Marriage between first cousins

[Luciana]

I've been reading this thread, trying to figure out why you are so passionate about this particular subject, and for the life of me, I can't seem to come up with anything that would justify the amount of venom I'm seeing in your posts (other than, perhaps, you are married to your own first cousin or want to be married to them, but you already denied a similar insinuation so I'm not really wanting to go with that one).

Venom? There is never any venom in any of my posts.

And, actually, the idea that I can't have an intellectual interest outside of a personal situation is slightly offensive. I have no personal stake here, never demonstrated that, and it disappoints me that people feel the need to investigate such possibility. Hope people don't consider that if I ever start a thread on terrorrism.

Not to mention how you keep ignoring the posts made about the biological risks associated with such incestuous relationships (those risks, for the record, are greater amongst a large population than they are amongst a small population).

I have not ignored it at all. Reread of my posts, most of them dealt with genetics. And what prompted me to start this thread was an article about how science dispelled the notion that first cousin breedings are dangerous. Not more so than pregnancies in women over 40.

Yes, here in the US having a relationship with one's own first cousin is considered incest. The social taboo is the other reason some states have banned the marriage of first cousins.
Maybe where you live it's not considered incest. Fine. But incest is one of those things that is defined by the society and culture in which one lives. The society and culture (what little there is) in the those states of the US have decided that sexual relationships with one's first cousin are incestuous.

And taboos must persist indefinitely? No society can rise above it? I believe the US can. Interracial marriage was once prohibited in many places.

The US is not the only government to have this view. Both the Orthodox Church and the Roman catholic church ban marriage between up to fourth cousins (thats much more restrictive than the US, by the way). The Netherlands also restricts marriage between cousins. China does as well, although only if cousins through the father's brothers. So why exactly are you picking on the US about it?

Oh, you are taking the personally! "Picking"? How about "trying to debate with maturity?"

The Roman Catholic Church? Evidence?

I did not know that the Netherlands restricts marriage between cousins. And bring all those Chinese posters so I can ask them, please. Oh, wait. And, btw, even then I could choose to direct my question to a member of a western society, because I'm not at all acquainted with Chinese culture.

 

[gumboot]

However, assuming that the incest taboo is hardwired into us, there wouldn't be that much of it occurring naturally.

This, really, is the crux of the problem. Is it hard-wired into us, or is it a social construct? If it's a social construct, removing prohibitions against it will gradually lead to acceptance socially, at which point it may become increasingly common.

A sibling is actually, socially, the ideal partner, and you'll find that many people eventually settle on partners that are very similar to which ever sibling they most closely relate to.

 

[Luciana]

Luciana -- Thanks for the interesting thread. As posited by an earlier poster, I believe that the legal prohibition reflects a social taboo; which, in turn, was stirred in part by the "hillbilly" phenomenon of cousins' offspring marrying cousins' offspring that are themselves cousins. And, er, yeah, some seriously scary things resulted. The other piece that may have been--note that I say "may have been", not "was"--involved was trying to keep all the property from being tied up in one family group.

It's hard to see why the concerns of a low-knowledge, limited transportation, limited communication 19th century worldview would apply now. No longer do we have extended families sharing one big family farmhold, where cousins grow up as emotional siblings--which, I think, is the "best" argument for banning such a union, it's emotionally incest exactly as step-siblings are, despite lack of consanguity--and if we do, it is an issue of choice, not physical boundaries to information or travel.

So, I guess if Washington prohibits first cousins from marrying, I'd support repealing that law...but it's far down my list of priorities. There are many more egregious injustices, that affect many more people, on my list.

For instance, I just read that a WA state legislator wants to have the State collect DNA samples (and store the information in a database) for anyone arrested for a felony. Not convicted, nor even charged: simply arrested for a felony! This is an enormous violation of the accused's right to privacy, and implies a presumption of guilt that is in direct conflict with the fundamentals of our justice system.

That's just an example, no derailing intent (I'll take up that issue as its own thread later this week). So, while I do care, I don't care enough to mount a campaign; in fact, I'm not sure I care enough to try to research whether or not Washington State has the ban against such marriages.

We all pick our battles. This is not, at this time, something that engages my outrage reflex enough. Perhaps some grasp of how common this issue is, and how much it is enforced, would change that.

