Group items tagged

I think they may have gone overboard explaining everything the girls need to wear in full detail. I thought some of the comments were disrespectful to girls and I can easily see how they were offended by this.

i beleve that it is true that there are more options for women to look less than formal clothing so it is not sexiest

I think that this dress code, while definitely explaining what the girls can and cannot wear, has gone too far in some of the wording they use. "Choose and outfit that is pretty enough to show you are a woman, but covered enough to show you are a lady" is not an ok thing to say to a group of high school girls, especially if they are honors students. Yes I do think it is sexist.

I believe that this dress code letter had good intent, but it just came off the wrong way. I think if they would have just given a list on what not to wear rather then using saying, "you are a woman and should be covered enough to show you are a lady. With that statement I believe that it is sexist. Your clothes, and how you present your self shouldn't determine on whether you're a lady or not.

I feel that the letter is showing the outlook they see girls wear on a daily occurrence. At some points in a girls perspective we feel as if they are more strict on what we wear, They could of been a little easier and worded it differently so it didn't come out so wrong. But I don't think it sexist at all because it asking girls to wear whats appropriate to been seen in public.

If the school wishes for such a strict dress code then they should hand out the clothes they feel that are "pretty" enough for their girls to wear. I believe that the dress code is moderately sexist, even considering that there are more options regarding clothing for women. It is appropriate to keep their students looking classy, but not to the point of having no freedom when picking an outfit.

It think the dress code it not sexist but it does go a little overboard. It kind of seems like it is going straight for the ladies, and could calm down on all the detail.

I do believe that this dress code is sexist. There are lines in the requirements of the female code hat suggest they should be more modest than that of the males, not drawing attention to certain parts of the body and containing a level of ladylike stature that outdoes the gentlemanly requirements of the males. The four paragraphs "needed" for the girls. The two lines that strike me as the most opposite "Be classy." for the boys and "Think modesty." for the girls. It implies that they are letting the boys have more free reign with their opinion of classy and tightening the hold on the girls' idea of modesty, giving them fewer options.

This is very upsetting to the whole deal of what is appropriate and what is not. The school is berating the girls on how they choose to dress in a letter. This "dress code" should not be allowed to come trough, as it is limiting how girls want to dress, sure they should dress in something revealing as they should know better, but given them four paragraphs on how they should dress to one event is ridiculous. If the school feels embarrass to the point of giving a dress code to the girls then they should hold an event. It is completely sexist because not every girl owns skimpy outfits, or dresses badly. Every girl is a lady in the first place and should not be limited because someone else believes they dress in revealing clothing. Guys can dress in revealing clothing just as much as girls can.

I do not believe it is sexist because they are specifically making men wear a outfit. They are giving girls freedom within guidelines . On the other hand the way they address the first paragraph is a little sexist because they do make it like you have to be pretty to go.

The dress code letter my be considered sexist in the eyes of some people, but women tend to push the boundary's of the code to a far more extreme so it is only fair that the school be more strict and draw more attention to the matter of proper dress apparel with females. Men in school get in trouble if they are wearing clothes that are profane and clothes that are not appropriate for school, yet when females get into trouble, it is automatically sexist. It would not be this way if females did wear such revealing clothes to a school and then did not proceeded to after being told and warned by staff and administration. In some cases, schools have to give such strict guidelines to the female population of a school, even if it does not apply to every student.

I feel that the generation that were in right now would require a dress code. I personally don't think its sexist because i feel some women under dress, i also feel that it makes the school look more professional.

I think that this is sexist because there was no need to have four paragraphs explaining every article of clothing that these girls could wear to this event. But, in another way it is not sexist because there are many styles girls are able to wear, some being more informal and/or more revealing than others. All this letter really would have needed was length of skirts/ dresses and the spaghetti straps, no need for the first and last paragraph.

I think that women do tend to show more revealing outfits than men, but it's no exuse to single them out. Men and women both should have fair dress code rules that can give eacother both the same amount of rules, yet reasonable. Certain rules apply to certain genders, but the line was crossed in this sexist act.

I believe that it is sexist because it gives the girls more and it list little for the guys. It tells the boys to look classy and tells the girls to look pretty enough to show you are a woman and covered enough to show they are a lady.

I think they're making a big deal out of this, This should not be done because students don't deserve to have this dress code.

I think that the letter was sexist because it made it look like girls had more possibilities to breaking the guidelines.

I think this is sexist because of the difference between the guys and the girls. It told the girls that in order to be a woman they had to be pretty. They told the guys to be classy. It's a Catholic school, those girls know what to wear and what not to wear.

I feel this video and letter is some what sexist. I believe that you should be able to wear what you want, but appropriately. If you are told to wear something and have to wear something do it. I agree that schools should have some sort of uniform, because if you dress nicely everyday you feel better about themselves. The reason i feel like this is sexist is because men have two things to wear and while girls have so much to worry about and pay attention to.

I believe it is sexist. The writer of this letter automatically assumed stereotype about what girls would wear or draw attention to on their bodies. This letter obviously favors men and is much more strict on women.

I feel that the letter was sexist. The letter only said one or two things about how boys should dress and then gave almost a whole essay on how girls should dress.

I believe it is sexist to both of them honestly. They went over board on how girls should look and what they should look like. They want them to show off, but they are saying this to high school girls. Than again they are telling the boys they need to shave.

I think that this is indeed sexist. They pretty much told the guys, "Hey, wear pants, dress shoes, shave and take out the earrings and you're good." but they they told the girls, "Where this, don't wear that, you can wear this but not that. try not to look like the women of the night. thanks!" i think that that is messed up

I think that it somewhat sexist. Telling to dress modestly and respectfully as they did with the guys would've been enough I think. I don't believe they needed to go that far into it if they didn't for the guys

I feel this letter is just wrong. I believe that you should be able to choose what you want to wear but by being appropriate. It is a private school so if they assign a school uniform you have to wear it, but the way they are saying and telling you what to wear is not so much sexist but just wrong. Telling students they must dress according to their achievements and to look pretty as if they aren't already isn't right.

I wouldn't say this is extremely sexist, it's more like it's just really ridiculous. I understand wanting everyone to look classy and professional, but you do not need that many sentences to basically just say, no flaunting what your momma gave ya.

I feel like they went a little over board with this. They may have been a little sexist just because they had so much more information for the girls on what they can and cant wear than they had for the boys on what they can wear. I personally think that there should be no dress codes at all. just because it lets kids express themselves, but in an appropriate way.

