1st cousin marriage

[Wiseplumnet]

AIBU to ask your opinion on 1st cousin marriage?.I have read that the government is looking to ban it. I know it is more prevelent ( but declining) in the UK among people of Asian origin. I am not coming from a judgemental or racist angle. I am just interested to know how mum'snetters of all ethnicities feel about marriage between 1st cousin's. I know it used to be more common in the west at one time, apart from keeping money/property in families, people travelled less widely, so there was less choice of marriage partners.I worked with a girl ( White British) who was in a secret relationship with her 1st cousin and they are very reluctant to tell their family, so there seems to be a cultural taboo in 1st cousins being romantically involved.Genetic factors resulting in disabilities (statistically twice as many as in unrelated parents) is sometimes given as a reason for banning cousin marriage, however we have genetic screening now, and disabilities aren't always serious.As so many babies died in infancy before we had vaccines, better health care etc , it was probably difficult to differentiate whether the close relationship between parents was the cause of any disabilities their children . Speaking for myself,I can't imagine wanting to marry any of the cousins I was brought up with as they seem more like brothers to me, but I could understand why someone may be attracted to a 1st cousin who they first met as adults. Or does it give you the instant 'Yuk' ? Also is banning 1st cousin marriage the same as banning 1st cousin sexual relationships and children, or would that become illegal? Maybe there's no need for a legal ban as the tradition will just die out over time

Why do you think that such relationships are under reported rather than extremely rare?
I mean we are only speaking about consenting adult incest rather than rape and /or pedophilic rape. These sorts of relationships are rare and not morally, culturally or legally acceptable so its not something that anyone would expect the police to have to deal with regularly.

What “colours”?

That I am depressed by anti-science rhetoric which tries to pretend that genetic facts are discriminatory and that we should ignore deliberate harm to children and claim that we should not pass laws to protect children because these people want to claim that doing so would be racist?

That I object to ridiculous comments attempting to imply that Darwin was stupid because he wasn’t a time traveller?

That I object to other equally silly comments some posters have made claiming that because they once knew some people who married their cousin and their children happened not to inherit debilitating or deadly genetic diseases this means there isn’t a problem (i.e. people who don’t understand basic maths and probability/ risk)?

I am quite happy with the fact that I object to the above views being my “colours”, as you put it, and have expressed this clearly throughout the thread so I’m not sure what you mean.

Meanwhile, you’ve made comments falsely implying that other posters were saying babies should be aborted, amongst other nasty and counterfactual things trying to imply people are racist even for discussing scientific fact, so I don’t think you’re in a position to criticise what anybody else has posted.

Yep. What’s up with that

Of course it should be banned. Not the remotest question about that. It must be absolutely criminalised and the law used to prevent it.

Because posters are blaming Labour for courting the Muslim vote whilst ignoring that Tories didn’t raise it during their rule.

it’s illogical.

Meanwhile, you’ve made comments falsely implying that other posters were saying babies should be aborted

In all the waffle, can you at least quote where you think I said this? Because I didn’t.

Smokers do in the tax on cigarettes (about £13 per packet is tax)

But that tax goes to the Treasury not directly to the NHS.

Same with other taxes.

The “endgame” is that far fewer disabled children suffer completely avoidable immense pain, multiple operations, incurable conditions, early deaths (often in childhood), and miserable existences. Meanwhile, for all of the reasons set out in detail, the banning of these practices and criminalising them will reduce the coercion of both women and men by abusive family members into unwanted “marriages” with close relatives because when something is illegal fewer people do it. If it is impossible to have a “cousin marriage” in the UK then there won’t be more of them. If “cousin marriages” in other countries aren’t recognised in the UK fewer UK citizens/ residents will be coerced to have these ceremonies performed abroad because they’ll have no validity here. If sex with a cousin is classed as incest per UK law then those doing so will face a penalty of up to 7 years in prison which will be a significant deterrent. This is why we make harmful practices illegal, when the harmful practice causes far more harm than making it illegal would cause, and particularly when they impact innocent children and cause them immense unnecessary suffering.

