Time to outlaw cousin marriages?

[mrsruffallo]

Interesting article here
Would you support it being made illegal?

It does make sense. If your sole objection here is health of any children, then it makes perfect sense. If the government's aim is to ensure that fewer children are born with health issues, then why stop at this? Screen everyone. If women over 40 present as much of a risk of having a child with some sort of disability, then why shouldn't it be treated the same? No reason, except a woman over 40 doesn't have the tabloid ick factor that cousins marrying apparently does for some people.

Morloth, as far as I know (think there was a tv prog a couple of years back about a brother/sister in Scotland who were in a relationship), there is a prison sentence. I seem to remember both of them saying they were willing to go to prison if it meant they could be together. Of course Scotland may be different to England.

'Now a study by the National Society of Genetic Counselors says that having a child with your first cousin raises the risk of a significant birth defect from about 3-to-4 percent to about 4-to-7 percent'

'The trend is also evident in Birmingham, where figures show that one in ten of all children born to first cousins died in childhood or suffered from a serious genetic disorder.'

British Pakistanis, half of whom marry a first cousin, are 13 times more likely to produce children with genetic disorders than the general population, according to Government-sponsored research.
Although British Pakistanis account for three per cent of the births in this country, they are responsible for 33 per cent of the 15 to 20,000 children born each year with genetic defects.

I would say marrying your cousin has seriously implications for the children! How is that sensationalist, it is just a fact.

Surely the difference between being over 40 and marrying your cousin... is you can choose not to marry your cousin. Whereas being over 40 is hard to avoid. No matter what L'Oreal might tell us.

Because it isn't a given that it will have implications. It might in certain circumstances, but so might lots of other things that are avoidable (and having a baby over 40 is avoidable). If the chances of problems are 4 in 100, that means 96 in 100 won't have problems. Seems pretty straightforward to me.

Like I said, I couldn't do it, but education rather than a blanket ban is the way to go. Running round shrieking 'freaks' is not a mature approach.

"I think its unefoceable but might lead to chipping away at some rights we take for granted."

It would be no more unenforceable than the current incest laws are.

And the current laws haven't introduced anything such as sex inspectors so any extension to them need not either.

That's not me saying that the law should be extended though, but using it's enforceability as a justification doesn't really stand up.

But what is the point in extending it if you are not going to bother enforcing it?

"But what is the point in extending it if you are not going to bother enforcing it?"

I'm not saying that it shouldn't be enforced.

Any extension to cover cousins would be as enforceable as much of the existing incest legislation. And no one's arguing that those laws shouldn't exist because they're tricky to enforce.

Again this isn't me saying the law should be extended, just that enforceability doesn't seem to be the right argument against such an extension.

It just seems madness to pussyfoot round the issue for fear of offending people.

I read that there were actually posters warning about cousin marriage in surgeries in some areas, but these had to be removed because they were deemed 'racist'.

Frankly if I were at risk of something I could avoid I'd want to know.

Rockbird I really don't know where you are getting your figures from but the government data is saying 13x a risk in the Pakistani community of birth defects.

I think it is about education partly. 2 people who are both carriers or rare gentic mutations often chose not to have children as they wouldn't want to risk a child having a serious condition.

People who marry their cousin seem to be unaware or unconcerned by the gentic implications.

I come from a community that cousins regularly marry each other.

I didn't as I chose not to. Islam does not encourage it in any way but it's not forbidden either.

The reasons people traditionally did it was to keep land 'in the family'.

Things have thankfully moved on.

I guarantee you that if people were educated about the health implications they would stop.

Who in their right minds would risk their dc/gc's health?

Sadly, it's too late for some of my nephews/nieces who have terrible lifelong consequences.

I think legislation can be a powerful educational tool.

"I think legislation can be a powerful educational tool."

But you can't go banning something because you want to education people about it. In fact the Government telling people "we're making this illegal because we want you to be more informed about it if you do it" is more than a bit bizarre.

Using the cited example of the risks of a late pregnancy that's something that people are now very much aware of (possibly too aware of if one of the midwives I've met is right) because of education and talk about it.

The Government didn't just ban it.

Not the only tool, though. Legislation should be backed up by a massive science-based educational effort, plus provision for genetic testing for all. After all, there are many ethnic groups and populations besides south Asians which have a higher prevalence of certain genetically inherited diseases than the general population.

The government bans some other cultural practices that are or were part of many people's lives outside of the UK -- polygamy, widow burning, honour killing, to name a few. I agree it may be intrusive to interfere in the area of marriage and personal choice of a partner, and there are many fine lines to consider, but there are precedents for government legislation in the area of parenting practices as well as relations between spouses (marital rape is illegal, battery of a spouse is illegal), both areas considered sacrosanct and no business of the government up to relatively recently.

"Legislation should be backed up by a massive science-based educational effort, plus provision for genetic testing for all."

So you want the Government to ban it (what I presume you mean by "legislation")? Yet at the same time you also want to educate people and provide genetic testing because of it?

That would be one step beyond the "Talk to Frank" campaign and would be akin to the Government providing drug purity testing centres. A very very confused message...

"The government bans some other cultural practices that are or were part of many people's lives outside of the UK -- polygamy, widow burning, honour killing, to name a few"

Marrying cousins is a part of many peoples cultures and is not about those from "outside of the UK". And you're not comparing marrying a cousin to "polygamy, widow burning" and "honour killing" are you?

"there are precedents for government legislation in the area of parenting practices as well as relations between spouses"

The most obvious and relevant example is that the law already intrudes on sexual relations between certain family members.

