Group items matching

in title, tags, annotations or url

I think it was a good idea to outlaw the death penalty, personally because I don't think that you should take someones life in punishment of someone else's. "An eye for an eye." There's always another way to deal with this, not greet it with death. If anything, I'd sentence him to jail for most of his life or his whole life in that matter. But the Government itself can also make a mistake and accuse the innocent of murder and then give them death as a punishment. They'd be in the wrong. Death is more drastic to me then spending a few years in jail, (thinking about it in a family way).

Keeping someone in jail for their whole life takes millions of dollars paid from the tax payers. If their crime was drastic enough then I am fully in support of the death penalty. Jail is basically a long term time out chamber for people to get clean and think about what they did. If you have already murdered, or raped, or abused someone a thirty year wag of the finger is not going to change their behavior.

I believe in the death penalty. Let's say there's a serial killer and he's already murdered a good amount of people. Would you really want that person to go on living his or her life after all the pain he caused for all of those families? I know I wouldn't.

I believe in the death penalty because if someone has already done a good amount of harm to others and they have died because of it then the person who committed the crime deserves the same. Keeping them in prison is just a waste of money and giving them to much time. They deserve nothing less and being in prison isn't going to change their behavior.

As a very liberal person myself, and the death penalty is a conservative policy for crime, I am happy to see a state so close to home abolish this penalty. We have prisons and judges and laws for a reason that will punish those who do bad things. What are we accomplishing by killing someone publicly for killing others?

I belive the death penalty is okay becasue you have to commit a pretty serious crime to get the death penalty and really in that case you almost kind of deserve it because of the pain you caused to multiple people.

The death penalty is a tricky subject to talk about, most people are strictly for the death penalty, or strongly against it. However, in my opinion, I believe that everything has a consequence to a set of actions. Is it necessary to kill somebody though? I think everyone deserves a second chance especially if they know they are in the wrong and trying to change their lives around. The type of crime the person committed is the key. Let's say a person committed murder, would you say "an eye for an eye?" and kill them too through the death penalty? If you were to do this, aren't you doing the same thing that they committed? Overall, I think it was wise that Nebraska outlawed the death penalty.

I don't believe in the death penalty, because by killing someone who killed someone else it's hypocritical. I think it's wrong to kill anyone, even if they killed someone else. The death penalty also put innocent lives at risk, someone could have been framed for the murder. The death penalty also costs a lot of money, people think that it's okay because they think that it saves the government from spending money but we are still spending a lot. There are a lot better ways to avoid the death penalty, and there a lot of mentally ill patients killed by the death penalty.

I believe that outlawing the death penalty is the right thing to do because you shouldn't fight fire with fire. It is wrong to show that killing, or any other act of the sort, is wrong by doing the same thing. It is also a good thing because there have been wrong accusations in the past, and the death penalty cannot be undone. If you argue for a just prosecution, they can live with the guilt of their crime in prison. If they felt no remorse then the person should get pyschiatric help to correct the situation. There is also data that says the death penality costs more than housing the prisoner because of the long appeal process.

Spending jail time is to help you become a better person because you did something bad. Killing someone does not help them become better as a person.

I believe in the death penalty, if someone has committed a big enough crime.I don't think it should be outlawed becuase If someone has tortured and/or murdered multiple people than they should.

Moms freakin out by this she wont shut up about it its hilarious

I think it is good that states are starting to outlaw the death penalty. If someone kills someone why does it make it right for them to be killed even if its by the government. Today we see punishments like the electric chair as barbaric and years from now people will say the same thing about the death penalty.

I think we should keep the death penalty why should we have people murder other people and live in prison the rest of their lives we should show them what the did to people i mean the deserve so i think we should keep the death penalty

We should keep the death penalty because if you take a persons life or multiple peoples lives then yes the state should take yours. Only if it was on purpose, because you get in a car crash and kill someone from the impact that shouldn't really count because it wasn't intended. Also if someone gets life in prison they get everything pretty much handed to them and they don't to pay for it. For example Nikko Jenkins killed multiple people on multiple occasions and no justice happened for the family's who had to deal with the loss of a loved one because hes just going to prison for life.

