This was written on March 11, 2004 in response to an e-mail which stated that the government had some interest in regulating marriage. Specifically, the statement was made that the government had a vested interest in seeing that brothers and sisters don't marry:

I have to disagree here. The State has no right to regulate what is a religious issue. Period. Actually, it is an old wives tale that there would be deformities if a brother and sister procreate. In fact, that was common for the Pharaohs in ancient Egypt. It would be possible for a recessive gene to express itself, or more likely, but then if two people with a family history of diabetes procreate they are just as likely to create a "deformed" child (in this case, a diabetic child).

While it is true that disallowing procreation between brother and sister would cut some genetic defects, it would also make the proliferation of some desirable trait less likely. For example, if Einstein had had two children that procreated, then it would be more likely that they would be very intelligent. (In fact, I have read where after he divorced his first wife, Einstein married a first cousin, and but for age could have had children with her.)

The problem is Eugenics. Does the government have the right to breed people to fit some arbitrary model which they desire? Could the government declare that because someone has a low IQ, for example, that person is not to be allowed to procreate? Or, because the government thinks the person has a tendency to join the wrong political party?

I would say that for most religions, however, this is a religious issue, or at least for Christians, Jews, and Moslem's. I don't have enough experience with other religions to say for certain.

Further comments:

These comments were added March 18, 2004. This was in responds to an article in a ksgreen digest:

I the ksgreens digest I see an article about gay rights. I would like to point something out.

For those who believe in God, regardless of their stripes, it should be obvious that if homosexuality is natural, then there should not be any religious reason for apposing it. Therefore, it should be sufficient to show that homosexuality is natural. (Note, not an inheritable trait, which if it is, then it is natural, but that it can occur under natural conditions.) If it is natural, then to attribute any opposition to God would be in error.

And Jesus knew their thoughts and said unto them, "Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation, and every city or house divided against itself shall not stand. And if Satan cast out Satan, he is divided against himself; how then shall his kingdom stand? And if I by Beelzebub cast out devils, by whom do your children cast them out? Therefore they shall be your judges. Matt 12:25-27

(This is used in answer to an accusation that Jesus was of the devil because he case out devils.)

I cannot make a statement as to whether it is natural or not, as I am not homosexual. However, I will note that homosexual behavior occurs naturally in other species. In most species it is not an issue, because no permanent mating exist. That is, a male and female mate, than any bond between them is lost. (True of most mammals.) However, that is not true of most birds. Most birds mate for life in pretty much the same way people do (even going so far as to acknowledge that they have a divorce clause as well). A few years ago I became interesting in mating budgies (parakeets). When I read a few books on the subject, they noted that budgies mate for life (hence, pet shops will sell mated pairs for a big price). But there is a problem in that sometimes they mate with budgies of the same sex, that is, a homosexual mating.

If this is the case for budgies, and I assume their behavior would be considered natural since any human interference would be to go the other way. If this is natural in budgies, then why should I suspect this should not also occur with homo sapiens? This would indicate to me that it is natural, and, as I have said, to be natural is to say it cannot be immoral. Therefore, to declare such actions illegal would not serve even the will of God.