Why are first cousin marriages allowed in some places

[Grayswandir]

Just recently noticed some states in America allow marriages between first-degree cousins. Why? That sounds horrible lol. Yeah maybe doing it once or twice every 10 generations isn’t so horrible but, I mean, I don’t understand genetics all that well but marrying someone who shares 12.5% of your DNA with you sounds like a recipe for getting congenital diseases

I get ppl ‘shagging’ their cousins and whatnot, but marrying them? What are people thinking?

The reason I saw this is because in my current playthrough of CK2, my dynastic members kept marrying within the family (usually generations apart, so the two spouses would only share like a great-grandfather or great-great-grandfather), which would be fine if they didnt do it over and over... I’ve already seen shitty traits like ugly, weak and slow (dumb, for those not familiar with the game) pop up...

[OzyWho]

It's Alabama isn't it

[Grayswandir]

It's Alabama isn't it
xD yeah, some states in the south, but surprisingly also some on the east coast, and also california

[DJarJar]

Just recently noticed some states in America allow marriages between first-degree cousins. Why? That sounds horrible lol. Yeah maybe doing it once or twice every 10 generations isn’t so horrible but, I mean, I don’t understand genetics all that well but marrying someone who shares 12.5% of your DNA with you sounds like a recipe for getting congenital diseases

I get ppl ‘shagging’ their cousins and whatnot, but marrying them? What are people thinking?

The reason I saw this is because in my current playthrough of CK2, my dynastic members kept marrying within the family (usually generations apart, so the two spouses would only share like a great-grandfather or great-great-grandfather), which would be fine if they didnt do it over and over... I’ve already seen shitty traits like ugly, weak and slow (dumb, for those not familiar with the game) pop up...

lol in ck3 there's an achievement for: "Have only two distinct parents, grandparents, and great grandparents". Which is achieved by having brother and sister marry and have children. These children share the same 2 parents. Then have these children marry. Now their children have 2 parents and only 2 grandparents. Then have them marry. Now their children have 2 parents, 2 grandparents, and 2 great grandparents.

[Grayswandir]

lmao, maybe my dynasty was going for that achievement

[SuperJack]

lol in ck3 there's an achievement for: "Have only two distinct parents, grandparents, and great grandparents". Which is achieved by having brother and sister marry and have children. These children share the same 2 parents. Then have these children marry. Now their children have 2 parents and only 2 grandparents. Then have them marry. Now their children have 2 parents, 2 grandparents, and 2 great grandparents.

Geez that is much more understandable. I've just completed the African Achievement.

[Marshmallow Marshall]

Why does your AI automatically cause inbreeding lol? I've conquered half the known world in a game (with a ton of kinsmen) and had no inbreeding (unless I forced it, which would be dumb).

[Grayswandir]

Maybe my AI grew up in Alabama :)

[SuperJack]

Maybe they are from the Royal Family.

[oops_ur_dead]

The state should never restrict marriage and sexual relations where it's consensual and does not harm others.

[OzyWho]

The state should never restrict marriage and sexual relations where it's consensual and does not harm others.

Also, all warning labels should be removed too, am I right?

[Marshmallow Marshall]

The state should never restrict marriage and sexual relations where it's consensual and does not harm others.

I can't tell if this is sarcastic or not. If it is, "wooosh" i guess
But if it isn't...

Congenital illnesses are bad for people's health, as one can tell from the word "illness" xD. So it absolutely does harm others. Checkmate, Victoria.

[oops_ur_dead]

Also, all warning labels should be removed too, am I right?

Not necessarily. A warning label being present does not restrict one's freedom.


I can't tell if this is sarcastic or not. If it is, "wooosh" i guess
But if it isn't...

Congenital illnesses are bad for people's health, as one can tell from the word "illness" xD. So it absolutely does harm others. Checkmate, Victoria.

Do you think that women should be disallowed from marrying once they're too old? Should one be banned from marrying others or having children if they have genetic disorders such as sickle cell anemia or cystic fibrosis?

The moral argument for these is the same as the argument for banning first-cousin marriages. The arguments for such a ban are dressed-up arguments for eugenics.

[DJarJar]

Why does your AI automatically cause inbreeding lol? I've conquered half the known world in a game (with a ton of kinsmen) and had no inbreeding (unless I forced it, which would be dumb).

It just depends on the religion/culture you’re playing as. If it allows incestual marriages then they will happen since it’s the best way to keep your lands consolidated

[Grayswandir]

I can't tell if this is sarcastic or not. If it is, "wooosh" i guess
But if it isn't...

Congenital illnesses are bad for people's health, as one can tell from the word "illness" xD. So it absolutely does harm others. Checkmate, Victoria.
More like checkmate, von Habsburgs.

[Grayswandir]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_II_of_Spain

[Grayswandir]

Not necessarily. A warning label being present does not restrict one's freedom.



Do you think that women should be disallowed from marrying once they're too old? Should one be banned from marrying others or having children if they have genetic disorders such as sickle cell anemia or cystic fibrosis?

The moral argument for these is the same as the argument for banning first-cousin marriages. The arguments for such a ban are dressed-up arguments for eugenics.
How dare I prevent people from marrying close relatives and making my baby 38 times more likely to have physical or mental abnormalities! Goddamn eugenicists not letting people ruin children’s livelihoods!

[oops_ur_dead]

How dare I prevent people from marrying close relatives and making my baby 38 times more likely to have physical or mental abnormalities! Goddamn eugenicists not letting people ruin children’s livelihoods!

Answer my questions then. Should older women be disallowed from marrying others? What about people with genetic disorders?

[SuperJack]

Answer my questions then. Should older women be disallowed from marrying others? What about people with genetic disorders?

Thank god for Abortions eh.

[SuperJack]

Also why has no one bothered to post research into risk related to relation

[SuperJack]

Thank god for Abortions eh.

Lol. Funny shit that just realised.

[Grayswandir]

Answer my questions then. Should older women be disallowed from marrying others? What about people with genetic disorders?
I dont see what that has to do with cousins marrying cousins, so no, not relevant

[Grayswandir]

Also why has no one bothered to post research into risk related to relation
I did? Or thought I did?

