To think that 1st Cousin Marriage should be illegal

[stucknoue]

Background: as part of my job I rent out halls, they are very popular for Asian parties and weddings and my clients are lovely, often bringing me food and inviting me to their celebrations.

Over the past couple of months I've unfortunately had to rent the hall for child funeral meals twice to the same family, the kids were cousins and had the same rare genetic condition. In talking to their grandad he revealed that he and his wife were cousins, then going on to tell me that the parents of the sadly deceased children were also cousins. I looked up that cousin marriage increases genetic conditions 3 fold, the more generations that have practiced it then the higher the probability. With our knowledge of science surely this practice should be outlawed?

I don't think first cousin marriage is an issue, repeated first cousin marriage probably Is. Perhaps genetic counselling should at some stage be a requirement? I really don't know, to be honest, to have children with a genetic problem must be devastating.

@Appletreehouse - Thanks for the link. It may give me some insight into my question above as to why it is customary in some cultures.

“I'm a bit gobsmacked at the implication that something being illegal will zero effect on people's behaviour if transgressions are not detectable. Surely I'm not in a tiny minority in sticking to the law regardless of the chances of being caught?”

I don’t think it will have zero impact but yes, it’s very unlikely to have much affect if the law can’t be enforced and it’s clear to the public the government wouldn’t know if they broke it. Especially if one half of the law breaking faction is abroad and likely doesn’t know anything about U.K. law anyway

When researching my family history I was surprised to find my DM's maternal grandparents were 1st cousins. Then I found my maternal grandad's grandparents were 1st cousins too. I'm pretty sure it was common in the past. With the first set I think it happened because my Great Grandmother's mum died and she was just of marriageable age so was married off to her cousin so that she had someone to look after her. (He left her when my nan was a few years old though and became a bigamist ).

I had a friend who used to go out with her cousin (well, have nights out in a car with steamed up windows) and wanted to marry him.

I suppose it's a bit like inter-breeding creating deformities or illnesses in dogs.

By extension, should anyone with a hereditable disability or condition be prevented from marrying and having children, in case they pass it on? And is that sensible, or disablist”

I'd personally support it, but I think I'd be in a minority, our culture believes the right to have children should be unfettered. If we were going to be more authoritarian about it, I can think of lots of adults who I'd disqualify from being parents long before I'd turn my attention to those with genetic defects. Which is why the latter won't be restricted, once you start to go down that route a lot of people lose rights they have now.

On grounds of pure logic I would say it's not disablest to prevent disabled people being conceived: a disabled person must exist before they can be a victim of discrimination. You can't harm a potential person, only one who actually exists.

Cjt, I think there can sometimes be something in what you say about life in remote villages.

I don't know the reasons for first cousin marriages in all cultures, but they used to be fairly common in the UK too amongst aristocratic families and the royals. The Queen and Prince Philip are cousins, I believe. For a long time those families believed they were keeping the bloodlines pure, whereas we now know that it achieved anything but and conditions such as haemophilia became rife because of it.

It is much less common now, and even a little frowned upon because we know the medical problems it can bring with it.

There was a documentary on this a while back. I think it was BBC but I can’t remember.

People need to stop saying it is racist because that’s exactly what stops people talking about this subject. It is a very big cultural issue and to deny that is ridiculous. There are huge statistics.

Yes it is wrong, especially when it is going on for generations. Children’s are suffering hugely because everyone is too scared to be called racist- which is exactly what has happened on here!

As a PP said, one generation has minimal effect on genetic conditions, it’s multiple generations of cousin-marriage.

It’s not as simple as “get genetic testing.” If the couple knows there’s a rare condition in their family, those genes can be looked for but were not yet at the stage of testing someone’s entire genome for anything their child might inherit.

In Iceland there’s an app that tells you how related you might be before you date. Due to the small population, many people are related in some way.

I have thought this for a long time.

It isn’t racist to point out that a highly disproportionate number of genetic birth defects are coming from within the Asian community. We are happy enough to say the FGM is wrong even though for many people it is part of their culture. Marrying your first cousin, when your parents are also first cousins and so on and so on is just as wrong.

Ethnicity is relevant here....

I think it should be banned for all

So, how is ethnicity relevant? If you believe it should be banned for all, the ethnicity of the couple is completely irrelevant regardless of whether it is more prevalent in certain cultures.

