Why are first cousin marriages allowed in some places

[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]

Yes

[Marshmallow Marshall]

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

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

[rumox]

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

[OzyWho]

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...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

[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.

Imagine the publicity!

[SuperJack]

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

Imagine the publicity!

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/textbase...l-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.

Spoiler : 60 percent :

"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

Spoiler : 545 :

"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.

Spoiler : bbcDaily :

"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:

Spoiler : bbc :

"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.

Spoiler : report :

"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/docume...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]

Spoiler : aamirus's quote :

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.

Spoiler : 60 percent :

"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

Spoiler : 545 :

"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.

Spoiler : bbcDaily :

"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:

Spoiler : bbc :

"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.

Spoiler : report :

"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/docume...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.