Okay DP!! I'm in need of opinions!

By Soulseeker

Okay.... I am in a big arguement with a teacher about this issue. I have my valid points and he has his. we agrued to the point where he kicked me out of class. Well... In order for all of this to be solved I have to have the opinions of others and make a chart weighing who says yes to the following question and who says no. PLease help me out so I can get my freaking grade.

1.Should congress provide MORE money to the military to increase benefits and support to soldiers and their families during times of war?

2.Should there be a constitutional amendment declaring that marriage in the United States consist only of a union between a man and a woman?
-Note: If there is a constitutional amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman, individual states could not issue marriage licenses to unmarried couples or groups who do not fit the set description.

Okay... Pick one and answer it. Please tell me more than yes or no and tell me which question you are answering. I perfer for these to be mailed to me on DP because I am hoping there will be more than one line responses. If you do not think you can do that, then you do not have to respond at all! Thank you all! Bethany

Unauthorized Copying Is Prohibited. Ask the author first.

Published on Tuesday, September 7, 2004. Filed under:

Comments on "Okay DP!! I'm in need of opinions!"

On Monday, January 10, 2005, BeautifulCalamity (428) wrote:

and in reference to your second question:: no , there should not be an amendment limiting gay marriages. . flat out, I think it's personal choice. . and it's not right of any human, regardless of status, to strip any other human of that practice. But yeah
On Monday, January 10, 2005, BeautifulCalamity (428) wrote:

Hmm.. I'd say that yes, they should be provided more money. simply because these soldiers sometimes have no other options other than the military, it is not always their fault and perhaps they don't support the war but they kind of have to be there. . .an
On Saturday, October 2, 2004, lordshadow (153) wrote:

answer to 1- me and my brothers and sisters deserve the money (even though I haven't quite figured out who is really getting it) answer to 2- there should be no argument about this issue- love is love regardless of it's shape.
On Sunday, September 19, 2004, MABUS (20) wrote:

answet to questin 1 is yes they deserve it for what they are doing. in answer to question 2 in my opinion i don't see what diffrence it makes if marriges are between same sex or not as long as they don't bother me i don't care its their life not mine.
A former member wrote: In answer to question 1: Yes. The soldiers are fighting for the American people, not themselves. In answer to question 2: No. The government should not 'define' the actions of anyone, regardless of circumstance.
On Tuesday, September 7, 2004, Northstar (374) wrote:

answering question 1--Yes--emphatically yes--because it is not the soldiers fault that s/he is off to war risking their life on behalf of whatever ends the government may go for---
On Tuesday, September 7, 2004, Northstar (374) wrote:

so the soldiers and their families should be compensated for the soldiers efforts and also because the family is without one full adult member...what if that soldier provided half the child care, or took care of an ill family member..
On Tuesday, September 7, 2004, Northstar (374) wrote:

---now those roles have to be filled by someone else and it may cost more to do so -- I know several families in such a predicament and there is nothing you can give families for removing one of their members to go to war-
On Tuesday, September 7, 2004, Northstar (374) wrote:

-financial support is the least of our obligations...we could get money for our soldiers by not paying Haliburton Industries the ridculous amount of money they make on contracts that werent even bid for in a competitive market ;-P
On Tuesday, September 7, 2004, A_Puppet_Show (163) wrote:

Second first: Marriage is not an political issue. Iran or the U.S same deal, same way of thinking. If you make religion a political issue one rule/law will apply to the next.
On Tuesday, September 7, 2004, A_Puppet_Show (163) wrote:

Learn it! Live it ... or be a national-socialist or find other "reasons" for that agenda. Or state that its a NO! in politics.
On Tuesday, September 7, 2004, A_Puppet_Show (163) wrote:

The first question is simple politics no matter how ugly it is. Are you a nation that are for or against violence? And if for, then for defence or attack? If against, then for defence if under treat?
On Tuesday, September 7, 2004, A_Puppet_Show (163) wrote:

When you find that out, work from there. The U.S got a past of expansion. If the U.S is still stuck in expansionism or not, I wont be the judge of today. And by not doing that, I cant say what politics should apply for the army either.
On Tuesday, September 7, 2004, A_Puppet_Show (163) wrote:

I fear the U.S army is not subject for politics, it is making them.
On Tuesday, September 7, 2004, OLd SouL (717) wrote:

1. no, the nation's deficit is out of control as it is.. how about concentrating on the social security problem.. natural disaster funds... welfare.. (plus, I do not support war)
On Tuesday, September 7, 2004, OLd SouL (717) wrote:

2. no, land of the free.. for me that means free to love and marry without prejudice
On Tuesday, September 7, 2004, Soulseeker (108) wrote:

I am sorry but I am NOT a nod and smile kind of person. When someone asks for my opinions then I give them unless I am unaware of the topic being discussed. I give thanks to everything except nod and smile...... WTF?!?
On Tuesday, September 7, 2004, TheLastDragon (69) wrote:

More power to you for that, but I've found that (at least for me), there will always be petty, self-rightous people above me, and manipulating them is neccessary for a time. In the interest of not being petty, I apologize for IMing you.
On Tuesday, September 7, 2004, TheLastDragon (69) wrote:

I didn't read the bottom paragraph, so here's my opinion on the first one: Military families already recieve generous bonuses, and our soldiers are paid well. People are just bitching because we're losing some people in Iraq.
On Tuesday, September 7, 2004, TheLastDragon (69) wrote:

1. No 2. No. And a little bit of advice, soulseeker: don't argue to that point with a teacher. Many of them are confident in thier own opinions. Just agree and smile, knowing that they're wrong.
On Tuesday, September 7, 2004, stormtalk (727) wrote:

A teacher who doesn't want to be argued should be fired.
On Tuesday, September 7, 2004, stormtalk (727) wrote:

And any student who nods and smiles should be beaten.
On Tuesday, September 7, 2004, Soulseeker (108) wrote:

Okay Mr. Apathy character... If you do not have anything intellegent to say it is best for you to... humm Shut up.. Here is a hint.. NEGLECT to let the world see that you know nothing but the worst definition of a word!
On Tuesday, September 7, 2004, Soulseeker (108) wrote:

Okay damn it... you are like the 50th person to look at this... RESPOND!!!