I think that these guidelines are similar to our school guidelines according to dress code, but I don't think it was right to just blatantly put it out there. Now if this is a huge problem I could understand this but The reactions from students make this seem like dress code violations are not a huge problem at their school, I think the teachers should have trusted the girls at the school to dress appropriately.

I believe that this letter is sexist. I think that the school could have easily got their point across on what to wear for girls in a sentence, not four paragraphs. Girls know what is tasteful, and what isn't and if they choose to follow the dress code is a choice not because they were unsure on how to dress.

With no context this letter may seem like they care more about what girls look like. This is probably not true, with a guy there is a a lot less you can mess up and look not modest. With guys it's just a shirt and pants, what can really besides them not wearing a nice shirt and pants. It is not unreasonable for a private school to want their kids to dress modestly. I'm also willing to bet at that school and probably every private school there are at least four times as many dress code violations for girls than boys, thus warranting four paragraphs to the boys one.

I feel like this letter is sexist. The reason being is because I feel like girls should be able to wear what the want whiten reason. Dress code should be appropriate. However it shouldn't separate between boys and girls.

I believe this to be very sexist because of the length and repetition they use. I do agree with Ron Burgundy(anchor man movie), stay classy but this is to extensive. In repeating don't show off and telling them exactly what to wear. They could have left it at dress classy and lady like.

I agree with alexander4434 that women have more types of clothes then men do and that it is not sexist. And men don't have much different types of clothes and women have more to choose from and need to cover up and not show so much.

I feel like this letter is sexist. Seeing only two sentences for men and four paragraphs for women that would be sexist. I think the school could have worded it better for the women. I also think it is kind of rude to make men shave. I don't see how that matters in high school.

I fell like the article is not sexist because some girls don't dress like a lady would, so that would help them look more presentable. The guys didn't have a lot of instructions because they don't have a lot of styles to choose from like the girls do. The school shouldn't tell someone how to dress but if they see something that someone would not wear to a fancy place they should correct them.

I think it's a good dress code but had way more expectations for women than it did men. They could have made it just as simple as the mens with less detail as to what they can and can't wear. The men did't have anything listed that they weren't allowed to wear. Something in particular was the shoes comment saying they had to wear dress shoes, then going into detail saying if there shoes they wear to the beach, then they cant wear them to school, also no high heels. But with the mens all they said was "dress shoes" no elaboration or what they can't wear as they did with the women. I can see how people would think it sexist, it has way more expectations and standards for girls which isn't fair. But i also can see where they're coming from because girls express themselves through clothes i think more than men do.. So maybe they needed to be clear on what not to wear, whereas its pretty self explanatory for men.

This letter is not "sexist". It may be degrading or offensive, but it's not sexist. In this day and age, it is common knowledge to know girls don't dress to standard. Look around and you will see many examples of this at almost every turn. Short skirts/shorts, tank tops, low cut shirts, and many other revealing articles. The school is trying to be official and you are to abide by their rules and if you are offended by the letter, you might be one of the girls who need to change the way they dress. The only reason the guys did not have as long or in-depth of a letter because they simply don't need it. More often than not, guys are not violating dress code.

I think that the letter is sexist. They drag out the girls section which could have been summed up, like the boys was. Most of the time the dress code is followed, sometimes its stretched a bit short. I think that it was like they were being sarcastic almost, in the girls section.

This is not a sexist letter. I think many people may find it extreme because they can't wear legging to school , and no leggings are NOT pants. I think the facial hair part for guys is a little much but it's only for the school get over it. The part for ladies I agree had to be a bit more explanatory because people will push any and all boundaries, especially if they are not specified.

As we discuss OUR school dress code, do you think Dowling has created a sexist policy for students?

I feel like its a little sexist towards women. They have a lot more rules to follow than the boys do.

No its not it just needs more explanation for girls because the different things they can wear. The students are making a bigger deal then it is.

I feel its kinda sexist that the women have to be explained what to wear in complete detail compared to the men but then again they just want their school to look nice for the ceremony

I think this dress code is fine.Staff just want students to be dressed appropriate.

I think they went overboard. I think it's sexist for them to say "you are a woman and covered enough to show your a lady". They have a lot more rules for girls then guys. Yes I think it's very sexist.

I think this is sexist because, it is telling guys to just be classy but girls have to dress a certain way we either feel pretty or show our achievements. We should be able to wear what we want that makes us feel comfortable in our own skin.

I think this is not a sexist letter. The part where it says dress modest enough to be a lady but pretty enough to be a woman. Many girls do dress that should not be so skimpy. But these people are honors students. The code should have just said dress formally and follow the dress code.

It's wrong that they treated women like that sexist it very detailed for the women and the men just says be classy so yes it's sexist

I think it is sexist because the girls have a lot more rules than the boys do.

I feel like the policy was not written equally between Boys and girls. The four paragraphs written for girls seems very excessive. The boys and girls should just be told- "Dress formally"

I feel like it is sexist, mostly because of the detail it goes into about the woman's dress code. It would have been much simpler to just say dress nice like they did for the guys, but they blew it out of proportion.

I believe its sexist, it does have some lines that are sexist, like the line "Choose an outfit that is pretty enough to show you are a woman and covered enough to show yo are a lady." And it's very detailed, especially when it comes to the skirt.

I wouldn't say it is necessarily sexist, but I wouldn't agree with some of the things that were said in the letter. These women know how to dress appropriately for formal events. They didn't need to read a whole book to know how to dress.

This dress code letter had good intentions but the way that they gave the boys 2 sentences and the girls 4 paragraphs was not fair to the girls, making them feel like it was sexist.

I believe that it intended well, but definitely could have been worded better. That could have easily been summed up as dress professionally. If they are inviting students because of their smarts, surely the students would be able to figure out what that meant. The paragraphs were too excessive.

I think that it should be for both genders not just girls. I don't want to see any one's butt or chest.

There is no doubt about it being sexist, but that is only because of the excessive "putting down," saying such and such should attract attention to this, and not this. If they would have stopped at a basic "be classy, keep it modest, and make it conservative." Then all would have been fine.

I think that Jill Stein is just having the recount to be able to raise money so that she can donate it to her own campaign if she decides to run in the next election.

I feel like Jill Stein is just using this for farther popularity and to help with her campaign if she ever decided to run for president.