Another, related, idea is that there should be a "sunset" committee that reviews laws to see if they need to be repealed. Of course, members of the public can lobby to have specific laws looked at, so this kind of thing would fall into the "likely to be reviewed" category.

Hope I haven't completely puzzled you, Miss Kitt

No, you haven't confused me. Thanks for your elucidating post.

I know that at this point people might not believe this, but I was mostly curious, because I thought that such laws were so absurd at this day and age. People can get married to people 50 years their senior; can stay married for months, or only days; can get married 9 times, etc., so who would care enough about cousins to make a whole law to prohibit such marriages?

And it that was once the case, that people cared, or still do, shouldn't the new discoveries of science start to demolish that taboo? Once the superstitious fear of deformed children is gone (as opposed to the realistic one, the one that takes into account the probabilities provided by science), perhaps people should start reconsidering the taboo. There is a major geographic mobility in society, cousins may not see each other for years, or not at all, so doesn't it seem now completely arbitrary that they can't get married?

I see your point about not being an important matter, at least not if no one or very few to bothered to fight for it. There are more important issues going on right now.

 

[Luciana]

This, really, is the crux of the problem. Is it hard-wired into us, or is it a social construct? If it's a social construct, removing prohibitions against it will gradually lead to acceptance socially, at which point it may become increasingly common.

It might become more common, once the taboo is removed, but how prevalent it will ever be?

Nowadays, people have a much wider pool of prospective spouses. People meet over the internet from far away places, they move from town to town after jobs, they travel abroad frequently for business or leisure, they're less prejudiced regarding races and nationalities (in most western countries, at least), age is less relevant, etc. They're rarely tied to a land. They can get maried to people of other religious. So I really don't see how and why people would be so particularly enthusiastic about getting married to a cousin.

However, I can see how a cousin couple who is in love could get a chance of getting married without the taboo of such a heavy word, "incest". It might not take long until someone raises the voice to demand awareness to such an issue.

A sibling is actually, socially, the ideal partner, and you'll find that many people eventually settle on partners that are very similar to which ever sibling they most closely relate to.

Many people get married to people who resemble their mothers or fathers also. The difference being that sexual attraction isn't there with mom and dad, to most people, I believe, whereas a hot partner with familiar traits can seem just perfect.

 

[Skeptic]

Yes, I want it answered. Why NOT full siblings? The entire "evil society prevents people who love each other to be together" seems to work entirely the same way in that case.

 

[Roboramma]

I've been reading this thread, trying to figure out why you are so passionate about this particular subject, and for the life of me, I can't seem to come up with anything that would justify the amount of venom I'm seeing in your posts (other than, perhaps, you are married to your own first cousin or want to be married to them, but you already denied a similar insinuation so I'm not really wanting to go with that one).

Funny that you say you're not interesting in making an insinuation after you just made it. If you weren't interested in making the insinuation, why type it?

Not to mention how you keep ignoring the posts made about the biological risks associated with such incestuous relationships (those risks, for the record, are greater amongst a large population than they are amongst a small population).

Ignoring? Wasn't the fact that those risks are extremely minor the whole point of the thread?
She certainly seems to have addressed them numerous times, including in her response to the post I made earlier in the thread.

Yes, here in the US having a relationship with one's own first cousin is considered incest. The social taboo is the other reason some states have banned the marriage of first cousins.

Okay. The next question is whether or not that's a valid reason in your view: ie. should things that are taboo be banned simply because they are taboo?
I would say no, but I'm interested in your response.

Maybe where you live it's not considered incest. Fine. But incest is one of those things that is defined by the society and culture in which one lives.

To some extent perhaps, but none of that suggests anything about whether or not incest should be banned.

If my culture defined incest as "sex with someone you love" I certainly wouldn't think that definition reason enough to ban the practice.

The society and culture (what little there is) in the those states of the US have decided that sexual relationships with one's first cousin are incestuous.

So?

The US is not the only government to have this view. Both the Orthodox Church and the Roman catholic church ban marriage between up to fourth cousins (thats much more restrictive than the US, by the way). The Netherlands also restricts marriage between cousins. China does as well, although only if cousins through the father's brothers. So why exactly are you picking on the US about it?

Perhaps because she wasn't aware of those other examples? Perhaps because she's simply more interested in the US. Who cares why?
I don't really think you can attack her for not knowing the situation in china - I've lived her for more than three years and I wasn't aware of it either.

 

[tesscaline]

Venom? There is never any venom in any of my posts.

