tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21572303.post6998164559869790460..comments2023-10-29T07:11:13.921-07:00Comments on The Rational Feast: Well Done!Tomhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03139711818373541945noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21572303.post-86870216409572355202008-09-17T15:19:00.000-07:002008-09-17T15:19:00.000-07:00"In 1787 the United States Constitution was ratifi..."In 1787 the United States Constitution was ratified. It counted each slave as three-fifths of a person"<BR/><BR/>I've seen this cited a lot as a condemnation of the founders. Has anyone looked at the history?<BR/><BR/>The slave states wanted each slave to count as a full person <I>for purposes of representation</I> and the free states did not want them to count at all <I>for purposes of representation</I>. Sounds backwards, doesn't it? That's because if slave states had had full representation of their slave populations, free states would never have had sufficient clout in Congress to eliminate slavery.<BR/><BR/>This wasn't a comment on the humanity or worth of a slave. Good people in the 1700's knew as well as we do today that slavery was an evil to be wiped out, but couldn't be at the time of the formation of the Union, as it was too weak to survive that fight--much like waiting to treat a patient for a dangerous condition until they've stabilized sufficiently to survive it. <BR/><BR/>I would hope any intelligent person today is very happy slavery was eliminated from the U.S. What we should not forget is the three fifths compromise laid the foundation for that to eventually happen, and was insisted on by people who thought slavery was reprehensible.Andrewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15584494649133280488noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21572303.post-13449446896054626122008-09-14T17:45:00.000-07:002008-09-14T17:45:00.000-07:00Lance -Here's the problem: horses can't enter int...Lance -<BR/><BR/>Here's the problem: horses can't enter into contracts, so man/horse marriage won't be happening. <BR/><BR/>In terms of sibling marriages, let me know when you have millions of brother/sister combinations fighting for their right to be civilly married.<BR/><BR/>Boundaries are set for a reason, eh? There used to be a boundary that prohibited interracial marriage. There used to be a boundary that kept women from voting.<BR/><BR/>Why specifically should this boundary you reference (which has already been crossed -- we now have marriage equality in California) be reinstated?Tomhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03139711818373541945noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21572303.post-7154394006003020752008-09-14T15:52:00.000-07:002008-09-14T15:52:00.000-07:00Next to be passed: A sister and brother have the r...Next to be passed: A sister and brother have the right to be married. Next on the list: A man can marry a horse. There is a line that needs to be drawn. Bounderies are set for a reason. We tollerate their beliefs, but tollerance does not mean that their beliefs are what is right. Do the RIGHT thing, vote "YES on 8!"Rondo Familyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06466794008456173968noreply@blogger.com