The reasons why making these practices illegal will be of benefit particularly to children who had no choice in the matter, and to society as a whole, are set out in detail in my posts, had you bothered to read them.

Would you like to set out finally how you think the UK allowing in law these “cousin marriages” and enormous unnecessary risks causing completely avoidable misery, pain and death to thousands of children benefits our society? You clearly think, based on your posts, that we should allow this to continue.

Why?

And why have you refused to tell us why despite being asked repeatedly?

I have asked you several times now to set out the reasons that you think it is beneficial and should continue to be permitted by UK law, given that per the principles of our legal system we generally consider the balance of harm caused to others by an action against the curtailment of freedom of individuals by prohibiting something: in this case, it is proven beyond doubt that banning cousin marriage and including sex between cousins within the definition of incest would involve nobody being prohibited from marrying or having children (with 3bn other adult members of the opposite sex to choose from to do so with to whom they are not closely related), and would significantly reduce the suffering, severe disability and early deaths of thousands of innocent children, and significantly reduce the opportunities for abuse of women.

What possible justification outweighing these enormous benefits to us banning these practices do you believe there are to us continuing to allow it?

Since you have continued to disagree with posters who say it should be banned and tried to discredit them, or misdirect the discussion onto irrelevant things you’ve invented that nobody on the thread has suggested, presumably you do have some justification for your position that the posters saying that it should be banned and included within the legal definition of incest are wrong?

What is it?

What is the benefit to society that justifies UK law continuing to allow the ongoing, proven harm that is caused by “cousin marriage” and by sex with a cousin not being classified within the crime of incest per UK law as it should be just like it is illegal to have sex with any other similarly close relative?

There is undeniable scientific evidence of the harm allowing this to continue causes to the individuals involved (abuse of women, medical harm to innocent children) so on what basis should UK law allow it to continue? What are the benefits that outweigh the enormous, proven harm it causes which would justify us not making it illegal?

You have made lots of irrelevant and disingenuous comments to try to derail the thread but conspicuously have refused to answer this question, despite it being asked multiple times, very clearly.

It’s there in the thread for everyone to read.

Care to answer the question put to you several times now about why you think we should allow cousin marriages/ sex with cousins to be legal in the UK, despite the significant and unnecessary harm that science has proved beyond doubt that is caused by this?

And the treasury government the NHS its money just as they do with every government spending so what's your point

Yes, I was asking what is the suggested approach to the babies of these unions - abortion, taken into care for leaving with parents.

That doesn't mean I’m accusing anyone here of wanting them aborted!

I’m glad rates of cousin marriage are coming down through education. I don’t think you need a law to do it. There is a fixation on some cultures on MN. There have been lots of instances of
white British cousin relationships up thread and they are largely ignored.

@Wiseplumnet Not a scientist, then?

So those parents have paid their taxes too and should be entitled to NHS care.

I know two instances of first-cousin marriage in my (Christian, mixed European and South Asian) extended family.

One couple married in the 1950s when they were in their twenties. Apparently, they had been regarded as 'childhood sweethearts'. They went on to have two children, both of whom are fine.

The other couple knew each other as children/teenagers, then lost touch for many years before meeting again in their forties. Because of their ages, it was unlikely they would have children together (and they didn't).

I guess two key points are 1) neither was a forced or arranged marriage, and 2) both were one-off cousin marriages, rather than part of repeated generations of cousin marriages - which, as pp have pointed out, is where the danger generally arises of having children with genetically inherited problems.

Everyone knows who is most likely to do this. Everyone knows who the victims are. But we can’t actually say it as it’s then racist.

There have been decades of “education” about it since how harmful it is was proved beyond any doubt. A significant proportion of those engaging in this have been told by doctors and had the medical evidence explained to them yet continue to deny the validity of the scientifically proved facts about their own behaviour being the cause of their children’s suffering/ severe disabilities/ early deaths. Some even blame the doctors who have tried to treat their children and save their children’s lives/ allieviate their children’s suffering for their children’s illnesses, so attempts to “educate” many of the people doing this clearly aren’t ever going to be effective with that level of delusion/ low IQ/ denial etc.