And, actually, the idea that I can't have an intellectual interest outside of a personal situation is slightly offensive. I have no personal stake here, never demonstrated that, and it disappoints me that people feel the need to investigate such possibility. Hope people don't consider that if I ever start a thread on terrorrism.

Lashing out at something you don't understand as being "prejudiced", "irrational", and "unjustly meddling in people's lives" is, to me, venomous.

I have not ignored it at all. Reread of my posts, most of them dealt with genetics. And what prompted me to start this thread was an article about how science dispelled the notion that first cousin breedings are dangerous. Not more so than pregnancies in women over 40.

And yet it HASN'T dispelled that notion. Anyone who has ever dealt with breeding livestock knows exactly the risks that come along with inbreeding. These risks are well known, and very real. The issue is not just with first generation birth defects, but in the causing of a higher rate of recessive traits throughout a large population.

And taboos must persist indefinitely? No society can rise above it? I believe the US can. Interracial marriage was once prohibited in many places.

Give me a good reason to get rid of the taboo. I see it as being in place to protect the health and safety of individuals as well as the overall population.

The Roman Catholic Church? Evidence?

The Roman Catholic Church was given as an example of a culture which holds incest in taboo status. It was not cited as scientific evidence. If you weren't getting so hot under the collar you'd have realized that.

I did not know that the Netherlands restricts marriage between cousins. And bring all those Chinese posters so I can ask them, please. Oh, wait. And, btw, even then I could choose to direct my question to a member of a western society, because I'm not at all acquainted with Chinese culture.

*sigh* Yes, you can direct questions towards whomever you choose. That doesn't change the fact that you are accusing the US, and only the US, of discrimination without having done the least bit of research on the subject yourself.

Now. To MissKitt -- You may not be aware of the part of US culture where cousins are raised under the same roof as emotional siblings, but I assure you that it is alive and well in many many states. So alive and well that, yes, the laws still have relevance.

 

[KingMerv00]

Yes, I want it answered. Why NOT full siblings? The entire "evil society prevents people who love each other to be together" seems to work entirely the same way in that case.

Why not indeed.

One more time for everyone in the room:

MARRIAGE != CHILDBIRTH

 

[CFLarsen]

I love the implication that marriage equals babies. It's as if some can't get out of the child rhyme "First comes love, then comes marriage, then comes the baby in the baby carriage" mindset.

Not so.

But - if it isn't marriage as such but the risk of having children with genetic deficiencies that is the reason behind people wanting to ban first cousin marriages, let's take a look at the biological risks when women have the option to have babies at a much more advanced age (that was eloquent, wasn't it?), due to the marvels of science.

However, it comes with risks.

The traditional age at which a woman is considered to be at high risk for chromosomal abnormalities is 35. Approximately 1 in 1,400 babies born from women in their 20's have Down syndrome; it increases to about 1 in 100 babies born with Down syndrome from women in their 40s.
...
Studies show that the risk of miscarriage (loss of a pregnancy before 20 weeks gestation) is 12% to 15% for women in their 20s and rises to about 25% for women at age 40. The increased incidence of chromosomal abnormalities contributes to this increased risk of miscarriage in older women.
...
Stillbirth (delivery of a baby that has died before birth) is more common in women over age 35. Older women are also more likely to have low-birth weight babies (weighing less than 5.5 pounds at birth).
Source

It is unfortunately true that simply by being older, a woman has had more chance to develop medical disorders such as diabetes, hypertensive disorders or fibroids, which can affect pregnancy and birth. The incidence of pre-existing conditions rises from 5.5 per cent in the under 29 age group, to 11.8 per cent in the over 35s. Studies on the effect of age on childbirth also report an increase in the frequency of pregnancy complications such as high blood pressure, pregnancy-induced diabetes , bleeding in the third trimester, and low lying placenta The incidence of pregnancy complications rises from 10.43 per cent for women aged 20 to 29, to 19.29 per cent for women aged between 35 and 39 years.
...
It is also well known that older women run more risk of having a Down's syndrome baby. The rate is 1 in 400 at the age of 35, and goes up to 1 in 109 at the age of 40. When a woman is 45 the risk is 1 in 32 (compared with 1 in 1,500 at 25). There are other much rarer chromosomal abnormalities, such as Pataus syndrome and Edward's syndrome, which also increase in incidence with maternal age.
Source

Ouch. Man, does it come with risks. Risks that far outweighs any risk that first cousin marriages have.

