Is the GOP saying it's OK to marry your sister/brother or first cousin?

[KansDem]

I know this may sound silly, but the GOP's fanatical campaign to define marriage as "between one man and one woman" does not leave out the prospect of marrying your sister/brother or first cousin. I don't see any Christian or Republican posters that read "Marriage is Between One Man and One Woman Provided They Are Not Your Sibling or First Cousin"



If their so-called "marriage amendment" passes and becomes part of the Constitution, will it prohibit marriage with your brother/sister and first cousin? Will it include the passage from The Bible forbidding interrelational marriage:

The more distantly related parents are, the more likely it is that they will have different mistakes in their genes. Children, inheriting one set of genes from each parent, are likely to end up with pairs of genes containing a maximum of one bad gene in each pair. The good gene tends to override the bad so that a deformity (a serious one, anyway) does not occur. Instead of having totally deformed ears, for instance, a person may only have crooked ones! (Overall, though, the human race is slowly degenerating as mistakes accumulate, generation after generation.)

However, the more closely related two people are, the more likely it is that they will have similar mistakes in their genes, since these have been inherited from the same parents. Therefore, a brother and a sister are more likely to have similar mistakes in their genes. A child of a union between such siblings could inherit the same bad gene on the same gene pair from both, resulting in two bad copies of the gene and serious defects.

Adam and Eve did not have accumulated genetic mistakes. When the first two people were created, they were physically perfect. Everything God made was "very good" (Genesis 1:31), so their genes were perfect -- no mistakes! But, when sin entered the world (because of Adam -- Genesis 3:6, Romans 5:12), God cursed the world so that the perfect creation then began to degenerate, that is, suffer death and decay (Romans 8:22). Over thousands of years, this degeneration has produced all sorts of genetic mistakes in living things.

Cain was in the first generation of children ever born. He (as well as his brothers and sisters) would have have received virtually no imperfect genes from Adam or Eve, since the effects of sin and the Curse would have been minimal to start with (it takes time for these copying errors to accumulate). In that situation, brother and sister could have married with God's approval, without any potential to produce deformed offspring.

By the time of Moses (a few thousand years later), degenerative mistakes would have built up in the human race to such an extent that it was necessary for God to forbid brother-sister (and close relative) marriage (Leviticus 18-20).(Also, there were plenty of people on the earth by then, and there was no reason for close relations to marry.)
http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c004.html



Don't the Repubs see how ridiculous this is?

[KellyW]

1. I don't think the marriage amendment will pass

Look who has come out against it.
the most right wing group there is:


For Immediate Release
June 5, 2006

MARRIAGE AMENDMENT DOES MORE TO PROMOTE CIVIL UNIONS THAN PROTECT MARRIAGE

White House & Religious Conservatives mislead American people on effect of MPA

Washington, DC – The Traditional Values Coalition will not attend the White House ceremony today to promote the Marriage Protection Amendment because it puts in the U.S. Constitution the right to civil unions and other forms of counterfeit marriage, which are one small step from full marriage rights for homosexuals.

“This amendment is a hollow gesture when it comes to protecting marriage,” said TVC Chairman Rev. Louis P. Sheldon. “It does not ‘fully protect marriage’ but it amends the Constitution to allow civil unions and other forms of counterfeit marriage in all 50 states.”

“I am disappointed in the White House, but I am even more disappointed in those social conservative leaders who have misled the American people into believing that the Marriage Protection Amendment will stop homosexual marriage. Promoting a civil unions amendment disguised as a marriage protection amendment is shameful.

“No reasonable person will deny marriage to homosexuals once a Constitutional right to a ‘civil union’ is established. And this amendment is not compassionate conservatism, this is unprincipled relativism.

“President Bush deserves the support of the American people, but the White House is wrong when they claim that the amendment would ‘fully protect marriage from being redefined.’

“But another disappointment in all of this is the group of prominent religious conservatives who traded civil unions for some empty marriage protections, knowing very well that this civil unions amendment will fast track homosexual marriage across America.

“These people are supposed to dig their heels in and refuse to compromise when it comes to principle. They are supposed to be the voices for those working people across America who can’t come to Washington to be heard. But that’s not what they did. They have acted like auctioneers who have tried to make the best deal for votes and, in the end, they have abandoned the principled defense of marriage and are still nowhere near the votes needed to pass this amendment.

“They talk tough rhetoric and bluster about changing Washington but, where it counts, Washington has changed them.”

###

[Name removed]

2. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[KansDem]

3. Will these laws supersede the Constitution, if amended?

I mean, the GOP amendment defines marriage as "between one man and one woman." Are we to assume this excludes siblings and first cousins? Do we take a chance and believe no one will try to marry their sibling or first cousin because of these "other laws?" If the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, then shouldn't it make it clear that marriage is defined as "between one man and one woman but not your sibling or first cousin?"

I say this only because the GOP fundies have not produced a slogan, poster, or talking point that makes this clear. Correct me if I'm wrong, but if you want to amend the US Constitution, don't you have to be very clear on what you want and how it's written?

[crazzy]

4. This is silly...

[snowbear]

5. They don't seem to mind that Guiliani was married to his cousin..

http://www.answers.com/topic/rudolph-giuliani