She has a right to do this since this country thrives on our freedom. I don't think she should be suing states just because she wants a recount though. If a state doesn't want to vote again isn't that also in our rights? I don't know what all of Jill Steins motives are and though I disagree with her, she still has the right to ask for a recount however the turnout will be.

Whatever her reasons for fighting for a recount are, she is gaining attention. Whether the recount comes out how she wants it to or not, Stein will have benefited. That being said it's understandable why she feels the need to raise money for it.

Donald Trump denounced the Stein recount effort as "ridiculous" and "a scam." and I disagree with what he said. It is not a scam because she is using the donations for how much the recount will cost.

I agree with Landon, I also think though she will give it to other charity,but use it as popularity.

I believe that Jill Stein has the right to demand a recount and has good intentions for such sudject, but I also belive that when it all follows through, that it will not change anything for the future.

"By continuing to raise money, she is building up a larger donor list that she can later turn to if she runs again." I think that even though she didn't win, it's a good opportunity to help her in other ways. I also think its a good idea because she'll then have a backup if she runs again.

The article said that she would donate all excess donations to election reform systems, weather or not this turns out to be true remains to be seen. Regardless the changes would be considered extremely important by many of today's voters who think that the electoral college ruins democracy and therefore don't vote. If the election recount doesn't result in evidence of fraud or tampering, then the excess money should be put to good use regardless.

I think that jill Stein is gonna earn all this money for the next upcoming election . She is going to donate the money to her election fund.

I agree with Landon as well because I feel like she just wants the attention and to gain the money

I agree with Lauren because she shouldn't be suing states because they don't want to do a recount, it's our choice if we do our not. We picked who we wanted and that's who we got she's just using this for publicity and to help her if she runs again.

Jill Stein has the right to a recount whether shes in it for the money or not, shes someone who can afford and has the power to do so opposed to some citizens who want to have a recount but obviously don't have that kind of money or power. If she does prove the voting ballets wrong after to recount, she will not only have gotten Hillary president, but she is going to increase her popularity for her own benefit in the future. Even if she doesn't achieve her goal she will have gained attention in some sort of way.

I agree with Landon. I also think she is having this recount to get attention.

I agree with Landon and Lauren, she's gaining attention for herself and it's not right for her to try and sue states because they don't want to recount.

Jill Stein is just doing it for more publicity so when or if she runs again in 2020 it will make her look better and be the more popular vote

I agree with Faith, because if she wants to run again, she is already sorta popular, and will have more attention drawn to her than she does now, ans she may be a candidate with the media partially on her side.

I think Jill Stein is just using this to raise money for herself and her party and once they get enough, they'll drop the whole thing and use the money for other reasons. Her reasons for a recount are idiotic and it will prove that Donald Trump won the election fair and square.

This is pretty cool. Even if the end result does not chance the ability to call for a recount is cool to me, it allows for total certainty in the voting process and gives Jill stein a potential platform for the next election. Assuming she runs as a third party all the publicity she can gain to validate a 3rd party is a positive.

I think Jill Stein is just doing this to get people to notice her.

I understand why she is doing it however it is a choice and could what she is doing reflect her reaction to who won? her intentions may be more to change who won rather than seeing if the votes are justified

Jill Stein has the right to call for a recount if she wants to. People amuse too quickly that she is only in it for her self. And yes, while doing so will give her some sort of an advantage in one way or another, she is doing this to show once and for all who won the election. If this happens, it could change who are president will be.

delanie hi and i agree

I think that the election is over and Jill Stein should just leave it alone.

This is not even worth it, because Trump won fair. Jill is just like Hillary. Sure she has the right to do so, but its not going to do anything Trump won deal with it america!.

I don't know anything about this election, but I think that if she wants to keep doing this more power to her, I don't think that it will change anything. I partly think she is doing this for attention and to get herself known so that she may be able to move up in her career eventually, but I think she knows that the recount won't matter.

I think it is pointless to even try and it won't change the outcome.

She has the right to do this but I think the election is over and it wouldn't change anything

I agree that Jill has the right to call for a recount. I really hope that in doing that she is using her power for good, and standing up for what she believes in rather than to get attention. If she's fighting for what she believes in, then you go girl!

I think that she is raising money for her own benefit, because even if she gets enough for a recount it wont change anything.

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.

I think that the teacher should be able to have the gun but very protected from anybody except themselves. The teachers should always should check them everyday so they know if its still there.

In my opinion teachers with guns is a good idea, although I don't want some teachers thinking that gives them a sense of bigger authority.

It is a good idea for them to have guns, it would help with safety.

I don't agree with the right of just teachers being able to carry a gun if someone takes a 4 hour class to know to take the gun out and use it in the right way, someone that is professionally trained should be hired because nobody knows if a teacher is going to be able to take a life of someone else.

In my opinion, teachers having the right to carry a weapon is okay. For protection and safety purposes, I completely agree. I think it would give us a sense of reassurance, knowing that we would have a fighting chance, if a person(s) with a weapon entered the school.

I think that teachers should be allowed to carry a concealed weapon to school, if the case is that the first responders would arrive to the scene too late.

I think that its dangerous that the teachers have guns but in this situation I think its okay. The best thing about this situation is that the students don't know where the guns are and how to access them. Also another reason that the guardian plan is so necessary for this town in Texas is because the response time is so long and I would definatley agree that the teachers should be able to have guns.

I would take the side that I think guns would be an okay idea. I think that before a teacher is handed a gun they should be trained on how to use it. I also think that the guns should be put in a safe, somewhere out of the reach of the children. But on the other hand I believe that their should be an officer in every school, I think this would prevent a lot of violence.

Although it might be risk to have teachers carry guns at school, it could also potentially save lives because they could be the ones to stop a shooting or whatever else may happen in the school. I think that as long as the teachers keep them hidden and everyone is on board, then it should be okay.

I believe that some teachers, who have gun permits and all the legal things, should be able to carry guns. But I think they should be hidden so that students cannot get to them.

After viewing the video and reading the article, I am for the fact that the teachers at this school should be able to have guns because they're in a rural area. It takes the first responder 30 minutes to get to the emergency site. A lot of "bad" can happen in 30 minutes. Although I previously stated I was for the carrying of guns, I also am against because I think that if the teachers are going to be carrying guns, they need to be properly trained. If they're not properly trained, bad things can happen too. So all in all, I am for it if the teachers and school board members receive proper training.

