Should cousin marriage be banned?

Post Reply New Topic

Firstly, I'll admit that I have my own culturally-conditioned 'yuck' reaction to the thought of cousin marriage. However, I was initially against the idea of banning first cousin marriage because it's practised by such a huge chunk of the world. I couldn't believe it was actually banned in some US states and in some countries in East Asia.

Then I saw the effects of inbreeding. At least 55% of the UK Pakistani community are married to first-cousins and they've been doing this for many, many generations. Obviously, most of the kids are fine but there is a higher incidence of severe birth defects because of consanguinity. This is true in the Ultra Orthodox Jewish community, too. I think it's unethical to marry your cousin without genetic testing, especially if you come from a community where it's commonly practised.

I also think it ought to be discouraged with campaigns, for cultural reasons, as well as genetic reasons. The rate of first-cousin marriages is actually increasing amongst my generation of British Pakistanis, as compared to the last generation. I think this is because:
1. Since most cousin marriages are transnational, you bring another member of your family into the country.
2. It's a status thing (they have their own castes).
3. In my highly controversial opinion, there's a general cultural shift amongst the British Pakistani community to be more insular and less integrated, and marrying your cousin is part of that.

However, I don't want to pick on Pakistanis in particular; I'm sure most other countries that have communities with really high rates of cousin marriages have the same issues. In Israel, there have been cases of people suing doctors because they were born with inbreeding-related birth defects that they think the doctors should have detected, either with genetic testing before conception or through termination - i.e., they argue that it's better for them to have not been born.

There was a debate in the Netherlands regarding whether it ought to be banned. They decided that it would be impossible because such a ban would violate the ECHR and also discriminate against immigrants. The same would be true in Britain, so I don't think a ban is practical. I do think there should be a campaign, possibly led by health professionals within immigrant communities, to discourage it. Also, genetic testing should be widely encouraged, as it is in Israel, if people are going to do it anyway.

Last edited by puddingmouse on 01 Nov 2011, 3:40 pm, edited 1 time in total.

In case the parties are incapable of having children there should be no restrictions. Even on brother-sister incest. If the parties are capable of having children then there should be a thorough genetic review to evaluate the possible recessive defects that might emerge. If there are clear signs of a hazard from recessive defects the parties should reconsider or get sterilized.

ruveyn

In Israel you can marry your uncle but you can't marry your aunt.

What's the reasoning behind that?

The reasoning would be that if you married your aunt she might end up being an older woman which could cause complications if she got pregnant. But if you married your uncle it does not matter if he is older because he can't get pregnant.

I couldn't read that without hearing this:
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1tqxzWdKKu8[/youtube]

By that reasoning, you might as well make it illegal for men to marry any women who are more than a few years older than them. Plus, it's possible for your aunt to be roughly the same age, or even younger.

There is no reasoning. Its custom and tradition.

ruveyn

It is already impossible for a lot of older woman to get pregnant while a man of the same age can easily father a child.

Both groups are small xenophobic groups that dont want to assimilate.
Theyd rather inbreed than risk assimilation by marrying outsiders.

To outsiders like us that IS rather sad and pathetic.
Maybe you could somehow force groups like that to adopt orphaned infants of other races- so they can propagate thier insular culture only by raising a quota of genetically alien kids. Just a thought.

They say that Cleopatra was the product of seven generations of brother-sister marriage and" it didnt hurt her" .

But the royal families of Europe were only allowed to marry each other, and after a few centuries the european royals became as inbred as any appalachian hollow. The Russian prince had hemophelia, and the Hapsburgs had some rather physlcally unique speciemens in the family to say the least. So inbreeding did seem to bring out some rather bad genes in the European royals. Its a good thing that they are now allowing some commoners to swim in the gene pool. So inbreeding must be risky despite what they say about Cleopatra.

Should it be legal to roger and spaff in one's mum then?

Erm, as for cousin marriage: I think it's a tough one. I generally have anti-Islam views... is it commonplace among the non-Muslim population? If not, my emotional reaction would be towards banning it.

Is it only me or is this a bigger insult than just banning it? Ouch!

Pakistani British births make up about 3% of the total in this country, but their children suffer from 30% of the reported cases of genetic illnesses. 1 in 10 children of first cousin marriages in Birmingham either die in infancy or develop a serious illness. We're moving from 'risky' here to 'ethically wrong'. That's why I advocate raising awareness and using genetic testing.

Or even: if you want to have your cousin bumping against your balls, use a condom. Simple.

We're talking first cousin marriages, not first cousin sex. The whole point of these marriages is to create babies. There's no point in saying, 'it's okay if they don't have kids' because their intention is to have kids.

And they call this a culture. Jesus Christ.

Does this lot have any more 'surprises' to bestow upon us? Why can't they marry normally, like normal people (predatorily poaching white women excepted) instead of medieval barbarians?