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?

rockcake: "If it was illegal though there'd be far far fewer cases of cousins having sex/babies - especially as lots of marriages in some cultures are engineered by the families and they just don't have babies out of wedlock."

This is bang on. It mostly happens in communities where the marriage is engineered by the parents (so not spontaneous sexual attraction) and where cohabiting isn't acceptable. It's not as if those communities simply happen to have loads of people who are romantically attracted to their relatives

Or my guess is that people marrying their cousins would go through the religious marriage, but not got through the civil ceremony, so they'd still be 'married' in the eyes of their religion, but not in any meaningful legal sense, so should they separate, the women and their dependant children living in such arrangements would be incredibly vulnerable, for the reasons we see explained on mumsnet all the time.

I really doubt some of the women have much say in who they marry in some of the cultures mentioned.

It's not racist to say that surely.

Hackmum, BoysofMelody and Unborn.....

Absolutely to all that.

What I don't understand, bearing in mind that the Bengali community is so vast - amongst the girls I know, typical weddings are attended by 400 - 800 guests- it's not as if their optioms are that limited, so by all means marry within the community, just not the family.

I also know of some horrendous stories of young people with disabilities being married off to unsuspecting others, then, by the time the whole thing falls apart, there's a disabled child or two in the mix.

It's not a racist issue imo, so if making 1st cousin marriage illegal reduces the risk of such problems, it can only be a good thing.

I think the Bengali community is quite large, but because they do marry first cousins so often, the gene pool is just not big enough. Then, when choosing spouses for their children, they dip into the same gene pool, sometimes down to the same village. Surely it's not racist if you are trying to stop a community wiping itself out? 30% of all congenital disabilities coming from one small community is massive. The Royal families of Europe were virtually wiped out by haemophilia and other disabilities, then had to start incorporating 'commoners' to stop them all dying.

And 'fucking rude' isn't fucking rude is it

I had married cousins on both sides of my family. One couple adopted a boy and a girl and the other couple didn't have children although I know she longed for them. But I remember as a child her saying that it wouldn't be safe for the child if they did, this was back in the 80's. She died of a brain tumour about ten years ago and the love they had for each other was very real, the way he nursed her was so sweet. So no I don't think it should be illegal.

Not sure about making it illegal yeah they could end up with kids who have genetic conditions but 2 people who aren't related but carry the same gene for a genetic condition could also end up having a child with a genetic condition should that be made a illegal as well.

I have a child with a genetic condition. I am not related by blood to my DH at all. Should we have had screening before having a family, even though we had no idea that there was any reason too? I am glad my DD is here . Her condition is managed and not causing her bother at the moment. But perhaps she will pass it on to her children- should she be stopped from having kids? It is unlikely she will marry her cousin so that would not be the cause. Where would you draw the line to stop genetic conditions?

Where would you draw the line to stop genetic conditions?
................

I guess we draw the line at relatives marrying and take our chances with everyone else. There will always be people with genetic conditions that can't be helped, so no to routine testing, but if some problems can be managed by outlawing cousins marrying, that must surely be a good thing

Banning cousin marriage would do little to stop cousins breeding & having kids together, if they want to they could still do that.

Just look at this disturbing marriage plan (very unpleasant link).

Even if people only had children in legal marriages, banning 1st cousin marriage won't stop those problem conditions. If you want to stop those conditions, genetically test people & then tell people who they can't have children with. That would be the logical way to achieve the supposed "good" that somehow trumps personal liberty. Or go one better, and sterilise people who are carriers of difficult conditions so the genes can be completely eradicated. It's only a small personal sacrifice, right?

My gut feeling is this a place where the laws should be fairly minimal.

rock hasn't it already been shown on this thread that the risk is as high in older women as it is in cousin unions?

Why would you draw the line at one but not the other?

The Royal families of Europe were virtually wiped out by haemophilia and other disabilities, then had to start incorporating 'commoners' to stop them all dying.