It's pretty obvious what comes next.

If people want to ban first cousin marriages because of the genetic aspect, they should also also want to ban women of an advanced age from having children.

Let's not assume. Let's ask.

Do those who argue that first cousin marriages should be banned due to the genetic risks that the - apparently inevitable - children face, also support that women above a certain age should be banned from having children?

Do I see any hands?

 

[El Greco]

Prohibiting marriage between first cousins or brothers and sisters or mothers and sons is simply idiotic these days. Especially in western societies. Unless of course one's plan is to promote eugenics through selective breeding, in which case any marriage of persons with hereditary diseases (eg Crouzon syndrome) should also be prohibited. Oh, and while you're at it also make abortion compulsory when certain defects are detected on the fetus.

 

[a_unique_person]

I did know this, but I had no idea it could be illegal. Also, I shelved it in the category of "harmless fun" with another region's characterizations. I did not know this could have legal repercussions or that some people would find the practice objectionable per se, maybe only it was not so common in other regions of the country.



Why not? What if they lived separately and only meet once a year? Or if they become adults and fall in love, really, why not? People get married to childhood friends, to their high school sweethearts, to people the whole family despises, to people 20 years their senior, etc.

Live and let live. If someone thinks marrying to a first cousin is awkward and icky, ok. If two adults fall in love and want to get married, why not? It's discrimination, for sure.

It's spooky how similar some of my siblings look so similar to some of my cousins. Just nature's way of saying 'keep clear'.

 

[DC]

In most of Europe you can even marry your sister/brother.
Lots of creepy people in Europe.

Even zoos don't mate animal siblings.

really? didnt know that, which countrys are those? thats sick.
i know in some european countrys Inzest is not punished, but your still now allowed to marry your sister/brother.

 

[DC]

also support that women above a certain age should be banned from having children?

i support it.

 

[ddt]

The Netherlands also restricts marriage between cousins.

I did not know that the Netherlands restricts marriage between cousins.

It doesn't. Article 41 of the Dutch Civil Code forbids marriage between siblings and between people who are related in a direct as/des-cending line - i.e., (...grand)parents and (...grand)children. The Minister of Justice can give dispensation to people who are siblings due to adoption. To wit, no difference is made here between same-sex or different-sex marriages.

To be fair, I thought too there was a restriction on cousin marriages, so that's why I looked it up. Maybe there has been in the past.

 

[Delvo]

This, really, is the crux of the problem. Is it hard-wired into us, or is it a social construct?

But - if it isn't marriage as such but the risk of having children with genetic deficiencies that is the reason behind people wanting to ban first cousin marriages, let's take a look at the biological risks when women have the option to have babies at a much more advanced age (that was eloquent, wasn't it?), due to the marvels of science...
Ouch. Man, does it come with risks. Risks that far outweighs any risk that first cousin marriages have... Do those who argue that first cousin marriages should be banned due to the genetic risks that the - apparently inevitable - children face, also support that women above a certain age should be banned from having children?

Do I see any hands?

Tests on various vertebrate species with internal fertilization have shown that individuals are much less sexually receptive or completely non-receptive to other individuals who smell too much like themselves, scent being an indicator of genetic similarity. Hermaphroditic worms have been shown to pass up the opportunity to mate when the only other worm available has too much genetic similarity to themselves. The egg and sperm cells of some spawning fish species have been found to possess identifying "markers" on their membranes which prevent fertilization with another gamete whose markers are too similar. In flowering plants, when pollen lands on a pistil of a plant that's too closely related to the one that made the pollen, no pollen tube (the tunnel through which sperm cells must pass from the pollen grain to reach the ovule) forms. Hermaphroditic conifers and other trees will produce their female parts first (and/or only on the higher branches) and their male parts later (and/or only on the lower branches), and at the same time as their nearest relatives, thus preventing their own pollen from reaching their own ova or those of their relatives while those ova are mature and viable (or, to restate it another way, preventing their own ova from being mature and viable at a time when their own or closely related pollen is present in the area).

Given the supply of ways that nature has come up with to prevent reproduction of close relatives in so many different species, I think it's safe to say that it's a bad thing biologically, not just socially.

The red herring <irrelevantly-colored fish of irrelevant species membership> about the mother's age simply has nothing to do with anything.

