Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

1st cousin marriage

1000 replies

Wiseplumnet · 26/08/2026 16:00

AIBU to ask your opinion on 1st cousin marriage?.I have read that the government is looking to ban it. I know it is more prevelent ( but declining) in the UK among people of Asian origin. I am not coming from a judgemental or racist angle. I am just interested to know how mum'snetters of all ethnicities feel about marriage between 1st cousin's. I know it used to be more common in the west at one time, apart from keeping money/property in families, people travelled less widely, so there was less choice of marriage partners.I worked with a girl ( White British) who was in a secret relationship with her 1st cousin and they are very reluctant to tell their family, so there seems to be a cultural taboo in 1st cousins being romantically involved.Genetic factors resulting in disabilities (statistically twice as many as in unrelated parents) is sometimes given as a reason for banning cousin marriage, however we have genetic screening now, and disabilities aren't always serious.As so many babies died in infancy before we had vaccines, better health care etc , it was probably difficult to differentiate whether the close relationship between parents was the cause of any disabilities their children . Speaking for myself,I can't imagine wanting to marry any of the cousins I was brought up with as they seem more like brothers to me, but I could understand why someone may be attracted to a 1st cousin who they first met as adults. Or does it give you the instant 'Yuk' ? Also is banning 1st cousin marriage the same as banning 1st cousin sexual relationships and children, or would that become illegal? Maybe there's no need for a legal ban as the tradition will just die out over time

OP posts:
Thread gallery
11
GingerBeverage · 27/08/2026 13:35

x2boys · 27/08/2026 12:42

Yeah but some people will still smoke in cars despite the ban.

No shit.

Wait till you hear about murders occurring despite being illegal.

Still think most people prefer murder to be illegal. Don’t you?

RafaFan · 27/08/2026 13:30

LifetimesAgo · 26/08/2026 23:56

Have you ever considered that there might have been a little less understanding of genetics 180 years ago>

Developing the theory of the principle of evolution and scientifically proving with DNA evidence the biological mechanism of how it functions are not remotely the same thing and you’d know that if you had the faintest idea what you’re writing silly comments about.

Has it occurred to you that Darwin might have had some difficulty in comprehending the genetic implications of cosanguineous procreation when he married his wife in 1839 or, indeed, when he published On the Origin of the Species in 1859 given that Miesheer didn’t discover the existence of DNA until 1869; the mapping of individual genes to specific functions began with Thomas Hunt Morgan’s work and Alfred Sturtevant’s work in 1911 and 1913 respectively; the double helix wasn’t discovered by Rosalind Franklin until 1952; and the first gene causing human disease wasn’t mapped until 1983 (Huntington’s disease, discovered by Dr George Huntington)?

Do you actually know anything about science or is this just more deliberate disingenuous nonsense and misrepresentation? Or are you alleging that Darwin had also developed time travel?

Utterly absurd comment.

Maybe, but selective breeding of livestock has been going on for centuries, of which one aspect involves inbreeding over many generations to fix desirable traits within populations. Darwin wrote about it and carried out experiments of his own with pigeons. He may not gave known about DNA, but he knew about inbreeding, and knew it produced both desirable and undesirable results (from a livestock selection perspective).

climbintheback · 27/08/2026 13:25

Reform say ban it Labour are talking about it - hopefully pressure is mounting.

5MinuteArgument · 27/08/2026 13:24

x2boys · 27/08/2026 13:16

The issue is the resulting children friom generation after generation of first cousins marrying
Not sex itself
Two first cousins of the same sex having consensual sex for example wouldnt be an issue because it couldnt result in pregnancy.

Exactly. The issue is the unacceptable cost to the taxpayer of looking after children born from this outmoded clan mentality.

5MinuteArgument · 27/08/2026 13:18

x2boys · 27/08/2026 12:42

Yeah but some people will still smoke in cars despite the ban.

The logic of your argument is to legalise everything. People will carry on driving at over 20 or 30 mph in a built up area. Solution? Remove the speed restriction. Allow everyone to drive at any speed they want and the NHS can foot the bill of dealing with all the casualties.

x2boys · 27/08/2026 13:16

Betterversionofme · 27/08/2026 13:06

Fine with me.
Also 2 consenting adult siblings should not, in the privacy of their own bedroom, have sex.
Definitely, it should not be okay-ed by society shutting eyes.
If it's proven they had sex, because it resulted in a child, they should be imprisoned.
1st cousins marrying each other generation upon generation results in genetic similarity closer to siblings than cousins in not very consanguinious society.
That's basically like marrying your sibling.

