Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Prime Minister refused to ban 1st cousin marriage

600 replies

happydappy2 · 04/10/2025 10:10

Even though there is clear evidence of serious birth defects to babies born from 1st cousin marriages. It is deeply worrying that the bride and groom will have the same Grand Parents.....this is unsafe for women in a patriarchal family system.

Who takes on the bulk of the work caring for the disabled child-the woman...

Why is the British gov't promoting incest?

https://x.com/Basil_TGMD/status/1974371215629578344

I hope this is not true...but does anyone know any more about it?

Basil the Great (@Basil_TGMD) on X

Keir Starmer blocked a ban on 'cousin marriage' That's right, the UK Government is actively promoting incest

https://x.com/Basil_TGMD/status/1974371215629578344

OP posts:
Thread gallery
17
MainframeMalfunction · 06/10/2025 11:09

RoyalCorgi · 06/10/2025 10:04

Thanks to *MainframeMalfunction *for a series of intelligent, well-argued posts.

I am glad I wasn’t entirely wasting my time and some reasonable people do exist and agree that science and evidence matters!

MainframeMalfunction · 06/10/2025 11:56

zanahoria · 06/10/2025 08:52

So Sweden, Norway, Denmark and Uzbekistan are all banning cousin marriage.

The first three are obviously similar societies. Uzbekistan could not be more different but has followed the science and came to same conclusion.

Indeed, those pesky Scandinavian countries, so well-known for treating their citizens horrifically and ensuring they are all oppressed, have a terrible standard of living, and of course - according to a PP - have clearly fallen down an imaginary but allegedly inevitable “slippery slope” and are therefore living under an authoritarian regime where disabled people are murdered and forced abortions take place and anybody carrying a gene for genetic disease is denied medical testing and IVF so that they can have healthy babies and instead forcibly sterilised.

The alternative and sane view being that these countries act in the best interests of their citizens and are therefore happier, healthier and wealthier. They are also some of the most fiercely genuinely democratic countries on Earth where the rights of minorities are most protected and nefarious influences via bribery from vested interests to influence public policy are stamped out and involve severe consequences. The people I know from these countries have found what has happened in UK politics and the type of people that the UK public deem fit for public office in recent decades baffling, amusing and horrifying in equal measure, and increasingly so.

Strangely, the countries which implement evidence-based policies have a very high standard of living and consistently have the highest rates of health and happiness anywhere on Earth. Well done to them for actually caring about their people and doing the right thing, unlike the cowardly, populist, self-interested, incompetent and sub-standard so-called potential “leaders” that we are allowed to choose between.

It speaks volumes that countries like the UAE and even Saudi Arabia are recognising that allowing the marriage of close relatives is disastrous public policy. I didn’t know about Uzbekistan, thank you for posting this. It’s great that even impoverished countries like Uzbekistan are enacting policies to attempt to stamp out this inbreeding due to the public health and economic implications - a country where only 60% of the population attend formal education and many of those drop out before having completed secondary school primarily due to poverty - but this also makes the contrast to the UK even more shocking in that we have people who have had the privilege of living and being educated in Britain still ignoring and dismissing science and attempting to campaign to prevent us implementing similar evidence-based legislation in the UK; this shows just how disgraceful it is that our politicians are pandering to people with such unacceptable and unscientific views who are inflicting this entirely preventable harm on children and wider society.

lcakethereforeIam · 06/10/2025 12:01

User37482 · 06/10/2025 06:46

Just had a thought, if you marry your cousin and your parents were cousins you share roughly 25% of your DNA which is the same as marrying a half sibling. That makes it a bit more stark, we wouldn’t think it’s fine for half siblings to marry (I assume, but by some of the responses on here I’m not entirely sure someone wouldn’t think it’s totally fine).

The reality is cousin marriage is bloody terrible for women, can you imagine the family pressure if your husband is abusive to not say anything, the health consequences for your children. Everything can be hidden. It suits men fine I’m sure. Matthew Syed wrote an article where he talked about the rates of children born from incest being much higher in Bradford. I’m talking about the childs father being the mums brother or dad. Thats how well these closed clans can hide things.

But I quickly discovered that researchers wouldn’t return emails or calls. When I got through to one geneticist, he said: “I can’t go there.” It was like hitting a succession of ever-higher brick walls. I then came across evidence that scientists examining the UK Biobank had found that levels of incest (father-daughter, siblings etc) were significantly higher in the British Pakistani community than the wider population.

https://www.thetimes.com/comment/columnists/article/silence-on-cousin-marriage-is-the-unspeakable-face-of-liberalism-870z5rpmf

I’m brown (not muslim, my lot aren’t allowed to marry someone form the same village and definitely not anyone related within a few generations, marrying into the same family twice with no blood connection is also frowned upon). I would really appreciate it if people didn’t throw brown women under the bus in an effort to appear anti-racist. We are actually human too and if you wouldn’t want it for your white daughter and you can see why it could be awful for her, then why would you want it for my brown one. Stop covering mens arses.

