I am deeply saddened by what happened in Newtown, Connecticut today, but I do not believe having a ban on guns would have prevented this from happening. This situation could of even been worse if guns were banned as he might of used a different method such as a bomb. Just for an example Timothy McVeigh used a truck bomb to kill 168 people. You may not want to compare the two but they are both mass killers and anyone that wants to make a public statement in such a horrific way will find a way to do it. They are psychopaths or I guess a better term would be sociopath and it seems people like them are becoming all to common. We need to find out whats causes people to snap like this and prevent that from happening.

I would not expect a murderer to get rid if his gun just because it is against the law and then use a knife instead. Then when the cops ask him "Why did you stab that innocent woman?" and he answers "Cause I had to get rid of my gun."

I have only been on here for a few days so I was generalizing on what I have seen so far. Sorry, for jumping so soon.

The people that argue that prostitution is not a free will because they grew up in an abusive childhood or some other situation like human trafficking, should note that, if it was legal then law enforcement could spend more time preventing real crimes like kidnapping, child molestation, or rape. If a woman charges money for sex because her pimp is threatening her with violence, wouldn't that be considered rape. That would be non-consensual sex. A crime should only be a crime if someone's acts violates someone else given unalienable rights.

The Main reason for marriage is to show love and unity. The main reason for reproduction is Sexual intercourse even though the main reason for sexual intercourse might be a different reason, and the main reason for raising the children is because someone has to and we are bound by our moral values to raise them or else they would not have there needs met and they would die.

Other reasons for marriage that some people might even have that are placed higher then love are government benefits such as; filing joint income tax returns, family partnerships in a business, life estate trusts, social security benefits, exemption for estate tax and gift tax, public assistance benefits, disability benefits, veterans benefits, obtaining insurance from spouses employer and other employer benefits and the list goes on.

The list of reasons and benefits is long. It is mostly for economic reasons. There are a lot of people out there that reproduce and never get married so I do not think that is a not even a reason for a lot of people. If you have a belief in a religion that states marriage must take place before you copulate then that would be a big reason but for many atheist and others get married for either social benefits or a right of passage to show there commitment of love. What is sad is that many that believe in marriage as part of there religious institute don't live up to their commitment.

You are completely wrong. I think there are numerous amount of people willing to consider other peoples opinions. They will consider it, flip it around and spit it back out at you. I think there are two types of people that like debates; those that are looking to solve issues and those that like to bring up issues. The people that like to argue are those that like to bring issue up to the table and the people that are willing to consider others opinions are those that like to solve the issues.The thing is the people that like to solve the issues don't speak up and just sit by listening to each side so you don't hear them. The whole point of a debate is to come to an understanding of each side. It will not necessarily be worked out but hopefully each side will understand each other.

I like to debate, 'cause I feel when people debate you can find solutions to problems that both sides can marginally agree with. That being said I am hoping there are a lot of issues to debate about, 'cause it is fun to hear all sides of a debate and if we start to resolve them all, there won't be anymore issues to debate. If that happens no one will have anymore fun.

I do not understand why it is illegal in the first place. Someone who wishes to be laid to rest peacefully without pain and suffering is not a victim of a crime and to the others that they leave behind must realize it will happen sooner or later anyway so they are not victims either. In fact I would say someone that is forced to stay alive in pain and torture is more of a crime then letting them go. If someone is not able to make a decision on their own health let their family decide there fate or write a living will before you get to that point. I think people should be outraged that this personal liberty is not available to them. The health care community probably disagrees with me because they make money off of keeping people alive just so they can take there money and let them die later. Psychiatrist are also a large part to this. Some people truly want to leave this world on their own terms and psychiatrist deem them depressed and prescribe them drugs to make them change their minds. Yes, I agree suicide is very selfish and gives no thought to those who care around but it is also selfish to think that just because you care about someone that person must stay around for your pleasure or lack of grief.

The conflict in the Goza Strip would be easier to mediate if we had an atheist president. Both Israel and the Palestinian people would see the U.S as more of a Mediator of peace rather then just an alley of Israel. I have no evidence to support a better more peaceful rational country or world with an atheist president because there has not been one that we publicly know of. (yet)

I think an atheist president would be great for the country. If he/she was a person of values and respected the rights and liberties of everyone equally it would not just benefit the United States but also the world.

Yes, there is a better way. Instead of voting for the candidate you want to win you can choose to cast your vote either for or against a candidate. If you vote against a candidate, you cancel a vote someone else submitted that was in favor of that candidate. That way it would give a third party candidate, that normally has views somewhere in the middle, a fare chance.

I also would support looking into having two votes, one for and one against and then using an instant runoff voting method. I don't agree with or current plurality method or any proposed instant runoff methods without having an against vote. We are a country that loves majority but we must also respect that of the minority. If we don't respect the minority we are no better then Hitler and the Nazis.