First cousin marriage

[Danceswithwhippets]

I don’t think I know (family or wider) anyone in a first cousin marriage.
I listened to this interesting podcast.
There is quite an ick factor about it -the podcaster (a “data journalist” -I didn’t know there was such a thing but I think we need them!) refers to it as a taboo. I suppose that maybe correct, if you do regard it as a part of the incest taboo.
She suggests the ick factor may be a reflection of racism, as first cousin marriage is now unusual in western societies.
What I find interesting is that although in western societies it’s largely frowned upon, few western countries legally prohibit it or restrict it.
Listen to what she says is the genetic evidence about risk -she seems to consider, for first cousin marriages, a doubling of risk of a major genetic problem from 3 to 4% (ie to 6 to 8%) is not great. I wouldn’t agree with that.
Any geneticists, or for that matter any first cousin marriages out there?

It's on BBC Sounds
www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/p0ch1vn3#xtor=CS8-1000-%5BPromo_Box%5D-%5BNews_Promo%5D-%5BNews_Promo%5D-%5BPS_SOUNDS~N~p0ch1vn3~P_AmINormalCousinMarriage_SEG_PNC%5D

One first cousin marriage, isn’t such an issue in a family as one off, genetically.

It is a problem when it’s done for generation after generation.

I am half Irish half Indian and having the ick factor to first cousin marriages have nothing to do with racism.

its to do with the fact that they are close relative. A lot of people know and grew up with their first cousins so, hearing that first cousins are marrying feels off.

I know someone whose parents were first cousins but grew up in separate cousins. I remember mum saying they had to get permission from the church. They were catholic, though I don’t know if that’s true.

and yes as a child I found it odd as I knew and grew up with my Irish cousins. My dad, obviously, didn’t marry a cousin and he was always vocal about how me and dbro wouldn’t be either.

I think trying to make people believe they have to be Ok with first cousin marriages or they are racist is the first step is ‘you are a bigot if you have problems with dads shagging their daughters’. This pattern plays out again and again.

Even the Royals, who were notorious for inbreeding, learned they have to outsource their DNA every generation or so. It's not racist to say that some traditions are unhealthy and shouldn't be encouraged.

My mums family have a high incidence of genetic illness. My dbros wife family also have it. They were both tested before trying for children.

I do think having children when you know there a high risk of life limiting or serious illness for the child, is also (morally) a poor decision.

Thank goodness Elizabeth Bennet came along to save Mr Darcy from Miss de Bourgh

Closer familial marriages have been illegal since long before genetic science or clinical understanding of hereditary disability; it isn’t why they are illegal in the first place, even if it may now be why we wouldn’t legalise it.

The majority of children arising from first cousin marriage will be healthy and unaffected, as well - the risk elevation is something like 5-8% above the general population, so it’s not a dead cert there will be medical issues. I think it’s easy to say “these people should be stopped from marrying and having children” when “these people” are not a group you’re personally ever likely to be a part of. When “these people” become autistic people, or people with Ehlers’s Danlos Syndrome, or another group your average MNer seems to be more likely to fall into, the view is suddenly that this is “easier to manage.”

Yes. It’s very sad, and wrong, that the knee-jerk insult “That’s racist” should be used to stifle discussion of an important issue.

The ‘racist’ accusation has prevented useful research and shut down necessary health education. It has enabled the birth of many children with much reduced life chances.

Why don’t we, as a society, put the victims first? Why don’t we treat it like female genital mutilation? — It may be practised elsewhere, but we will not allow it? (And I know we are dismally weak at prosecuting anyone who commits FGM, but at least it is illegal.)

This is a really interesting question. I was watching a video the other day about a lady with Down syndrome who married a man with Down syndrome. They surprisingly had a child (surprising because more often than not men with Down syndrome are infertile) and the child also had it. So I looked up the likelihood, and it is 1 in 2 apparently. But I imagine those parents would probably have preferred a child with Downs, as it is what they both knew.

And there was a thread on here a while back about a deaf mum who wanted her baby to be deaf, and there was a huge hoohah about it.

But it does pose the question about what different people consider to be "preferable" birth defects or disabilities and whether we should be telling people who are predisposed to certain genetic disorders that they are not allowed to procreate.

I don't think the odd cousin marriage is the problem. The problem comes when it's culturally normal to marry your first cousin, so if your GG & Grandparents and your parents are all cousins, it's not surprising if there are genetic problems.

I worked for a school for disabled children, in Birmingham. Around 80 % were Asian. I asked the head teacher, how come? She explained that many of the Asian children's parents are first cousins. The closeness of both pools of genes triggers disabilities. I could see it was true for myself, just by looking with my eyes. It's not racist at all.

It is not racist - it is scientifically proven to be detrimental and causes birth defects. It is part of a culture of keeping wealth in a family and totally unnecessary in this country.

There was a boy in my class at school who's parents were first cousins;he was teased mercilessly when this was found out as kids are cruel.

I had a friend who dated her mums cousin's son;they shared a set of great grandparents;that relationship didn't last and they had no children.

@StewartPie “It's only a taboo in Western and Christian societies“

There’s all manner of incest taboos of various forms and degrees all across the world, many barring cousin marriage. I think that we can all agree that there is a general but not very strict taboo against cousin marriage in traditional British culture.