I don't think teachers should have guns, because the gun violence will increase. More kids will think they could start to carry weapons, and most schools already have an officer.

I think teachers should be able to have guns in safes in their class room for safety reasons.

I don't think teachers should have guns because I think gun violence might increase and we already have a cop that has a gun so I don't think it's necessary for all teachers to have them

I think that teachers should be able to have guns. they would be protected and i dont think that them having guns would cause more violence because they would be using it for safety of them and the children at there school so there teaching student to be responsible and how to act it that kind of situation.

I think teachers having guns would be a good idea as long as they keep them put away until needed.

I do not think that teachers should have guns because some teachers get mad easily and we don't know what they would do with them. Also students could be looking through a cabinet and find it and tell other students who might take it and possibly use it against the school.

I think teachers should have guns to protect themselves and others but they should check the gun everyday.

Teachers are teachers and there is other people that should take care of violence and shooting at schools. I wouldn't feel more safe if more people start carrying guns I would feel more threaten. If something should it be more difficult to get a gun in some of the states.

I think that it's a good idea to an extent. There are some teachers who, under the circumstances, probably would be to afraid, or just in shock to act in the situation. Over all though, I think it is a good idea.

Being in a rural town it is easier to approve guns and I beileve is ok, in small towns everybody knoes everybody. Many people "Pass through" small towns where there isnt much authority and public safety in the town but there is in the town miles down the highway. Therefore in rural schools I think it is right to be able to carry guns for the students saftey. In urban areas there is public safety patroling the town on a regular basis, there is police inside schools with guns and weapons to protect studnets and staff. In Urban areas I do not think it should not be allowed for teachers to carry guns inside schools.

I think teachers should be able to carry concealed guns, but I also think they should have background checks to make sure they are good people to have guns. I would feel safer knowing that a good person has a way to protect us.

To Sydney - I agree. I think that it should be an optional thing and if you do carry a gun as a teacher you must take a class/course in order for to be able to permit it in the school building.

I think giving licensed teachers guns in rural areas would be beneficial. It may be simpler to have one or two police officer in the school, but have the teachers have guns would also be okay as long as they were trained with a gun and could handle an intense situation. As some were saying about how students might find the gun, the school would probably have a locked up location for the gun, therefore the students would not be able to access it.

I don't think teachers having guns is a good idea because they aren't trained properly in that area. That's why we have a school cop who should be the first to handle situations like that. I'm sure if something like that happened here there wouldn't be an issue with the amount of time it would take the police to get here.

I agree that teachers should be allowed to have guns, but check on the gun everyday to make sure students don't mess with the gun

I don't think every teacher needs to carry a gun but the district should designates certain teachers to allow them to carry guns. They should also be properly trained and be monitored. In the time it takes police to arrive to a call for a school shooting countless students could already be dead, but with the designated teachers there they could put a stop to the shooter.

bllandon- I agree. I believe that certain courses and classes should be taken in order to be an armed teacher. If i had to trust my life to a teacher in a dire situation like a school shooting, I'd prefer it to be in then hands of a calm under pressure, capable shooter.

I believe that teachers should be allowed to carry concealed weapons but as long as they have some type of professional training. It wouldn't do any use to carry a gun of you can't use it and use it safely. Also the gun should be used as a last resort in an extreme situation. I agree with Emily when she's says some students might try and take it but it should definitely be in a safe place where no one but the teacher would have access to it.

I think it is a good idea. The only concern I have is the teacher viewing him/herself to have more authority over others. The students should not know which teacher carry's a weapon. Though the teacher should have to go through many training courses in order to do so. It's one thing to carry a gun, it's another to kill a person and be in a firefight. Not everyone can handle it.

I Think Teachers should be allowed to Concealed Carry as long as they pass certain requirements, like in the video the administrator says they have to be accurate up to a certain point in order to be able to carry said gun. As well as the do training he mentioned that the teachers have been trained in hostage situations. In my opinion with the correct training and practice it would be a great idea.

I think teachers should not be aloud to carry guns we don't live in a small town in Texas where it would take 30 mins. for people to respond .Plus most school already have a trained officers in their schools we don't need untrained teachers to carry weapons.

In regards to what fwyldes753 said, I believe that teachers shouldn't be able to carry guns because we don't live in a rural area and cops are in a close distance. I wouldn't trust teachers to carry a weapon. We also have a school cop that would respond immediately.

I think schools teachers should be able to have concealed weapons on them as long as they go through a gun safety course and if they are too far away to be able to wait for police.

I think that teachers should be allowed to carry guns, but under very strict circumstances. The gun should be on the teacher at all times (never put in a cabinet or a safe, as kids could more easily find a way to get to it), the teachers should go through gun safety and training (which they apparently do), only teachers with gun permits should be allowed to have them, and they should be completely concealed at all times. Although I think this idea is most likely going to stay in rural schools (they have less students, and are farther away from law enforcement), I could see it traveling into city schools in the future. So yeah, all in all I don't think this is a bad thing at all. It could save a lot of lives in the event of a school shooting.

I think that there intentions are great and in a rural town with not many armed forces around to help it might work. But what if a kid were to get ahold of it? I believe that they'd have to be in a safe where the students don't realize what it is or can't see it. But with that they won't have the whole quick to help plan they are hoping for. It would be faster then the cops getting there though.

I think that if the location of that school is very dangerous then teachers should be able to carry guns but out of sight from students at all times. because if students can see the gun, it would make them too uncomfortable to even learn.

After viewing the video and reading this article, I feel that it is appropriate for staff and board members of a school to carry guns. As for schools located in a area where first responders are able to access the situation more quickly, I don't think it would be as necessary. Although I think school teachers carrying guns is a good idea, I believe that it only makes sense for these teachers to go through the proper training before doing so.

I think that it should be allowed for some teachers in rural areas to carry guns. As long as the guns are kept in a safe place and locked away from the students. I don't think that every teacher needs a gun but because they are in a rural area and it will take longer for police to get they should have someone there who can protect them the moment a situation happens. We have a police officer at our school at all times ready to protect us, why shouldn't they have someone who can protect them. If teachers are allowed to carry guns they should have to go through a class/course before being allowed to have a gun at the school.

I'm not sure about teachers being able to carry guns in school. You have to put into factor how it would be concealed, which teachers have access and or carry it, and things like if the students would think it was okay for them to bring some sort of protection, whatever that may be. I don't think it's a bad idea, I just think people would have to be much more cautious in all senses. The barrier between feeling safe, nervous, or afraid around someone would be different for everyone. Carrying weapons might also deter some of the schools wanted achievements for the future, for example attendance averages.

