First-cousin Marriage?

[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%)

 

[The Gnome King]

What do you think of it? Is it wrong? Is it okey? Why is it wrong/okey?
Reason I am asking is that here where I live (Sweden), it's legal, but I claimed that people still think it is a bit..Weird. I am fairly certain that people still look down upon the act.
I got in an argument with a friend concerning if this is true or not.
Well, what do you think? Is it looked down upon where YOU live?

Personally, I'd want my children to be more genetically diverse for a wide range of biological health reasons.

Honestly, if somebody I knew and loved was planning on marrying their first cousin I would ask them to consult with a genetics expert, a doctor who works in the field.

People get "squicky" feelings about sex with close family members for a reason. Look at what happened when certain aristocracies tried to keep their bloodlines "pure" by familial inbreeding. Anemia, poor lifespan, and poor health eventually resulted.

Where I live, in the heartland of the USA, yes, it would be considered very odd to marry your first cousin. My first cousins are like siblings to me. Ew.

 

[JediMB]

I'm also Swedish.

Not interested in marrying a cousin, but also not judging anyone else for it. Consenting adults and all that. The risks for potential offspring are so miniscule that it's not worth thinking about (unless inbreeding becomes a family tradition).

That said, I also think siblings should be able to marry (again, consenting adults), but in this case I'd actually be strongly against any procreation between them. (Note: I do not support forced sterilization. I would expect the participants in the relationship to practice their preferred form of safe sex.)

 

[The Gnome King]

Is two men having sex disgusting? The real question is, are you in position to judge them? Answer is no. Therefore, this discussion is moot, marrying your cousin is not my business, you can do whatever you want. I won't say anything.

It's called cultural relativism, folks. We're all supposed to practice it, right? Riiiiight?

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.

 

[The Gnome King]

Is two men having sex disgusting? The real question is, are you in position to judge them? Answer is no. Therefore, this discussion is moot, marrying your cousin is not my business, you can do whatever you want. I won't say anything.

It's called cultural relativism, folks. We're all supposed to practice it, right? Riiiiight?

To add - if these first cousins decided to get together and NEVER have children, always using birth control?

Yeah, then it's none of my business and I don't even care if they're brother and sister. I might find it disgusting, but I wouldn't try to make it illegal.

 

[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.