Is there anything wrong to marry your cousin?

Laws for the idiots (the "conceivers") apply to them, not their offspring (the aforetomentioned "conceived"). In parallel, should we not enforce rape laws? Such legislation actually also applies to the "conceivers" rather than the "conceived".

I do not imply that inbred human offspring should be killed, and actually am opposed to such, within the bounds of reason.

You have, however, missed my argument concerning percentages. 3% is merely a mean increase and specifies only generally the incidence of deleterious and detrimental mutations. I have yet to see a specification on the incidence of maladaptive mutation in humans (not working in humans, I am little involved in their genetics other than as an end-user) but would be surprised to see that it was 1.3%. This number, I might add, does not translate into concentration of deleterious/detrimental alleles via inbreeding, as it is based on genome-wide substitution/deletion/addition rather than assortative breeding.) Each human alive carries, as I recall, 6-8 deleterious mutations, though not all the same ones. So the incidental consequences to any particular offspring stand to be quite severe, ranging from death to permanent disability. I note also that no study to my knowledge has ever quantified early abortion or embryonic loss due to inbreeding in humans, suggesting strongly that any current impression of impact from this behaviour is highly underestimated.

Actually, from my numbers, the assumption of zero background inbreeding (Fis=0) means <i>no</i> inherent risk for general mating, but nonzero risk for "cousin-lovin". If you care to take such risk, I cannot stop you, but being nonzero it is inherently unnecessary. I similarly cannot compel you to put your seatbelt on every day, and you might well argue that you will never need it since the chances of your ever being in a serious accident are probably about 3-5%. Of course, if you were in a serious accident, you'd probably well regret not wearing it. Your behaviour would be considered: "reckless".

So, if you wish to marry your cousin, go ahead - just don't expect my society to pay your kids' medical bills for genetic disease.

If such a couple were screened for deleterious genes then presumably such marriage would be permissible - however, it would also create precedent and would be in itself overly introspective and societally dangerous. Have we any real desire to see tribal systems like the ones that rage in Iraq, Iran, Syria, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia?

I add further that no religious system currently permiting such marriage provides liturgical methodology for genetic screening. This is also "reckless".

Geoff
 
for the record; I've been playing devil's advocate here as a source of mental
masturbation (hope I don't go blind and lame in one leg!!!!!)
I've no inclination to marry or to procreate with my cousin and
have a sad amusment for those that do.
OTOH, it is already legal in a handful of states; and not an unkown practice.
I imagine that the criminalizing of behaviours could be carried onto other
"at risk" couplings.
What are some other risky behaviours that you think should be outlawed for the
same reasons? Would this equate to negative eugenics?
 
badabing.
so... just like the opponents of same-sex marriages,
you all have this aversion because of your own
misconceptions. It seems to me.
The chances are much higher, approaching probablility
that a deaf couple or a blind couple would have offspring
sharing congenital defects. Are you postulating that
people who would be likely to have maladaptive children
should be prohitbited from marrying?
The prohibition of consanguineous marriage seems to me
to be a case of negative eugenics.
Betcha didn't think you were guilty of the E word :D

:D :m:


"Despite the aversion to consanguineous marriages in most western countries, there is little medical evidence to
support the widely held belief that marriages between close relatives will always produce offspring with severe birth defects
or genetic disease."

http://www.westone.wa.gov.au/portaladmin/PDF/westoneupload/factsheet_cons.pdf#search='consanguineous%20risks'

The National Society of Genetic Counselors sponsored a study on this issue that was published in 2002. According to their press release, children of first-cousin-couples have about a 2.3% increase in the risk of significant birth defects, compared to the general population (according to the CDC, birth defects affect about 3% of all babies in the general population). So, according to this information, the odds of having a normal baby are 97% in the general population and about 94% in first-cousin-couples.


a paper published in the April issue of the Journal of Genetic Counseling, a task force made up of genetic counselors, physicians and epidemiologists, among others, has evaluated the evidence about risks for offspring for first cousins and provides guidelines for counseling and advising such couples.
The task force was brought together by the National Society of Genetic Counselors. It considered recommendations for various unions of consanguineous (literally, blood-sharing) couples related as second cousins or more closely.
The consensus of the task force and those who reviewed the recommendations "is that beyond a thorough medical family history with follow-up of significant findings, no additional preconception screening is recommended for consanguineous couples." They should, of course, be offered genetic screening tests that would routinely be offered to other couples of their ethnic group.