The issue is the resulting children friom generation after generation of first cousins marrying
Not sex itself
Two first cousins of the same sex having consensual sex for example wouldnt be an issue because it couldnt result in pregnancy.

x2boys · 27/08/2026 13:09

Laurmolonlabe · 27/08/2026 12:58

You ban it, and then when they want treatment for their offspring you charge for it, they made a decision which potentially will cost other taxpayers hundreds of thousands of pounds.

Its not that simple though
You would have to change how the NHS works
Currently treatment is free at the point of contact and its funded through taxes i understand your sentiment im just not sure how prevent it in practice

ChimpanzeeThatMonkeyNews · 27/08/2026 13:08

dustabsorber · 27/08/2026 12:49

OK. AMW?

And what’s his role in this discussion, cos my instinct is you’re clutching at straws, cos you have no idea of what you’re talking about??

Betterversionofme · 27/08/2026 13:06

Huxon · 26/08/2026 18:15

Prosecuting what 2 consenting adults do in the privacy of their own bedroom? Authoritarian much?

Fine with me.
Also 2 consenting adult siblings should not, in the privacy of their own bedroom, have sex.
Definitely, it should not be okay-ed by society shutting eyes.
If it's proven they had sex, because it resulted in a child, they should be imprisoned.
1st cousins marrying each other generation upon generation results in genetic similarity closer to siblings than cousins in not very consanguinious society.
That's basically like marrying your sibling.

Laurmolonlabe · 27/08/2026 12:58

You ban it, and then when they want treatment for their offspring you charge for it, they made a decision which potentially will cost other taxpayers hundreds of thousands of pounds.

EasternStandard · 27/08/2026 12:57

dustabsorber · 27/08/2026 12:49

OK. AMW?

You might have to say more on this, not getting the connection to cousin marriage

ChimpanzeeThatMonkeyNews · 27/08/2026 12:52

Mizzeldrizzle · 27/08/2026 11:42

It's a hard one I think generally as long as people are fully educated with the risk they should be allowed to do what they want. However I have read that in certain communities it can make life very hard for the women. It creates a another layer of control and obligation for them. So I don't agree with arranged marriages if that's the outcome.

And what about the children born from these marriages??
This is the issue.

dustabsorber · 27/08/2026 12:50

I agree, ban it.

dustabsorber · 27/08/2026 12:49

EasternStandard · 27/08/2026 12:48

Yep this

OK. AMW?

EasternStandard · 27/08/2026 12:48

ChimpanzeeThatMonkeyNews · 27/08/2026 12:48

What has the Royal Family got to do with any of this discussion??
Can’t we move on now.

We’re talking about here and now, not donkeys years ago.

Yep this

ChimpanzeeThatMonkeyNews · 27/08/2026 12:48

What has the Royal Family got to do with any of this discussion??
Can’t we move on now.

We’re talking about here and now, not donkeys years ago.

dustabsorber · 27/08/2026 12:46

King George V and Queen Mary had one child with epilepsy and autism, who died very young. Then there was the one who abdicated, the one with a stammer who smoked himself to death and the one who was Noel Cowards lover.

x2boys · 27/08/2026 12:42

GingerBeverage · 27/08/2026 11:47

Personal risk should be differentiated from devolved risk. The burden of being born disabled due to consanguineous parentage is different to the burden of being the parent of such children.

We banned smoking inside cars with children because of the risk of impact to others.

Yeah but some people will still smoke in cars despite the ban.

dustabsorber · 27/08/2026 12:41

Cousin marriage doesn't seem to have affected the Royal Family much. HA HA.

x2boys · 27/08/2026 12:41

Laurmolonlabe · 27/08/2026 12:17

Not adviseable if you intent to have children. I think the government has every right to ban it because of the cost to the NHS and social services.

