Group items tagged

it says clearly that andrew johnson made it so no state for any reason could secede from the union,their will be another election in 4 years o if everybody would just relax and chill everything will be fine

I think this is just a way of Texans and those other states to show their frustration with the government

There are now three other states; Florida, Georgia, and Louisiana, that have reached the required 25,000 signatures on We the People to prompt a response from the White House. I am just waiting to see how the White House will respond to any of the four petitions.

they must think that they can do it better then the normal government. so if they think they can and if the fail they fail if not then good for them.

i think the white house will respond with a no

i think there only trying to do this because there mad that Obama won , and that he will lead the state in to bigger dept.

If the proclamation says the states can't separate they would need to rewrite it and make a new set of laws, also what would happen if they fail at a new government? would they just want the US of america to take them back?

I think that this will never happen. Although they might not believe that being apart of the U.S. benefits them, It truly does.

it would never happen but it will be interesting to see if any changes happen in response to this

I don't think this is going to happen but it is still pretty scary that people are that mad at the government. I think that people always blame the government when they are not happy. If we didn't have the government we would be in more trouble than we are in now. Yes our economy is getting hard and we need more jobs. But some people are lazy and should not make the government pay for everything.

I believe that Texas would do well in its own government, but it would be better to keep the 50 states.

Texas is probably just upset with the turn out of the election therefore just trying to create their own government to get what they think deserve.

I'm not sure if the point of the article is, "Why Texas wants to Secede." I'm moreover focused as to, if it will happen, and if it is a right of the state to leave the Union. Personally, I would say it is the right of a state to decide if they want to secede. Let us look at the tenth amendment. The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. The state has over 80k people who signed a petition asking for a secession. If this is the majority, our 10Th amendment would likely give the state the right to secede, as long as 50.1% of the population wished to secede. (Doubt that they actually have a majority that wishes to secede.) In English: The 10Th amendment grants the states the right to secede if the majority of its population sees fit. This is caused by the lack of detail in the constitution. The lacking detail being whether or not the states have the right to secede. (Founding father: Let's put state secession here next to gay marriage and abortion!) Anyways, as long as the majority of Texans wish to secede, I doubt there is any way that the United States could actually tell them they could not, at least not without some sort of conflict.

I have to be . . . not serious here. Just a word of advice to the states who want to secede, based on what happened in the Civil War: If you secede, you won't succeed.

Payton I think the Supreme Court has already decided in Texas v White that States can't unilaterally secede from the government. They have the right to secede through revolution or by asking the other States and getting their permission. At least that's how I read the ruling. Unless there is a newer ruling on secession then Texas v. White. "When, therefore, Texas became one of the United States, she entered into an indissoluble relation. All the obligations of perpetual union, and all the guaranties of republican government in the Union, attached at once to the State. The act which consummated her admission into the Union was something more than a compact; it was the incorporation of a new member into the political body. And it was final. The union between Texas and the other States was as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union between the original States. There was no place for reconsideration or revocation, except through revolution or through consent of the States. Considered therefore as transactions under the Constitution, the ordinance of secession, adopted by the convention and ratified by a majority of the citizens of Texas, and all the acts of her legislature intended to give effect to that ordinance, were absolutely null. They were utterly without operation in law."

I don't agree with this quoted statement because as bad as racism use to be, it has gotten better for sure. There will never be peace between blacks and whites, but there is a certain level of being equal either way.

I don't think that all republicans were against Obama solely because of his race, some people did just disagree with him. However, I do think that some people did take that into play. In the article a close representative said 'He recalled a moment when a powerful Republican said to him, "you know, we don't really think you should be here, but the American people thought otherwise so we're going to have to work with you.""

I disagree with this quote because I don't not believe racism has gotten worse since a time period like 1960. The problem is that the media has gotten so corrupt it makes it seem that way.

I believe it has worsened since he has been in office. With a black president it kind of gives them a better chance to protest. I believe once Donald Trump is president they would have less a chance and less riots.

I think that the tension between blacks and whites haven't got any better since Obama entered office, but the relations between blacks and whites now are better than they have ever been in America.