Is it racist to find it distasteful? Well, not by my definition, but it’s true that cousin marriage is much more common, even prevalent, in some immigrant communities, and I don’t have the stats but I’m making an educated guess that it increases, along with arranged marriage, in proportion to the decrease in integration, assimilation, and (especially female) education. And none of those things are considered favourable by most people. And it seems to in some cases to correlate to the importation of often monoglot women from their countries of origin to bolster ideas of agnatic purity that are frankly not really relevant to British society as a whole or the well being of minorities in particular.

Cousin marriage is quite common globally though, and there must be tens or hundreds of millions of cousin marriages in, for instance, India alone which have benign outcomes. So I don’t think it should be illegal, no, but I do think the NHS should promote awareness of genetic testing amongst the relevant communities.

I also doubt that making first cousin marriage illegal in the UK would have much effect, and would have a negative impact. Among the communities in which it’s most prevalent and practiced for historic and cultural reasons, a significant proportion of those who adhere to it would choose to opt (as many do already) for a religious marriage only and forgo the legal civil marriage. Which puts women who are often marginalised in these communities in the first place in a very vulnerable position.

The discussion is 1st cousins marrying.

Meaning your sisters or brothers children marry their sisters or brothers children.

I used to work with an Anglo Indian woman who said that in her family they preferred to do first cousin marriages for generations partly due to social strata/caste system. She then said that because a few family members (including one brother of hers who had Down's Syndrome) had had children with birth defects this was one reason that she and her DH (both first cousins) wouldn't have children, as they didn't to take the risk and have children with birth defects.

I think it’s easy to say “these people should be stopped from marrying and having children” when “these people” are not a group you’re personally ever likely to be a part of. When “these people” become autistic people, or people with Ehlers’s Danlos Syndrome, or another group your average MNer seems to be more likely to fall into, the view is suddenly that this is “easier to manage.”

nope, that was not my point.

the point is familial marriages are a genetically close match. Each partner donated one copy of each of their genes. Now with a history of familial marriage, it is likely both those genes are very similar. Having children with another family member and a child will inherit two very similar copies of a gene.

Which means there are no “fail safes” built in. In unrelated people who inherit two different copies, if one gene is faulty the other can step in, so there is no effect.

so when both your gene copies are similar, any slight issue will give rise to an effect. These effects cannot be predicted as it’s across all genes, it may be a cumulation of several mutations, or one.

what I meant be “easier to manage” is there is no way to tell whether a familial marriage will result in affected children, or what those effects may be. There are no tests, no cures, but the risk is much greater that there will be some effect.

unrelated marriages, even if there is a history of a genetic disorder, the genetics are clearer. So pre conception tests can be done, and if both parents carry that specific faulty gene you know the odds a child will be affected. If only one does again you can assess the risk and will know whether a child will definitely be affected, have a chance of being affected, or not.

”easier to manage” as in clinically. Hereditary diseases you can at least enter in to conception knowing how likely it is your child will be affected, and what those effects may be.
familial marriage and you are going in blind, no way of knowing if your children will be affected, mildly, seriously, at all.

(or many of the European royal families for that matter, full of haemophilia and more)

Haemophilia was from Queen Victoria and likely because her father was over 50 when he had her meaning genetic changes were down to paternal age - older sperm more accumulated mis-copies in DNA.

It was apparently a rare form of haemophilia that recent research I've seen reference suggest has actually died out.

Her children - one suffer and several daughter carries did marry into many other European royals causing problems - but that's another matter.

The Hamburg jaw would be an example of too much inbreeding. King Charles II of Spain - being the ultimate issue with Hamburg inbreeding -

From 1516 to 1700, it has been estimated that over 80% of marriages within the Spanish branch of the Habsburg dynasty were consanguineous; that is, they were marriages between close blood relatives.
blog.23andme.com/ancestry-reports/inbreeding-doomed-habsburg/

Tutankhamun massively inbreed - his father and sister being siblings and that going back generations - and does seem to have suffered health wise as a result.

However Ptolemy who rules Egypt after Alexander the Great managed to avoid many health issues despite brother sister and close relationship marriages - it seem to be they married out just enough to avoid most problems though there may have been a few in there.

@ComtesseDeSpair @FrangipaniBlue

To go back to earlier posts from you both - I’m pretty certain that the fact there is the word ‘incest’ which can be attached to cousin marriage makes it more taboo than known carriers of illnesses having children.

That being said, my personal opinion is that adults who carry genes for disabilities/life limiting conditions should not procreate unless there is some way of genetically assuring the child won’t be affected. I’m a carrier for thallasaemia. There’s a reason even the church in Greece supported a programme of prevention of carriers having children.

Absolutely not racism. My son and my sisters daughter look so similar they could be siblings. They obviously share a lot of DNA. It doesn’t take a genius to work out that them procreating would not be a good idea. It’s not racism 🙄

Unless she was forced into marriage and children (wouldn't that be illegal in itself) with her cousin, then yes she's complicit. Who else's fault could it be?

Should be made illegal. There's no excuse for it, cousins are only half a step away from being siblings.

You need to distinguish between the risks to any children of a single cousin marriage and those in a family with a history of consanguineous marriages in the past.

There are increased risks of congenital defects in either case, but they are increased in the latter case.

Nonsense

I don't care. I find it peculiar that ppl even want to talk a lot about this. Is OP a journo.

@Passmethewhat ?

It’s not taboo in western and Christian societies, as actually, up to quite recently, it wasn’t uncommon at all for cousins to get married. I think what’s happened, subsequently, is that there had been an eventual realisation that marrying someone so very genetically close to you, can and does potentially, cause serious birth defects and life long health problems for the their off spring.