I think the death penalty is pointless. In my opinion all it does is give horrible criminals an easy way out. If I did something horrible enough to get the death penalty, I'd rather die than serve life in prison.

Yup we are for sure with out a doubt falling back into a dark age.

i think we should have the death penalty

Capital punishment is scarier than going to jail. I think crime rates would go down if this came back.

I think that the death penalty is wrong because they are trying to stop a murderer by murdering him themselves so really it's not much better then what the killer was doing himself.

What would happen if the person was innocent after all?

Yea its pointless cuz then there not going sever there crime and its a easy way out

It will be interesting to hear Sorenson's argument as to why to changes things. Prisons are getting crowded but this is still Iowa. We still have a small population

I think the death penalty is not a bad idea nor I think it is a good idea. They will suffer in jail or suffer in hell. My opinion is put them in jail. If it is not their time to die yet then it is not. If they did something as bad as kill someone then they do deserve to go to jail and suffer for life.

I would agree with harvey. The crime rates would go down and death penalties are effective in other regions.

Its not weather which one is worse, its that killing a person for killing another person is not only hypocritical but inhumane to today's society.

I disagree with bringing the death penalty back to Iowa. We've taken it away twice, once in 1872 and the second time in 1965, so I feel that shows that we, as a state, don't want it. Also the death penalty isn't really a deterrent for crime. There is a really interesting website that shows so facts about murder rates and comparing states that do and don't have the death penalty. They have a ton of information and I would recommend that you go through the site a little if you're interested in this topic. http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/murder-rates-nationally-and-state#MRord

I agree with Aaron, but i also think that justice should be served

Aaron giving someone the death penalty is acceptable. Having life in prison is worse anyway and it just puts more people in danger if that person is still alive.

better for the death penalty then life in prison.

Maybe we need to start corporal punishment.

Mr. Garner, it would cost more money to give somebody the death penalty then to have them spend life in prison. We live in a different type of world then when people had there heads chopped off and dragons happened to be there to save "johns" life. To me that's not what God intended us to do with people that made a mistake and yes a big one but everybody has a reason to something or there could be something seriously wrong with there head to commit a murder but its not always there fault.

For 2011, the average Murder Rate of Death Penalty States was 4.7, while the average Murder Rate of States without the Death Penalty was 3.1 For 2010, the average Murder Rate of Death Penalty States was 4.6, while the average Murder Rate of States without the Death Penalty was 2.9 For 2009, the average Murder Rate of Death Penalty States was 4.9, while the average Murder Rate of States without the Death Penalty was 2.8 For 2008, the average Murder Rate of Death Penalty States was 5.2, while the average Murder Rate of States without the Death Penalty was 3.3 http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/murder-rates-nationally-and-state#MRord

It seems like if the act of violence is bad enough to get the death penalty most of the people kill themselves before the law can.

Would you rather spend the rest of your life in prison or be dead? Think about that!

Mr. Valdivia how would it cost more to give the death penalty then to keep them in prison for life? That's right, IT WOULDN'T. And I'm not saying give the death penalty for 1 murder. Based on depravity and body counts they should be sentenced to death.

unless you commited that bad of a crime i wouldn't worry about it coming back if your not gonna kill people

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/documents/CostsRptFinal.pdf Dylan pages 20 and 21 of the PDF I linked above, explain why the death penalty costs more to administer than life in prison with out parole. More specifically on page 20 under the heading Time on Death Row it says, "In California, a legislative commission concluded that it costs the state an extra $90,000 for each death row inmate per year compared to the costs of the same inmate housed in general population. With over 670 inmates on death row, that amounts to an additional yearly cost of $60 million solely attributable to the death penalty."

Lets keep it simple say the death penalty would be cheaper than housing an inmate for life. Boom, Roasted.

Well then we can change the process to a quick and easy death without all that court BS. And plus I'm a prison warden so you guys both don't know what you are talking about. Aaron. And Jeremy.

FALSE. There is NO WAY you're a prison warden. The minimum age for a Warden is 21, plus you have to have lots of training. So someone of your prestige and experience, (not to mention your practically a 5 year old) would never be able to be a warden. Kthnxbye

I am prison

Dylan and Joe, The reason that the death penalty is more expensive (and always will be) is the courts have to make sure that the criminal that is convicted is 100 percent guilty. There can't be any room for doubt. This means that the state has to supply better (More expensive) lawyers for the suspected party, and the trial has to be more in depth, therefor much longer. We can't make this time shorter than it is, because as a country, we are will do everything we can to keep an Innocent man from dying. And to just keep the perpetrators in jail is much cheaper, as there is already a well set system in place, and one more person will not increase the cost of that system to go up in large amounts as much as the singled out attention a person on death row will.

@ Dylan and Joe, if you both still think that the death penalty is cheaper, you are wrong, look at the 20th page Jeremy posted. @ Jared, ethically speaking, shouldn't any person who is accused of murder have an outrageously expensive lawyer anyways? If someone is going to be imprisoned for life, or going to be executed for a crime, should the one being executed receive a better lawyer?

I think they should, but the person being put to jail for life has the chance to have new evidence pop up, and potentially let them eventually get out, they have the chance to get out on parole, they have the potential for choices. The man that is getting the death penalty have to be 100 percent sure. They don't have room to make mistakes. Ethically, I believe that people getting put away for life should have the same standards of 100 percent, but as I said, they have choices later on down the road. The dead don't.

@ Payton. It is cheaper. I know for a fact. I AM A PRISON WARDEN.

I think one would suffer more life in prison rather than getting the death penalty.

@Peyton Are you trying to tell me its more expensive to keep someone alive in prison? this means that dude lives off our tax money. You will literally pay for his food, housing, and heck, that dude can even go lift for 3 hours a day and run his block! THink about that. State Champ.

"It is unlawful for any person, with intent to terrify, intimidate, threaten, harass, annoy or offend, to use any electronic or digital device and use any obscene, lewd or profane language or suggest any lewd or lascivious act, or threaten to inflict physical harm to the person or property of any person." This is some of the language of the out of the bill (I found it in another article on Forbes). It seems reasonable, at least this section as I haven't read the whole law, except for the parts that say, "annoy or offend" and "use any obscene, lewd, or profane language or suggest any lewd or lascivious act". We have laws that say you cant threaten, intimidate, threaten, or harass people in person or to threaten to inflict harm on another or their property so it makes to do the same thing over the internet. The fact that they added the annoy or offend and other parts I mentioned is a little ridiculous because just stating your opinion, and what you believe, on Facebook or in a comment section on a news article could "offend" someone. There is a big difference between being offensive, which is and should be legal, and trying to threaten, harass,terrify, and intimidate someone.