It's alarming that the White House can be hacked just like other people can, I hope this doesn't mean that Russia has a specific reason to be angry with the US or that they just want to advance over us in some aspect.

I heard that all the programs are out there available to everyone to use but if you used them in the US you would probably get caught red handed. Anything the government uses anyone can use.

No one likes Russia.

Tanning causes skin cancer. This will benefit health and prevent girls from looking like basketballs

if people want to increase the chance of getting skin cancer then they should be allowed to tan because its a choice just like anything else

I think that its more of a personal choice and if parent let their kids do it so be it. I don't see anything wrong with it.

Not sure of my opinion on this topic yet, but I thought this was an ironic statement... "Doctors, however, said it's not about the money. It's about health." It seems more and more, those two issues are tangled up in our health care debates.

I totally agree with Joe!

Tanning= Skin Cancer I also think that it is their choice they know the risks and It would cause a lot of controversy over money and lets admit white is not cute

Racist^

Brushing your teeth = Weakens you enamel. Should we ban teens from brushing their teeth simply because it can harm them? It's (in my opinion) a matter of choice.

"You just didn't want to stick out in a crowd being white" That's the problem right there. We've got a bunch of teenage girls, whose reasoning capabilities aren't fully developed and who quite literally aren't as capable of comprehending long term effects as adults are who have been convinced that it isn't okay to look like themselves. Our society has been convinced to believe that normal, or natural, can't be attractive. Society convinces women that to be attractive they have to be tan and then offers them an easy way to become tan. A way which, incidentally, causes cancer. But teenagers don't comprehend the risks well, and are only concerned with trying to make themselves attractive. And let's just admit it, orange is not cute.

Also, I don't know about the rest of you, but I think cancer might be a little worse than possibly having weaker enamel.

@Peyton you cant even compare this to brushing your teeth. Brushing your teeth gives you way more benefits over a "weak enamel" I'd rather have a weak enamel rather than have brown teeth with holes in them, and i'd rather be white and cancer free than look like an old leathery football.

Im not racist. but pale is not cute that's why so many people tan.

You should have gone with pale is not cute in the first place, and that would just be weird if everyone tanned. Everyone would look the same in a way.

i think if your tanning the its at your own risk. its not like people haven't heard what could happen if they tan

tanning beds are an unnatural way to tan and people should just wait till summer to tan again but either way tanning in the summer outside or in a bed is still dangerous and will lead to someone getting skin cancer.

Going back to Jessica's comment: I'm a pale teenage girl, but I'm perfectly content with my skin color. Other girls, however, aren't and it's comments like that that force young girls to tan and be at a higher risk of getting skin cancer. I'm not attacking you, Jessica, I'm simply giving my opinion.

This is just wrong. The students are being segregated because of their race and color. Shouldn't racism be illegal? especially in schools!

I think having separate dances based on color is just wrong. If they can attend the same school, games and classes, then they should also be allowed to attend the dances with their friends, no matter their color.

I can't believe to this day that there are people separating blacks from whites in some kind of activity. They share the same class rooms and everything else. Why can't they attend the same prom together? It amazes me how people think that they need to separate prom by the color of their skin.

I can't believe there is a school that integrated but yet they separate dances for the students? I think what the girls are trying to do is a good idea cause there isn't a good enough reason for the school to have separate dances.

I didn´t know segregation still was a problem.. This is annoying they have seperate proms for the races. It blows my mind how one can dislike and discourage people of a different color and race. We are all human beings.

I think the fact that there is still segregation at all means the government isn't doing its job. They need to crack down on stuff like this.

Even now there's still a problem segregation. Having two different proms for whites and colored kids is crazy.

I didn't know schools were still allowed to do this. I don't understand why they can play sports together but not go to dances together.

I thought segregation was no more but guess I was wrong. It doesn't make sense that they can play sports and attend other activities but they cant attend prom together. This isn't right!

They shouldn't be able to do that. Th government ordered desegregation for schools in the 50's with the rights movement.