My sister is married to our first cousin, they have 3 DC's and none of them have any birth defects/deformities etc. The only health issue is one of them has excema (but that quite common these days and not due to genetic mixing I dont think)

Two of my dads siblings married their first cousins, and between them, they have 7 DC's - again no health problems.

Two of my mums siblings also married their first siblings, and they have 9 DC's between them. I think one of the DC's was born with a hole in their heart but that was corrected at birth. Again some asthma and excema but no serious health problems.

I could go on and on and show examples of where in my community people have married their first cousins and there are no serious health problems.

BTW all these families now live in this country, and did not grow up with their spouse i.e, the other spouse grew up in India. They all had arranged marriages (not forced - there is a big difference)

My family is muslim, but I think someone has mentioned before religion doesnt have anything to do with it, it is more of a cultural thing, and parents wanting their kids getting married to someone they know, and what background they come from etc. They see it as easier that if they have a common language, common food and way of living.

I'm not married to my first cousin and neither are my parents.

I can see how some people may find it weird or strange, but if you come from a community where it is the norm, you dont blink twice about it. I know of people who have chosen to marry their first cousins withour their parents arranging it for them.

Did any of your family know that they might have an increased risk of having children with health problems? Do you think if they did they might have looked outside the family for marriage partners, would it have made any difference?

I believe marrying, having children with rather, close family members does increase the risk of having children the certain health problems, you may not agree, and therefore very unwise. If marriages are arranged then I don't think you have any broken hearts to consider as presumably the couple are not in love before the marriage. To me it is better to cast the net a bit wider.

I know I am asking you to speak for your entire community, if fact half the world, but is it that people don't know of the health implications, don't believe them or think the benefits out way the risks?

I know many many people all over the world, including here, marry cousins but with arranged marriages people are chosen to be a good match rather than acting only on emotion.

"I think legislation can be a powerful educational tool."

Completely agree with this. Don't think I agree with legislation in this instance. But mathanxiety I think you are absolutely right.

I found soemthing yesterday that suggested, and only that there would be no more medical issue with first cousins producing babies than a woman over 40.

Which then leads to the fact that you wouldn't ever have ligislation to stop woman over 40 having babies due to medical possibiliy of having a baby with deformity.

I know you may find this hard to believe but in my community those children who are born to married first cousins do not have birth defects or deformities or disabilities. They may be aware of the health implications but hundreds of years of history showing no health problems is the evidence for them that is is OK

What is ones person norm is not another. For example I even though I've been born and bred in this country I find the whole idea of making kids have a 7am-7pm waking routine strange, especially if you dont have to wake up to go to work or have any children to send to school. Why would you want to make yourself get up and your DC get up earlier purely for the sake of routine, but the 7am-7pm routine is quite a British thing to do

I know that is not the best example, but I hope you see what I'm trying to say about cultural differences

Then in your community you have been very lucky not to have birth defects - like heart problems.

But in other communities there have been children born and often it is heart defects that are a problem with first cousins marrying.

There are other problems that occur with woman over 40 having babies - but these problems do not allways occur.

just becasue it hasn't happened to you doesn't mean it hasn't happened in other communites.

think yourslef lucky that your communitu hasn't suffered from heart problems.

WRT genetic testing alongside the existence of prohibitions on cousin marriage, I'm thinking of the US example, where states decide on an individual basis what, if any, restrictions there will be. Some mandate genetic counseling.

In populations such as, for example, Ashkenazi Jews, where the incidence of Tay-Sachs disease is high, babies are screened at birth, and many couples opt for genetic counseling before embarking on ttc. Another disease that is screened for is sickle-cell anaemia, prevalent inthe African American community, and again, genetic testing is available before ttc if desired. (A former neighbour had to have her children screened for both under the state law.)

The federal setup in the US allows for a hodge-podge of regulations and people may travel to another state to do what is prohibited in their state of origin, but in general it is a practice that is frowned upon no matter whether it's legal or not, (and associated with hillbillies).

I used polygamy, etc., as examples of cultural practices that are not traditionally British and which are banned in Britain despite the fact that they are carried on elsewhere, not to indicate that marrying a cousin falls into the same category of behaviour as something like widow-burning, just to illustrate my point that respecting cultural differences shouldn't necessarily be a reason to dismiss a ban. And yes, governments do legislate and prosecute incest, a practice which has been traditionally forbidden. But I think my point in mentioning relatively recent legislation in the area of spousal relations and parenting practices was that legislation in these areas has had an educational effect, despite difficulties and shortcomings in enforcement.

Marrying cousins has traditionally been banned by the Catholic Church (first cousins = 4th degree of kinship) while Protestant denominations have generally allowed it, partly in reaction against the Catholic church's practice of granting dispensations to well-off Catholics and the suspicion of lucre being involved in the dispensation process. The UK until relatively recently included the mostly Catholic population of Ireland, and Catholic first cousins in the UK are prohibited from marriage in the church. There's a protestant-Catholic divide on the question, even in Europe.

I find that amazing MBC.
I know of 3 cousin marriages and all of the children (or 2 out of 3 in one case)have some kind of medical or behavioural disorder.

I don't think it's as trivial as what bedtime you choose for your children

I think it's unnecessary and primitive

MBC-"I'm trying to say about cultural differences"

Cultural differences are all very well, (if fact add to the rich tapestry of life) as long as they don't harm. Marring a close relative does. If I remember correctly the woman in the article quoted a figure of 75% of children born with some sort of defect and a infant mortality rate of 10%. I have to say I did think those figures are shockingly high and I would like to see the evidence supporting them. It seem you are saying that they are completely untrue, is that right?

As I have said though I do firmly believe inbreeding does cause damage.