I can see why they want to remove the whole terrify, intimidate, and threaten part, but in all reality, the rest of the law is what is accountable to what most consider, "trolling." I personally don't get why annoying people would be against the law, it's human nature, and you cannot change that. And offending someone online means you do so verbally, and have a separate opinion from the person you are offending.You would be violating freedom of speech if you put that last bit in.

the expressed opinion that annoying someone else is human nature makes me question if you truly understand human nature. However, you are also incorrect about your freedom of speech theory. The law states that it is illegal to post something with "the intent to terrify, intimidate, threatend, harass, annoy or offend" which clearly removes it from freedom of speech parameters. Do you honestly believe that it is your free right to harass a person, or to intentionally offending someone, which can logically be derived as a branch of harassment? I don't mean to sound rude or agressive, but I really don't see that falling under a freedom of speech infraction

I agree with Alex plus it says the intent to do those things... If you're stating your opinion you aren't really intentionally setting out to annoy or offend anyone. You are just stating what you think

I have to disagree that intentionally offending a person is a form of harassment. Casually stating god isn't real to a person you know to be a devote Christian could potentially be offensive but it isn't harassment. On another note being intentionally offensive has been upheld by the Supreme Court, in the case of R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul, as being in the parameters of protected speech. However, in Virginia v. Black the Court said that being offensive as to intimidate a person or group is not protected speech. Some comedians are intentionally offensive to specific groups but because they aren't being offensive as to intimidate, harass, terrify, or threaten others their offensive speech is protected.

an interesting point, Jeremy. However, if I may ask, would hunting down a specific group on the internet in order to state a belief against theirs for the sole purpose of antagonizing that group not be harassment? I cannot argue against the logic presented in those cases that intentionally being offensive would be protected... however, entering a church in order to proclaim that there is no god (as an example) would be the equivalent of hunting a group down and posting that on their forums. I know that isn't the only reason that a post would show up like that, but it seems the most likely to me. I do enjoy a good, offensive comedian, but if he were to come to me specifically because he wanted to tell me how my beleifs were incorrect, I think that would fall under religeous harassment, (spelling?) just like a religeous person can be charged for harassment for hunting down a person with opposing beleifs and proclaiming their message, shouldn't people trying to tell them that their beleifs are incorrect be treated in kind?

Great discussion... another issue to consider is whether or not the listeners are "captive audience" or not. Freedom of speech is an incredibly complex topic (which we will discuss more soon in class) There is a big difference between an offensive comedian that I choose to go watch at a club and the same comedian that shows up on my doorstep to deliver an offensive message... if the second scenario continued it would seem to rise to the level of harassment pretty fast. The bigger question in my mind is do we want to prevent "offensive speech" at all or would that be a slippery slope to taking away more of our right to expression?

I don't think that being annoying or offensive (so long as it's not harassment) should be illegal. It's kind of like cussing - it's frowned upon, but shouldn't necessarily be illegal (unless used in an act of violence or threatening someone).

Alex, you stated earlier that, "The law states that it is illegal to post something with "the intent to terrify, intimidate, threatend, harass, annoy or offend" which clearly removes it from freedom of speech parameters." That is false, and why the law has not been passed as of now, and unlikely to be passed ever. Not to mention that it is to unclear upon its wording to be held up in court. I also do know that this law clearly states, "annoy." I annoy people, I do it daily, should I be jailed for 25 years for it? (The maximum time period in which this law can jail a person for). Also, I can go into a church and say, "God is not real." What exactly can you legally do against me? Can you jail me for going in there and stating my beliefs? At the most, you can make me leave by request or have me jailed for trespassing. That's like being jailed for saying, "I hate the U.S. government," which I have a clear right to say as in our first amendment. As for the idea of "Religious Harassment," one can have there beliefs. If I go to a church, and decide to start screaming on the top of my lungs, "God is not real!" I am stating my beliefs were I please, which is protected under the first amendment. A Christen probably would not like it, but if one comes up to me and says God is real, there is not much either on can do to convince the other the other that they are wrong, and both are entitled to there own opinion. This law would jail someone for stating there religious beliefs, which is not legal by our constitution. Would that not be "Religious Harassment?"

Payton, you state that my reference to the law is false, however I took that as a direct quote from Jeremy. Perhaps you should do a little reading? as for what I can legally do, I can report you for religious harassment and get you a ticket. By there you mean to post "thier", just so you know. Simple mistake. Anyways, specifically looking for someone to aggrivate by stating thier beliefs are no longer just looking to state their beliefs. I am not arguing against one's ability to annoy, by the way. I do tend to do this on a regular basis. I am stating that it is harassment to seek out persons that I know will be offended by my remarks and verbally assault them, and they may do as they please with this assault. I do appreciate your use of 'reductum ad absurdum' or the reduction of an opposing argument to its most rediculous or nonsensical interpretation. However, I am not suggesting jail time.

Alex, you do realize the law itself suggests a minimum sentence of 6 months, to the max of 25 years in prison for one simply stating something as simple as beliefs on the internet. As well as that 2nd hand reference, that I assume you simply went off the word of another with, is still false, the bill did not pass because it broke the first amendment. As for that ticket, I would be ticketed for expressing myself about my religion, and in no way did I say anything bad about another religion, that would be freedom of speech before religious harassment.

That ticket would be for harassing a group of people for their beliefs, and you know it. If I were to hunt you down and assault your every belief, whether it be right or wrong, and do it, not just for no reason, but simply because I want to cause anger and controversy? That goes against everything our country stands for. We have certain inalienable rights, including the pursuit of happiness, and dealing with someone who just wants to make you angry directly interferes with that.

