Almost Half of U.S. Births Happen Outside Marriage, Signaling Cultural Shift

Prove it.....

 

So should we deny infertile couples marriage?

 

Well infertile straight couples can't have kids so they shouldn't be allowed to marry?

Heterosexual couples HAVE to have kids or they can't get married??

 

No and we should not deny gays marriage based on fertility.

 

Then this argument is moot

 

Well if you were one of them what would have been your position?

Slaves should be counted fully for apportionment.
Slaves should be counted partially for apportionment.
Slave should not be counted at all for apportionment.

 

or for any other reason...they are human beings with the same rights as others.

 

What argument? All I was discussing was the fact that gay couples can't by themselves reproduce. Seems like a no brainier to me but there was someone in here that disagreed.

 

Here's a radical idea.....there should be no slavery. DUH

 

No because we hope that they can either be helped medically or will adopt a child in need of a mother and a father. The purpose of marriage is to encourage, support and sanction heterosexual unions in order to form the nuclear families so vital to our species and society.

 

No it is not. The purpose of marriage is whatever we decide its purpose is. The people have spoken

 

Well if you know history you know they could not do so and form the union. Slavery was LEGAL and a vital part of the economy at the time. The question was how should slaves be counted for apportionment if at all.

So try again

If you were one of them what would have been your position?

Slaves should be counted fully for apportionment.
Slaves should be counted partially for apportionment.
Slave should not be counted at all for apportionment.

 

Traditionally marriage has been between a man and a woman. It's a tradition not a right. Gays want to destroy that tradition and in this country they have the right to do so. Traditionalist also have the right to oppose them.

 

Yes they could have done so. They had choices. They could have made a better choice. They were wrong

 

No for our species and society that is the purpose of marriage, that is what "we" decided a LONG time ago and still holds true today.

 

That was a radical idea at the founding and there would be no union if it was imposed. Concessions were made by anti slavery forces in order to form the union.

 

Then no union it is. They could have done the right thing. It was a horrible concession

 

Artificially but still heterosexually.

 

The decision was made because of the threat of the crown making an attempt to regain power in the colonies. We needed a united front to guard against that. Easy to critisize now but America was fighting for it's very existence at that point and was very close to collapse.

 

Not an option, the only question was how to apportion the members of congress based on population and whether slaves would be counted in that apportionment.

"The Three-Fifths Compromise was a compromise reached among state delegates during the 1787 United States Constitutional Convention. Whether, and if so, how, slaves would be counted when determining a state's total population for legislative representation and taxing purposes was important, as this population number would then be used to determine the number of seats that the state would have in the United States House of Representatives for the next ten years. The compromise solution was to count three out of every five slaves as a person for this purpose. Its effect was to give the southern states a third more seats in Congress and a third more electoral votes than if slaves had been ignored, but fewer than if slaves and free people had been counted equally, thus allowing the slaveholder interests to largely dominate the government of the United States until 1861.[1] The compromise was proposed by delegates James Wilson and Roger Sherman."

How would you have voted?

 

A man of honor would have voted against slavery. It was the right thing to do

 

Black people were fighting for their very lives

 

Whether to have slavery was NOT the issue, slavery was legal in the states.

Here was the choice, the "3/5's compromise", the vote that was on the floor.

If you were one of them what would have been your position?

Slaves should be counted fully for apportionment.
Slaves should be counted partially for apportionment.
Slave should not be counted at all for apportionment.

 

There was never such a vote, it was not an issue.

Did you not study American History in school?

 

Just be glad the founders made the decision they did or you would be living in a British colony and not the United States and there would have been no civil war which freed the blacks from slavery much sooner that it otherwise would have happened.