How do they ban it though ?
I dont disagree with the sentiment but even if they ban legal marriage betrewn two first cousins that doesnt stop people from having religious ceremonies and reproducing

Laurmolonlabe · 27/08/2026 12:17

Not adviseable if you intent to have children. I think the government has every right to ban it because of the cost to the NHS and social services.

Firetreev · 27/08/2026 12:07

LifetimesAgo · 26/08/2026 22:29

What?

I don’t care what colour the people’s skin is.

Read my posts.

What a depressing and pathetic response to people discussing a practice that is scientifically evidenced to be harmful regardless of who is doing it. Public policy should be based on science and evidence not culture/ race/ religion etc, that’s my entire point.

Are you one of these posters that tries to pretend that criticism of any behaviour/ practice is “racist” if certain groups in society happen to do it more than others? So all of the geneticists and their data should all be silenced because their data is racist?

Actually the communities which have the highest prevalence of these awful practices would be those that benefit the most from them being banned. And as other posters have pointed out, some of them are white, like traveller communities. So you can cease your silly attempts to try to turn this into some attempt to pretend science is racist if it happens to demonstrate that higher concentrations of people within certain ethnic groups (both specific white and specific other ethnic groups) are doing something unnecessary and damaging to their own children, and our society in general because of the cost (both human and financial).

How pathetic to try to imply it’s somehow “racist” to discuss it. Though I’m sure you’ll deny you did so, as I’ve seen your baiting of people with disingenuous comments on other threads (mysteriously anything like this or to do with immigration, but nowhere else) and then backtracking to pretend you didn’t say what you were clearly trying to imply without saying it outright. It’s so transparent so don’t bother.

And can you please explain your invented hyperbole about aborting babies? I’ve not seen a single person on the thread suggest anything of the kind. What has been said is that the number of poor children born with these completely avoidable defects will reduce vastly when “marrying” cousins is made illegal and having sex with a cousin is recategorised as incest and subject to the appropriate criminal penalties for this, as having sex with other similarly close relative is (aunts and uncles, for example). The whole point is to protect children from the needless harm that these irresponsible people are inflicting on them by procreating with their cousins. It can never be stopped entirely, like any crime, but defining it as a crime now that genetic evidence demonstrates unequivocally that there are very good reasons to define it as such will significantly decrease the rate of occurrence.

When people cause deliberate and completely avoidable harm to children which vastly exceeds the normal level of risk, and the state can do this very simply without this significantly restricting individual rights (e.g. Nobody is banned from marrying/ having children at all, just that they have to choose one of the 3bn adults of the opposite sex to whom they are not closely related to do it with), the state absolutely should step in to prevent them causing that harm to their own children and to society. The balance of rights in this case is very firmly on the side of banning this practice which has been proved beyond doubt to cause harm.

Can you provide a single reason why we shouldn’t ban “cousin marriage” going forward and categorise sex with your cousin within the crime of incest? What benefits does allowing this to continue offer to society which outweigh the harm it causes?

I'm one of the first people to call out racism, but what you've said isn't racist. It's actually helping the very communities currently engaging in this practice. It's not just wrong, but immoral and cruel to risk subjecting children to a life misery for a "cultural practice". White Brits engaged in this practice and realised it was wrong and stopped, other communities should be helped to do the same.

GingerBeverage · 27/08/2026 11:47

Personal risk should be differentiated from devolved risk. The burden of being born disabled due to consanguineous parentage is different to the burden of being the parent of such children.

We banned smoking inside cars with children because of the risk of impact to others.

Mizzeldrizzle · 27/08/2026 11:42

It's a hard one I think generally as long as people are fully educated with the risk they should be allowed to do what they want. However I have read that in certain communities it can make life very hard for the women. It creates a another layer of control and obligation for them. So I don't agree with arranged marriages if that's the outcome.

zanahoria · 27/08/2026 11:39

5MinuteArgument · 27/08/2026 10:33

46% is still really high, almost half. That's still a big burden on the taxpayer. Although I'm glad to hear it's fallen from 60% which is a ridiculously high amount.

And what about the Pakistani communities in Leicester, Birmingham and other cities and towns?

It is high but that figure included marriages for second cousins where the risks are far less and would not be likely to be included in a ban

Please create an account

To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.

This thread is not accepting new messages.
Swipe left for the next trending thread