Posted on 12/22/2008 8:09:29 PM PST by CE2949BB
Laws banning marriage between first cousins are based on outdated assumptions about a high degree of genetic risk for offspring and should be repealed, according to a population genetics expert.
(Excerpt) Read more at sciencecodex.com ...
It will lead to poor genetics. We have seen inbreeding issues within tight lines of royalty.
We also see that inbreeding produces a weaker strain with respect to any animals we raise. we see increased problems with dogs that are inbred, cats, rabbits, etc.
Consanguinity has been a bar to marriage since the early Middle Ages. The point of the ban was to prevent family alliances from segregating the ruling, propertied classes into endogamous factions which, lengthy experience showed, was a recipe for endemic and irresoluble blood-feuds.
19th eugenics just offered another justification, with a veneer of scientistic rationality and without the icky unpleasantness of the Church spouting common sense.
First of all, it would seem that you are mixing up what I said with what others have said. My statements were stated with sarcasm. You might revisit my post and note the “God help us. ;-(“ at the end.
I am in no way an adherent of cousin on cousin marriage. Nor any other perversion of the marriage vows sanctioned by Gods Holy Word.
The people may not have, but all it takes is a judge to impose it on the people.
judges are lucky they aren’t generally removed the old-fashioned way anymore.
There’s nothing in the Bible against cousins marrying—that’s how the Lees and the other aristocratic families of the colonial era justified their inbreeding. Torah permitted uncles to marry nieces, as well, although many sages taught against it.
Who knew Harvard had so many professors from Arkansas?
Ziwi’s already intermarry brother’s and sisters.
I believe first cousins may marry in 38 states.
Given the choice between gay marriage and polygamy, I’ll take the one with biblical precedent before the one that is an abomination.
You said — “The people may not have, but all it takes is a judge to impose it on the people.”
It would seem that a significant number of the people have gone along with this — maybe not enough at this stage to create a voting majority, but that’s been changing.
The *confusion* is evident, though — about “moral absolutes” in that even right here on Free Republic, people cannot distinguish between the *moral absolutes* of the Bible (which is against homosexual marriage and homosexuality) — while that very same Bible (and God) is *not against* cousins getting married.
If people persist in this kind of moral confusion, then it’s no wonder that the homosexuals are gaining ground...
No matter what its genetic consequences, it is still unseemly (and a little bir creepy).
You said — “I am in no way an adherent of cousin on cousin marriage. Nor any other perversion of the marriage vows sanctioned by Gods Holy Word.”
The point I was making is that “God’s Holy Word” speaks to many moral prohibitions that you listed. And those should remain as they are *moral absolutes* which do not change over time.
But, if you list cousin marriage as in that list, then you’re wrong. You will find absolutely *nothing* against that in the Bible, and nothing that the Bible says that makes it a perversion for that to be.
In fact, we have some of our most famous Bible characters who were married, with full blessings from God, being cousins. Such is not condemned in the Bible for marriage.
You shouldn’t link something that happens to be “people’s opinions” and mix them up with God’s Holy Word...
Gee, you are right! Having spent almost 55 years studing the Bible … my understanding is almost assuredly off.
May you and yours enjoy a great and wonderful Christmas and a happy new year.
I got it from an episode of Married With Children and have used it ever since.
You said — “Gee, you are right! Having spent almost 55 years studing the Bible … my understanding is almost assuredly off.”
I will assure you — 100% — it is most certainly “off” in this regard, without a doubt. You need to look a lot closer at what you’ve been reading for 55 years...
Just having fun with you. We all learn everyday, the day we don’t learn something we are dead. In all my years of studying the Bible, I learn something new each and every day. Jesus be praised. ;-)
Sisters Leah and Rachel both married their cousin.... the same one. Jacob, who fled to his mother’s brother for shelter when his own twin brother wanted to kill him.
It didn’t turn out so well.
There are lessons to be learned.
Where did it go wrong? The polygamy or the cousin marriage?
The favoritism shown to one set of sons over the older boys?
Or way back when his uncle betrayed him by replacing his beloved bride with her older sister?
Just because some favorite Biblical characters did something doesn’t mean it was such a good idea.
The good news is that all the tricks and betrayals meant for evil were turned to serve God’s good purpose for His people because someone extraordinary, Joseph, was born from that mess.
Works with humans too. Track the bloodlines of Queen Victoria (Grandmother of Europe) and you will see.
Inbreeding also concentrates GOOD traits.
That’s dysplasia; I’m a German Shepherd nut. It has nothing to do with inbreeding being inherently worse than outcrossing.
If it weren’t for inbreeding, we wouldn’t have the German Shepherd and the Thoroughbred (I’m a racing nut too - in fact, I’m a pedigree nut) in such short times.
There are problems, but that is mostly from carelessness. There is nothing about inbreeding that inherently means bad things will surface.
Look at it objectively and you’ll see it’s mostly just the “eewwww” factor.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.