The percentage of people continuing to engage in this extremely harmful activity - caused enormous avoidable harm to their own children - may have decreased a little but it is still very significant and will decrease far faster if this behaviour is prevented (no marriage licences granted to cousins and no marriages between cousins in other countries recognised in the UK) and criminalised as incest (sex with a cousin in the UK, like sex with other close relatives).

What possible justification is there for continuing to allow people to do this legally when we can vastly reduce the occurence of it far more quickly by making it illegal, as we would any other activity proved to be needlessly causing extreme harm, suffering and death to thousands of children and providing no benefit to society whatsoever?

Why should we sit back and let it continue and not make it illegal, and not save these children from needlessly being born with incurable birth defects/ painful and life-limiting conditions (and at the same time not save more women from abuse and coercion, and also not save taxpayers hundreds of millions of pounds at the same time as side effects)? We know for a fact, just like with every other harmful practice that we have prohibited by law, that the number of instances of it will decrease drastically if we criminalise/ prohibit it by law rather than just sitting here and hoping it dies out on its own over a vastly longer period of time, if at all, meanwhile letter far more victims suffer the impact of this being inflicted upon them.

What benefit is there from not making it illegal and letting it go on for longer, while letting more children suffer and die from horrific, avoidable illnesses they would not have if their parents had not been allowed to marry/ have a sexual relationship with a close relative?

You have been clear by your argumentative and unpleasant posts to those arguing that it should not be legal that you disagree and you think we shouldn’t make it illegal, despite all of the unequivocal evidence of the harm caused by this being allowed to continue.

Why?

It’s not a difficult question to answer, surely?

One of the best things the Church did was ban both first and second cousin marriage in the 6th century AD. It was banned for 1,000 years, until the reformation, by which point it was so culturally embedded that it has been rare ever since. There are a few famous examples like Darwin, but we don’t have a history of multigenerational cousin marriage. It was really good for creating societies with meritocratic values and equality before the law, as well as reducing the prevalence of many genetic diseases.

Underreported because consanguinity exists predominantly in Muslim communities and a lot of women are indoctrinated to fear men. Culturally family matters are kept within family units. Then there’s massive cultural incompetence within the police force and many other support services. Then when a woman who finds herself in this circumstance, where does she go after? To break outside the family circle effectively means you become ostracised by the family and community that forms a huge part of your identity. This view is taken from multiple accounts of women who are Muslim that I have worked with and may not reflect every Muslim woman’s experience. But it definitely exists. The layers of oppression virtually silences the woman from ever reaching out.

After Queen Victoria and Price Albert, and their children, marriage between first cousins became less desirable.

It has been common amongst the less educated of Pakistani/Bangladeshi ethnicity but does seem to be dying out naturally following community leaders speaking out against it.

Various popes did provide dispensations for cousins to marry, though.

Yes they would but there would have to be a good reason.

I can think of no good reason now for first cousins to marry, I mean the human race is not dying out.

Only for royalty. Your ordinary Jo couldn’t get papal dispensation.

There's no good reason for cousins to marry when there are thousands of available partners for people to marry instead.

Socially, cousin relationships seem to occur within deeply patriarchal societies where women have few rights, with rigid expectations and pressures forced upon them, and marrying within the family allows that mindset to flourish, so I think they're an absolute negative for women.

On top of that, the known genetic issues for offspring of cousin marriages are markedly increased, and worsen rapidly with each generation of cousin marriage as the gene pool gets smaller and smaller. Just look at the Habsburgs.

It seems like a generally unnecessary, bad idea to continue to allow it.

It’s ridiculous to talk about what people did hundreds of years ago as if this has anything to do with the decisions that should be made now based on the evidence that we have now. It was 1983 before the first genetic disease was mapped to a specific gene.

What royalty or popes or Darwin did decades or hundreds of years before this scientific knowledge existed is quite obviously irrelevant, because they did not know.

We do know. So there is no excuse whatsoever for us continuing to allow completely avoidable harms to be legal when making these practices illegal - which have been proved beyond doubt to be extremely harmful - would cause no harm to anybody whatsoever, and save thousands of people from enormous suffering and early death.