This is so reminiscent of the lack of action over the 'grooming' gangs. The authorities apparent reluctance to do anything because of cultural sensitivity and because the girls had 'chosen' this. I did wonder if the men who had such disdain for women and girls outside their communities really left that attitude at their door and how they treated their own wifes and children. They certainly didn't scruple to prevent pregnancy in many of the rapes in the cases that made it to court.

zanahoria · 06/10/2025 12:34

MainframeMalfunction · 06/10/2025 11:56

Indeed, those pesky Scandinavian countries, so well-known for treating their citizens horrifically and ensuring they are all oppressed, have a terrible standard of living, and of course - according to a PP - have clearly fallen down an imaginary but allegedly inevitable “slippery slope” and are therefore living under an authoritarian regime where disabled people are murdered and forced abortions take place and anybody carrying a gene for genetic disease is denied medical testing and IVF so that they can have healthy babies and instead forcibly sterilised.

The alternative and sane view being that these countries act in the best interests of their citizens and are therefore happier, healthier and wealthier. They are also some of the most fiercely genuinely democratic countries on Earth where the rights of minorities are most protected and nefarious influences via bribery from vested interests to influence public policy are stamped out and involve severe consequences. The people I know from these countries have found what has happened in UK politics and the type of people that the UK public deem fit for public office in recent decades baffling, amusing and horrifying in equal measure, and increasingly so.

Strangely, the countries which implement evidence-based policies have a very high standard of living and consistently have the highest rates of health and happiness anywhere on Earth. Well done to them for actually caring about their people and doing the right thing, unlike the cowardly, populist, self-interested, incompetent and sub-standard so-called potential “leaders” that we are allowed to choose between.

It speaks volumes that countries like the UAE and even Saudi Arabia are recognising that allowing the marriage of close relatives is disastrous public policy. I didn’t know about Uzbekistan, thank you for posting this. It’s great that even impoverished countries like Uzbekistan are enacting policies to attempt to stamp out this inbreeding due to the public health and economic implications - a country where only 60% of the population attend formal education and many of those drop out before having completed secondary school primarily due to poverty - but this also makes the contrast to the UK even more shocking in that we have people who have had the privilege of living and being educated in Britain still ignoring and dismissing science and attempting to campaign to prevent us implementing similar evidence-based legislation in the UK; this shows just how disgraceful it is that our politicians are pandering to people with such unacceptable and unscientific views who are inflicting this entirely preventable harm on children and wider society.

Edited

Uzbekistan is far from impoverished, one of the the world's top producers of natural gas.

These countries could have socials reasons for taking on cousin marriage as well as health ones. Saudi Arabia is a tribal country I know that Mohammed Bin Salman, the crown price and de facto ruler wants to reduce the power of traditional tribal leaders.

I am beginning to find the history of cousin marriage quite fascinating, especially how the Catholic Church banned it to break the power of tribes. There are still parallels today, the article on Sweden pointed out that the clannish nature of cousin marriage had caused trouble with gangs.

MainframeMalfunction · 06/10/2025 13:09

MaturingCheeseball · 06/10/2025 10:43

Also to be blunt it is a financial burden on the state. The cost of supporting a severely disabled child for decades is astronomical. Before anyone says Yes, but what about (insert hereditary disease/accident etc) these are by and large unforeseen. Entirely different from knowingly marrying cousins generation after generation and steadfastly saying that any resultant disabled children are due to god’s will. God or whoever is not sticking his hand in his pocket to support them.

Yes. The direct effects (on the women coerced into this and forced to care for the children needlessly born with these horrific genetic conditions, and the suffering of those children) and the indirect effects on wider society (damaging impact on social norms, “clans”, reinforcing patriarchal “traditions” that fundamentally conflict with UK law and society, huge costs to taxpayer funds which are in short supply, waste of healthcare and social care resources on easily preventable conditions, all must be considered in the assessment of the balance of rights when deciding whether to legislate and the case here to legislate is undeniable, particularly in light of the fact that not one poster on the thread has been able to articulate a single benefit to individuals or society that would weigh on the other side of the equation.