Oh gosh, I'm pretty sure it feels like a slap in the face to the people who can't go to the "white" prom because they are black. I didn't even know they still did that. Or the fact that they were allowed too. It doesn't make any sense to me that they can have sports together but not dances?! Boggles my mind.

Its sad how their are still people out their that believe this is the right thing to do. I mean come on its a school dance they have these students do everything else together whats the point in separating them for a dance.

I personally think that arming teacher would be a huge risk but yet could be a life-saving moment. Just think about it if a student would happen to go crazy in our school they would know that every teacher is armed with a gun so they'll do anything to get a gun from a teacher but yet if they tried anything a teacher could end up saving kids lives. I'm kind of in the middle. Also not selling guns to teenagers I mean that's crazy look what happened in Florida!!! I wouldn't want that to happen in our school. Checking their background and mental state I agree on, I just don't understand why this world and this generation needs to be holding guns to protect themselves I mean that's sad.

I think that arming teachers would be a great idea, but schools shouldn't feel this unsafe. I believe that this outrage has kind of became yesterdays news the first couple of weeks there were a lot of controversy but has died down for the past 2 weeks. Solutions are hard to reach because not everyone agrees on one solution so whatever the government decides to do not everyone will be happy with the end result. I think that everyone should just be happy that the government is trying to solve this problem and they shouldn't freak out until they see a change.

I believe there needs to be more limitations to those that obtain guns. Guns have become an unnecessary evil that many have taken advantage of greatly. The outrage has not yet become "yesterday's news" because many are still fighting and protesting for more effective gun laws. Many survivors from the Parkland shooting are coming forward and sharing their stories about the actions that took place inside their school and how horrifying the event was. They are still coming forward and still fighting to show everyone what it is like from their perspective. The politics of this issue make solutions difficult to reach because they many times propose an idea to prevent conflict in the future, but they do not follow through with the potential idea.

I think that even if we try to have teachers have guns in school it will be a major problem. I think some teachers will be against it and students will be scared to come to school knowing their teachers have guns. I think the only thing schools can do to prevent this from happening is better security like more officers at the schools. The Parkland shooting won't be yesterdays news because many people are affected by this.

Its very easy to get a gun. Guns should be legal just stricter tests and background checks.

I feel that increasing the minimum age to buy firearms isn't really gonna make a change in what is happening because I feel that people are still going to find a way to get this firearm. i feel that politics are making this difficult because everyone has there own opinion on what to do and how it should be done. but this isn't something that should become "yesterday's news" we should be figuring out ways to make the school the safest it can be

Honestly, I don't think we need teachers with guns, that is taking it a little too far, like that if they hit the wrong person or get angry at a kid and lose it and kill or injure a kid. I think we just need to have better protection in schools, and also we need to be aware of signs before things happen. Most times when there is a shooter they end up posting about it before it happens or will show signs that they might do it, and we just brush it off when we should be focused and do investigations if someone is on facebook bragging saying they are going to do it. We also need to have better plans for when a shooter does come, instead of sitting in a corner and hoping they don't come to you, we should figure out how to get out or something else instead of being sitting ducks.

I don't really have a side that I'm 100% for I think no matter what happens there is always going to be someone who isn't happy which is going to lead to more conflicts.

I think there should be some way to check mental health before buying a gun and stronger background checks. Maybe arm a few teachers that are capable that way its almost as if you have another cop in the school. I belive they need to find a compromise to make everyone happy and stay safe.

I do think that students and their families shouldn't feel unsafe while going to school so I think that schools should either have more armed security or teachers should have guns. I do think this is kind of dying down and it isn't being talked about as much as it was 2 weeks ago.

So... solve the problems of gun violence... with more guns? This is the White House's big plan. Because we have a Conservative cabinet, they do not support putting more restrictions on guns. This is why there is such a big debate. Others want more restrictions so this does not happen.

I believe that there are many causes of a school shooting and because there are so many aspects to it, it then becomes difficult to fix. Sure you can make the buying age older but, then they will resort to other weapons which would just put a band-aid on the problem. Maybe more security would work? In the Flordia school shooting, there was a police officer there, there was protection but, somehow it still happened. I 100% believe that something needs to be done but, it's going to need to be more than just 1 thing that changes.

