Is there anything wrong to marry your cousin?

There's a risk of a genetic defect any time a human procreates, because any number of things can go wrong during gestation, regardless of relation ot the mate. Inbreeding does not always yield abhorrent results, and when it does, it usually because of generation upon generation upon generation doing that. And even then, it does not always do that, depending on the parental traits. Look at the Pharaohs of Egypt. Wise, sane, just, fair, very capable and skilled rulers, and they were almost ALL the product of siter-brother pairings.
 
Hapsburg said:
Look at the Pharaohs of Egypt. Wise, sane, just, fair, very capable and skilled rulers, and they were almost ALL the product of siter-brother pairings.
Click to expand...

Hm..Akhenaten might have been "wise, sane...etc", but he was one fugly guy because of all the inbreeding. He had Marfan Syndrome which gave him a short torso, long neck, hands, and feet, a pot belly, huge thighs, and almost no musculature. He also had weak aortas that could easily rupture. But then again, it usually takes a whole line of incest to produce something like that. And the guy did end up marrying Nefertiti; maybe he had an abnormally long wang as well.

saint--do whatever you want but only if you can deal with the consequences. Generally speaking, it's best to stay away from cousins, especially if you've grown up with them as close members of your family. If you marry/screw her, it could affect a lot more people than just you or her.

Hapsburg, what about the royal line that you named yourself after? Charles II was just a complete invalid and could hardly chew his food because of the notorious Hapsburg jaw.
 
Last edited:
jhuang said:
Hapsburg, what about the royal line that you named yourself after? Charles II was just a complete invalid and could hardly chew his food because of the notorious Hapsburg jaw.
Click to expand...
Again, that was because of a disfiguring gene that became inherent in habsburgs after several generations. If the family members don't have many faulty genes, there won't be heavy problems: look at Ramses II.
 
zendrake -- looking at how long that post is I don't think I'm going to read it, but I'm guessing the main bulk of the article is that genetic defects only occur when the situation is extreme and isolated?

And Habsburg, maybe Saint's family has a bunch of faulty genes, who knows. But yeah, otherwise I'm inclined to agree with what you're saying inasmuch that if the inbreeding occurs once or twice there won't be noted defects. But in general, a species is strengthened by breeding outside of its community (assuming one doesn't go about procreating with an already mutated partner).
 
There is something wrong with marrying your cousin. Your kids could turn out retarded, that's not fair to the child.
 
hug-a-tree said:
There is something wrong with marrying your cousin. Your kids could turn out retarded, that's not fair to the child.
Click to expand...


I understand that attention disorders have reduced hordes of my generation
to having the inability to read an article, but this would have been unneccesary if you'd have only taken the moment to read.

"The very latest scientific information on the subject of inbreeding suggests an average increase in genetic anomalies of just 1.3%. This percentage is well within the range of statistical error. In other words, inbreeding (incest) has few, if any, negative genetic effects and is not notably different than the breeding of completely unrelated individuals."
 
oh well okay then go for it. It's still weird too me. I don't even kiss my cousins like on the cheek. Imagine sleeping with them! *shivers* No I don't want too.
 
hug-a-tree said:
oh well okay then go for it. It's still weird too me. I don't even kiss my cousins like on the cheek. Imagine sleeping with them! *shivers* No I don't want too.
Click to expand...



heheh;
noooo, I don't think I'll jump into that shitstorm. no thanks.
I was just pointing out that the common reason for this taboo
is a fallacy. That pointed out there is the aversion that most
of us have to incest that prevents even the contemplation of
the act; as you've demonstrated. I have no intention to procreate
with one of my relatives, but it is commonplace in certain cultures.
The danger in inbreeding lies when you have deleterious genes/abnormalities
that would be passed on. If you have a mutation, chances are that that
your relative would have it too. Genetics show homo sapiens to have experienced bottle necks in our past which indicate small populations with
inbreeding used to rehabilitate the population.
 
Ya' know, I've read most of the responses to this issue and I find it amazing that almost everyone equates "marriage" with "having children" ....as if it's a foregone concllusion. It ain't! Many couples marry and never have children.

So the issue is NOT about any possible offspriing, but about marriage ONLY ...which does NOT have to include having children. For example, of those who claim that cousins shouldn't marry because of the effects on the offspring, ...would you approve of the marriage if both cousins were "fixed" so as not to have children?

Baron Max
 
I do think its a bit dishonest to condone same-sex marriages as most of these guys probably do, and oppose the union of cousins. Those people that oppose same sex marriage have a personal aversion to it, and interpret their religion to prohibit it.
All those names you've been calling those opposed to samesex marriage you should now turn back onto yourself because your personal aversion is the reason d'etre for your opposition to cousin love, at the end of the day.
 