Although they emphasize that it's not possible to come up with one number for all populations of consanguineous couples, the authors estimate the additional risk to range from 1.7 to 2.8 percent for first cousin unions. From her experience in counseling, Bennett believes these numbers are far lower than most people's perception of the risk.
And what about the laws preventing cousins from marrying? The authors note such laws may eventually change as a result of evidence about actual risks
http://www.washington.edu/newsroom/news/2002archive/04-02archive/k040302a.html

HEADLINE:
Few risks seen to the children of 1st cousins.
NEWSPAPER ARTICLE SYNOPSIS:
After reviewing six large studies on the effects of cousins having offspring together, genetic
counselors concluded that the risks of genetically transmitted birth defects is not as great as
the public and physicians assume.
NEWSPAPER ARTICLE SOURCE:
Grady D. Few risks seen to the children of 1st cousins. New York Times 2002 April 4 :
A1 (col. 3).
JOURNAL ARTICLE CITATION:
Bennett RL, et. al. Genetic counseling and screening of consanguineous couples and their offspring:
Recommendations of the National Society of Genetic Counselors. Journal of Genetic Counseling
2002 April;11(2):97-119.
(Journal not owned by library.)
 
Last edited:
http://www.news-medical.net/?id=911
A high rate of marriage among deaf individuals can explain the increased frequency of connexin deafness in the United States

http://users.ugent.be/~rdecorte/documenten/doctrine/JV/Jan_Verplaetse_Moral_Status_Children.pdf#search='congenitally%20blind%20offspring'

hmmm;
while we're at it,
theres a whole lot of
things that could be taken into
consideration when prohibiting marriage.
 
I'm not specifying that the congenitally deaf or blind should not have children - but I do insist that there is no reason for them to be blind or deaf should there be recourse to simple medical treatment. (There seems to be some push on for the "right to be deaf" etc, which is laughable.)

But, again, look at the stats: 3% increase in risk (surprising that it nails the Fis estimate so closely! have to check that out some more) for first-cousin marriage.

For those whose crank it turns, by all means go off and do it. My outbred, heterotic offspring will gain transient (single-generation) advantages over your hill-bred monkey-children, economically dominating them at the first generation and exploiting those economic gains at a higher rate than yours can catch up.

Suits me jest fine.

=D

Geoff
 
Or, to put it another way:

"Roll them genetic dice, baby! Only 3% shortfall...op! <i>Flippers?</i> And what is that, <i>emphysema</i>? [Homeresque] D'OH!"

Geoff
 
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...
You are simply assuming that all sex is done with the intent of bearing a child.
Oral or anal sex wouldn't result in a child. Vaginal could, but with proper contraceptive use, this is normally negated.
 
GeoffP said:
I'm not specifying that the congenitally deaf or blind should not have children - but I do insist that there is no reason for them to be blind or deaf should there be recourse to simple medical treatment. (There seems to be some push on for the "right to be deaf" etc, which is laughable.)

But, again, look at the stats: 3% increase in risk (surprising that it nails the Fis estimate so closely! have to check that out some more) for first-cousin marriage.

For those whose crank it turns, by all means go off and do it. My outbred, heterotic offspring will gain transient (single-generation) advantages over your hill-bred monkey-children, economically dominating them at the first generation and exploiting those economic gains at a higher rate than yours can catch up.

Suits me jest fine.

=D

Geoff
Click to expand...

""My outbred, heterotic offspring will gain transient (single-generation) advantages over your hill-bred monkey-children, economically dominating them at the first generation and exploiting those economic gains at a higher rate than yours can catch up.""
:D
First off, I'll refrain from going into details, but my nuclear family has
heterosis covered just fine thank you.
This conversation isn't about me and you,
but it was sweet of you to take it personally. ;)
Secondly, you can't make a blanket statement for ALL products of consanguinous unions. It depends upon the genes you see. Not all genes are equal when all is said and done. But rather than expound at length,
let me provide you with this short list:

William Erasmus Darwin
The first of Darwin's children was born on December 27, 1839. He was a graduate of Christ’s College at Cambridge University, and was a banker in Southampton. He married Sara Ashburner from New York, but they had no children. William died in 1914.