Arming teachers is not a good idea, people who have witness school shootings do NOT want to see more guns in their school. Kids want to feel save in school.

I think we just need better protection in schools and we must also be aware of the signs before things happen.

I agree with limiting the ability to have guns. the parkland shooting will never be yesterdays news, its important to know about it so there can be prevention from this happening again. There are way more shootings going on around the world everyday that not as big as the mass shooting, but to just know that people are getting shot back to back because of the unnecessary presents of guns, that frightening and shows that we need a change. I also think teachers should NOT have access to guns. People may think they have the ability to carry guns, and believe that they can be smart with them, but i disagree.

I think arming teacher would be a great idea, but like most people are commenting kids and teachers should not feel this unsafe in a school building. I think more security on schools is required to make teens and children safer. Yes, raising the gun purchase would help, but there is always still a way for people to get their hands on a weapon if they wanted to do harm to others. In the end, there are too many crazy and unsafe people out there and I think if they wanted to damage they could find a way I think the ultimate solutions are taking more precautions at schools.

I agree with Taylor Nickerson, guns should be more restricted since they have become more dangerous than they should be. Nobody should feel unsafe going to school, or anywhere really. You're supposed to feel safe at school, with others. Guns and weapons as deadly as these shouldn't be so accessible, or easy to get. They should have a higher age restriction and make sure that they're going to use them properly and not going to harm others.

i think the government shoulf take care of these things before it get out of hand and people get hurt. to them it take people dying or having a tragic thing happens for them to take initiative to do something about it. for example like sucide theres no posters up right now it there but then a week later someone commitis and then thats what is covering the walls poster after poster about bullying can lead to death. sucied pervention. stop things early

I honestly think it would be a huge risk to arm teachers with guns but it could also be a good thing. The reason i think it would be bad is because i personally have been in a class where a teacher can't control themselves and freak out on students. Now if you armed teachers and they have a little "break down" they have easy access to and weapon and all those children in the class are in major danger. But there are positive things about arming teachers like if there was a person in the building trying to kill kids, the teacher could easily go and kill the shooter before he kills innocent kids. So there are good things and bad things about but i still don't know if i personally would feel safe knowing teachers have guns and easy access to them.

i belive that what trump is saying "That we should arm teachers with gums and have them trained" evan if it's for the selfish reson of wanting to protect your self, is something good that could happen to all the schools in the US and it would stop school shooters a lot quicker

I believe that It could be a good or bad thing because student can fear going to school knowing teachers have them but it can also be good if someone is in the school and protect students.

I agree with Noah Lybarger with what he's saying that people will still find a way to get them. I personally believe that politics are making it hard because everyone has their own opinion and there are a lot of ideas on how to fix it, some that might work and some that won't, but they are completely different from each other. I feel they should raise the age and do a more thorough background check before the sale of firearms. Also a good idea to protect schools themselves is raising the security and maybe having more police officers around, making it a place where everyone feels safe. On the other side if it was made illegal to have a weapon, but just likes drugs and even all the way back to when alcohol was illegal, people that want to do harm like that they would find a gun somehow (just like people find drugs) would be able to find it and making it illegal to get a weapon would make the person that found one even more dangerous because people would be more defenseless than we are now.

I do not believe that teachers should have guns because I think that that would just cause more problems and violence. I think that we need to add more restrictions for guns and I think we need to ban semi automatics to the public because there is no reason for it. I believe that honestly there would be more violence and deaths if teachers were to have firearms in school.

I don't think that arming teachers would be a good idea, because I don't think there is a single teacher I have had that would have the willpower to shoot a person. Many school shootings are done by young people, and it would take a lot out of someone to shoot them, is this really what we want to do to our teachers?

I believe that teachers having guns isn't going to improve safety for a school by much. What happens when a kid doesn't listen in class so the teacher pulls the gun on the student threatening them? Or worse, what if a student got a hold of one of these guns? We need to add more restrictions to guns and when they can be solicited to you because getting a hold of weapons at the mere age of 19 only seems to more endangering. There would be so much less violence if there were more restrictions to guns.

