First-cousin Marriage?

[The Gnome King]

Didn't a lot of major history figures have first-cousin marriages?
Albert Einstein is one that I know of.

From what I read, first cousin breeding is double (2% to 4%) the chance of a birth defect. (Or quadruple, 1% to 4%) which is sort of reasonable.

I think it's quite a lot lower with second-cousins. (1.5~2%)

That is nearly a 1 in 20 chance of birth defects for 1st cousin births if your stats are correct.

I certainly wouldn't want to have a child with those odds.

It's not the cousin sexin' that bothers me; it's the inbreeding. I think we should all seek out people who look the LEAST like us and have beautiful, tan-colored babies.

 

[Vivi22]

First cousin would be a child of a brother or sister, way too close genetics wise. I don't know all the facts on this but I think most babies born out of incest have mental and physical disabilities or a much higher chance of

Firstly, perhaps you simply worded your post wrong, but a first cousin is the child of an aunt/uncle. So the child of one of my aunts or uncles is my first cousin. Genetically that is not as close as a brother or sister.

Secondly, the health risks tend to get overblown. There is increased risk of passing on genetic disease if both people are carriers for it (which is admittedly more likely with fairly close family), but if that's the argument for outlawing it then you might as well require people who want to date or marry get a genetic test to determine if they're both carriers for common genetic illnesses. It's a bullshit rationalization if you don't apply it equally to everyone because two people who aren't related could still be carriers for a genetic illness or disability. It also ignores that some people may not want to reproduce anyway.

The only reason it's illegal is because when most people think about sleeping with a relative it weirds them out. Rightfully so if you were reasonably close growing up since close familial relationships which are formed from a young age engender completely different feelings than meeting someone later in life and starting a relationship with the intent of it being romantic or sexual in nature. Or even pursuing a simple friendship. So because most people think it's disgusting for no other reason than because they would never want to do it it gets outlawed. Then come the rationalizations to try and justify it logically, though I don't know of any that really hold up.

 

[StBishop]

Everything that does not result in the direct harm or repression of another person should be legal.

Offspring included in this?

OT: It's pretty yuck.
It's also illegal in Australia. I can't imagine anyone wants this changed. (At least not outside of Tasmania. HAR HAR HARRR!)

 

[esperandote]

Think of hollidays and in law relatives, you cousin would be your brother in law, your ant and uncle your parents in law, your kids your nephews!!!

 

[cdstephens]

I think most people consider it taboo because when they think cousin marriage they think about marrying their own cousin. Since they probably spent time with their cousin or their cousin's parents at a very young age, they grew up with an inherent instinct to not pursue relations to them (reason why siblings don't feel attraction towards each other if they were brought up together). Since they treat marrying their own cousin with repulsion, they treat all cousin marrying with repulsion. This probably became prevalent to the point where the repulsion is reinforced by societal norms. Just my theory anyway.

 

[Flamezdudes]

Doesn't sit right with me. There's a lot of people in the world, I don't get the need to keep it in the family.

I don't think it is practiced sometimes because of "Wanting to keep it in the family", but because sometimes things happen and relatives can sometimes become attracted to eachother and want to be together. And personally, what right do we have to say no? Obviously, measures should be taken to make sure problems don't arise though.

 

[shintakie10]

Didn't a lot of major history figures have first-cousin marriages?
Albert Einstein is one that I know of.

From what I read, first cousin breeding is double (2% to 4%) the chance of a birth defect. (Or quadruple, 1% to 4%) which is sort of reasonable.

I think it's quite a lot lower with second-cousins. (1.5~2%)

That is nearly a 1 in 20 chance of birth defects for 1st cousin births if your stats are correct.

I certainly wouldn't want to have a child with those odds.

It's not the cousin sexin' that bothers me; it's the inbreeding. I think we should all seek out people who look the LEAST like us and have beautiful, tan-colored babies.

And its a 1 in 40 chance to have a child with a birth defect normally. Does that mean everyone shouldn't have children?

You have a higher percentage chance of catchin a cold simply takin public transportation than you do of havin a child with a birth defect due to incest. People hate it because they think its icky and weird and then try to defend their views with the birth defects defense when they're wrong, just...wrong.

On topic. Yeah its still looked down upon here in the US and as far as I remember is still illegal for no actual reason other than religious reasons. I still make the occasional joke about inbred yocals and whatnot, however my official view is this. If the incestuous relationship is some creepy power thing then of course its a bad thing, but two people that love each other is never a bad thing. Anyone who believes otherwise has no moral ground to stand on other than "but its icky!" to which I say so was interracial marriage before people wised the fuck up and realized that what happens between two consentin people is none of their god damn business.

