To be disturbed by wilfull ignorance around genetic inbreeding?

[M9009]

I've come from a country were cousin marriage and indeed marriage to any close relative if illegal.
I've recently started working in a dialysis unit and I'm so disturbed by how many parents are young children born of first cousin marriage. Usually from South Asian backgrounds.
Today I was speaking to one parents who has 9 children, all in need of kidney transplants. The eldest 2 have already had theirs. Parents are first degree cousins and each have various medical problems of their own.
Why, as a society, do we allow these marriages? It seems so cruel to the children who are born with medical and genetic problems.
Maybe I'm easily shocked, I don't know.

The reason is partly for financial reasons.
Also know as a dowry.
the whole thing is medieval.

I think the risk of sexual abuse is higher when close relatives inter-marry all the time. There's less taboo about incest which is what first cousins having sex is. I don't see how that makes women or children in any way safer.
Also, most first cousin marriages happen in very patriarchal communities where women have a lot less power and rights than men.

The more I've thought about the consequences to children, the more I am leaning towards a legal ban tbh. I don't think it's fair to the children to be born mentally or physically handicapped when this can be avoided.
Also, seeing medical doctors from communities where this practice is pervasive defending it makes me despair. These are the most educated people and if they do not tell the truth about the consequences of incest, there is no hope for change through education within the community.

Yes, I was watching a Ken LaCorte video on cousin marriage in Pakistan and he mentioned this. However it doesn't seem true, as you said, or not necessarily. The family intermarriage can mean more pressure to stay quiet about abuse or marital difficulties, not less. More focus on women needing to maintain family honour, too.

I agree, I don't think it's a good reason. I certainly wouldn't do it. But you can see how you might hope, as a mother that you daughter going to your sister's household would be well treated.
Its not incompatible with more patriarchal societies - in fact the less power young married women have within a household the more you will worry about their treatment. It seems to be particularly preferred in cultures where it's the women who moves in with the husbands family than the other way round. Which fits. Especially if someone was sending their daughter far away- to another area or even another country. You can see how parents might prefer their daughter moving to a siblings household (their MiL is your sister) than a strangers.
I don't think it is real protection against abuse. But I can see how it's a symptom of patriarchy rather than intentional perpetuation. And explains why parents might want it for their children or defend it.

I do agree education around the issues as well as genetic screening is really important.

I'm not against a ban on first cousin marriage. But that doesn't solve the issues of repeated 2nd cousin marriage which is harder to legislate against. So premarriage screening offered in a way to encourage maximum take-up might work better there.

Here's the video BTW. LaCorte used to work at Fox News but he's a breath of fresh air on YouTube as his channel tackles 'Elephants In Rooms' but in a balanced & usually fair way.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://www.youtube.com/watch%3Fv%3DMXxY2qsBYoU&ved=2ahUKEwjJy_rlktWSAxWnRkEAHQXZACMQwqsBegQIFBAB&usg=AOvVaw2rbcMpnLNnYC-GtHSBkPlX

I'm not convinced by this. 'I think the risk of sexual abuse is higher when close relatives inter-marry all the time. There's less taboo about incest which is what first cousins having sex is.'

I think it IS higher but not because incest taboo is weakened. I think it's higher because your circle is narrowed to focus on your family so it's harder to report abuse as you risk losing everyone.

The problem is that in certain ethnic /religious groups there is still a very strong sense of ' the will of God'. 'If God decrees that my children have this appalling illness then that's just his will and I accept that.' It's difficult then to argue with that fatalistic approach. Making 1st cousin marriage illegal might stop the result of that relationship.

Marriage between cousins is cultural, not religious. Just as the burqa and the niqab are cultural. Islam only requires modest clothing for men and women. This is the UK, we are not an Islamic state, there is no good reason why these marriages should be sanctioned. Shouldn’t society consider the fate of children that are born from these alliances rather than worrying about being called racist?

It was that kind of thinking that led to the behaviour of the grooming gangs being allowed to continue, leaving many damaged young women who were not believed.