The haemophilia was not caused by inter marrying though, it started with Victoria through a genetic mutation. It was not present in the royal family until then. Bad luck, not cousin marriages.

Haven't read the thread yet but no, it shouldn't be illegal and certainly isn't in Ireland because my cousin's are married. They took lots and lots of advice re the impact on any children and were assured that it would not be a problem. If there had been any doubt they wouldn't have continued the relationship.

One pair of first cousins having children is not a problem, unless there is a genetic disease affecting them both. The big problem is when first-cousin marriage is repeated generation after generation, as it is in some cultures. Genetic diseases then become extremely common.
The answer is loud and clear education aimed at these cultures. Nobody chooses to have an ill or disabled child.

rock hasn't it already been shown on this thread that the risk is as high in older women as it is in cousin unions?
............

Sorry, didn't see that - "the risk" being the same in older women as in cousin unions is a bit of a generalisation though...... risk of what? Physical disability or severe autism, or what? I'm no expert, all I know is what I've witnessed in one particular community of people where 1st cousins often marry in their youth and produce children with a disproportionately high level of problems.

There is a bit of Leeds where the 5% of people from somewhere like Pakistan make up 25% of the children with disablities because of the huge incidence of rist cousin marriage.

The European royals had the same problem in the past eg the Russian Tzar's son with haemophilia.

Perhaps we should allow it provided people put up a £100k bond in cash against potential future drain on the NHS

It's a pretty deep cultural norm in the western world that marrying a close cousin is a bit "yuck." No need for a law against it because it was so rare, and the odd cousin marriage isn't so dangerous compared to double cousin marriages year after year.

I am not sure that making cousin marriage illegal would help much. Perhaps finding cousin marriage unattractive is all part of long-term assimilation.

I have first cousins in my family who married and had a child. Said child was born severely disabled and sadly died at age 9

First cousins marrying is not the problem, a restrictive gene pool is. Where both parents are carriers of a hereditary genetic condition, each off spring has a 25% chance of either developing the condition or not but a 50% chance of becoming a carrier.

If options are restricted to a small gene pool the outcome will be more carriers of the genetic condition and ultimately more occurrences of people having the condition.

Education and awareness is key but certain communities refuse to a knowledge or discuss the problem, fearing that if the wider community knew it would affect marriage prospects for the 'healthy' siblings of the child with the hereditary condition.

They often do marry under English civil law too because part of the point of the first cousin marriage is to keep money in the families so you tend to want a religious and a civil ceremony for that.

the FLDS group in the US has more people with furamose syndrome than anywhere (and they marry mostly within their narrow group) www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-mormons-genes-idUSN0727298120070614 and the rather awful Kingston clan in the US have a lot of father/daughter breeding www.culteducation.com/group/1099-polygamist-groups/16575-when-incest-becomes-a-religious-tenet.html
kingstonclan.com/

Disgusting! Its not illegal here in Ireland but only travellers do it really.

Who in their right mind would marry someone, or even initiate an intimate relationship with someone in their family :S I will never budge on that. Sick.

My friends parents are 1st cousins and she has epilepsy. It should be illegal

Many of Queen Victoria's sons & grandsons had haemaphilia for unknown reasons, that's true. I've NEVER heard it blamed on her marrying her first cousin, though. Jones reckons it was due to the advanced age of QV's dad at time of conception. Maybe we should ban men age 55+ having children? Tsk Tsk to George Clooney, eh?

Eek. Thought it was already.

This is an interesting point of view

www.independent.co.uk/news/science/theres-nothing-wrong-with-cousins-getting-married-scientists-say-1210072.html

You can probably argue that, as a relatively isolated incident within a family group it's unlikely to cause issues. However, in communities where the gene pool is reduced over many, many years (which may be for geographical, cultural or religious reaons amongst others) the incidence is likely to be higher... perhaps