the right of freedom of expression. Like he said in the article just because he flies the flag doesn't mean he discriminates against race.

I think they are wrong wearing something like that to school and they shouldn't be able too. The school is right for suspending them. Even if they have the freedom to wear what they want there is also school rules and dress codes and that is not school appropriate.

In the article the students say they are not trying to be racist but the just want to be able to wear what they want to wear, and i think they should be able to. Not every person who wears a confederate flag is racist or supports slavery or the war that was fought to keep slavery. Many people who live in the south have grown up with this flag as a part of their lives weather the true meaning was explained to them or not it was a big part in many peoples lives and you cant expect them to change how they feel about the flag because at one time not many people saw this flag as a big deal because people have a right to support what they believe in. also the flag was not just about slavery it was the symbol of the rebellion and many people who wear the flag had family members that were part of the rebellion and they support their family personally.

Very controversial, since the flag was a Representative for the south in the war, founded on hate. Though this is clothing so I guess they shouldn't have been suspended and from what the students say it's not about hate but rather than representing themselves, I suppose? Though I still think they should follow the dress code.

Discuss this case from last year...

It's so controversial, with whether it's about slavery or true pride of where you are from. As for me I see where the kids are coming from as to want to show their pride in where they're from, for example I will always have pride in the midwest. However if you are wearing the symbol to depersonalize another person, then yes the school had the right to take action.

I believe they had a right to suspend them because it can be taken offensive to certain people but it also is a freedom of speech and what they believe. I think it causes conflict so they shouldn't be allowed and the school did the right thing.

I think the school did have a right to suspend them, since the school has a history of the confederate flag causing fights between the students