Why are first cousin marriages allowed in some places

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...

It's Alabama isn't it

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OzyWho

It's Alabama isn't it

---

xD yeah, some states in the south, but surprisingly also some on the east coast, and also california

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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...

---

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.

lmao, maybe my dynasty was going for that achievement

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by aamirus

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.

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).

Maybe my AI grew up in Alabama :)

Maybe they are from the Royal Family.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by oops_ur_dead

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by oops_ur_dead

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OzyWho

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marshmallow Marshall

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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).

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marshmallow Marshall

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.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by oops_ur_dead

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!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Grayswandir

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by oops_ur_dead

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

---

Thank god for Abortions eh.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SuperJack

Thank god for Abortions eh.

---

Lol. Funny shit that just realised.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by oops_ur_dead

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SuperJack

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

---

I did? Or thought I did?

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...marriages.html
Here it is.

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.

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.

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Grayswandir

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

I like this post.

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.

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.

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

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

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SuperJack

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SuperJack

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.

Someone contact Netflix

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OzyWho

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rumox

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rumox

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.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rumox

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by oops_ur_dead

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by aamirus

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Grayswandir

More like checkmate, von Habsburgs.

---

lol that too

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marshmallow Marshall

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by oops_ur_dead

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.