George Howard Darwin
Born on July 9, 1845. He was an astronomer and mathematician, and became a Fellow of the Royal Society (sort of like the American National Academy of Science) in 1879. In 1883 he became the Plumian Professor of Astronomy and Experimental Philosophy at Cambridge University, and was a Barrister-at-Law. He studied the evolution and origins of the solar system. George married Martha (Maud) du Puy from Philadelphia. They had two sons, and two daughters. He died in 1912.

Francis Darwin
Born on August 16, 1848. He became a botanist specializing in plant physiology. He helped his father with his experiments on plants and was of great influence in Darwin's writing of "The Power of Movement in Plants" (1880). He was made a Fellow of the Royal Society in 1879, and taught at Cambridge University from 1884, as a Professor of Botany, until 1904. He edited many of Darwin's correspondence and published "Life and Letters of Charles Darwin" in 1887, and "More Letters of Charles Darwin" in 1903. He also edited and published Darwin’s Autobiography. He married Amy Ruck but she died when their first child, Bernard, was born in September of 1876. He then married Ellen Crofts in September of 1883, and they had one daughter, Frances in 1886. Francis was knighted in 1913, and died in 1925.

Leonard Darwin
Born on January 15, 1850. He became a soldier in the Royal Engineers in 1871, and was a Major from 1890 onwards. He taught at the School of Military Engineering at Chatham from 1877 to 1882, and served in the Ministry of War, Intelligence Division, from 1885-90. He later became a liberal-unionist MP for the town of Lichfield in Staffordshire 1892-95, and was president of the Royal Geological Society 1908-11. Leonard married Elizabeth Fraser in July of 1882. He married a second time, but had no children and died in 1943.

Horace Darwin
Born on May 13, 1851. He was a graduate of Trinity College, Cambridge, and became an engineer and a builder of scientific instruments. In 1885 he founded the Cambridge Scientific Instrument Company. He was the Mayor of Cambridge from 1896-97, and was made a Fellow of the Royal Society in 1903. Horace married Emma Farrer in January of 1880 and they had three children. He died in 1928.

These products of a consanguinous marriage didn't seem hampered by
their parents blood relation.
 
Last edited:
GeoffP said:
I'm not specifying that the congenitally deaf or blind should not have children - but I do insist that there is no reason for them to be blind or deaf should there be recourse to simple medical treatment.
Click to expand...

So you insist that measures be taken to remedy the congenital defects
of the offspring of blind and deaf couples; while earlier you said that
your society shouldn't carry the burden of genetic defects of consanguinous
marriages.

I'm not endorsing carte blanche medical treatment for any of these
offspring, just pointing out that there is a discrepency in these statements.
 
GeoffP said:
For those whose crank it turns, by all means go off and do it. My outbred, heterotic offspring will gain transient (single-generation) advantages over your hill-bred monkey-children, economically dominating them at the first generation and exploiting those economic gains at a higher rate than yours can catch up.

Suits me jest fine.

=D

Geoff
Click to expand...


Once again, being contrary; i.e. playing devil's advocate:

I'd like to point out the preponderance of people from cultures
where consanguinous marriages are common in high IQ fields such
as science and medicine.
Ashkenazi have genetic diseases that are very common in
that ethnic group, due to centuries of breeding within
their community, though, they also have a disperportionate
number of high achieving individuals and have been shown
to have on average higher IQs due to these same circumstances.
0.25% World Population
2.0% US Population
23% Wealthiest Americans
23% Top 100 wealthy Canadians
% Jewish % Jewish
100% CA Senators 1996
17% Nobel Physiology and Medicine
16% Time Most Important 25
76% Most influential intellectuals
(Alan Dershowitz)
15% MacArthur "Genius" Awards 1981-97
60% Yale Grad students
15% Time 20 20th Century Inventors
60% Top Hollywood positions
(60 min)
15% USA Today College Academic Team
40% Lawyers at best NY and DC law firms
20-30% Westinghouse Science Prize
11% Nobel Physics Prize
30% Faculty at elite colleges
30% Supreme Court Law Clerks
10% US college faculty
26% US Law Professors
(Volokh UCLA)

