1st cousin marriage

I have answered it. If you can’t find it, ask ChatGPT for help.

I’ve no idea why you’re posting as you are

No idea, really? Are you not seeing the haranguing by that poster then? Convenient.

You can get dispensation from a bishop, which the parish priest would apply for on your behalf. Doesn't have to be the Pope himself!

I’ve no idea why you’re posting as you are. But I think the only thing you’ve said is you don’t think a law is required as education has saw rates drop

clearly it’s far from eradicated so I am fairly sure the quesruin hasn’t been answered.

I’ve read all of your posts.

You haven’t answered it.

I haven’t used AI for a single post here. Who the hell would be using AI to post on Mumsnet?! 😂😂😂

Stop posting personal attacks, and please advise the time and date of the post that you believe answers the question:

Why - given the immense and unnecessary harm that we know is caused by cousins having babies - would we not criminalise it by adding it to the legal definition of incest and prohibiting marriages between cousins?

You’re adamant you’ve answered it, so surely it can’t be that difficult to tell us in which post of yours you believe this answer is contained?

I don't know if banning first cousin marriage is the right approach, because it's the reproduction that causes the problems, i.e. the aim is to prevent first cousins having babies, and a ban on them marrying wouldn't achieve that? Though I think in communities where first cousin marriages are more common, it's less likely there'd be babies born to unmarried couples, so...

And a ban on sex between first cousins would be different from other rules we have about sex which I think are mostly to do with power imbalances? Like, banning it because of "ick" or genetics is opening up a whole load of different possiblee types of sex that might be banned?

Educating about the risks maybe would have more impact - I think people just don't realise what the possible risks to any children could be, and most people would never want their babies to be born with such difficulties like what can happen in some cases of first cousins marrying.

I know first cousin married couple (I'm white as are they), their kids are healthy and happy & I could imagine that would be interpreted as proof it's safe for first cousins to have kids together. I know it isn't necessarily safe, but it's not always obvious that it isn't, on an individual level. As in, on an individual level, often it is safe? The harm accumulates over generations? But I obv don't know anything about that really. But I think education on it would be helpful.

The family bonds & community issue is pretty major I'd think. I can see it compounds risks for women, but on the other hand where there's a small community, with a v strong sense of identity/ values/ customs that aren't shared by people outside the group, it's harder to find the right partner. And some of these communities, the extended family is huge - so people have dozens of first cousins for example, potentially 100s of second/ third cousins, but not necessarily a whole lot of opportunity to make close bonds with completely unrelated people? And where there's lots of distrust of "outsiders", it might feel safer for everyone if people stick to their own.

Not saying that makes it ok, but the "yuck, incest" comments are maybe not recognising that side of it sufficiently?

This is the last time I’m saying this. I’ve already answered upthread. Either read my posts or move on.

These lengthy AI type copy and paste posts aren’t impressing anyone.

I'm sorry, you are wrong! Also, a lot of Indian surnames are the same or similar, and they come from overseas too! Impossible to check!

You’re saying you’ve answered the question.

Where is the answer you say you’ve provided?

It’s a perfectly reasonable question, not “harangueing”. This is a discussion forum. You’ve interjected in the discussion many times and people are allowed to respond to your posts, particularly given that so many of them have been disingenuous, implying falsely that other posters discussing scientific facts are being racist, implying that people saying that sex or marriage between cousins should be prohibited by law based on the clear scientific evidence of the harm it causes to children are advocating for babies to be forcibly aborted (absurd: Rape is illegal, yet women who have been raped and become pregnant forced to abort their babies? No.), ridiculous comments about Darwin and how apparently you expect that he should have had knowledge of scientific discoveries that took place hundreds of years after he was alive, and many other similar attempts at whataboutery and attempts at misdirection/ misrepresentation to attempt to discredit genuine posters and rational discussion of facts.

Ironically, you’ve posted that “I don’t own the thread” and “anyone can post if they want” (even though it’s evident, in fact, asking you to post your justification for you position, not trying to stop you doing so) and yet you then respond telling me that apparently I shouldn’t be asking you to justify your position because allegedly this is “harangueing” you!? Hypocrisy of the highest order.

So, perfectly reasonably, I ask you once again, where is your answer that you claim to have provided to the following question:

Why - given the immense and unnecessary harm that we know is caused by cousins having babies - would we not criminalise it by adding it to the legal definition of incest and prohibiting marriages between cousins?

I’ve looked, and I can’t see any answer you’ve provided to it anywhere so please direct me to it.

I have answered it. It’s really rude to harangue someone like this when you could just check back my posts.

Either stop being rude or stop posting to me.

