When did marrying a cousin become socially unacceptable?

[LionBird]

I'm a big Agatha Christie fan and noticed there are quite a few references to cousins being in a relationship. I'm rereading Taken at the Flood currently, which is set in 1946, and the main character is engaged to her cousin and nobody seems to think it's strange! Obviously it was quite common in royal circles too in the 19th century but post-WW2 isn't that long ago so I'm not sure how and when it became unacceptable to have a relationship with a cousin - can anyone shed some light on this?

I just think it doesn't really make sense. I'm autistic so I tend to look at things very literally. The reasons people give aren't real reasons other than they think it's gross which isn't a logical reason to me.
Should laws be dictated by what people think is gross? Obviously any type of abuse should be prevented by law.. but what abuse is occurring if two consenting adults are related to each other and want to be in a relationship?
I just don't understand it. I think it's based on underlying religious sentiment.
It doesn't make sense because it's not illegal for people who definitely have genetic issues they would definitely pass on to children, to have relationships with each other or have children.. so that argument doesn't stand.. and even if it did now days you could just take contraception or get sterilised to avoid the pregnancy genetic issues.. and what about gay relationships? What's the issue then??
I just don't understand people's reasoning behind thinking it should be illegal. It doesn't make any logical sense. All I can see is people thinking it's gross because they wouldn't do it and it's ingrained in them to think it's gross.. I don't think that's a good reason to make something illegal.
We should protect people from abuse so obviously forced marriage should be illegal.. but that yo me is a separate issue. The relationship to the person you are being coerced to marry is irrelevant, it's all wrong.
And obviously abusive power dynamics like parents trying to enter sexual relationships with their children... even if the child is an adult and says they consent.. that again is obviously an abuse of power and so should be illegal due to the exploitation aspect.

But cousins.. and I'd extend that to adult siblings who get together in adulthood... it makes no logical sense to me why that should be illegal.

@Thatcastlethere , I think you might be advocating liberty without understanding the costs to society. First cousin marriages double the rate of genetic birth defects, which are usually lifelong but now, rarely fatal. So your inclination to think first cousin marriage is fine means that tax payers end up paying for all the health and welfare costs that accrue over 60 or 70 years, without the individual chipping anything back in.

I expect this post to be deleted.

In some cultures, first cousin marriage is encouraged as a form of tribalism, in that families/clans don't want money or property to go outside their relatives.

In modern European culture, it is exceptionally rare for a person to marry anyone that they knew before they were eight 8 years old.

The big Bradford study (which I assume has been referenced many times before on the thread) showed that cousin marriage doubled the chance of genetic conditions, but that these are still very rare, occurring in under 6% of children born to cousins. (The follow-up study also suggests cousin marriage is falling considerably.) I take @Thatcastlethere ’s point that making certain kinds of marriage illegal on the grounds of them being liable to cost the NHS and the taxpayer more money is a potentially pernicious and eugenicist slope.

It’s a civil liberty vs nanny state thing.

Lots of people do things that are harmful to themselves or other people (particularly their children) but are not illegal.

Smoking (particularly whilst pregnant or around children), excessive drinking (again whilst pregnant), mountain climbing in trainers. Not only are these things legal but if it goes horribly wrong for you then the state steps in to cure your cancer / pump your stomach / stretcher you down.

Some dangerous things are illegal. Eg taking heroin, not wearing a seatbelt. Although again we step in and help people when it goes horribly wrong.

Should it be illegal for a carrier of the haemophilia gene to have children? Or a couple who already have one child with cystic fibrosis?

I don’t know what the answer is (and if you read my post from a few days ago you will discover that I only exist because of cousin marriage). I think that there definitely should be a lot more info about it including it being taught in schools (the genetics is fascinating as it really helps you understand recessive and dominant genes). But illegal? I’m not sure. Smoking is far more dangerous and that is still legal - just antisocial.

Well marrying/having sex with your brother/sister is illegal because everyone knows that it is disgusting and extremely dangerous to all involved. I don’t see much difference with cousin relationships.

The percentage of the risk of disability is rightfully being highlighted but, as anyone that has much to do with inbred populations will know, there are other outcomes to offspring that wouldn’t be classified as a disability. The terms village idiot and being slow comes to mind. Look at the educational outcomes in populations where the practice is common and also their general health. Unfortunately, Gypsy and Roma always seem to come at the bottom of these tables and I think a big factor in that is cousin marriage.