 

[Silvianoshei]

It has nothing to do with disgusting. Two men having sex together doesn't produce offspring that could potentially have genetic damage due to inbreeding. Hell, I breed dogs and cats and WE avoid inbreeding in our ANIMALS because it causes so many health problems.

When a couple does something that they know will produce a child with a higher percentage chance of birth defects, they are indeed involving the government - especially if they use health care provided by a public system. It's a give and take; we need to decide HOW damaging a thing is, not how "disgusting" a thing is.

If you want to argue that gay men having sex together is somehow damaging I don't agree with you; but at least the argument would be able to get started. "Damaging" is something we can quantify, "Disgusting" is just something that elicits a feeling.

Fine. Let's talk "damaging."

Technically Anal Sex is incredibly high risk, as it's receptive form is the most efficient way of STI transmission. Much more "damaging". Do we ban that? No.

Also, take a genetics course, PLEASE, because you're wrong. Firstly, DNA is not "damaged" when you inbreed, you simply have less diversity in terms of your genetic pool. It does NOT automatically increase your chances of genetic defect, it just means that if both your parents had a chance, because they're from the same family, then your chance is slightly higher. It would be the same if two completely unrelated people with those same potential defects had a child.

Also, please don't compare dogs to humans; there is a reason why animal studies are never accepted as evidence for biological plausibility in Hill's causal criteria. It takes GENERATIONS of inbreeding in humans for there to be a significant chance of that potential defect occurring. As in several; 6 or 7. You know how long that is these days? Almost two centuries of inbreeding.

Do you understand? This is not a public health issue. It's a cultural one.

 

[Noshien]

As regards to legality, most countires in the world allow first cousin marriage (including Australia). The only places where it isn't allowed are China, India, a number of countries in southeast Asia, several eastern European countries, and many states. Even in the states it is legal in California and most east coast states.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cousin_marriage

Ok this is sort of a weird first post.

 

[Burst6]

If they want to get married and have a child via artificial insemination from someone else, fine.

If they want to have children.. well.

The government is involved in this. Correct me if I'm wrong but, don't most governments help people out with disabilities? If the parents are knowingly giving birth to children with a higher chance of disabilities, Then the government stands to lose money from it. Also isn't the health care in Sweden mostly government run? If the child gets serious problems later on the government pays for it.

I'm not saying giving birth to children with a higher chance of genetic defects is horrible. If someone has a history of genetic problems he/she should not be cut off from a relationship. They should be allowed to have children because there's no real alternative for them. And diversifying the genetics of their family is much nicer than just cutting them off.


So to sum it all up. I'm ok with homosexual incest. Heterosexual incest is troublesome, and even if they don't plan to have children accidental pregnancy is always a risk. I don't think it should be encouraged.

 

[MPerce]

I wouldn't recommend making a habit of it in your family, but........sure, I guess? I would never even think about doing it, but it's not a huge health risk unless it happens over multiple generations. So have at it, if you're into that sort of thing.

It's your life, so why should I care?

 

[Bertylicious]

Everything that does not result in the direct harm or repression of another person should be legal.

Offspring included in this?

OT: It's pretty yuck.
It's also illegal in Australia. I can't imagine anyone wants this changed. (At least not outside of Tasmania. HAR HAR HARRR!)

One could just as easily argue that people with a possibility to pass genetic medical conditions to their children should be prohibited from breeding. I'm sure you'd agree that such a practice would be unconscionable.

 

[babinro]

I don't consider it wrong so long as those people genuinely love each other.

When health risks become involved for their offspring than I'd hope they'd strongly consider adoption or another alternative.

My answer is the same regardless of family relation.

 

[StBishop]

Everything that does not result in the direct harm or repression of another person should be legal.

Offspring included in this?

OT: It's pretty yuck.
It's also illegal in Australia. I can't imagine anyone wants this changed. (At least not outside of Tasmania. HAR HAR HARRR!)

One could just as easily argue that people with a possibility to pass genetic medical conditions to their children should be prohibited from breeding. I'm sure you'd agree that such a practice would be unconscionable.

Nope, I think that eugenics are, within reason, a good idea.

I don't think it could ever be handled well, no person should have that much power. I don't think that people with inferior genes should breed though.

I think that society protects weaker genetic examples when it shouldn't.

That being said, my dad was born a cripple and he climbed over half way up Everest at 48. It's up for debate where his (and by extension my) genes fall.

 

[Odbarc]

Didn't a lot of major history figures have first-cousin marriages?
Albert Einstein is one that I know of.

From what I read, first cousin breeding is double (2% to 4%) the chance of a birth defect. (Or quadruple, 1% to 4%) which is sort of reasonable.

I think it's quite a lot lower with second-cousins. (1.5~2%)

That is nearly a 1 in 20 chance of birth defects for 1st cousin births if your stats are correct.

I certainly wouldn't want to have a child with those odds.