[Grayswandir]

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5927581/The-tragic-truth-cousin-marriages.html
Here it is.

[Grayswandir]

According to a report for the BBC’s Newsnight, British Pakistanis are 13 times more likely to have children with genetic disorders than the general population.

They are responsible for three percent of all births, but produce just under a third of all British children with such health problems.

In Birmingham, around one in ten children from first cousin marriages either dies in infancy or develops a serious life-long disability caused by genetic ailments, according to health officials in the city, where half the mothers of Pakistani origin are married to a close relative.

[rumox]

If you say banning incestious marriage/sexual relationships is fine because of the health implications for the children, then you should also be looking at other angles that increase the risk of birth defects such as old women giving birth and people already with defects. It is quite relevant and is a question to challenge where you draw the line regrading it.

[Grayswandir]

No its not, marrying your cousin is not at all comparable to marrying someone with a dangerous infectious disease, they’re not even remotely similar, maybe we should start looking at the differences between marrying ppl with inheritable diseases, and marrying relatives
The first counterpoint is, EVERYONE has relatives, so its not as if it only affects ppl with diabetes, it affects everyone, theres no eugenics going on there beyond the ‘dont shit where you eat’ level; nobodys right to reproduction is being infringed upon by disallowing cousin marriage. Cant marry your cousin? Marry someone else, just like literally the rest of the planet

On the other hand, sayint ‘you cannot marry because you have X disease’ is of a very different calibre, it basically says that person cannot reproduce at all,

and no, I’m not going to waste time figuring out why and trying to wean some basic moral principle from it, especially not when the alternative to ‘no cousin marriage’ is ‘fine but no fucking ppl with diabetes either’. Comparing the two is akin to saying a train is a bullet and using ballistics to figure out where its going, like yeah, except the train happens to have an engine and has to run on tracks, not even close, no

[Grayswandir]

Also where I draw the line is, dont fuck your relatives? Its that simple, it doesnt have to be complicated at all

[SuperJack]

Also where I draw the line is, dont fuck your relatives? Its that simple, it doesnt have to be complicated at all

Solution is to take Steps.


I'm on fire with my puns right now.

[rumox]

But your argument against incest is because of the increased chance of birth defects right? What about the older women having children at higher chances of birth defects? 1 in 100 for a woman who conceive at age 40 are likely to have a kid with downs syndrome and this is only considering live births, not aborted ones. I'm no memory bank of incestious statistics but I dare say 1 in 100 isn't statistically far away from whatever rate incestious relationships produce kids with serious defects.

[OzyWho]

If you say banning incestious marriage/sexual relationships is fine because of the health implications for the children, then you should also be looking at other angles that increase the risk of birth defects such as old women giving birth and people already with defects. It is quite relevant and is a question to challenge where you draw the line regrading it.

I like this post.

[Grayswandir]

I don’t think older women shouldn’t be allowed to marry, and I don’t think that ppl with dangerous diseases that can be inherited should be forbidden from doing that either. Maybe the argument against it isn’t the risk of children having significant physical or medical problems, idk, maybe it’s something else, but, I don’t think forbidding relatives from marrying is gonna lead to forbidding older people from doing so, incest is illegal in many parts of the world but eugenics had nothing to do with incest, especially not eugenics in the 20th century, so I don’t think banning incest leads to... eugenics, of all things.

[rumox]

The point of this question is to point out the hypocrisy. I'm not condoning incestious relationships, but this specific argument against it violates other accepted scenarios. I support the ban of incest and recognize that hypocrisy.

[Grayswandir]

Ohhh, I thought you were arguing for it, my bad, in that case, I agree, the argument against it is <<not>> child fatality, it’s something else, but I don’t know what it is

I agree tht obviously older women or whatnot should be allowed to marry, why that is different from incest, I do not know, maybe it’s just because incest is icky, altho, along the same line of thought, I think just fucking your cousin is fine, or at leasr nowhere near as bad as having KIDS with your cousin

[rumox]

Yes the actual birthing as a result of the relationship is the crux of it all.

[OzyWho]

You know all those "cute" deformed dog breeds, some even have trouble breathing and stuff? And now also cats.

It scares me to have a bunch of such humans in 1000 years.
And because of that, I think I wouldn't particularly mind if not everyone was allowed to have children. Adopting children is perfectly fine.

In that scenario, boys could marry their grandmother's for all I care.

[SuperJack]

You know all those "cute" deformed dog breeds, some even have trouble breathing and stuff? And now also cats.

It scares me to have a bunch of such humans in 1000 years.
And because of that, I think I wouldn't particularly mind if not everyone was allowed to have children. Adopting children is perfectly fine.

In that scenario, boys could marry their grandmother's for all I care.

Its fine cause soon we can just have Genetic Selective Children and pick out the traits and DNA we want our children to have and exclude all the dangerous crap.

[OzyWho]

Its fine cause soon we can just have Genetic Selective Children and pick out the traits and DNA we want our children to have and exclude all the dangerous crap.

Wait, seriously?

Sorry I'm dumb.

[rumox]

Its fine cause soon we can just have Genetic Selective Children and pick out the traits and DNA we want our children to have and exclude all the dangerous crap.

A world where people are no longer conceived through sex, but rather incubation as to have the perfect genes. As this goes on for generations, humans lose the ability to naturally reproduce. A catastrophe occurs where incubation births is no longer achievable. Now the human race is doomed to go extinct in a single generation.

[rumox]

Someone contact Netflix

[SuperJack]

Wait, seriously?

Sorry I'm dumb.

I say soon I mean maybe near the end of our lifetime. It will eventually get there. We've already done cloning ages ago.

I mean even now they take precise measurements during ultrasounds and give you the probability of a few disabilities or not so that we can decide if it's worth keeping it or not.

At the end of the day, DNA is just coding. And eventually we will have a machine able to read it and show us what it does.

DNA to life is basically what binary is to computers.