I think the death penalty is okay to have in every state. If you are willing to murder a person then you should be murdered yourself. The crime they commit should be used in the same way against them.

but are you willing to take it yourself for a crime that's the question everyone fears.

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.

Many students asked my view on this law.... I will simply say that I have felt grateful that 99% of my students followed my classroom policies 99% of the time with regards to seating charts, sanitizing, masks, etc. They respected my classroom all year long even if they personally disagreed with that. Now because of this new law (which is based more on partisanship than science) I am in the opposite role and I will trust and respect the choices students make in the last week of school whether or not I personally agree with their view. I know how to make changes in government when I feel a need for change. As always, if you have an opinion on this topic, I would love for you to respectfully share it here.

I do not believe the mandate should be lifted seeing as a lot of people are un-vaccinated, susceptible to COVID, and the herd immunity process is barely beginning. There's no way that we're going to eradicate COVID if we can't do the bare minimum of wearing masks. Most people don't even wash their hands for 20 seconds,and wear their masks under their nose. If we can't wear a mask correctly, can't wash our hands, and refuse to get vaccinated, I sincerely believe we might have to deal with COVID as we do with the flu by taking yearly shots and such.

I think this is wrong, I don't think they have a right to sue. They were told the rules before they had their little event, which I don't think they should have gotten in the first place. They just didn't like that the rules were enforced, and now they are mad. They shouldn't get the luxuries that we do because they are serving time for their crimes.

I don't think they have the right to sue the state. first of all, they were well aware of the rules before this event took place. It's also a health and safety issue with food being taken back to the living quarters. They are just mad they can't enjoy more of the luxury food they were given. Even though they are paying for the choices they made. So, they shouldn't have the right to sue.

I think they can cry about it. They didn't deserve anything in the first place. :D

I don't think they have the right to sue the state, I might have read this wrong but I didn't see anything about the state doing something that would offend them.

I don't think they can win this because it's not infringing any rights.

They shouldn't be able to sue the state because of Timer and Manner restrictions and they do put other people at some sort of state they shouldn't be. It's morally wrong and that can play a role in their case.

Definitely an interesting headline. The claimants (being unjudgemental) feel that they had a religious act violated by the Government. It's a complicated manner because in a way the Government did technically interfere with their religious freedoms because the Iowa Department of Human Services put the rule in place that inmates can´t take food into rooms for health reasons centrally not intending to block their freedom but instead concerned about safety and health. I think that even though in a way the claimants do have a point that their creepy and gross religious feast was blocked by the Government I also think the rules that were put in place to protect everyone in the prison. Old food can cause sickness, rancid smells, and pests so it Could interfere with other inmates that had nothing to do with the group and therefore I think that the Iowa Department of Human Services is in the right and should win the case.

They shouldn't be able to sue the state because of Timer and Manner restrictions and they do put other people at some sort of state, they shouldn't be able to do that!! It's morally wrong and that can play a role in their case.

i think if they got their way with this then it causes problems with other prisoners trying the same thing.

Honestly, the mandate is lifted (for Iowa at least) so if you do not want to wear a mask, vaccinated or not you shouldn't have to. It is your choice. And you should especially not have to have the vaccine to travel and put something in your body not proven to be safe or cause long-term effects. There are bigger problems to worry about than if Americans will lie and say they're vaccinated to not wear their mask especially if it's not mandated in the area.

I am interested in how the cases will turn out now that more people are not wearing masks. If it gets too bad I'm sure something else will be put into place.

I wonder how the government is going to force non vaccinated people to wear a mask. It is real easy to just say you're vaccinated when you really aren't.

i don't think that people will be honest about their vaccinations only to not wear their mask. not everyone carries their vaccination card with them(although we should, i know i don't)

I think this is going to be interesting to see. So many people were already refusing to wear masks and I think this might just make it worse.

I don't think this was the right move, as America is nowhere close to herd immunity

I have still seen people on social media that have admitted to not wearing masks and not getting vaccinated citing "My body, my choice". This is idiotic and people think that the government is out to get them and control them by wanting them to wear masks and getting the vaccine. There are also people who don't trust the vaccine for no good reason.