I'll first start off by saying that in my last post I misspoke when I said that I didn't believe that being intentionally offensive is harassment. I should have said that it isn't necessarily harassment. Payton the law did pass the Arizona Legislator and it reached the Governor's desk, that is why people were worried about First Amendment Violations. The Legislator then pulled it back before Governor Brewer signed it into law, stating that they may rework the wording of the Bill to narrow the broad language in hopes to remove parts that could potentially violate Free Speech. The revised bill has since been signed into law. This is the first form of the Bill passed by the Legislator but was brought back to be reworked: http://mediacoalition.org/mediaimages/AZ-HB-2549s-as-passed-by-legislature.pdf This is the reworked Bill as to narrow it's scope which became law: http://www.mediacoalition.org/mediaimages/HB2549-as-amended-most-recent-04_2012-full-bill.pdf Alex and Mr. Pregon do make a good point about seeking out specific groups. I think after looking into it a little more Mr. Pregon is right about Freedom of Speech being a complex topic. Looking at the two court cases I mentioned and then two others I ran into while looking things up seem to contradict each other in someways yet support each other at the same time. Snyder v. Phelps and the parts of the majority ruling that were in an article I read, actually found the full ruling and opinions and plan on reading them, make it seem like, to me at least, it is in fact okay to seek out a group and say things that are unpopular, potentially offensive, and controversial as long as you aren't trying to intimidate, threaten, etc. that group as V

Alex, there is a difference between stating a belief, such as not believing in god, and discrediting a religion based on that belief. That would be an odd situation, but as long as one does not go into detail as to how a religion is superior/inferior to another, it should not be considered offensive. Jeremy, this article was written previously to the revised bill, due to it being highly ambiguous. I also agree as to the newly revised bill. The bill previously was going strictly reduce freedom of speech, which will no longer be that well restricted, although I doubt it will be easy to enforce.

Of course you would put this up Payton....

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.....

Not only did Shia have the courage to do this, but he kept going which was his mistake, and all outside the museum with his art in it. This could lead to multiple up riots, maybe even more violence. But Shia got off about scott free.

If you don't know the background of Shia, you wouldn't understand why he went off like that. First off, the man he was yelling at was a neo nazi. He had said 1488 which is a reference to Hitler and the holocaust. Shia is Jewish, his name literally means praise god in Hebrew. Shia may have gone too far if it were just a common mistake, but when your ancestors have been killed in WW2, you're not going to be happy. He shouldn't have been arrested, the white supremacist should've for representing hate.

I agree with Deven the man was just picking a fight and he got exactly what he wanted, nothing against Shia.

I think it was wrong for that person to say that to Shia LaBeouf, that guy just want to see how mad he would get, most did it on purpose.

I think that the guy got what he deserved. Maybe Shia shouldn't be so aggressive towards opposing sides of politics, like supporters, protesters, ect, but you can't fix or control somebody else's behavior and beliefs. So, since the man was pushing Shia's rage on and on, Shia snapped, and I believe the man got what he deserved.

Everyone has there opinions and beliefs obviously and everyone is not going to get along, when you act out and hurt people for expressing there opinions you cant expect to not get punished. Especially when your around lots of people, you can't expect to not do or say anything.

Shia could've used less violence but in a way I don't blame him because the man was saying things that were really bad and offended shia.

I agree with Deven and Sydney. The man was representing hate and picking a fight. Shia wasn't all innocent but I don't blame him for his actions

This is an example of growing tension between groups. nation seems divided by pro and anti trump people. the fact that people are speaking their mind is a positive, the fact that our president is causing so much negative uproar so early into his term is a negative.

him using violence only builds support towards the opposite cause.

The young man was representing hate and picking a fight. Shia wasn't innocent but I don't blame him for what he did.

I agree with Jake, this fight shows the nation being further separated between pro-trump people and anti-trump people.

I agree with Lauren that the man was picking a fight and I also don't blame Shia for his actions either.

I don't think it was right for Shia to do what he did but I don't blame him and I see why he did what he did.

I think this is kind of stupid, Shia should have had the self control not to get into that type of interaction especially because he's a well known person it kind of puts a shadow over him in some ways

Shia should of had some self control, but I see why he did it and don't blame him as well.

I agree with Deven. The Neo Nazi was just trying to pick a fight because he knew Shia's background. I understand why Shia did what he did but maybe he does deserve some type of consequence for his actions. Even though the man was trying to pick a fight Shia could've easily just been the bigger person and should've had the self control to walk away.

The man he attacked shouldn't have said what he said so I think Shia was justified to do what he did. The man was asking for it.

I don't blame Shia for fighting this man. Shia could have taken care of it in a different manner but it was out of reaction and the man was pushing his limits. Shia should have not been taken into custody for this.

I think he did nothing wrong, he was defending what he stood for and the Neo Nazi was saying unfair things.

I think maybe hitting him was going far but he was telling this man to knock it off by what he did to him which is because ti disrupts the social environment. That wasn't the place for someone to talk about hitler and i think it was fine that he taught that man a lesson.

I don't think Shia is wrong for fighting the man, but she could of did something different then fighting him.

I agree with most of the comments above, The man that Shia attacked should have not said anything to him because the guy just wanted a reaction from him. Also Shia was in the wrong for attacking the man, he could have just walked away and not put his hands on the man.

I believe that the comments of the man who claimed victim were wrong. However, everything comes down to perspective. The whole debate is whether or not Shia being arrested for assault was right or wrong. Both sides are at fault. Shia should have had more control especially due to his celebrity standing. Everything a celebrity does is under close inspection and is able to be blown way out of proportion. The man was obviously saying the things he was to get under Shia's skin. However, assaulting someone with physical scrathches being documented is immature. Be the bigger person and walk away.

Shia LaBeouf attacked a 25-year old man for saying "Hitler did nothing wrong" outsid eo ghis museum. I believe he could have handled the situation better than the way he did, i understand he was sticking up for what he believes in but he could have approached the guy a different way.

With all due respect, I don't believe that most people saying that he should react differently would handle the situation peacefully. You'd be outraged if there was a genocide of Christians that had happened not even a century ago, and a random stranger (knowing you are of that religion) said something similar to "Hitler did nothing wrong", you'd be livid. It is essentially implying "they deserved it." Yes, he has a right to share his opinion. But opinions are more along the lines of "I prefer coffee over tea", not "I think that Jews are less than human, therefore Hitler did nothing wrong because they deserve to die." But it's not simply that, it goes beyond the Holocaust. Jews were the world's scapegoat for CENTURIES before the Holocaust. They've been targeted for centuries, and if I were religious and devoted to my religion and somebody said that to me. I'd more than likely react the same way. Yes, Shia deserved to be punished, he assaulted the dude. But the other guy had it coming for egging him on at what was supposed to be a peaceful protest.