[OzyWho]

A world where people are no longer conceived through sex, but rather incubation as to have the perfect genes. As this goes on for generations, humans lose the ability to naturally reproduce. A catastrophe occurs where incubation births is no longer achievable. Now the human race is doomed to go extinct in a single generation.

Stargate Asgard?

[SuperJack]

A world where people are no longer conceived through sex, but rather incubation as to have the perfect genes. As this goes on for generations, humans lose the ability to naturally reproduce. A catastrophe occurs where incubation births is no longer achievable. Now the human race is doomed to go extinct in a single generation.

God you are a terrible script writer and your science is flawed. I can fix that though.

[rumox]

Rude and uncalled for. I'm claiming copyright and will sue you into the ground if you do any work on my original idea

[SuperJack]

Rude and uncalled for. I'm claiming copyright and will sue you into the ground if you do any work on my original idea

Cool, I've submitted a trademark and patent. Which trumps your copyyright.

[oops_ur_dead]

A world where people are no longer conceived through sex, but rather incubation as to have the perfect genes. As this goes on for generations, humans lose the ability to naturally reproduce. A catastrophe occurs where incubation births is no longer achievable. Now the human race is doomed to go extinct in a single generation.

Very similar to a movie called Gattaca. Great watch.

[oops_ur_dead]

I don’t think older women shouldn’t be allowed to marry, and I don’t think that ppl with dangerous diseases that can be inherited should be forbidden from doing that either. Maybe the argument against it isn’t the risk of children having significant physical or medical problems, idk, maybe it’s something else, but, I don’t think forbidding relatives from marrying is gonna lead to forbidding older people from doing so, incest is illegal in many parts of the world but eugenics had nothing to do with incest, especially not eugenics in the 20th century, so I don’t think banning incest leads to... eugenics, of all things.

It's not about the slippery slope, it's about the justification of such a ban.

You want to ban it because you're emotionally repulsed by it, simply put. That's not necessarily an invalid reason, though it's the exact same reason that people want to ban things like gay marriage and polygamy.

I think it's a bit weird in general to restrict or legislate marriages in any way, they should entirely be a civil matter imo.

[Marshmallow Marshall]

Not necessarily. A warning label being present does not restrict one's freedom.

Do you think that women should be disallowed from marrying once they're too old? Should one be banned from marrying others or having children if they have genetic disorders such as sickle cell anemia or cystic fibrosis?

The moral argument for these is the same as the argument for banning first-cousin marriages. The arguments for such a ban are dressed-up arguments for eugenics.
I think I'm just going to ignore this topic because I don't feel like arguing about why incest is bad :D

It just depends on the religion/culture you’re playing as. If it allows incestual marriages then they will happen since it’s the best way to keep your lands consolidated
Oh, that must be why. No filthy Zoroastrians in here.

More like checkmate, von Habsburgs.

lol that too

[oops_ur_dead]

I think I'm just going to ignore this topic because I don't feel like arguing about why incest is bad :D

Incest is probably quite bad but I don't think that incestuous marriage should be regulated.

I'd also like to point out that, along with the handful of states that were mentioned in the OP, first-cousin marriage is actually legal in EVERY SINGLE country that the posters in this thread are from (except aamirus, assuming she is from the US). Have you noticed?

[DJarJar]

Incest is probably quite bad but I don't think that incestuous marriage should be regulated.

I'd also like to point out that, along with the handful of states that were mentioned in the OP, first-cousin marriage is actually legal in EVERY SINGLE country that the posters in this thread are from (except aamirus, assuming she is from the US). Have you noticed?

I think there’s a second reason to ban it. The first reason as you mentioned: likelihood of genetic defects. Well we don’t ban people with genetic defects in general from having children so that logic doesn’t fit.

I actually think the laws come from older times where inheritance, noble families, royal families etc were more important. As a noble it makes sense to ban the royal family from incestual marriage because it forces them to marry one of you. Same with peasants and nobles. So I don’t have evidence but that’s my suspicion, because I can’t imagine why lawmakers would sit down and be like “incest is gross let’s ban it!” And not ban all other gross things or high risks for genetic defects, etc.

[oops_ur_dead]

I think there’s a second reason to ban it. The first reason as you mentioned: likelihood of genetic defects. Well we don’t ban people with genetic defects in general from having children so that logic doesn’t fit.

I actually think the laws come from older times where inheritance, noble families, royal families etc were more important. As a noble it makes sense to ban the royal family from incestual marriage because it forces them to marry one of you. Same with peasants and nobles. So I don’t have evidence but that’s my suspicion, because I can’t imagine why lawmakers would sit down and be like “incest is gross let’s ban it!” And not ban all other gross things or high risks for genetic defects, etc.

I don't think that's the case. Pretty much all of Europe which had those monarchies and feudalism haven't banned first cousin marriage. And of course, the US never had that stuff.

[rumox]

I can only assume cousin relationships was permitted amongst the commoners (and accepted by themselves) due to the low pool of partners back those times. Big family's, low population, many cousins. Completely talking out of my ass with very limited research but that is my gut assumption. Immediate family relationships appear to have always been condemned by the majority and it was predominantly done only by royalties.

I disagree with first cousin relationships because it's cringe, but immediate family relationships should always be opposed. If not for the genetic abnormalities, but also due to the lack of oversight regarding sickos just churning out kids to fuck and raise to be their slaves. Nothing is stopping people doing that now even with a ban but if it were to be permitted I'd be very, very concerned for the safety of kids. One could argue that that even if immediate family relationships were allowed there would still be laws cracking down on those kind of perverts, but I just think it would do a lot more bad than good lifting the ban.

[rumox]

immediate family relationships should always be opposed.

Also because it's cringe

[SuperJack]

Also because it's cringe

Also because a lot of the time it involves grooming and abusing the relation to a non-adult.

[rumox]

Ya das what I said

[SuperJack]

Ya das what I said

I'm not really reading. Most arguments are repetitive and boring and always tend to have the same opinions and are very predictable. I mostly just post words on autopilot and insert the correct valid post to look like I actually care about socialising.

