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

The idea behind traditional marriage was to prevent girls getting pregnant with absent or even unknown fathers. For the benefit of the wellbeing of children. Two gays going at it hot and heavy doesn't give rise to those concerns. We don't know which sexual couples will produce children, but we do know that all who do, will be opposite sex couples.

 

I don't have a problem with government encouraging heterosexual couples to marry to reduce the #s of unmarried women with children and frequently absent or even unknown fathers. Children born to single mothers have higher rates of poverty, juvenile delinquency, teen pregnancy, HS dropouts, drug and alcohol abuse and criminal convictions as an adult. Reducing those #s provides a benefit to the whole society.
As a fan of small government, I have a real problem of using the discrimination of marriage to win more "respect and dignity" for gays.

 

My wife and I got married in our late 50s. No, we don't plan to have children so the idea of only getting married for children doesn't apply. Are you saying we shouldn't have been allowed to be married?

 

FoxHastings said: ↑
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??

The "idea behind traditional marriage" doesn't mean beans...


Why didn't you answer my questions?

 

It was not a vote to end slavery. It was a vote to support it

 

It also laid out the demise of slavery.

The migration or importation of such persons as any of the states now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight.

Which they did in 1808

 

Agreed.....and typical of liberals; they vote for the compromise then bitch and moan about it for decades.

 

....and you think the Euros had better ideas like indenturement, drawing and quartering and taxation without representation? Our Constitution was leaps and bounds ahead of anything in Europe at the time. Obviously you want to forget about all of that in order to keep nitpicking about the US and our Constitution.

Let's not forget that Britain still had slavery until 1833 and still allowed it in their colonies for longer.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_Britain
This case was generally taken at the time to have decided that the condition of slavery did not exist under English law, and emancipated the remaining ten to fourteen thousand slaves or possible slaves in England and Wales, who were mostly domestic servants.[7] However slavery elsewhere in the British Empire was not affected. Joseph Knight's case in 1778 established a similar position in Scots law. Slavery was abolished throughout the British Empire by the Slavery Abolition Act 1833, with exceptions provided for the East India Company, Ceylon, and Saint Helena. These exceptions were eliminated in 1843.

 

It was a vote on how the House of Representatives would be apportioned, what was "horrible" about it you would have preferred the population of "all other persons" not be counted at all or fully counted for the purpose of apportionment?

 

But it could apply and any sex in which you engage were it to produce a child that child would be in a nuclear family, or if you choose to take in a child that child would be in a nuclear family. The purpose of marriage is not to force but to encourage, support and sanction the nuclear family.

 

That should be up to us and is no one else's business. Disagreed on the "purpose of marriage", certainly where government is concerned. They should stay out of the bedroom. What's next? Mandating how many times to have sex? Only positions conducive to have babies? Banning contraceptives? It's not the government's business to dictate how people should live, what to think or what to do. It only serves two main functions; carry out duties that normal citizens cannot such as national defense and resolving disputes between the rights of citizens.

In the case of gays, I don't GAF how many times they ******k each other. It's none of my business. The only concern would be that the 14th Amendment be upheld along with all other Constitutional law.

 

And then why is it you insist that government make gay relationships their business by licensing and regulating gay marriages? Even though they've never been licensed and regulated before.

 

There's a word in the dictionary for those born outside of marriage. I assume it's no longer PC.

 

uhh, uuuh, uhhh, I'm hear Mr. Stein!

 

Sure but doesn't mean that we as a society should support, encourage and sanction it. And no one has any interest in your bedroom it's not about your bedroom. You use the word "mandate" as another strawman, no one has said anything about mandating or forcing what don't you understand about "support, encourage and sanction". And saying all persons can marry someone of the opposite sex does not violate the 14th Amendment as all people are treated equally.

 

Behavior that is easily determined to be the source of negative outcomes.

 

It was an affirmation that blacks were not whole persons. How can you not see that as horrible?

 

A bad idea is a bad idea

 

Yeah....it never outlawed slavery

 

No it wasn't. You cannot see that? It said that as a whole only 3/5's of all black people would count towards apportionment of the House representatives and for tax appropriation. Would you have voted to count all the black slaves in the apportionment numbers?

 

What was bad about how they apportioned for the House and taxation and what would you have done different?

 

Yes what a horrible thing....that every black person not even be counted

 

Every person should be counted....even if that gave the south more power. Of course then every person should also vote.

 

I agree but it’s easy Judge those people now but the culture was different then.

 

I think that the north didn’t want them counted at all , based on southern s viewing blacks as property. Southerns wanted it both ways not giving blacks rights because they were property in the same vein as cattle but wanting more representation based on numbers including blacks. The north didn’t want to count blacks when it came to representation so they made that compromise.