I think the man was trying to pull a publicity stunt on the actor because he's aware of some of his past actions and he purposely tried to get a rise out of him. Was it legal? Yes. Was it Right? No

With Mexico refusing to pay for the wall, I don't think the wall will even go up. So we should worry less about walls and more about the important things.

I agree with Makenzie, don't worry about the wall but worry about what's important

If he does what he always said in a way that benefits each of the citizens we work and live in a good way always striving for what we have is a good idea but if it is to harm people and thus humiliate them I am not made a good idea

I agree with McKenzie, even though the wall has been a topic for a few months now... people are realizing this is getting close to happening... I don't blame Mexico for not wanting to help pay for the wall. It's probably not even gonna happen anyways. Trump needs to work on making people happy and "making America great again".

It seems like Trump is trying to get to much accomplished at one time, he's not focusing on one problem, so nothing is going to get done. My problem with the wall is that it doesn't solve the problem people will always find a way in so unless we are putting a wall up around the whole US we will still deal with people trying to get in.

Even though trump said he's going to build a wall people are still going to get over it. Unless he is planning on putting a wall all around. I think he's just gonna make it worst for us, he should do the little things first and work his way up with the big things, because what is he changes his mind about what he's doing.

I agree with kim, he is doing everything so fast hes not really focusing or thinging about anything as long as it gets done.

Donald has been doing everything he said he was going to but i dont think he is seeing what he is doing because he is doing everything so fast. i also dont think he will put the wall up because mexico wont pay. people are going to find a way around the wall too

He is a man of his word, the word most people voted for, so that means he is going to do what he says and listen to the people.

I agree with Justice because people are just going to find another way over or around the wall. Illegals are still going to jump the border and some of them will still make it into the United States. I don't understand why he is trying to do everything so fast. He does know that he has four years right? Maybe someone should inform him of that. The wall is a pointless thing especially if he's trying to get Mexico to pay for it.

the wall is not a pointless thing. He will get mexico to pay for it. He is a man that keeps to his word. He is not bought and paid for by lobbyist, and super PACS. The wall is a great idea. Just remember would you want to take in some homeless person into your house? thats what a front door is for. that is why we need a wall.

Mexico will not pay for the wall he's insane for thinking that they're going to help stay out. All he's doing is humiliating immigrants and kind of bullying them. If he plans on bullying people all four years he has then he's not going to do anything for us and that should worry people.

I agree with Landon. Mexico is most likely not going to be willing to pay for the way so therefore its pointless. People are still going to try and do what they want, a wall is not going to stop them.

Mexico might not pay. But Abby, you say he is humiliating immigrants, he is welcoming to other foreigners he just dislikes illegal immigrants, it's like somebody broke into your house and is living in your attic without you knowing. He is blocking immigration from the middle east not because he hates all muslims but because most terrorism is from that general area.

I think the general concept of what he's trying to accomplish is a good idea, but of course there's plenty of flaws in the system. Mexico's obviously not going to be on board for covering the funds necessary to build the wall, and neither would any country in their position. You're going to have plenty of Mexican citizens who are totally against this and might even try to wreak havoc on the project which will only stir the pot more. On the other hand, he's making an effort to keep illegal immigrants out and follow through to his word by building the wall.

I agree with Landon, Mexico might not pay for the wall. If Mexico doesn't pay for the wall to go up what are the chances that the wall is actually going to be put up?

Mexico will pay for the wall if the like it or not. America will just stop sending them financial aid that we give to them every year. There is many ways to get Mexico to do what we want and we finally have a president that will stop the illegal immigration and do what he promised he was going to do. Amen!

I think it is insane that Trump proposed the idea of building a wall, and now is trying to make Mexico pay for it. Why would they? How does that even make sense? If Mexico doesn't pay-which they wont, American tax payers will be the ones paying for it. And it is a multi billion dollar project.

In an ideal world, Biden wouldn't run so that a more popular progressive candidate could run. Unfortunately, Biden likely will run for re-election at the end of his term, or the DNC will push hard for another milquetoast centrist if he doesn't.

I agree with Brandon. I don't think Biden is the best president out there. From what I saw, many people only voted for him to get Trump out of office. However, from what I read in the article, Biden was confident when he said, "Yes. My plan is to run for reelection. That's my expectation." As the current newly appointed president, it's good that Biden responded confidently even if he doesn't run again. He would have looked weak if he said anything else. Also, why are reporters asking this question so soon? Biden has only been in office for like three months. The press is just trying to hurry up life.

I don't think that he should run again, he should allow another to run who might be able to be more productive or something.

I don't think he will end up running again by the end of his term and I don't think he should either as he has labeled himself as a bridge president I think it's illogical to run again. him winning the presidency creates some momentum for the party and it's pretty obvious that from here some more democratic candidates will come forwards vying to be the top candidate, and I don't think Joe Biden coming to join them would be of any benefit and it would probably stand more as a division within the party. Joe Biden pretty much just stood as anti-Trump in this election for people so when people have the option to choose for another candidate I don't think many would choose Biden.

Depending on how his term ends out should be a deciding factor for reelection.

i think it's too early to think about reelection because even if he wants to run again, he might change his mind about it in a few years.

I believe we should wait to answer this question, cause we don't know what he's going to do in the future.

Biden has made some big mistakes, and has done things I don't approve of...But it's been less than a year, so I will give him a chance to correct his mistakes.

I agree with Jackie, it's too early in Biden's presidency to be asking whether or not he'll run again. I'm sure he'll try to run again, but I'm not sure how successful he'll be. Many people just voted for him because they didn't want Trump in office, so I'm doubtful they'll vote for him when there are other options.

it's too early in Biden's presidency to be asking whether or not he'll run again its been like 3 months that's a question that should be asked around the time of reelection.

I don't Biden should run again because they are better options out there for our president. Many people only voted for Biden because they didn't like how trump was as a person rather than what his policies did.

Personally, I think that Biden will run for president and I think that in 2024 he will lose. Do you think the rock can become president in 2024?

I agree with most of the comments. It´s too early to tell if Biden will run again especially since it's only been a few months. Depending on what he does in the office and the feedback he gets will dictate if he runs again. I do feel that Biden was sort of elected just to get Trump out of the office and I hope that in the next election there's a better option besides just the one main factor was he wasn´t Trump. Either way, I look forward to following the rocks campaign.

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.