The Catholic Church has always been against cousin marriage, for hundreds and hundreds of years. So its not a new thing and risks are well known. Although you could apply for approval from the Pope, but that wasn't available to most.

Do your research and look into the Born in Bradford project.

You haven’t answered it once.

Where do you believe you have done so?

I’m sure if you genuinely believe you’ve answered the question you’ll be capable of copy and pasting it, or reposting it below, or telling us what time you made the post, because I’ve read all of your posts and you’ve conspicuously ignored this question despite it being asked to you over and over again.

You haven’t answered it because you have no answer. There is no rational answer that would provide any valid defence of the status quo because it is indefensible, hence your repeated attempts to derail the thread/ weird comments about aborting babies/ insidious attempts to imply people are racist for discussing science/ whataboutery trying to discredit Darwin for not knowing about genetic science 180 years ago before the existence of DNA was even discovered and the first time a disease was mapped to a gene being 1983, etc.

Pathetic.

Sure a midwife talked about incest with you, I believe you 🙄

And those pesky immigrants smoking too, eh?

Well she did. She also said a number of immigrants smoke throughout pregnancy which causes complications. This was 16 years ago but definitely happened and the PP is correct re Bradford’s specialist maternity unit.

Popped back? This isn’t your thread or your house, anyone can add a post when they want to, you know?

Ans I have answered that question repeatedly. I’m not repeating myself for you.

Oh, you’ve popped back up again, have you?

Are you now going to finally answer the question put to you repeatedly then, which you’ve continually ducked?

Why - given the immense and unnecessary harm that we know is caused by cousins having babies - would we not criminalise it by adding it to the legal definition of incest and prohibiting marriages between cousins?

Particularly as we know that this would not only save many children from completely avoidable pain/ suffering and early death, but also vastly reduce unnecessary costs to the state and provide further protections for women from abuse and coercion. The scientific data on the genetic harms caused is clear, as is the fact that this cannot be avoided by genetic testing in the specific circumstance of “marriages” or procreation between cousins, and that there would be no drawback whatsoever from making it illegal given that doing so involves no significant curtailment of anybody’s freedom which could possibly counterbalance the above; everyone who wants to marry and have children can still do so, they just have to choose one of the other 3bn adults of the opposite sex on the planet who isn’t a close relative with which to do so. Education hasn’t worked despite this being tried for decades, with unacceptable rates of this still occuring whereas making it illegal will reduce number of people continuing to cause this harm to children and wider society far, far faster, as it does in the case of every other thing that is criminalised because fewer people engage in it.

Are you going to, finally, answer the question about why you think this immensely harmful practice which inflicts appalling unnecessary suffering on children who have no say in the matter, should not be prohibited by law?

Yes, I agree. The problem as most people on here are saying is when you have communities with a cultural norm of first cousin marriage repeated over and over down the generations resulting in severely disabled children who cost a fortune to look after. It also creates more insular communities with clan based structures.

I don't see anyone in government daring to tackle it though.

My dad had 2 cousins who married each other. Interestingly they were (presumably) unable to have their own biological children and adopted 2 children instead. They were a white British couple and this was a very long time ago.

She reassured me it was in fact due to the high rate of incest in the city…

Sure, she did 🙄

Exactly. That’s the same documentary that I posted a link to much earlier in the thread and have been referring to in my posts, based on the Born in Bradford study.

The evidence is unequivocal.

Allowing this to continue any longer is abhorrent and everybody should demand their MPs ensure that: 1) cousin marriage it prohibited by UK law, with no new marriage licences granted to first cousins and no marriages between first cousins that take place abroad are recognised as a legal marriage in UK law; and 2) the legal definition of the crime of incest is amended to include sex with a first cousin, as the genetic data proves that it should be, just like it is for sex with any other close relative.

We both know why they’re tiptoeing.

It’s like the grooming gangs, everyone has to look the other way because they don’t want to be accused of racism.

I think protecting children is more important than name calling.

By your logic thise who get drunk and have accidents should pay for their alcohol related health issues and the cost of their accidents to the NHS.

But you don’t seem to argue for that?

For me the moral thing comes in when first cousin marriage is repeated over the generations which creates severely disabled children, tragic for them and a huge cost for society. It's this happening as a cultural norm generation after generation that causes the problem.

i Know. The batshit things people write.

Yes this is true. I heard the stat about neonatal deaths in Bradford being quite high when I was pregnant with my first child and I thought this was a fault of the hospital so mentioned to my midwife. I was so terrified I considered switching hospitals for the birth. She reassured me it was in fact due to the high rate of incest in the city…