[OzyWho]

I'm not really reading. Most arguments are repetitive and boring and always tend to have the same opinions and are very predictable. I mostly just post words on autopilot and insert the correct valid post to look like I actually care about socialising.
This is the most autopilot post of them all.

[Grayswandir]

I can only assume cousin relationships was permitted amongst the commoners (and accepted by themselves) due to the low pool of partners back those times. Big family's, low population, many cousins. Completely talking out of my ass with very limited research but that is my gut assumption. Immediate family relationships appear to have always been condemned by the majority and it was predominantly done only by royalties.

I disagree with first cousin relationships because it's cringe, but immediate family relationships should always be opposed. If not for the genetic abnormalities, but also due to the lack of oversight regarding sickos just churning out kids to fuck and raise to be their slaves. Nothing is stopping people doing that now even with a ban but if it were to be permitted I'd be very, very concerned for the safety of kids. One could argue that that even if immediate family relationships were allowed there would still be laws cracking down on those kind of perverts, but I just think it would do a lot more bad than good lifting the ban.
There was a case in Australia wherein a family did that, they would just have weird incestuous relationships like father-daughter and abuse the kids

[SuperJack]

This is the most autopilot post of them all.

It's what I say when I get bored as feel truthful. Sometimes I just have a phrase or post that fits.any situation.

[Grayswandir]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colt_clan_incest_case

[SuperJack]

There was a case in Australia wherein a family did that, they would just have weird incestuous relationships like father-daughter and abuse the kids

An Austrian woman is like a good wine.
Best left to mature in a cellar.

[Grayswandir]

:weed:Yes

[Marshmallow Marshall]

An Austrian woman is like a good wine.
Best left to mature in a cellar.

https://i.redd.it/bwpgazr3pjx21.png

Thinking arguments are all repetitive and useless is sad, because it closes you to variety. Embrace arguments.

[rumox]

https://i.redd.it/bwpgazr3pjx21.png

Thinking arguments are all repetitive and useless is sad, because it closes you to variety. Embrace arguments.

Why the fuck is my insignificant town on there LMAO

[yzb25]

Even in cousin-cousin relationships there is a lot of coercion involved. Your relationship issues are now family issues, and the family power dynamics become part of the relationship's power dynamics. These marriages often happen with the assumption that they'll have kids, so there is literally a familial pressure to reproduce with your cousin, which is messed up on all kinds of levels. Nowhere near as bad as immediate family relations, but still shit.

Banning though? I dunno, you have to weigh up whether it'd actually make the world a better place, rather than acting on emotion. Cousin marriages are ingrained in some cultures, and it would probably become an excuse to persecute them rather than address their culture's issues. The state interfering in family matters is kind of gross in general and should be avoided where feasible - It is very difficult to police family affairs in a way that is both effective and humane in practice.

That said, on an idealistic level I think there is a legitimate moral argument for allowing the state to interfere and ban cousin marriages - the "keep the state out of family business" was literally the argument the catholic church used when trying to block domestic violence laws 40 years ago. I don't have a clear way of reconciling my support of domestic violence laws with the legality of cousin marriage.

[yzb25]

I was gonna avoid posting. This topic looked like pure bait, but jesus you guys are actually handling the discussion quite well. I know the site gets a lot of flack for being "toxic" and whatnot, but I really do not know many places where you can frankly talk about this kind of thing and ppl stay calm. Anyway, hopefully I'm not jinxing it XD

[Grayswandir]

Bait? When I posted this I didn’t think anyone would actually disagree LUL

[OzyWho]

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5927581/The-tragic-truth-cousin-marriages.html
Here it is.

"British-Pakistani community, in which around 60 per cent of mothers are married to their cousins" - is this because there's so few of Pakistani in Britain?
I imagine it must be troublesome to go out searching for someone (probably from same religion, because I can't imagine a hindu-muslim relationship going well) whom you could arrange your childrens marriage with, in such a foreign place.

Also: this is kinda a lot
"cousin marriages: They can cause a litany of genetic illnesses and they're a key factor in the deaths of two children a week in Britain"

[OzyWho]

I remember some statistics stating that on average arranged marriages are happier. This does make sense to me because: 1) they all are forced to work on their marriages; 2) I'm a believer that people can choose to love or stop loving someone, it's just that there's never a reason to go against the convenient.

Point is that, in my opinion, what Oops is arguing for is overrated. I mean if arranged marriages are on average happier, why care about the little freedom that disallowing cousin marriages would bring when it has clear health benefits?

[Grayswandir]

Probably. It says its also designed to keep the wealth in the family, so I’m guessing Pakistanis and Indians in India do it too

Yup, and according to the same article while Pakistanis produce 3% of the childeen in the UK, they also produce 30% of the children witn physical and genetic abnormalities 😀

[SuperJack]

Probably. It says its also designed to keep the wealth in the family, so I’m guessing Pakistanis and Indians in India do it too

Yup, and according to the same article while Pakistanis produce 3% of the childeen in the UK, they also produce 30% of the children witn physical and genetic abnormalities 😀

Could one argue that perhaps it's not because or close related marriages and it could just be that genetic defects are overall more common with genes from Pakistan?

[SuperJack]

Oh pakis in Britain. Lets find some clip that we can no longer make because it's not politically correct.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=C0n88tZQc4Q


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C0n88tZQc4Q&t=22s

[SuperJack]

yzb25

[OzyWho]

Could one argue that perhaps it's not because or close related marriages and it could just be that genetic defects are overall more common with genes from Pakistan?
From that perspective, remember that relatively recently Pakistan and India were one and the same country and got split in 2 due to religion.
And I doubt, though I haven't checked, that there's much more Pakistani than Indians in.. well.. anywhere tbh. And the article wouldn't had specified the 30% to be Pakistani if it wasn't the case.

[Grayswandir]

Could one argue that perhaps it's not because or close related marriages and it could just be that genetic defects are overall more common with genes from Pakistan?
Try posting that on FB.
I suppose it could be but the question would be ‘why’

[SuperJack]

From that perspective, remember that relatively recently Pakistan and India were one and the same country and got split in 2 due to religion.
And I doubt, though I haven't checked, that there's much more Pakistani than Indians in.. well.. anywhere tbh. And the article wouldn't had specified the 30% to be Pakistani if it wasn't the case.

