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?

No, there have been times in history when it's been totally acceptable to marry cousins. And communities where it still is.

My family has a range of congenital issues,,some of which are very rare. My Grandmother's family lived in a very rural part of Lancashire which even today is fairly inaccessible. Upon doing the family tree, it turns out that nearly all of her ancestors were related to each other, probably because they were the only families in the village. Some were cousins, some 2nd cousins etc, but over about 200 years, everyone is related to everyone else and only five surnames appear as ancestors in the family tree.I'm sure that it has had an impact on the family's health over many generations.

I have a genetic problem (blindness). My parents are not related, nor even from the same part of the world.

The majority of disability resulting from recessive genes is in these circumstances (unrelated parents). Or so my medical consultant says. It's just luck of the draw.

I think there's a certain amount of covert disablism on this thread. The cultural problem with cousin marriages is when people (women especially) don't have a free choice about whom to marry. That's a massive problem and should be stopped. But if the occasional person falls in love with their first cousin, that's not the end of the world. Even if they have a disabled child.

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
I was on a thread recently where someone was asking what the genetic relationship would be between two first cousins who were the children of two pairs of identical twin parents. The probability has them at the level of full siblings.

But you're right, no legislation to stop them marrying/procreating. Although I imagine, in such special circumstances, the family are very close and those children will cement a social bond that precludes the idea of having a child together.

But in certain communities marriage has nothing to do with love... or bad luck. It's design. Marriage to a cousin is for the purpose of keeping money in the family, or as favours, to repay debts etc.

I have a genetic problem (blindness)

Now this is EXACTLY my field.

Yes, I'd imagine that would be the case! My own cousins are two brothers married to two sisters, and their children certainly seem more like distant siblings than close cousins, in the way they interact. And the way they look!

My own cousins are two brothers married to two sisters, and their children certainly seem more like distant siblings than close cousins

get's GET'S??? No idea where that apostrophe came from. Is there even a form of "gets" that can take an apostrophe?

No, there's not. But we shall consider it a random mutation and not an innate defect in your abilities (I'm probably making you wince with my attempt at terminology there!).

Anyway, 25%, I reckon. The same distance as half-siblings.

Makes sense!

Not illegal in ROI however if catholic you are required to get dispensation from the bishop to marry

Nothing wrong with marriage it's the having dcs that's the problem!

Yes 'banning' cousin marriage would stop people having children how? Unless you make it illegal to have a sexual relationship with your cousin as well (and that's pretty draconian) it is as good as useless as a piece of legislation.

I get that there are pretty serious potential health problems, but such is the case with smoking or drinking through pregnancy and no one in their right minds who try and make that illegal.

Thanks to everyone who contributed to this. I have RTFT and found it fascinating both socially and from a statistic/genetic point of view.

You'd imagine that the incest taboo was universal, but I believe Cleopatra married her brother. Which is really freaky, in my view.

I don't think there is much you can do about the problem other than education, unfortunately. This is entirely anecdotal, but a friend of a friend is a maxillofacial surgeon (treating people with facial defects, most of which are genetic), and apparently his patients tend to be clustered in certain regions of the country where there is more than average in-breeding.

There was a programme on R4 about this. I can't remember the area, but it was about how it such a big problem in the Pakistani community there. They said often the women had very little English and when things went wrong in the pregnancy or the baby was born with lots of problems etc the husband/family told the wife it was to do with religion/God's will (can't remember which religion they mentioned) rather than explain actually it was genetics and could be avoided.

I have to say, I do find it interesting when people say "well, they/we weren't raised together, so I didn't see them as my cousin" or, "we never met until we were late teens/adulthood" as if that somehow means they're not related.

I get that it means you perhaps view them differently, but when it comes to genetic risk, it doesn't decrease simply because you never knew them when you were five.

There seems to be an assumption on this thread that the communities most affected by genetic birth defects just don't care that it could be down to consanguinity.
That is simply not true.
Do you imagine that the families of children with life limiting conditions dgaf about their kids or care about them less than you do?

Nonsense. maidofstars knows what she is talking about.

I have been working at the 'other end' of her field for decades. I work with the children being discussed on this thread.

Non judgemental, culturally sensitive engagement and education is what is needed. Not laws and bans and wrinkled noses. Nor do we need wailing an mourning for the terrible lives of disabled children thanks very much.

Genetic counselling is available to everyone if they want it but how many people consider it? I didn't and I had two kids in my 40s. Does that make me as bad, worse or better than a Pakistani 1st cousin couple who have children?

There is quite a lot of ill informed over reaction on this thread. Its totally unhelpful.

There is a discussion to be had. If only it could be had without shots of racism, disablism and denial.

caff, I don't think anyone imagines the genetic situation changes. It's more that people are explaining why they're not joining in with the juvenile 'ewww, sick' cries.

And YY, MrsDV.

I know quite a few people married to their 1st cousins, none of their children have genetic disorders.

I don't think 1st cousin marriages are inherently wrong or bad. But, like a PP said, you can't really argue with science. Yes, as a one off, the likelihood of there being any genetic problems is minuscule, but when it happens 2/3/4/5 times in a row, that likelihood increases drastically with each generation. It's not the same as being an older parent - because if your child goes on to be an older parent too, their risk is the same as yours was, it doesn't increase further with each generation in the same way the risk of genetic/hereditary illness does in consanguineous marriages.

And what are parents supposed to say? They can't tell their kids it's wrong to marry their cousins when they've done it themselves!

SunEgg: "I know quite a few people married to their 1st cousins, none of their children have genetic disorders."

Marrying your first cousin simply increases the risk of children with genetic disorders - it doesn't mean that your children will have genetic disorders. And as has already been mentioned, the real problem comes with generations of inbreeding, as seen in various European royal families. And certain parts of rural Pakistan.