I don't think many people are out there being honest. Many are going to think that if it isn't required why would they wear one? It's a lot of trust on something you don't have a definite answer for.

now people might not be required to wear a mask if they are fully vaccinated so fewer people will stop wearing masks. Even people who are not vaccinated are going to use that excuse that "they are vaccinated"

People are going to lie about being vaccinated, just like they lie about having a medical exemption. All we can do is hope that people will be honest.

I agree that people who plan to kidnap someone, especially a government official should be thrown in jail. It's common sense.

I don't think anyone should threaten or joke about kidnapping or harming anyone in general. It's just not right, and they should be in jail because of it.

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.....

without twinkies what are we sopose to look forward to after working out

I heard something about this actually. The executive branch went to Hollywood, and asked them to come up with 50 impossible worst case scenarios. They are going to prepare for the top 10 or something. This is due to 9/11, nobody ever thought someone would be stupid enough to (and smart enough to pull it off) crash planes into 2 towers, and the pentagon. They thought it be impossible, so now the government is going to prepare for the impossible.

If you read the reasons for doing this, it actually makes sense. Although they might be preparing for "zombies," the training is really giving them experience that would let them handle terrorist attacks, mobs, etc. A doctor from the CDC said this: "If you are generally well equipped to deal with a zombie apocalypse you will be prepared for a hurricane, pandemic, earthquake, or terrorist attack." So while training our military for a zombie apocalypse might seem eccentric it really isn't. Besides, there are actually a number of theories on how humans could become zombie-like, and some of them are even backed up by science. The CDC also has a blog on how to prepare yourself for a zombie apocalypse. http://blogs.cdc.gov/publichealthmatters/2011/05/preparedness-101-zombie-apocalypse/

we are screwed...

This is ridiculous! Pigs will fly the day of an apocalypse!

This doesn't actually mean there is going to be a zombie apocalypse. People will believe anything the media puts out there. I agree with Mallory, if they are prepared for a science fiction "zombie attack" then they are prepared for almost any natural disaster or terrorist attack.

I agree with Emmali... for instance I want to marry Jessica Alba. We deserve to have our love recognized, but my wife won't let us get married.

I think she means if two people love each other they should be able to get married whether they are the same sex or not.

In all seriousness to the issue, the title refers to a Newsweek Headline of Obama being the "First Gay President" because he has thrown his support behind the same sex marriage movement. We will see how far his leadership on this issue goes. Later this month the US Supreme Court will decide a case of whether states can keep same sex couples from marrying http://www.oyez.org/cases/2010-2019/2012/2012_12_144

See, how does gay marriage affect straight marriage? It has obviously been like this for quite a while.. Iowa has not Blown up or anything because of it. It is obviously a control issue. I still don't understand why it is SO important to get rid of gay marriage.

re: Alex B - I think eating broccoli is 'disgusting' but I don't know that the government has any right to ban it. America is split 50/50 on this issue. I would welcome more people to give some opinions on this thread. I am interested to hear what are some of the reasons for differences in beliefs (rather than just personal preference) (maybe discussing rights and obligations of citizens/government)

The battle on Gay Marriage isn't one of "morals" or "protecting the foundation of marriage". This is an argument about religious ideals (Which shouldn't be expressed in our country that prides itself on having a separation of church and state) and Insurance rates. I honestly believe that keeping away rights like this is is prejudice and is in the same ball park as racial segregation. Alex: Then don't look.

i believe that it should be only men and women that can get married. thats how it was when my grandparents grew up and event my parents and thats the way i think it should stay. im not trying to be rude to any gay man or women its just my thoughts that men should marry women and women should marry men not marrying the same sex.

It's legal to marry your cousin in 16 states but you can't marry somebody the same gender as you? Gay marriage has been going on for such a long time now, what issues has it caused? Did wanting to marry another man/woman cause World War 1? There are incestual relations in religious writing, but wanting to marry someone the same gender as you is a sin? I find that disgusting, they have no right to ban love. Peace.

I could careless if you married the same gender as long as that person makes you happy then why does it even matter.

im sorry, somebody got on my thing and put that. i didnt

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.