I mean, the articles main purpose is to generate hate against foreigners. "Look at this aspect from this culture that is costing you millions extra in tax and wastes tax money*

Yet you don't see a big headline article about how the non-alcoholic and anti-gambe aspects of Muslims are highly beneficial to health and society and reduce the amount of people getting into debt and reducing the cost of all the problems alcohol causes (voilenct, crime, health)

The article flip flops from study to study, carefully crafting it's sentences and phrases and isolating all the negative aspects. I can't even see clear links to the studies or sorcesy (Do they even do them?)
It uses carefully selected statistics and words them just so look perfectly normal and correct. It jumps between cousin and paki many times.

In other words. Tabloid articles are absolute ballsack to use when trying to prove your point. Especially when it comes to anything relating to science.

If you really wanted to prove your point you are going to want to link studies and accounting for many alternatives. Here's a quick few.

cousin children. England
Non close relation children. England.
Cousin paki children. England.
Non close relation paki children. England.

That shold be able to give you a difference between paki, cousin and non paki cousin. And with that comparison you should be able to come to a more accurst conclusion.

[SuperJack]

Try posting that on FB.
I suppose it could be but the question would be ‘why’

I'm not posting anything on some boomer filled cave that rub themselves all over drama, targeted brain+gooing articles munchers that have mother better to do than depressingly pretend how great their life is whilst dying on the inside.

[OzyWho]

Off topic (sorry): SC2Mafia should totally have a "share on FB" button. :weed:

Imagine the publicity! :>

Kappa

[SuperJack]

Off topic (sorry): SC2Mafia should totally have a "share on FB" button. :weed:

Imagine the publicity! :>

Kappa

I tried to neg rep you for this. But it wont let me do it again so recently.

[OzyWho]

I tried to neg rep you for this. But it wont let me do it again so recently.

You can? But you not staff :(

[SuperJack]

Also pro tip.

Avoid adverts and crap by reading text-only versions

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/textbased/channel-1/index.html

[SuperJack]

You can? But you not staff :(

I'm ex-staff and donor.

[Grayswandir]

I thought the way they mentioned cousin marriages cost the tax payer money was weird as well. Not exactly what comes to mind when I hear of ppl being forced into cousin marriages 😂 the children would be my first thought, not what ppl have to pay for those kids to survive

I think it’s fucked up to bring children into the world that need to be on life support 24/7. IMO this is exactly why cousin marriages shouldn’t be allowed.

[Grayswandir]

I'm not posting anything on some boomer filled cave that rub themselves all over drama, targeted brain+gooing articles munchers that have mother better to do than depressingly pretend how great their life is whilst dying on the inside.
I don’t blame you. Some of the shit ppl post there leaves me scratching my head. It’s like the stupidest cunts all got together on Facebook and decided to show off their stupidity.

[OzyWho]

I don’t blame you. Some of the shit ppl post there leaves me scratching my head. It’s like the stupidest cunts all got together on Facebook and decided to show off their stupidity.

I remember hearing a saying "majority is always wrong" - know anything about it? If it's true then it'd make sense what you describe in FB.

[Grayswandir]

hahahahaha I love that saying. Never heard it before but I love it.

[DJarJar]

From that perspective, remember that relatively recently Pakistan and India were one and the same country and got split in 2 due to religion.
And I doubt, though I haven't checked, that there's much more Pakistani than Indians in.. well.. anywhere tbh. And the article wouldn't had specified the 30% to be Pakistani if it wasn't the case.

the dailymail article is a farce and should be ignored. It fails to identify any of its supposed sources. The site is notorious for that. It's banned as a source on wikipedia. Not that they're wrong about arranged cousin marriages being more likely to produce children with genetic defects. That's undeniably true. But if they can't actually show you the research study then the numbers are probably just made up for the sake of sensationalism.

"city’s British-Pakistani community, in which around 60 per cent of mothers are married to their cousins according, to a major academic study." which study? and note this is talking about just the city of bradford and not the entire UK


"New official figures shown to the Mail reveal a worrying picture across England. Shockingly, cousin marriages are a key factor in an average of two child deaths every week.
This figure is derived from the fact that a total of 545 boys or girls born to closely related couples have died in childhood during the past five years, according to the Department for Education, which collates data from Child Death Overview Panels in every council area. (It is the job of these panels to examine the deaths of any child under the age of 18.)
Thousands more children of consanguineous marriages survive, but with appalling physical or mental problems. These include blindness, deafness, blood ailments, heart or kidney failure, lung or liver problems and a myriad of often incurable and complex neurological or brain disorders." All of this nonsense is based on the 1 fact they referenced of 545 people age 0-17 dying over the course of 5 years. Note that the statistic is just deaths, and NOT deaths due to a defect.

"According to a report for the BBC’s Newsnight, British Pakistanis are 13 times more likely to have children with genetic disorders than the general population.

They are responsible for three percent of all births, but produce just under a third of all British children with such health problems.

In Birmingham, around one in ten children from first cousin marriages either dies in infancy or develops a serious life-long disability caused by genetic ailments, according to health officials in the city, where half the mothers of Pakistani origin are married to a close relative."
Here they have just super lazily copeid the following from the BBC article:
"British Pakistanis are 13 times more likely to have children with genetic disorders than the general population - they account for just over 3% of all births but have just under a third of all British children with such illnesses.

Indeed, Birmingham Primary Care Trust estimates that one in ten of all children born to first cousins in the city either dies in infancy or goes on to develop serious disability as a result of a recessive genetic disorder."
Which itself fails to cite the source for 13 times, 3%, 1/3. But I guess if you cite me saying "100% of all people are gay", then technically you had a source! good for you! Please note that the dailymail article is published in 2018 and citing a 2005 article from bbc as if it is completely up-to-date factual information LOL.