It's not the cousin sexin' that bothers me; it's the inbreeding. I think we should all seek out people who look the LEAST like us and have beautiful, tan-colored babies.

Genetically speaking, I think it's a lot more prone to have healthy babies this way.
I saw a documentary on it. I forget the number, but two same race people have a lot of common genes versus two very different people (mixed races).
I forget most of it, so I won't say much more on the matter.
[Captcha: that's enough]

 

[ThePenguinKnight]

You should be free to marry whoever you like even if it is your first cousin. It's our bodies and we should be free to do what we like with them so long as it's not harming others who are unwilling.

 

[SonOfVoorhees]

Imagine, as a child, the kids in your school find out your parents are first cousins? Ban it for the children.

 

[shintakie10]

No, marrying your first cousin is wrong, if you really can't find someone outside you're own family then you have no hope. In olden days, it was the norm for some families but things have changed and I do not frown on anyone who had to do back then but now it is not necessary.

Why is it wrong though is the question no one seems to answer without usin the "Its icky" defense or possibly the religion says its bad defense.

Its not an issue of necessity. People fall in love with whoever they fall in love with. Whether its your best friend, a person you met in a bar, your professor, your cousin, or even your sister/brother, it isn't ever wrong unless it is with someone who can not possibly consent to anythin.

 

[shintakie10]

No, marrying your first cousin is wrong, if you really can't find someone outside you're own family then you have no hope. In olden days, it was the norm for some families but things have changed and I do not frown on anyone who had to do back then but now it is not necessary.

Why is it wrong though is the question no one seems to answer without usin the "Its icky" defense or possibly the religion says its bad defense.

Its not an issue of necessity. People fall in love with whoever they fall in love with. Whether its your best friend, a person you met in a bar, your professor, your cousin, or even your sister/brother, it isn't ever wrong unless it is with someone who can not possibly consent to anythin.

The hazards of having a child with a cousin, sibling or other family, is great resulting in birth defects or worse. From many moral backgrounds, be it religion or just how you were brought up to believe, a relationship with your family is generally frowned upon. Inbreeding is a common practice in some communities and look how they turned out.

Spoiler

That was a joke btw.

I suppose you can't help love, but having a child with family is dangerous. It's like an 18 year old marrying a 60yr old, it is socially frowned upon.

The chance of havin a child with a birth defect due to incest is still only 4%, double that of normal relationships at 2%. Both numbers are so statistically low that you can easily ignore them outside of use of acknowledgin it.

Seriously...tryin to say that a 2% increase in chances for birth defects suddenly makes it dangerous is ridiculous and makes you look silly.

 

[The Gnome King]

Fine. Let's talk "damaging."

Technically Anal Sex is incredibly high risk, as it's receptive form is the most efficient way of STI transmission. Much more "damaging". Do we ban that? No.

1) The damage can be reduced to 0 in a stable, monogamous homosexual couple who have no STIs.
2) The damage can be greatly reduced by condom usage.
3) We're talking about damage between consenting adults vs. damage you are going to potentially do to a new human life; very large difference. You're bringing a 3rd party into the equation.

Also, take a genetics course, PLEASE, because you're wrong. Firstly, DNA is not "damaged" when you inbreed, you simply have less diversity in terms of your genetic pool. It does NOT automatically increase your chances of genetic defect, it just means that if both your parents had a chance, because they're from the same family, then your chance is slightly higher. It would be the same if two completely unrelated people with those same potential defects had a child.

As an aside; I actually support genetic testing for anyone who plans on having a child.

Also, in my eight(+) years of college I've taken a couple genetics courses. You might be interested in these links:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6509683

and

http://www.biolreprod.org/content/early/2010/05/24/biolreprod.110.084798.full.pdf

The first relates to humans, the second to possible damage done to sperm DNA done in other species... and yes you can't use animals in human studies, but if YOU have taken genetics courses you know much crossover is done this way because all living beings, well, have DNA. We can make certain guesses based on this.

Also, please don't compare dogs to humans; there is a reason why animal studies are never accepted as evidence for biological plausibility in Hill's causal criteria.

Correct; and you also know that animals are seen as a rapid way to get results with genetic testing BECAUSE you can breed so many generations so quickly.

Almost two centuries of inbreeding.

So as long as it takes a while, the damage is acceptable? Personally, when I sought out genetic children I looked for breeding partners as far away from me genetically as possible; and I am happy I did. I know these discussions make people uncomfortable but really, remove all the "ew eugenics" feelings from it and just look at current medical technology and the wisdom of having a child without at least considering his or her genetic future.

My two cents on that.

Do you understand? This is not a public health issue. It's a cultural one.

Peace, brother or sister. We can disagree without questioning each other's comprehension abilities. Yes, I do understand what you are saying I simply think we disagree.