First-cousin Marriage?

[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.

 

[The Gnome King]

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.

A 1 in 20 chance of having a child with a birth defect is a "silly" concern to you?

We obviously have different hopes for any future children we might have!

 

[shintakie10]

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.

A 1 in 20 chance of having a child with a birth defect is a "silly" concern to you?

We obviously have different hopes for any future children we might have!

And its a 1 in 40 chance normally. That doesn't mean we should all stop havin children because theres a ridiculously low chance of havin a birth defect if you do.

 

[Robert Ewing]

Dear god that's gross. Second cousin I can understand, but never, ever first cousin. Too closely related for it to be good.

 

[The Gnome King]

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

I am having a hard time wrapping my mind around how a person could casually mathematically DOUBLE their child's chances of having a birth defect from 1 in 40 to 1 in 20 and this not cause them any worry... I guess we just have different priorities/feelings on this.

Personally, in this world of 6 billion people procreating with a family member sounds like genetic suicide. Down the line; might come back to bite ya. Why take a chance?

It's like... let's say smoking while you are pregnant doubles the chances of having a birth defect.

Would you smoke?

 

[shintakie10]

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

I am having a hard time wrapping my mind around how a person could casually mathematically DOUBLE their child's chances of having a birth defect from 1 in 40 to 1 in 20 and this not cause them any worry... I guess we just have different priorities/feelings on this.

Personally, in this world of 6 billion people procreating with a family member sounds like genetic suicide. Down the line; might come back to bite ya. Why take a chance?

It's like... let's say smoking while you are pregnant doubles the chances of having a birth defect.

Would you smoke?

The statistical probability of causin a birth defect due to smokin while pregnant is astronomically higher than that of a incestuous relationship causin one. Pick your arguments better.

I am casually dismissin it because the number is still statistically low. Examples of another thing I dismiss. 1 out of 67 people who get in their car will die in a car accident. I'm willin to bet that number is far more than double that of takin a bus, or bikin, or even walkin to where I need to go. Does that stop me from drivin to Burger King to save myself 10 minutes of walkin? Nope. Not at all.

Statistically speakin the fact that I'm eatin Burger King as much as I do means I have a much higher chance of health problems down the road. Does that mean I'll stop eatin fast food? Fuck no...it tastes delicious.

A 4% chance to birth a child with defects is absolutely not somethin that should be cause for it to be illegal and is definitely not somethin that should cause so many people to get all wigged out about.

 

[Kuroneko97]

This thread is so much more disturbing when everyone's avatar picture is Justin Bieber.

 

[Kouen]

Me personally, No. its too close to home. then again any relation by blood to me is too close.

Thats just me speaking for me and my opinion though

 

[The Gnome King]

The statistical probability of causin a birth defect due to smokin while pregnant is astronomically higher than that of a incestuous relationship causin one. Pick your arguments better.

Actually:

http://www.webmd.com/baby/news/20110711/smoking-in-pregnancy-raises-birth-defect-risk

The statistical probability of a birth defect from smoking is LOWER than it is for an incestuous relationship. Do your research. And it didn't matter in this respect, I said WOULD YOU if the situation was the same. Just answer - would you smoke, if your doctor said it raised your chances from 1 in 40 to 1 in 20?

I am casually dismissin it because the number is still statistically low.

You... assess risk vs. reward differently than I do. For me, the reward of "breeding" with my cousin is far, far lower than any "reward" I would get from doing it.

Maybe your mileage varies.

 

[SirMarth01]

Doubles from about 2% to 4% but that includes any genetic defect no matter how minor.

I don't know about everyone else, but I find these numbers much more interesting whenever they're inverted to show those who lack genetic defects, and put into a much larger scale.

Using these numbers, 980 out of 1000 are born completely fine in "normal couples", whereas 960 out of 1000 are born completely fine in first cousin marriages.

The fact that we ban people from expressing mutual attraction due to the fact that, should they desire to have offspring (which is not necessarily guaranteed), they have a 2% greater chance of giving birth to a child with genetic defects of any sort, amuses me. We do not ban alcoholic beverages or tabacco products, yet these produce potential harm upon others. This double standard of allowing potential harm in some cases, while denying things based off of potential harm in other cases, seems quite odd to me.

Also, for anyone that has any interest in it, an XKCD comic [http://www.xkcd.com/1003/] inspired a rather interesting debate about incest in the forums for it [http://forums.xkcd.com/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=79431]. Many interesting points to be had, although many posts are quite long.

 

[Loop Stricken]

You... assess risk vs. reward differently than I do. For me, the reward of "breeding" with my cousin is far, far lower than any "reward" I would get from doing it.

Maybe your mileage varies.

Well if you're in love, I'd say ones mileage WOULD vary.