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

It really is difficult to have these discussions with people so ignorant of history and it makes me wonder what is being taught in schools these days.

 

How can something artificial be designated as heterosexual? Are you referring to gender? That there has to be a man and woman involved? What if both were gay?

 

Nope. They could have all decided to end slavery

 

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

You have a right to marry...so does everyone else. IF it's merely a tradition then there is NO reason why anyone can't do it...traditions aren't laws

Are you denying gays are human beings?

 

That's because they were racist

 

By all you mean the southern colonies that were totally dependent on slavery for their economy. That just wasn't going to happen. If southern states had to abandon slavery to join the union there would be no union.

 

Its not going to happen if you are racist.

 

No and you make the mistake of looking at the period then through the prism of today.

So should slaves have been counted for the purpose of apportionment for taxes and the House of Representatives?

 

It's a law based on tradition. Laws are often about preserving traditional social structure. For instance we have laws against adults having sex with children while other countries have no such laws. I myself just shrug my shoulders at gays wanting to get married and just say whatever but I do understand those who are against it and where they are coming from.

 

The southern colonies were extremely racist. Is this news to you?

 

It still takes a female ovum and a male sperm, a man AND a woman. That the sperm was injected into the woman's uterus artificially or fertilization in a petri dish does not matter. Neither two women nor two men can produce a child.

 

It is amazing and that they take it as some sign of racism that a compromise was met. What is really funny is that many believe it was the SOUTHERN states who did not want to count slaves as "full humans" and thus some slight to the African slaves, some put down, when in fact it was the Northern states who did not want to count them.

 

So were the Northern states, if you are going to use that term I don't know that it even existed back then, they did NOT want a huge population of black Africans in the north, they wanted to keep them in the South so they have more indentured servants as slaves, white slaves.

 

As were the founders

 

So how would you have voted in the 3/5's compromise?

 

I would abstain. What a horrible vote

 

Abstain means no union means we would likely be a colony of the UK now and slavery as an institution would have lasted much longer.

 

Difference is the northern states had a large contingent of anti slavery people that were very vocal on this. Washington himself said the institution of slavery was horrid even though he owned slaves and in his later years gave them all their freedom. Sad part is none of them wanted to leave because they were so we'll treated and there wasn't exactly lots of opportunities for blacks in that era so he said they could stay and he or his estate would care for them until their deaths.

 

It wasn't that big, the Northern states as did Europe relied on the slavery in the United States for their economies which wasn't limited to Southern States. The North was very fearful of large populations of blacks moving to their states and wanted to keep them in the South. Europe did not want to import black slaves onto their continent for fear of the populations it would create. It wasn't so altruistic as some would present.

 

Why would you have abstained a compromise had to be met. In your opinion should slaves have been counted fully for apportionment, some or not at all? It is just a political decision has nothing to do with whether you think of them as "human". How about illegal aliens today, should they be counted for apportionment?

 

That came from the Libertarian site, explaining rights. I had a homosexual brother and never scolded him nor cautioned him as he lived the life he wanted to live.

 

Claim: Washington called slavery horrid
Claim: Washington freed his slaves
FALSE

At the time of George Washington’s death, the Mount Vernon enslaved population consisted of 317 people.
Of the 317 enslaved people living at Mount Vernon in 1799, a little less than half (123 individuals) were owned by George Washington himself. Another 153 slaves at Mount Vernon in 1799 were dower slaves from the Custis estate. When Martha Washington's first husband, Daniel Parke Custis, died without a will in 1757, she received a life interest in one-third of his estate, including the slaves. Neither George nor Martha Washington could free these slaves by law and upon Martha’s death these individuals reverted to the Custis estate and were divided among her grandchildren.

4. Accounts vary regarding Washington’s treatment of the Mount Vernon’s enslaved population
Sources offer differing insight into Washington's behavior as a slave owner. On one end of the spectrum, Richard Parkinson, an Englishman who lived near Mount Vernon, once reported that "it was the sense of all his [Washington's] neighbors that he treated [his slaves] with more severity than any other man."

Conversely, a foreign visitor traveling in America once recorded that George Washington dealt with the people he enslaved "far more humanely than do his fellow citizens of Virginia."

What is clear is that Washington frequently utilized harsh punishment against the enslaved population, including whippings and the threat of particularly taxing work assignments. Perhaps most severely, Washington could sell a slave to a buyer in the West Indies, ensuring that the person would never see their family or friends at Mount Vernon again. Washington conducted such sales on several occasions.
On numerous occasions, people enslaved by the Washington household ran away in an attempt to regain their freedom.
Mount Vernon’s enslaved community took opportunities, when possible, to physically escape their enslavement. For example, in April of 1781 during the American Revolution, seventeen members of the Mount Vernon enslaved population—fourteen men and three women—fled to the British warship HMS Savage anchored in the Potomac off the shore of the plantation. In other instances, members of the enslaved community who were directly connected to the Washingtons either attempted to or were successful in their escape plans. These individuals included Washington’s personal assistant Christopher Sheels, whose plan to escape with his fiancée was thwarted; the family cook Hercules; and Martha Washington’s personal maid Oney Judge, both of whom escaped successfully.

https://www.mountvernon.org/george-washington/slavery/ten-facts-about-washington-slavery/

 

Just not with their same sex spouse.

 

I'm sure you do...

 

What was "horrible" about it?