"Meanwhile, a research document by the NHS-funded Enhanced Genetic Services Project reveals that in Birmingham in 2009-2010, the combined infant stillbirth and death rate ‘definitely or probably’ due to genetic disorders inherited from Pakistani cousin parents was 38 times higher than that among white European babies in the city.

The report — one of the most thorough into this health and social problem — says: ‘Almost a third of the affected children die before five years of age.

Most of the survivors suffer chronic disability, and they are cared for by their families, posing tremendous emotional and financial strain.’"
So here is the actual report: https://www.phgfoundation.org/documents/376_1412153210.pdf

The dailymail claim is wildly off. The paper says that the number of infant deaths +still births due to autosomal recessive conditons was 38 fold higher in pakistani babies. NOT due to genetic disorders in general and NOT specific to cousin-marriages.
In fact, in table 5 you can see the ID+SB totals for all congenital anomalies:
Maternal Ethnic Groups SB+IDs Total Births
European 106 37,764
Pakistani 166 20,117

So 106/37764 = 0.0028
166/20117 = 0.0082

0.0082/0.0028 = 2.94. So a little less than 3 times as likely, nowhere close to the dailymail claim of 38 times. And since the data is not specific to cousin-marriages, it is entirely possible that a chunk of that difference is, as SJ suggested, due to the pakistani parents having a higher percentage of congenital anomalies themselves (although that gets into a who came first, the chicken or the egg? issue).

the next quote about a third dying before 5 is also bogus since it's specific to all british children born with "severe autosomal recessive disorders" and is not specific to pakistani children the way the dailymail tries to frame it as such.





Anyway, of course marrying blood relatives leads to a higher percentage of genetic disorders. But since people love to use shitty sources on here I thought it would be fun to show the bs that is being read as fact

[Grayswandir]

I’m confused as to why people think Pakis having a higher risk of genetic disorders is better than cousin marriage being the cause.

It could also be that one cousin marriage isn’t that big a deal, but several generations doing it over and over could. Think about it. You share 12.5% of your DNA with your cousin. What happens when your kid marries another cousin of theirs? They may be more closely related than normal because of inbreeding.

[SuperJack]

I’m confused as to why people think Pakis having a higher risk of genetic disorders is better than cousin marriage being the cause.

Science isn't about what's better. Its about reaching the correct conclusion.

[SuperJack]

the dailymail article is a farce and should be ignored. It fails to identify any of its supposed sources. The site is notorious for that. It's banned as a source on wikipedia. Not that they're wrong about arranged cousin marriages being more likely to produce children with genetic defects. That's undeniably true. But if they can't actually show you the research study then the numbers are probably just made up for the sake of sensationalism.

"city’s British-Pakistani community, in which around 60 per cent of mothers are married to their cousins according, to a major academic study." which study? and note this is talking about just the city of bradford and not the entire UK


"New official figures shown to the Mail reveal a worrying picture across England. Shockingly, cousin marriages are a key factor in an average of two child deaths every week.
This figure is derived from the fact that a total of 545 boys or girls born to closely related couples have died in childhood during the past five years, according to the Department for Education, which collates data from Child Death Overview Panels in every council area. (It is the job of these panels to examine the deaths of any child under the age of 18.)
Thousands more children of consanguineous marriages survive, but with appalling physical or mental problems. These include blindness, deafness, blood ailments, heart or kidney failure, lung or liver problems and a myriad of often incurable and complex neurological or brain disorders." All of this nonsense is based on the 1 fact they referenced of 545 people age 0-17 dying over the course of 5 years. Note that the statistic is just deaths, and NOT deaths due to a defect.

"According to a report for the BBC’s Newsnight, British Pakistanis are 13 times more likely to have children with genetic disorders than the general population.

They are responsible for three percent of all births, but produce just under a third of all British children with such health problems.

In Birmingham, around one in ten children from first cousin marriages either dies in infancy or develops a serious life-long disability caused by genetic ailments, according to health officials in the city, where half the mothers of Pakistani origin are married to a close relative."
Here they have just super lazily copeid the following from the BBC article:
"British Pakistanis are 13 times more likely to have children with genetic disorders than the general population - they account for just over 3% of all births but have just under a third of all British children with such illnesses.

Indeed, Birmingham Primary Care Trust estimates that one in ten of all children born to first cousins in the city either dies in infancy or goes on to develop serious disability as a result of a recessive genetic disorder."
Which itself fails to cite the source for 13 times, 3%, 1/3. But I guess if you cite me saying "100% of all people are gay", then technically you had a source! good for you! Please note that the dailymail article is published in 2018 and citing a 2005 article from bbc as if it is completely up-to-date factual information LOL.

"Meanwhile, a research document by the NHS-funded Enhanced Genetic Services Project reveals that in Birmingham in 2009-2010, the combined infant stillbirth and death rate ‘definitely or probably’ due to genetic disorders inherited from Pakistani cousin parents was 38 times higher than that among white European babies in the city.

The report — one of the most thorough into this health and social problem — says: ‘Almost a third of the affected children die before five years of age.

Most of the survivors suffer chronic disability, and they are cared for by their families, posing tremendous emotional and financial strain.’"
So here is the actual report: https://www.phgfoundation.org/documents/376_1412153210.pdf

The dailymail claim is wildly off. The paper says that the number of infant deaths +still births due to autosomal recessive conditons was 38 fold higher in pakistani babies. NOT due to genetic disorders in general and NOT specific to cousin-marriages.
In fact, in table 5 you can see the ID+SB totals for all congenital anomalies:
Maternal Ethnic Groups SB+IDs Total Births
European 106 37,764
Pakistani 166 20,117

So 106/37764 = 0.0028
166/20117 = 0.0082

0.0082/0.0028 = 2.94. So a little less than 3 times as likely, nowhere close to the dailymail claim of 38 times. And since the data is not specific to cousin-marriages, it is entirely possible that a chunk of that difference is, as SJ suggested, due to the pakistani parents having a higher percentage of congenital anomalies themselves (although that gets into a who came first, the chicken or the egg? issue).

the next quote about a third dying before 5 is also bogus since it's specific to all british children born with "severe autosomal recessive disorders" and is not specific to pakistani children the way the dailymail tries to frame it as such.