And yet something like a fifth of the world’s population practices cousin marriage — lots of sub-Saharan Africa, Saudi, Afghanistan, Egypt, Turkey, Iran, as well as Pakistan and India.

I have a friend from school who married her first cousin in ca. 2007 (rural English farming family) and it raised a few eyebrows then. Tbh though I think in the same community now, the reaction would barely be any different - i.e.raised eyebrows but not outright horror or condemnation.

Except that numerous states have had cousin marriage bans for a very long time - centuries, in many cases - without it leading to any kind of slippery slope or bans on people with hemophilia genes or whatever from reproducing.

In any case, it's not just about the genetics; a more seriously issue IMO is that widespread, normalized consanguinous marriage seems to be incompatible with being a rich, liberal democracy. Countries where cousin marriages are widespread are always (by our standards) violent, corrupt and poor, and that's not a coincidence.

(Except for a few which are superficially wealthy, like a few oil states. But they have never become proper democracies either)

Apart from the medical issues which have been highlighted, I wonder how many are arranged or almost forced marriages?

Genetic birth defects, now we understand the genetic codes a little better.

Even the royal families of Europe paid the price here, in the last century.

A huge amount. I mean virtually all of them when you think about it. What are the odds that those people would have fallen in love with their cousin and chosen to marry them without the expectations of their family and their culture? What is the rate of cousin (especially first cousin) marriage among the populace in general, where this is not the cultural norm? So tiny as to barely register in on any scale, I imagine.

So there is your answer. Even among those who have been so conditioned by their culture from birth that they don't really question it and don't see it as forced but something that inevitable and perfectly acceptable, they are still not given the benefit of choice that other people have. Particularly women from poorer, more conservative families.

I answered upthread already, but I think the real point is that in some groups, the cousin marriages happen again and again over successive generations.
My own ancestors include a cousin marriage, but it was once.
Happening in each generation over many years increases the risks.

Just posting this

It's one of the things that people are loath to discuss, lest they be accused of racism - and I confess that I'm nervous of saying this here.

In my time as a teacher, there would sometimes be hushed discussions in the staffroom of problems caused by inbreeding. There would be problems with families from certain Scottish villages at one time.

More recently, I did see it with siblings from a particular immigrant family and with several members of a specific community which had migrated throughout Europe together. The eldest in the community had all been born in the same village. Some of the children were really bright, but some had severe genetic issues. Those children in the community who acquired good English openly said that their families had moved to the UK from an EU country in order to benefit from the healthcare here.

There's no doubt in my mind that a succession of first cousin marriages causes problems.

I work in a unit for children with issues that mean their needs can’t be met in mainstream school. 40% of the children are from Pakistani/Indian cousin marriages. There are global developmental delay, language processing syndromes, motor difficulties, verbal communication problems, eye problems. I feel that we are supporting whole families at times, classes of 8 with a teacher and 2 support staff, amazing resources and opportunities. So many could benefit from this but families continue to marry a parents sibling or a first cousin when the issue is well known in the UK especially in children’s hospitals and services. It seems sad and wrong frankly.

There is another comment by Matthew Syed in the Times today::
https://www.thetimes.com/article/723d4ade-fbfa-4bbf-a63a-69f5f1807096?shareToken=315aa6431cba9f3be0891ed0b0cfb614

I was just coming on to discuss this article. Matthew Syed is as superb as ever. Always right on the money.

Interestingly, it has transpired that two of the children of those monsters Urfan Sharif and Bainash Batool also have SNs. They are not related as far as we know, but I guess if they are both from families where cousin marriage has been practised through several generations then even if they themselves are not related, there would (I imagine) be a higher likelihood of there being genetically related issues for their own children.

I googled this & there is discussion as to how accurate this is. Certainly Smith's assertion about incest being common seems very bold.

If it's OK to ask, what is this community called? I'm interested in strict religious groups.

Do you mean the European Roma?

And is it helping their educational outcomes?

Not to Jane Austen's family (her brother married their cousin), Charles Darwin, HG Wells, Friedrich Hayek (tho he married back in Germany), David Lean. Plus Queen Victoria & quite a few aristos esp 19th century. But thank goodness that's no longer the case! 🤮

Are you referring to George III when you say porphyria? He is now thought to have had manic depression, not porphyria. Did others have it?