Biblical prohibitions of cousin marriage reside only in the minds of the unlearned. In fact, the Catholic Dictionary finds that Christ's parents-- Joseph & Mary-- were first cousins. Protestants come to the same conclusion.
famous cousin couples and offspring of cousin couples:
Queen Victoria
Charles Darwin
Albert Einstein
Jerry Lee Lewis
Franklin D. Roosevelt
First Prime Minister of Canada, Sir John A. MacDonald
Jessie James
Christopher Robin
Rudy Giuliani
Edgar Allen Poe
Prophet Muhammad
Aemilia Lanyer
Jean Sebastien Bach
H.G. Wells
Werner von Braun
 
ZenDrake said:
And contrary to popular opinion, I've read that there is no great danger of genetic
deformation for the offspring of cousin marriages.
Click to expand...

I regret to say that this is incorrect. There is considerable risk from such behaviour.

Mating between cousins produces an averaged increase in inbreeding of about 3.1% over incidental (i.e. unknown consanguinity) in the general population. This same level of inbreeding - to use non-human examples - can cause about 10% loss in growth rate in salmon, as I recall, which are considerably more genetically diverse than humans (n=23 vs n=30, salmon also being tetraploid with probably more innate protection from the concentration of recessives). This, I might add, is in growth alone, to say nothing of more or less complex phenotype. Such offspring could well be genetically suboptimal for intelligence as well, or exhibit serious physiological illness later in life and well beyond the boundary for reasonable medical care.

So, if you think you're only going to buy a small car, then by all means marry your cousin.

On a more serious note again, 3% seems like nothing. Now multiply up that contiguous 3%, coupled with a savage clan/family system, over let's say 50 generations or so (1.03^50). It gets a lot bigger. I think it ends up being 4.4 times the level of inbreeding in the population on average, assuming a background coefficient of 1.

So...don't marry your cousin. Seriously. In cultures in which cousin marriage is not only permissable but desirable (due again to tribal/family systems) the rate of serious birth defects is very severe. Pakistani muslims in Britain spring to mind: cousin marriage within a near-closed family system barring spousal abduction (which does occur, of course). They have about 10x the rate of natal defects that non-Pakistani muslims have. I don't know about the Hindu system, but I suspect it's nowhere near so severe since higher-order distinctions occur at the caste- rather than family/tribe level and since I don't think there's any religious injunctions in Hinduism to marry your cousin, whereas in islam it's one of the relations you're allowed to have relations with, if you relate to what I'm saying.

:D

:m:

Geoff
 
In reply to ZenDrake's point, there are some exceptional cases, of course, but that on average it's a bad idea - although I tend to think the inclusion Mohammed would confirm rather than refute my point.

Geoff
 
good point Geoff;
but I was referring to the initial mating of cousins rather than to
a long line of matings between close relatives such as the royal families
of Europe or with Paki or Saudi clans where there have been many generations
of cousin matings. Of course the risk of there being deleterious genes would
increase exponentially with more and more generations of this happening.
There are well documented histories of congenital defects both in the
European families of royalty and in the Saudi clans where such marriages are
the norm rather than the exception.
But for the culture we're in where such matings aren't the norm, I don't see
the danger being such as if it were common practice.
Baron mentioned that marriage doesn't automatically include children,
but for those cousin-couples that do want to procreate there are always
genetic councilors and screening processes that could minimize the
chances of there being maladaptive offspring.

Forbidding this practice doesn't seem to coincide with the rampant relativism
that permeates segments of our society.
If it should be acceptable for a man to find love in the bottom of another man's ass,
then it should be fine for the children of siblings to find love in each other's so similar eyes.


On another note, I agree that there've been studies showing the offspring of cousins to
have below par intelligence, but if I'm not mistaken, Darwin was the product of cousins mating,
and Cleopatra (who spoke and read numerous languages and by all accounts was quite brilliant
was the product of seven generations of sibling matings)

For all intents and purposes, it isn't the best idea to shack up and pop out kids with yer cuzin,
but for the few that do find it a good idea who are we to make laws against it?
If we're going to start legislating for the benefit of the not yet conceived,
why don't we go back to sterilizing the neurotic and mentally unstable,
and while we're at it, we can bring back sterilizing the deaf and the blind ta boot.
How about anyone that doesn't reach an agreed upon thresh hold of intelligence?
Somehow, I don't think these ideas would fly though.
 
I'm not suggesting laws for the not yet conceived, but for the idiots who conceive them. This borders on child endangerment and is, at the least, stupidly reckless.

Geoff
 
GeoffP said:
I'm not suggesting laws for the not yet conceived, but for the idiots who conceive them. This borders on child endangerment and is, at the least, stupidly reckless.

Geoff
Click to expand...



So...
aren't laws for the idiots that concieve, based on borderline child
endangerment and stupid recklessness the same as a law
for the not yet concieved to ensure that they don't become concieved?
how does that differ from the other options I set forth?

And how does an increase for a maladaptive mutation from roughly 1.3-1.5%
for unrelated people having children, to 3.?% equal stupid recklessness?
Thats just not that much. Don't go off on the cumulative increase over several generations of cousin matings cuz we're talking about one generation,
the first if you will.
This thread was initially about cousins marrying, not having children.
Would it allay your concerns, make it a non-issue, if the hypothetical cousin
couple were sterilized? What about if they consulted a genetic counselor
and undertook screening for deteterious genes?
:p :m:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top