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

This is horrific. Those poor children.

It’s not taboo in western and Christian societies go into work and announce you're marrying your cousin Steve. See how taboo it is...

Agreed. BUT it is racist to have no consideration for the practical aspects of banning or managing closely related breeding in cultures where it is the norm.

It really isn’t. It’d be racist to avoid a child protection measure because some communities think it’s Ok.

My parents were first cousins (white, British). They grew up separately and only met as older teenagers. I had no idea until recently that it would be considered taboo in any way. However, I didn’t know any of my cousins when I was growing up, or even now, so maybe that accounts for why it doesn’t give me the ick?

I do find it 'ick'. I consider cousins to be close relatives, shared aunts/uncles/grandparents makes 'family' to me.

The “practical considerations” would be that you don’t change cultures by making aspects of them illegal. Making headscarves or face coverings illegal in public in countries which have done so doesn’t suddenly result in men who think their wives, daughters, sisters and mothers should remain covered allowing them to go out uncovered: It just results in women being prohibited from leaving the home. Likewise, you won’t stop first cousins marrying by making it illegal: those for whom it’s culturally or religiously significant will simply opt out of legal marriage in favour of religious marriage. Something like 60% of women in the UK who have had a Niqqah ceremony have not also had a legally recognised legal marriage – and they’re more likely to be exactly the group we’re talking about here, those who are more culturally traditional and conservative and more likely to have a first cousin marriage.

Carrier testing, screening of couples and genetic counselling has been incredibly successful in the Orthodox Ashkenazi Jewish community in significantly reducing the number of babies born with Tay Sachs. It would be far more effective to promote it from a grass roots level – including to people who do not view themselves as part of the problem, which includes people with a personal or family history of disabilities with a known or suspected genetic component.

I think that some people don't understand even the basics of genetics.

I'm going to explain it for those who might not have studied Biology or genetics.

The podcast has included a fairly basic explanation but the author also assumes a minimum level of understanding of genetics.

1. There are things called dominant genes and recessive genes.
2. Your DNA is formed from a random combination of genes from both of your parents when the sperm meets the egg, so, you can have any number of potential combinations. Dominant and Recessive. Recessive and Recessive. Dominant and Recessive.
3. Dominant always wins.
4. The problem arrives when two Recessive genes (with undesirable traits) meet.
5. You can carry a recessive gene and a dominant one. Let's use Cystic Fibrosis (CF) as an example of a recessive gene. You can happily carry the gene for CF but because you also carry the dominant gene which is non Cystic Fibrosis, you do not have CF.
6. You marry a cousin who is also carrying the recessive gene for CF (you've both inherited it from your grandmother). Your husband also has the dominant gene so he doesn't have CF either.
7. When the sperm and ovum meet, the genes which join together is random.
8. Because the gene for CF is recessive, that means that even though you're both carrying the CF gene, neither of you have it, so you're unaware that you're carrying it.
9. I'm going to call the gene for CF - Gene A and the non-CF gene - Gene B.
10. So you and your DH both have A and B i.e. the CF gene and the non CF gene.
11. The combinations which can occur are:

i) Gene A from Mum and Gene B from Dad
ii) Gene A from Mum and Gene B from Dad
iii) Gene B from Mum and Gene A from Dad
iv) Gene B from Mum and Gene B from Dad
v) Gene A from Mum and Gene A from Dad

In the above example, the only combination which will produce a child with CF is the very last one as in the first 4 other combinations, a dominant gene will win.

The problem with closely related parents is that the likelihood of them both carrying the same recessive gene is higher.

PS: 3-4% risk of major genetic problems sounds very high to me OP.

PPS: If this sounded like a patronising post, I apologise. It's not intended to me.

My great and uncle were first cousins. It's legal in the UK, if it repeatedly happens it increases birth defects.

Sorry, I worded that wrongly. What I was trying to say was that cousin marriage, up to recently, was quite common in the western world, amongst Christian etc, as in happened in those societies. But over the last while it’s become completely unacceptable, and rightly so.

The fault was hers because according to her in laws there must have been something wrong with her to have disabled children. A whole issue in itself
And there is a big difference legally between being forced into marriage and pressured into it by families

It really is, and its not a child protection matter.

The gene for blue eyes is a recessive gene for example, so not all recessive genes are considered undesirable. This is why blue eyes are quite rare in the world as it will take both parents carrying the gene for blue eyes for the children to end up with blue eyes.

So by your argument it was wrong to make FGM illegal?

People will make jokes about certain regions in the UK.

I actually know someone who had a first cousin marriage who was white, Christian upbringing and both well-educated. They had children who are healthy but the marriage ended up in divorce. (Seemed his wife liked marrying people she knows well. )

That's not her argument at all. Hyperbolic nonsense.

Has it stopped FGM or resulted in any prosecutions?

The podcast refers to the Queen and Prince Philip. I suspect nobody listened to it but are commenting nonetheless.

It’s also not an equal comparison. It isn’t a legal requirement to be married in a UK civil legal ceremony. You can make it illegal to marry your first cousin in the UK, sure. How does that impact those who chose not to be legally married?

I've namechanged for this. My parents are first cousins. My grandmothers were sisters, but my maternal grandmother emigrated when she got married. My parents met as children, but not very often. They fell in love when in their 20's and got married in their 30's and had my sister and I. We have no genetic abnormalities or problems at all.

It's stopped some girls being taken abroad to have it done to them.

But the argument was that it was wrong to legislate. I don’t agree with you, you seem to be implying that the law should stay out of it when harm is being done if it’s being done by minorities.

We saw where that leads many times in recent years.

I’m saying that the legislation would have little to no impact and would thus be pointless - and therefore yes, the “wrong” approach to the problem. What’s the point in a solution which doesn’t solve anything?

Your unevidenced assertion that minorities would not obey the law is quite poor.

I strongly suspect that that is why Prince Charles went out of royal circles and Prince William went into 'commoner' circles.

There is a nasty tendency in some cultures to castigate children with defects and to castigate their parents. The insult is 'inbred'.

I personally couldn't find any of my cousins attractive, any more than I could find my brother attractive! I'm not sure why. A natural instinct?

I have noticed however that attraction to men on my part seemed to correlate with desirable traits that I would like my children to have. Tall? Blue eyes? Intelligent? Sporty? Nerdy? Brown Eyes? Good with his hands? Ruthless? Kind? I think that we don't often notice how or why we're attracted to certain people.