I agree.
But I think part of the reason cousin marriage isn't banned is because although it's uncommon here, it's not viewed exactly the same way sibling incest is. It's been in the icky but technically legal area for a while although disapproval is growing. So I dont think it's just pressure from Muslims/PC types that is stopping it from being legislated against. I don't want to marry my cousin but I could probably play devil's advocate and argue that banning it represents state overreach into people's personal lives given that the risks of harm from one-off cousin marriage are low, it's a slippery slope blah blah.

Also, I think there's a difference between pointing out the benefits of cousin marriage because you want to argue it's a good thing. And pointing out the reasons people prefer it/propogate it within the communities. Usually if people keep doing something it's because it serves a purpose and understanding that purpose isn't the same as kowtowing to a particular culture.

With all that said, I do think it should be made illegal but I dont think the fact there is debate over it means we are somehow broken/weak as a society. There are people disagreeing with a ban for valid reasons even though I dont think those reasons are sufficient.

I really don't think it's right to compare the fact there's debate over the issue to the scandal of the grooming gangs. That feels quite distasteful.

Ive been doing a lot of genealogical research recently, and amongst y my farming family ancestors who came from one valley, there are many generations of cousin marriages and also double cousins which compound the problem when they intermarry. I notice there are an awful lot of childless couples which may suggest there were genetic problems.

The more I've thought about the consequences to children, the more I am leaning towards a legal ban tbh.

But often the marriages take place in Pakistan. How can you prevent that? Or as mentioned upthread, the couple might have an Islamic marriage but not a legal one, which leaves the woman in a vulnerable position.

And of course banning first cousin marriage will not prevent first cousins procreating.

Perhaps not allow the spouse entry into the UK?

let them remain in Pakistan if the man from the UK wants to marry a cousin who isn’t a UK National , what is the support for disabled children there?

I guess how would you prove they were cousins? Or, if the onus is on the people marrying/applying for a visa how do they prove they aren't? You would, I think need the birth certificates of all four parents of those getting married with the names of both their parents on the certificates. And maybe the grandparents birth certificates too? Not all countries have those records, easily available, especially if you are going back several decades. And even if they do, you might still have issues where the last name is the same (eg Khan) so would need to prove they are different Khans. Its more complicated than it sounds at first...

If banning it helped to change societal attitudes it would make a difference. But ultimately it's attitudes that need to change. Or you just focus on genetic screening pre marriage which if it had a high take up rate would be more effective.

Yes I see what you mean

do they have to pay a lot of money to bring someone here from abroad?

maybe make that very expensive

It would if it became incest. We, mostly, grow up with the knowledge that we don't have sex with certain family members. Adding cousins to the list isn't actually beyond legislation. It then becomes illegal, a crime. And punishable.

Meant to add, that we also change the law so that all marriages must be registered, possibly by a civil ceremony being required before any religious ceremony.
And that there was a huge opposition to raising the age of consent to 16,with all sorts of contemptuous reasons to keep it at 13. The age of consent was still changed though, because it was for the good of a group of people.

Yes, in every case where people willingly did something silly yet potentially dangerous. Why make others pay for something you knowingly could have avoided.

It is. It's the same concept. Doing something knowing full well the potential consequences. Then expecting others to pay for it when it does happen.

Just because some people will break the law doesn’t mean we shouldn’t have the law.

Obviously, Banning things/ Making things illegal doesn’t immediately stop everyone from doing the illegal thing but over time, societal attitudes are changed. (Smoking/ seatbelts / drink driving are all examples)

Who knows who's married to their first cousin among them? We don't. Probably why they don't want to ban it.

Seen it. It’s about support networks parents get as they’re all from the same family. It’s utter bs. To justify the practice.

Among the elites, we do in the UK. For the same reason and worse.

Bigamy is illegal.
We may not have an easy way of knowing that a marriage is bigamous but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t legislate against it.

Yes - the “benefits” are it increases the patriarchal power over young girls within a family as they have no other support outside the family.