Anyway, of course marrying blood relatives leads to a higher percentage of genetic disorders. But since people love to use shitty sources on here I thought it would be fun to show the bs that is being read as fact


My god. You are amazing aamirus's. You actually did the work. Thank you.

[DJarJar]

I’m confused as to why people think Pakis having a higher risk of genetic disorders is better than cousin marriage being the cause.

my point is that we are talking about something that happens to roughly 1 in 200 pakistani babies in birmingham in the UK. There are all kinds of horrible things that could happen to your child that occur more frequently than 1 in 200. For example if you're black, there's a very high chance your child will be black. So we should probably ban black marriage!

[SuperJack]

my point is that we are talking about something that happens to roughly 1 in 200 pakistani babies in birmingham in the UK. There are all kinds of horrible things that could happen to your child that occur more frequently than 1 in 200. For example if you're black, there's a very high chance your child will be black. So we should probably ban black marriage!

here is your assumption that getting married gets you children.
or that you can have children without marriage


I vote to ban marriage altogether within the aspects of law. I found it quite annoyed that I had to pay money to get a piece of paper just so that I can save money on tax and make future paperwork a little less hassle free.

[DJarJar]

I’m confused as to why people think Pakis having a higher risk of genetic disorders is better than cousin marriage being the cause.

It could also be that one cousin marriage isn’t that big a deal, but several generations doing it over and over could. Think about it. You share 12.5% of your DNA with your cousin. What happens when your kid marries another cousin of theirs? They may be more closely related than normal because of inbreeding.

if you don't carry any bad recessive alleles then inbreeding wouldn't put your kids at risk for anything. Technically, the best way to ensure genetically superior children would be to find the two humans with the most "perfect" genes and force them and their offspring to inbreed. That is actually a large part of why white supremacists look down upon interracial marriages because they feel the white blood is superior and that breeding with other races introduces their defects to the white population (which would technically be true if the 'white bloodline' was actually superior/defect free)

[DJarJar]

here is your assumption that getting married gets you children.
or that you can have children without marriage


I vote to ban marriage altogether within the aspects of law. I found it quite annoyed that I had to pay money to get a piece of paper just so that I can save money on tax and make future paperwork a little less hassle free.

my bad, i meant we should euthanize everyone except you SJ, as you clearly have the perfect genes

[SuperJack]

my bad, i meant we should euthanize everyone except you SJ, as you clearly have the perfect genes

Thats better.

[rumox]

All I am getting out of this is someone could start a business where they check for bad genes and give the thumbs up for people to fuck their families.

[rumox]

People can be certified mother fuckers.

[SuperJack]

i mean solution is to be gay.

[Grayswandir]

All I am getting out of this is someone could start a business where they check for bad genes and give the thumbs up for people to fuck their families.
Oh no. Somewhere in Alabama there is a redneck millionaire about to emerge on the world stage.

[Grayswandir]

here is your assumption that getting married gets you children.
or that you can have children without marriage


I vote to ban marriage altogether within the aspects of law. I found it quite annoyed that I had to pay money to get a piece of paper just so that I can save money on tax and make future paperwork a little less hassle free.
Marriage is cringe don’t change my mind.
I alwaya found the idea of marriage weird tbh. If I’m in love with someone we don’t need to make it into law that we’re together. We’re gonna be together regardless.

[SuperJack]

Marriage is cringe don’t change my mind.
I alwaya found the idea of marriage weird tbh. If I’m in love with someone we don’t need to make it into law that we’re together. We’re gonna be together regardless.

We got married last year because I said "You know if we get married we can get an extra £250 a year"

[Grayswandir]

if you don't carry any bad recessive alleles then inbreeding wouldn't put your kids at risk for anything. Technically, the best way to ensure genetically superior children would be to find the two humans with the most "perfect" genes and force them and their offspring to inbreed. That is actually a large part of why white supremacists look down upon interracial marriages because they feel the white blood is superior and that breeding with other races introduces their defects to the white population (which would technically be true if the 'white bloodline' was actually superior/defect free)
I’m guessing there is a catch to this because I can’t imagine it’s at all common for people to be able to shag their sisters without ending up with children with serious mental and physical disabilities. So, most people carry those recessive alleles, right?

[Grayswandir]

We got married last year because I said "You know if we get married we can get an extra £250 a year"
:laugh:

[SuperJack]

A great topic to look into is the research into Generation Space Ships. Thats a good bit of stuff.

[DJarJar]

I’m guessing there is a catch to this because I can’t imagine it’s at all common for people to be able to shag their sisters without ending up with children with serious mental and physical disabilities. So, most people carry those recessive alleles, right?

https://www.yourgenome.org/facts/what-are-dominant-and-recessive-alleles

Scroll down to the bottom here and see the description of Haemophilia

If two people like these had babies:
XH XH = healthy female
XH Y = healthy male

The babies would be guaranteed to inherit the dominant big H since the parents do not possess the recessive small H.

Since the babies don't have it either, if they had babies with each other they would also only get the dominant big H.

and etc. So, outside of a genetic mutation, these people could have incest babies forever without developing haemophilia

[yzb25]

i mean solution is to be gay.

"The genes! Wh-what about the genes?"

I'd like to see these anti-incest CONCERN TROLLS make a coherent argument against gay cousin marriage.

[DJarJar]

the reason general incest would give a higher proportion of Haemophilia and similar genetic diseases:

If I happen to be XH Xh = carrier female, then it implies that at least 1 of my parents had at least one small h of their own. Therefore, there's a significantly higher chance my brother would have it too, versus if he was just some other random male.

And since at least 1 of my parents has at least 1 small h, it implies that at least 1 of my grandparents has at least 1 as well. Which increases the chance of all of my aunts, uncles, and cousins that share that grandparent having it too.


So basically just think of it as incest simply amplifies the chance of any recessive alleles you're carrying of expressing themselves in the offspring.

