To think first-degree cousins should not marry?

[Onestonetogo]

Message withdrawn

I vaguely remember reading awhile ago that it was ok to marry your cousin on your mothers' side but not your fathers side in the UK?
si that right? Am going to google now...

Responding to the OP- it does seem unwise from a genetic pov. There a number of hereditary diseases on the rise in the UK that are mainly due to consanguinity. In fact, it's one of the questions the midwife asked me recently at booking in.

Message withdrawn

Yes, I agree with that Acinonyx, but whether it will then become deselected depends on whether it is enough of a cost on resources to make a significant difference in the reproductive statistics. That would depend on things like scarcity of resources, the need for physical fitness to access those resouces.

Note also that in many animals, individuals with large feather appendages/horns/big showy tail fins etc are selected by females for reproductive purposes precisely because their ability to carry those appendages and still access resources proves that they are physically fit.

In our society, a firm chin is traditionally seen as a marker of a firm will: as long as this remains attractive to females, it may well prove an evolutionary advantage that offets any minor expenditure in energy to keep that chin going.

Ok... I think this is what I was thinking of....(from wikipedia)

In ancient China, first cousins with the same surnames (i.e., those born to the father's brothers) were not permitted to marry, while those with different surnames (i.e., maternal cousins and paternal cousins born to the father's sisters) were.

Haven't read all the post - but I think she is quiet ignorant in saying 'it is a wide spread practice in Muslim's'. Oh why oh why do people have to bring religion into it? A few points:

*I am muslim and I do not know anyone who has married thier first cousin

*It is not a religious practice at all and have read of Sikhs, Hindus, Christians, Muslims, Amish, Mormons etc who inter-marry in family.

Message withdrawn

I think that close family marriage is quite common in certain very small areas in the world due to inheritance practises in those areas- I believe the Punjab is one of them, some North African areas as well, but since we get a lot of people migrating to Britain from the Punjab, we may have a skewed vision of how widespread the practise is. Furthermore the uninitiated may confuse "muslims from a certain area of the world" with all muslims. I believe that Koranic rules on who may marry whom are actually very strict, excluding marriage even between people who have shared the same wet nurse. A lot of people wrongly confuse religion with local practises.

Message withdrawn

REalised I contradicted myself inthe last point, I posted without reading through:

should be
*It is not just a Muslims religious practice and have read of Sikhs, Hindus, Christians, Muslims, Amish, Mormons etc who inter-marry in family

I know a very wonderful couple with 8 kids who are first cousins. They are unfortunate in that each of them carried a recessive gene which gave their children a 1 in 4 chance of being born with a vile and horrible disease which will kill them in a particularly nasty and slow way. 4 of their children have it and will not survive to adulthood.

They have been doubly unfortunate in that half of their children are affected instead of a quarter - the expected 'odds' (I know it doesn't work like that really).

It is extreme cases like this which underlie the basic aversion to cousins marrying. This couple have been very unfortunate as there is no way of knowing that you are a carrier, as one gene does not have an effect. There is no sign in previous generations that the disease was 'in the family' (and they have records reaching back generations).

However, this does not mean that the same will happen to anyone else. In the States they used to insist on blood tests before a marriage could take place (do they still?) - this was solely to pick up these kinds of problems.

Cory - there has been a long term trend (certainly since ancient moderns of say 30-50,000 years ago) for the entire human skeleton to become less robust and this includes the skull and chin (not making this up honest just too lazy to get source - I'm supposed to be working!).

It does seem likely that large male chins in some populations may have been sexually selected either directly as as a side effct of selection for high-testosterone males.

Message withdrawn

That is very tragic Jux.

Onestop - should two depressives or two alcoholics be prevented from marrying since they probably both carry a genetic predisposition? There is a great deal of assortive mating of this kind that consolidates pathologies within families.

Message withdrawn

Message withdrawn

But psychopathologies ARE partly genetic diseases and very many diseases - (e.g. diabetes) are the product gene-environment interaction.

The fact is that many psychopathologies (and other conditions but I'll stick with what I know best) have a substantial genetic component and the risks are substantially increased if both parents are 'carriers'. Surely it is irresponsible to load one's offspring with such a badly dealt genetic hand of cards?

Why ?

Their two families (well, the family) got together at the time at which the couple were talking about marriage, worrying, pointing out possible problems etc, so they went into it knowing there were risks.

They really are a fantastic couple, and they are the best parents those kids could have. They are moving heaven and earth to make sure that their children's short lives will be amazing, and well worth having.

Of course, they worry, are sad at times, probably in terrble emotional pain; but mostly they are seeing that the lives those children (all 8 of them, well or ill) live are a huge celebration of the sheer joy of life while we have it.

I have a gazillion relatives (as mentioned) married to cousins. I think it's unwise as a cultural practice and I see no problem with stating the risk which is just a plain fact.

However, the risks for sporadic couples who really want to marry is not so much greater than other cases such as older women, people with other conditions, that I feel the law should prevent them from doing so, provided they understand the concerns.

Acinonyx on Fri 06-Mar-09 11:23:52
"Cory - there has been a long term trend (certainly since ancient moderns of say 30-50,000 years ago) for the entire human skeleton to become less robust and this includes the skull and chin (not making this up honest just too lazy to get source - I'm supposed to be working!)."

Yes, I am aware of this. Just pointed out that trends are driven by things like sexual selection, and in a changing environment this may change. (not really disagreeing with you)

Message withdrawn

Agree with CAT- It is a cultural issue and it appears that families are not educated enough to understand the implications of inter-marrying or because it has been a practice for so many generations - why should people change it? Speaking to a colleague of mine, she mentioned another reason why inter-marrying can happen (part in Pakistani culture): it is seen as a measure of safe-guarding the daughter (bride) and know what sort of family she is marrying into. Some families do not like their daughters marrying into the unknown (i.e. a stranger who they cannot vouch for family, status, background etc - all of which are considered important when a marriage proposal is considered) and it is a safer option for a girl to marry someone who the family knows very well (i.e first cousin, close family, whose social status etc can be verified).

Of course we all know that you never really know someone until you start living with them!

Yes Cory - perhpas we should train our daughters to seek out larger chins in the hope of redeeming the human male. I clearly failed in this regard.

But perhaps paternal care and investment is inversely related to chin size?

meant some famile sre not educated enough - didnt wish to imply all in case anyoneis wondering...