These historical arguments are so ridiculous. They are the equivalent of blaming bubonic plague victims for not paying more attention to hand washing before we knew about bacteria, or saying “why didn’t they just pop down to the pharmacy and get some antibiotics?”.

Shall we criticise Colombus or Marco Polo for not using GPS to make navigating their journies a bit easier? What were the stupid Egyptians thinking when they decided to get people to build pyramids manually when they could just have used cranes? Why were idiotic people sending physical letters in the 16th century when they could just have sent emails?

The above is the level of discussion to which these types of comments are directly comparable in their absurdity. People can only act based on the scientific knowledge they have at the time.

We now know, beyond any doubt at all, that marrying cousins or having sex with cousins vastly increases the risk of children being born with significant defects that will mean those children have miserable, painful or very short lives. We also know that the genes causing these defects due to close relatives having children together cannot be screened out by genetic tests like more common genetic diseases: rare conditions which hardly ever manifest because someone carrying the gene (many such genes obviously not having even been identified due to the rariity!) will have a 1/1,000,000 chance or often much less than that of having a child with someone else who is also a carrier of the same extremely rare defective gene mutation. This is why these diseases are rare or unknown: most people don’t have children with close family members so these defective and rare mutations would likely die out on their own if people weren’t having children with the other few individuals in the world who have the same mutation!

Obviously, if you have a child with your cousin, that 1/1,000,000 chance or less of your child inheriting two copies of the same defective gene (sometimes it can be a 1/1,000,000,000 chance if you picked an unrelated partner!) suddenly increases to 1/8. And if you do that and your child happens to be one of the lucky ones, and then your child of cousin marriage marries another child of cousin marriage within the same family who was also one of the lucky ones and didn’t get two copies of the defective gene first time around, these risks of children inheriting double copies of multiple rare defective genes from both parents multiply exponentially across the generations as people continue to inbreed, making the risks higher with every generation where this stupidity continues.

Surely anybody listening even in GCSE biology understands this? I am genuinely shocked at the number of posters on this thread that don’t seem to, or pretend that they don’t (obviously not you! Just utterly shocked at proportion of those who have posted who don’t seem to understand even the basic maths, even if they don’t know much about science).

We are extremely lucky to live in a time where we can benefit from such knowledge and therefore avoid such horrendous outcomes for so many children because we do know why this is occuring. We also know that if we criminalise something e.g. put proper deterrents in place for incest with cousins as there is already for incest with other close family members (prison sentences) and put measures in place to refuse marriage licences for cousins as we do for other close relatives, far fewer people will continue to engage in this extremely harmful behaviour.

This is exactly how we have continuously improved our society over time: if something is harmful and causes far more harm than benefit then we legislate against it. Why on earth would we not do so in this particular case, go against every principle that we use to determine our laws, and actively decide not use the scientific knowledge we have now to shape our laws and avoid more of this unnecessary suffering?

It is extremely difficult to understand the motivations of anybody who proposes that we should allow this to continue in the face of the indisputable evidence that the status quo is causing immense unnecessary harm for no benefit at all. It’s rare that there’s a public policy matter to which the answer is more obvious and unarguable. Presumably this is why none of the posters who seem to believe that marrying/ having sex with your cousin shouldn’t be illegal have put forward a single rational argument or any evidence at all to explain why allowing it to continue is justified. All we’ve had is pathetic attempts to pretend that discussing the indisputable science is “racist” because some communities (of various races including certain communities of white people in this particular case) engage in this harmful behaviour more than others. On that basis, presumably these posters must think that us making FGM illegal in the UK was also “racist” because specific groups of people did it and others didn’t?!

I’m expecting that there will continue to be no answer to the question of why anybody wouldn’t want marriage/ sex between cousins to be illegal given the proven harm that it causes, despite the question being asked repeatedly.

What benefits does sex/ marriage between cousins being allowed by UK law have to individuals or our society as a whole, which outweigh the immense and proven harm it causes?

Perhaps @nomas or others that have agreed with that poster will enlighten us, finally.