 

[Luciana]

Lashing out at something you don't understand as being "prejudiced", "irrational", and "unjustly meddling in people's lives" is, to me, venomous.

Wrong. I'm opinionated, of which I'm proud. I'm not venomous.

And I certainly understand the matter more than you do, and I did the research. See the OP.

And yet it HASN'T dispelled that notion. Anyone who has ever dealt with breeding livestock knows exactly the risks that come along with inbreeding. These risks are well known, and very real. The issue is not just with first generation birth defects, but in the causing of a higher rate of recessive traits throughout a large population.

Your anecdote against science. That was in the opening post, that was the foundation stone behind this thread. Do you dispute the scientifical findings? You think you know more than them based on your own evidence? Let's see it.

Give me a good reason to get rid of the taboo. I see it as being in place to protect the health and safety of individuals as well as the overall population.

Read Claus Larsen's post.

The Roman Catholic Church was given as an example of a culture which holds incest in taboo status. It was not cited as scientific evidence. If you weren't getting so hot under the collar you'd have realized that.

The RCC is a religion, not a culture. And I asked for evidence of this practice by the RCC, for which you provided none.

According to ddt, the prohibition doesn't exist in the Netherlands. Does it exist in China, btw, as you claimed? You seem to have a weakness with fact and evidence, that's why I ask.

Your attempt to ascribe emotions that I don't have, or a personal involvement that I never implied, do feel like an ad hominem attack. And they speak more about your character than about mine.

*sigh* Yes, you can direct questions towards whomever you choose. That doesn't change the fact that you are accusing the US, and only the US, of discrimination without having done the least bit of research on the subject yourself.

Funny that. I'm in a US-based board, where most members are Americans... and you have an issue as to why I direct a question to Americans?

Hey, Kiribatians, come here, I want to ask you a question!!

 

[Luciana]

Yes, I want it answered. Why NOT full siblings? The entire "evil society prevents people who love each other to be together" seems to work entirely the same way in that case.

Was that a legitimate question? I thought you were trolling. But yeah, I can answer that.

I never inquired about that because the article I mentioned in the OP does not mention the rate of genetic diseases for children of siblings.

And without that, I cannot form an opinion. Because if the risk is too high, then I'm against it on principle, because I can't justify seeing deformed babies, no one wants that. If it's not, even then I'd like to hear other opinions.

So this is why this is a thread about cousin marriages - science says it's ok. If that is so, then why should the prohibition remain? The best argument so far is that this is not a current issue, that there are no widespread demands about it, and that's perfectly acceptable reason not to further pursue the matter. In democratic societies there is so much to be thought over and decided that what is not considered a crucial matter by many can and will be left for later.

 

[Luciana]

Ouch. Man, does it come with risks. Risks that far outweighs any risk that first cousin marriages have.

It's pretty obvious what comes next.

If people want to ban first cousin marriages because of the genetic aspect, they should also also want to ban women of an advanced age from having children.

Let's not assume. Let's ask.
Do those who argue that first cousin marriages should be banned due to the genetic risks that the - apparently inevitable - children face, also support that women above a certain age should be banned from having children?

Do I see any hands?

Exactly. As I said in the OP, I don't see such a possibility outside of a totalitarian state. And this state could then decided what's bad and what's good genes and what's a bad or a good mix. And no one wants that. Outside of valid scientific reasons, judgment in this area is very, very dangerous.

 

[KingMerv00]

*Shrug*

I don't care what consenting people do. Even if birth defects were absolutely certain, marriage != childbirth.

I'm still not seeing how marriage = children.

Perhaps we should prevent close relatives from having children instead of preventing them from getting married.

Why not indeed.

One more time for everyone in the room:

MARRIAGE != CHILDBIRTH

Won't someone think of the children!

Birth defects!

Ew gross! Appeal to emotion!

I'm totally talking to myself in here aren't I?

Marriage is a legal contract that exists regardless of whether or not the couple has children. I'm confused, are we dicussing marriage or reproductive rights?

 

[Luciana]

I actually agree with you, KingMerv.

Not to mention that there is such a thing as childbirth out of wedlock, and that is something that no law can reach.

So even if you can impede those marriages, you can't impede those births. Therefore, the idea that prohibiting cousin marriage is justifiable on those grounds is absurd. Or, on the contrary, the cousin couple may choose to adopt, or they may choose to be child-less.