Should it be illegal for 1st cousins to marry?

[brasty]

My DP's parents are 1st cousins, and DP has a genetic illness. Marrying your 1st cousin increases the chances of genetic illness. So I wonder if we should simply make it illegal for 1st cousins to marry? Obviously anyone married would stay so, it would only apply to new marriages.
AIBU?

kesstrel ^you wrote 'near impossible to identify a child delayed from brilliant to average'. I can see that, but have there been any (reliable) studies done of this on a population level? Or is that too problematic to be done reliably?*

So first, I should say that developmental delay is not my field of interest (other than that associated with clear physical malformation) so while I haven't seen studies of such, that doesn't mean they don't exist.

However, I can see how problematic they'd be to create. Some thoughts:

1. Average children don't attract flags, and are likely to pass under the radar of medics, teachers etc. Unless Mr and Mrs Brainier-Than-Everyone report concerns that their child is "merely" average in terms of IQ/developmental milestones (and I have no idea how this would be received by the professionals; mild amusement, I suspect), then collecting a cohort of such children is difficult.
2. Determining that the average child of brainy parents has suffered some kind of limit due to the genetics of the brainy parents is practically impossible. Unless...
3. There is some kind of physical/biological marker that predicts "intelligence" (using this as a very broad term) that can be measured accurately in both Average Child and Brainy Parents and can be proven to lead to a different intelligence outcome.
4. Developmental delay can be a very vague term in genetics. I've seen clinical notes state "mild delay" but that might be something as minor as being one month 'late' at rolling over or having a slightly lower reading age than average i.e. all part of the normal spectrum of individual development and individual strengths/weaknesses. And the causes of any clinically relevant delay can be equally vague. The brain may be missing some vital tissue, or it may be something environmental/acquired and not linked to genetics (although susceptibility may be genetic).

I doubt many scientists would take this on, to be honest. Although, as I say, developmental delay (other than physical causes) is not my field, and I'm certainly not a population statistician.

Also, there's something a little bit unethical (IMO) about trying to demonstrate that a perfectly happy, normal child might have been Einstein, had the parents not been first cousins?

I don't know if it should be made illegal but should be strongly advised against, particularly if the cousins are themselves descendants of cousin marriages.

I agree, Ghosts. It's such a delicate subject because if you make an engrained cultural practice illegal, you'll come up against a lot of hostility and a sense among that community that it is being unfairly targeted. On the other hand, there is a real problem with, as you say, descendants of cousin marriages marrying their cousins and so on. Plenty of European royal families have suffered health problems (such as haemophilia) as a result of constant inbreeding down the generations.

No it should stay legal, most cousins who marry in this country are of Pakistani origin and making it illegal would not stop Islamic weddings going ahead without the legal bit. Yes I know not all Pakistani people are Muslims and it does happen with non Pakistani couples.

It should however be compulsory to have genetic testing.

Cousins who have parents and grandparents who are first cousins - that is when you get a real problem.

The Orthodox Jewish community have been screening for Tay Sachs for decades.

It is something seized on by racists and bigots (like they bloody care) but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be addressed.
I agree with you there, though, The FirstMrsDV

As regards Darwin, this is an interesting article from a solid source.

And @MaidOfStars, thank you for your posts, very interesting.

It should however be compulsory to have genetic testing
For what end though? If two potential parents are found to both carry a recessive gene, are you going to stop them having children? How?

I agree with widespread genetic testing for information. But this idea has to be sold to the relevant communities, not forced upon them.

Wrt genetic testing, should Little People ( I'm using that term as I watch American telly )not have children? Or anyone with something they could pass on?

How do you ban two consenting adults from having sex, though? Send them to prison? Restraining orders?

The Orthodox Jewish community have been screening for Tay Sachs for decades
And very successful has been the screening programme. So much so that Tay-Sachs has been virtually eradicated from this population.

However, the major intervention in preventing babies being born with Tay-Sachs is TFMR. I'm not sure this model screening programme easily translates to the often less genetically-defined issues in a population with strong ethical opposition to termination.

Does it not count as incest? And isn't incest illegal?

No,it's legal in the UK NoCapes therefore not seen as incest.

So what counts as incest then?
I thought incest was just sleeping with people in your family - ie related by blood?

Immediate family

But it's legal to sleep with loads of people you're related to by blood, isn't it? If it weren't, we'd have died out years ago - imagine keeping track of ninth, tenth and eleventh-degree cousins!

The legality is just the result of where people happened to draw the line.

Incest: parent/child, grandparent/grandchild, siblings, half-siblings, aunt/uncle/nephew/niece.

ie related by blood
The parent/child situation is covered by adoption laws too.

Incest is immediate family - parents, grandparents, siblings, aunts/uncles, nieces/nephews etc.

Cousins don't count as immediate family in that regard.

X-post with Maid who said exactly the same thing!

My paternal grandparents were first cousins. I have a condition which we had no idea was genetic until my third child was born with it but whether or not this is to do with with this relationship we have no idea. No-one else is the immediate family has any issues and it seems to be a female link so

Thanks for the explanations

Although I'm struggling to see how first cousins are any less related than an aunt & nephew or uncle & niece

Very strange, and makes my stomach lurch a little bit

Although I'm struggling to see how first cousins are any less related than an aunt & nephew or uncle & niece
Socially, I agree. But not everyone has the same relationship with their family.

Genetically, there is a generational difference. You likely share more DNA with your aunt than with her child/your cousin.

Oh yes that makes sense actually Maid

It's funny how social taboos work, though. Back in pre-Reformation Europe, you had to have a religious dispensation to marry your cousin (and your second cousin), because otherwise it was considered incestuous.

But you could also get a dispensation to marry your uncle/aunt/niece/nephew.

It is strange to me, that while I understand intellectually that we're talking degrees of the same situation, I have a very different emotional response to these different relationships!

Probabilities for genetic relationships:

Sibling/parent
50%

Half-sibling/grandparent/grandchild/aunt/uncle/niece/nephew
25%

First cousin
12.5%

It's easy to count. Start at your self with 100%. Then move back/across the family line to trace the shortest path to the person with which you are interested in your genetic relationship. Then halve the % for each step you take.

This thread could fill up with people throughout history who married a niece/nephew/uncle/aunt never mind a cousin. I don't think attitudes have changed that much tbh. It was accepted rather than acceptable.

Though you have interesting complications that I believe aren't covered by current laws. Two sisters marrying two brothers, or identical twin parents, for example.

So the law isn't purely based on logic.