I believe that arming teachers with a gun,would be a good idea. Because that could make the school much safer.

I don't think his comment wasn't necessary for him to say

He made this statement in front of a portrait of Andrew Jackson, as stated in the article, who signed the Indian Removal Act. Coincidence?

President Trump's behavior is naturally insensitive and inappropriate. So it doesn't surprise me that he'd make a comment such as that. I do agree that using that word directly insulted their heritage as well as the achievements they've made during the war.

what trump said was mega wrong and it saddens me that he felt the need to throw petty snaps at elizabeth during this night of honoring the navajo code talkers.

I don't think the word itself is insulting but the way it was used made it become that way.

donald did insult the senator because the senator isn't exactly one of his supporters but either way he had no right for insulting her even if she wasn't one of his supporters so in other words he doesn't like the fact that there is a woman indian heritage senator for the united states.

It is a problem that this happened, but the media is "making a mountain out of a mole hill" so to speak.

I think they're trying to make it bigger deal they act like they don't know what type of president the country voted for. Long before he became president he was having issues will racial names and opinions, Being president hasn't changed the situation. You'll just have to put up with it.

It may not have been the word itself that was the root of the problem, but it was the way he used it to try to discredit Warren before, so for him to use it again in this scenario was bad on his part.

trump was in the wrong

His comment wasn't necessary at all, he had no reason to call her that and I think he just dug himself a deeper hole by doing that

I believe it is a racist slur. this isn't the first time President Trump has been racist towards someone. I don't think people realized what kind of person Donald Trump is. He thinks that just because he is president he can say and do whatever he wants, and doesn't care who he hurts or offends.

I think that this should be a big deal because this is just one example of our president being insensitive, and discriminatory. I don't think that these people have a right to say that this slur wasn't offensive, when they aren't native american. A white person can't look at a racial minority group and dictate what is and isnt offensive to that group. If a minority group says something is offensive, its offensive.

I think he was in the wrong for saying that out of petty but others are also making it a bigger deal then it actually is.

I don't understand what president trump wants to do in the future.

Trump's remark was insensitive and childish. He was at this event for the sole purpose of honoring these heroes, but he felt the need to mock Senator Warren. It's not difficult to understand that the name he is using is offensive, especially when he has actual Native people telling him so, yet he continues to behave in this disrespectful manner.

this is why Trump shouldn't be president. He's the worst possible president ever.

I think that Donald Trump needs to be more careful about what he says. He does not need to bring more fights to himself by saying stuff like that, but he shouldn't not defend himself when others bash him. He needs to be more respectful as a President and think before he speaks, because he is representing the United States of America.

I think the media is overreacting

I feel like President Trump shouldn't have even mentioned anything in regards to the natives. He should have just remained on track an honored those Tribal men instead of turning the tables and sounding like he insulted their culture. Plus the media in itself shouldn't have even recorded that, because now WWII is about to happen on the media.

I think that i agree with it being "culturally insensitive" as some could be offended by that, but i don't think I can fully support it being considered a racial slur at this time

This is wrong

As a Native American, I would say it's a nasty generalization. We are not all a stereotype; and I love how he referenced us all to a children's movie that scratches the surface on our culture. It was a disrespectful remark.

He wasn't trying to say it to be racist he was trying to see it to make fun of her but the media of course takes it in a whole different direction

I do believe it was culturally insensitive but it isn't a racial slur.

trump is discriminating against that native of american by using the Pocahontas name as an insult

This is culturally insensitive. He was there to honor those men, not to take a stab at someone he doesn't like.

I think that it is rude to make that comment, but it is not a racial slur

In my personal opinion I feel like what he said was not wrong but I definitely feel the context to the event at which it was said makes it an issue. Poking fun at someone who claims to have Native American ancestry without proof does not seem particularly wrong to me but to do it at an event meant to show respect to code talkers certainly complicates matters.

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.....