[OzyWho]

I thought the way they mentioned cousin marriages cost the tax payer money was weird as well.
https://youtu.be/DGscoaUWW2M :ludicolo:

[OzyWho]

"The genes! Wh-what about the genes?"

I'd like to see these anti-incest CONCERN TROLLS make a coherent argument against gay cousin marriage.
This goes into a different topic altogether. A topic known as redefining marriage due to the gay part.
I hold no personal opinions on the subject, but I can give this relevant quote on the matter:


in response to movements in favor of same-sex marriage, Robert H. Knight wrote:

"Giving non-marital relationships the same status as marriage does not expand the definition of marriage; it destroys it. For example, if you declare that, because it has similar properties, grape juice must be labeled identically to wine, you have destroyed the definitions of both “grape juice” and “wine.” The term “marriage” refers specifically to the joining of two people of the opposite sex. When that is lost, the term “marriage” becomes meaningless."

[yzb25]

This goes into a different topic altogether. A topic known as redefining marriage due to the gay part.
I hold no personal opinions on the subject, but I can give this relevant quote on the matter:

goddamn conservatives acting like marriage is a static notion like a grape, and hasn't been evolving for 100s of years for the needs of society

[OzyWho]

goddamn conservatives acting like marriage is a static notion like a grape, and hasn't been evolving for 100s of years for the needs of society
What needs are those btw?
I don't understand marriage, to me it's a silly thing, and I think SJ and Gray had expressed similar view.
For the sake of clarity - I wouldn't mind if there were different versions of the word, one for each combination of sexes.
A part of language is folly when you can say one thing but it can be interpreted in different ways and have to clarify.

[OzyWho]

"The genes! Wh-what about the genes?"

I'd like to see these anti-incest CONCERN TROLLS make a coherent argument against gay cousin marriage.
If there isn't one, why would they? I don't fully understand this post.

[yzb25]

What needs are those btw?
I don't understand marriage, to me it's a silly thing, and I think SJ and Gray had expressed similar view.
For the sake of clarity - I wouldn't mind if there were different versions of the word, one for each combination of sexes.
A part of language is folly when you can say one thing but it can be interpreted in different ways and have to clarify.

Nowadays, marriage is effectively a legal declaration that two people are seriously commited to staying together, and will take the L with regards to paperwork and money if things don't work out. Married couples get various benefits that unmarried couples do not due to that. Gay couples were interested in making the same legal commitment, but had no identical means of doing so. For a while, for the sake of preserving words maybe as you say, gay couples could apply for the status of "civil partnerships". However, civil partnerships would sometimes miss legal benefits/responsibilities that marriage had, and these would have to be fought for separately. And, even if they became legally identical, it always remained possible some legislation would be given to marriage that wouldn't be given to civil partnership in the future. So, within the modern context of what marriage was, it made sense to allow people to enter the legal agreement irrespective of gender.

[yzb25]

If there isn't one, why would they? I don't fully understand this post.

I was just trolling

[yzb25]

Nowadays, marriage is effectively a legal declaration that two people are seriously commited to staying together, and will take the L with regards to paperwork and money if things don't work out. Married couples get various benefits that unmarried couples do not due to that. Gay couples were interested in making the same legal commitment, but had no identical means of doing so. For a while, for the sake of preserving words maybe as you say, gay couples could apply for the status of "civil partnerships". However, civil partnerships would sometimes miss legal benefits/responsibilities that marriage had, and these would have to be fought for separately. And, even if they became legally identical, it always remained possible some legislation would be given to marriage that wouldn't be given to civil partnership in the future. So, within the modern context of what marriage was, it made sense to allow people to enter the legal agreement irrespective of gender.

There was a strong social motive to it too. People have held same sex relationships in contempt for a long time, seeing them merely as a product of lustful indulgence. You would often hear people talk about how they don't understand why one would choose to enter such a relationship. So allowing them to reach the status of "married" elevated their social value. I think if marriage really is merely this silly thing, we may as well make this silly thing do something meaningful for us!

[SuperJack]

yzb25 just wants to marry me.

I accept your proposal yzb25.

[yzb25]

yzb25 just wants to marry me.

I accept your proposal yzb25.

Finally you damn tease!

[Oberon]

What about me?

[Marshmallow Marshall]

"The genes! Wh-what about the genes?"

I'd like to see these anti-incest CONCERN TROLLS make a coherent argument against gay cousin marriage.

Gay incest would actually be ok if it's consensual... it's WEIRD, but it's ok. If only all incestuous people could be gay!

[Helz]

Im really trying to avoid jumping into this conversation but there is a joke I like to tell. Read a study years ago that traced out genealogy's and found it takes a maximum of 32 steps to connect any 2 people in the world with an average of like 13 steps. So if we are all related its not 'if' its ok to bang your cousin but rather 'how close of a cousin is ok to bang'

Throw that at your friends who just got married or had a kid and their awkward looks are hilarious.

[Oberon]

Im really trying to avoid jumping into this conversation but there is a joke I like to tell. Read a study years ago that traced out genealogy's and found it takes a maximum of 32 steps to connect any 2 people in the world with an average of like 13 steps. So if we are all related its not 'if' its ok to bang your cousin but rather 'how close of a cousin is ok to bang'

Throw that at your friends who just got married or had a kid and their awkward looks are hilarious.
I read that on average married couples in the 60s were seventh cousins,

[Oberon]

Wait that means the most recent common ancestor of the planet is some dude who lived 1,100 years ago. Wonder who that is.

[OzyWho]

Step 1 - let's all call each other brother and sister.
Step 2 - have technology that can detect bad gene matches.
Step 3 - have a away to avoid bad matches, even a dating app will do.
Step 4 - no more incest problems and everyone lives happily ever after.

[DJarJar]

Step 1 - let's all call each other brother and sister.
Step 2 - have technology that can detect bad gene matches.
Step 3 - have a away to avoid bad matches, even a dating app will do.
Step 4 - no more incest problems and everyone lives happily ever after.

Step 2 advanced - euthanize everybody with bad genes

[SuperJack]

Step 2 advanced - euthanize everybody with bad genes

This is important. Or at least make them infertile.