:eek:

It has been shown that consanguinous couples have a higher
fertility rate; which would balance out stillbirths and
maladaptive offspring by the number of total children had.
For instance, Darwin had children that died before the age of two,
possibly from congenital defects caused by Darwin's consanguinous
marriage, though the total number of offspring he had was high
and the others balanced out the ones that were not able to survive
both by their numbers and achievments.
 
well people do marry there cousin. I wouldn't do it, but I don't think it should be against the law or anything. If they were to marry their brother or sister...well that's something else.
 
hug-a-tree said:
well people do marry there cousin. I wouldn't do it, but I don't think it should be against the law or anything. If they were to marry their brother or sister...well that's something else.
Click to expand...

Why is that different? I don't understand. If you don't think it should be against the law to marry cousins, why should it be against the law to marry a brother or sister? Aren't they, also, human adults?

Baron Max
 
Baron Max said:
Why is that different? I don't understand. If you don't think it should be against the law to marry cousins, why should it be against the law to marry a brother or sister? Aren't they, also, human adults?

Baron Max
Click to expand...

Because your cousin isn't so close to you. Like your gene pool, or whatever. Like if you were to marry your brother or sister, then the child is more likely to be born with some problems. I know I know, you said "some people just don't have children" but yeah, let's say they do want to have children, what are they going to do? I think marrying your brother or sister would be wrong. It's just gross. Honestly, would you do that? I didn't say that it should be against the law, like ever. But yeah, maybe it should. Not the cousin thing though. Doesn't it say so in the Bible anyway that sex within your family is wrong?
 
The bible says that Adam and Eve were the first people. I assume that their children had no choice but to fornicate with their siblings or their parents. You pick.
 
nah, I don't think they did. I mean there's one part in the Bible I was just reading a few days ago where this man had sex with his sister, and he was like bad. So yeah, I'm pretty sure the bible is against it. I'm sure it says something about it in Leviticous.
I think Adam and Eve where the first people made, but maybe God made people after them?
Well were supposed to be sons and daughters of eve...
Well they were the first people. Didn't Cain marry someone from a different tribe though? I could've sworn he did. I'll re read it and let you know.
 
The Bible does indeed say you can't have sex with your cousin, which is a good thing.

I'd like to see where consanguinous couples actually have a <i>higher</i> fertility rate than non-consanguinous; I might add that this is probably actually the <i>fecundity</i> rate rather than the true fertility rate - there seems to be a great deal of confusion about the terminology.

By the by: I'm going to express some serious doubt about the accuracy of Genesis here. Kinda a little hard to believe.

Geoff
 
hug-a-tree said:
nah, I don't think they did.
Click to expand...

The bible doesn't care about what you think. Unless you are now going to deny that adam and eve are presented as the very first and only humans that were created by god himself.
 
lets can the offspring question for a minnit...
Lets assume that offspring will not occur because
the couple is over the child bearing ages or that
both parties are of the same sex...
Looking past the aversion that we (or most of us) have,
would there be any relationship that should be declared illegal?
Such as grown siblings with no possibility of offspring,
or same sex siblings...
What think ya'll of this?
Restrictions on personal liberties are usually put in place for
some sort of safety reasons...
What reasons would are there to prohibit relationships
between same sex siblings?
just out of curiosity... and cuz I like riling up fire ant nests.
 
You all can leave the bibble out of this;
Lot had "relations" (heheh) with his two daughters
and birthed nations from the offspring (worked out for them)
Abraham married his half sister Sarah;
There are much more examples of things that are
contrary to the morals and ethics of contemporary xtians in the bibble
most xtians just seem to read what coincides with their own worldview though.
 
and according to the bibble, wouldn't all of the post deluge populations
have been descended from consanguinous unions?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top