May I remind everyone: www.independent.co.uk/news/science/inbreeding-study-uk-dna-university-queensland-biobank-genes-incest-a9091561.html

My dear friend had 4 stillbirth children, one day she just burst into tears and let all her frustrations out - the pressure within the community to have a brood of children was immense on her shoulders and yet she was forced to marry her cousin and now just wanted to give up.
It broke her.
It should be banned but atleast in this community from the people I know, they are married by Islamic law and not British law so would make no difference.

It’s not racist to acknowledge that it’s mainly evident in certain communities.

Thank you for understanding my comment @Topseyt I did wonder if it may be misread.

I have worked with families in the past who have married cousins (can't recall if first, second or otherwise removed) and this particular family had 2 very disabled children whom i suspect may be down to the family genetics.

They used to be common in the UK in rural areas. Because the potential marriage pool was so small.

It's racist if you create a blanket law which overwhelmingly affects BME communities who have longstanding cultural or religious reasons for marrying within the community - just as, I think, most people would agree it's disablist to suggest that we should have blanket laws preventing disabled people whose conditions are hereditable from marrying or have children; even though both would result in fewer incidences of babies predisposed to disease or disability.

A lot of misconceptions in this thread, hardly surprising though.

1st cousin marriages are fine and also safe, genetically speaking. I wouldn't want to myself but that's not why we're here.

The problems arise when 1st Cousins get married and then the generation below also marry their cousins.

This is a big issue within some British Asian communities and it is fear of racism that stops it being properly discussed and leads to much suffering. We cannot be afraid to speak about facts just because it might offend, especially where there is a safeguarding issue.

I believe in live and let live but for gods sake, educate your population.

@jennymanara Yes that's what I have said above. I'd be interested why, in a larger community, that it still happens within certain cultures.

My best mate works in adult learning disabilities in an area with a high Asian population. Obviously, there will be a large number of Asian clients in her service to reflect the area's demographics. But the facts remain many of her clients have parents who are first cousins. Stating facts is not racist, if you're not being judgemental in doing so.

Repeated family inter-breeding (for want of a 'gentler' word) does indeed cause severe disabilities and fatalities. It is prevalent in Bangladeshi and Pakistani communities in the uk. This is exacerbated by the fact that these communities in the UK are smaller than in Pakistan or Bangladesh and that it is a proportion of those communities in themselves that prefer not to marry and procreate outside that community. So you can see how the pool of partners gets ever smaller. Race, therefore, is revelant, inasmuch as Caucasians/South European/Slavic/Jewish communities do not practice this behaviour in the same way.

When cousin marriages were common in the uk we had less understanding of what caused infant mortality and disability. We understand better now, perhaps it is reasonable therefore to use that knowledge to inform a debate about what should and should not be allowable within the law for marriage.

As far as the argument that this discussion is equivalent to not allowing those with disabilities to procreate, we already do this through IVF selection and abortion. Few would disagree that there needs to be strict limits on eugenics (what you can and cannot abort for, for instance), but that is what it is and it is important to state that we already allow for that in this country.

I'm not arguing for or against your initial proposition @stucknoue, but making clear what the status quo is in this country at present.

"aibu to say it's wrong to arrange a cousin marriage in your family if other cousins have already married"

would maybe be the title to go for.

The Aboriginal community in Australia traditionally had very strict and complicated rules on who one could marry. The rules obviously pre-date modern knowledge of genetics and have many purposes, but apparently it has been very affective at preventing in-breeding, despite often living in remote locations in small communities until recently. I had it explained to me once, but it was far more complicated than I could begin to understand.

Soupdragon, I explained clearly in my very first post why ethnicity is relevant, or did you not read it? It is relevant because cousin marriages are far more common from within certain cultures and communities.

I think that there should be a blanket ban on cousin marriages for all of the medical reasons I and others have already stated. It isn't hard to understand.

"Actually I think there is general evidence that passing a law can cause behaviour to change, even when the law is impractical to enforce.

I'm a bit gobsmacked at the implication that something being illegal will zero effect on people's behaviour if transgressions are not detectable."
It doesn't seem to have worked on stopping people using their mobile phones whilst driving.

www.bbc.co.uk/bbcthree/article/6af25e7b-0545-42ba-a6fa-82ac1023b4ed

www.theguardian.com/science/2013/jul/04/marriage-first-cousins-birth-defects

For many families, cousin marriages are a way of keeping property concentrated 'in the family', especially when it comes to girls, who become part of their husbands' families and whose dowry becomes the property of their husbands and their families.

It is incest and very distasteful as well as dangerous