When something is very clearly and undeniably proven to be extremely harmful and causing immense suffering to other individuals (including children who have no say in the matter at all) and also harmful to wider society, and even those trying to argue it should not be illegal are seemingly unable to articulate any positive impact that it has, AND other types of less invasive influence like public health campaigns and education have been tried already for over 20 years and failed, it is blindingly obvious that it should be legislated against.

CrostaDiPizza · 06/10/2025 13:16

Why is the British gov't promoting incest?
@happydappy2 ,first cousin marriage is not incest.
NRTFT

MainframeMalfunction · 06/10/2025 13:17

zanahoria · 06/10/2025 12:34

Uzbekistan is far from impoverished, one of the the world's top producers of natural gas.

These countries could have socials reasons for taking on cousin marriage as well as health ones. Saudi Arabia is a tribal country I know that Mohammed Bin Salman, the crown price and de facto ruler wants to reduce the power of traditional tribal leaders.

I am beginning to find the history of cousin marriage quite fascinating, especially how the Catholic Church banned it to break the power of tribes. There are still parallels today, the article on Sweden pointed out that the clannish nature of cousin marriage had caused trouble with gangs.

Strange then that submissions to the UN Human Rights Council from NGOs that do extensive work in the country, such as this one…

https://upr-info.org/sites/default/files/country-document/2024-01/Broken_Chalk_UPR44_UZB_E_Main.pdf

…state that only 60% of the population have access to education (this is after a vast improvement in recent years!) and that one of the main reasons for this is poverty.

A country as a whole may be wealthy while ensuring that a majority of its population remain poor. The wealth of the general population of a country is best measured via PPP for median earnings. In Uzbekistan that was £12,000 in 2024. In the UK it was £37,000. Yes: it is a poor country. Not at subsistence levels, but certainly not wealthy.

MainframeMalfunction · 06/10/2025 13:19

CrostaDiPizza · 06/10/2025 13:16

Why is the British gov't promoting incest?
@happydappy2 ,first cousin marriage is not incest.
NRTFT

It’s the equivalent of marrying your half sibling, genetically.

Would you be in favour of legalising that?

The entire point of this discussion is that it should be classified as incest in law and legally prohibited to marry your cousin.

Notaflippinclue · 06/10/2025 13:27

Quite a few years ago my sister worked in the care sector in the north west of England she said 8 out of 10 children in respite/daycare were of Pakistan heritage the country new all about this 30 years ago but turned a blind eye — science statistics totally ignored and at what cost to the taxpayers.

MainframeMalfunction · 06/10/2025 13:35

zanahoria · 06/10/2025 12:34

Uzbekistan is far from impoverished, one of the the world's top producers of natural gas.

These countries could have socials reasons for taking on cousin marriage as well as health ones. Saudi Arabia is a tribal country I know that Mohammed Bin Salman, the crown price and de facto ruler wants to reduce the power of traditional tribal leaders.

I am beginning to find the history of cousin marriage quite fascinating, especially how the Catholic Church banned it to break the power of tribes. There are still parallels today, the article on Sweden pointed out that the clannish nature of cousin marriage had caused trouble with gangs.

And yes: lower social integration; lower IQ and therefore lower levels of education and income create a higher draw to criminality; as does living outside accepted social norms in an isolated “culture”; having contempt for others in society and the impact of your behaviour on them and for authorities or professionals like doctors and the resulting culture of secrecy to cover up the shame of the abusive behaviour that you have condoned and harm you’ve inflicted even on your own family members; as does the fact that it has been shown by research that even those genetic disorders that don’t cause catastrophic disability (yet still obviously manifest with far more prevalence in communities with inbreeding) lead to increased incidences of mental illness as well as physical illness - including psychosis and episodes of irrational rage; then add the impact of ignorant social “beliefs” which disrespect a large proportion of the rest of the rest of society (the irony that these are being compared to views in western societies in the 17th or 18th century seems to be lost on many of those trying to use this as an excuse to justify it - they may not have noticed but the rest of society has advanced since then).

All of these factors will, of course, contribute to higher levels of crime and violence as well as much higher levels of anti-social and socially unacceptable behaviour below the level of criminality from those involved in such “lifestyles”.

This is hardly rocket science or a shocking revelation.

Imnobody4 · 06/10/2025 13:57

Without the intervention of the law how many generations before the practice dies out. We've known for years but looked the other way.
We talk about integration but how do you do that in a climate of cultural acceptance.
Considering that it is accepted in practically all Muslim countries (as the Qur'an doesn't forbid it) even though it is practised by specific groups not necessarily generally, I really can't see it just dying out without intervention. We should have acted a long time ago.

The last thing many families want is for their daughters to become Westernised.
If Mosques spoke out clearly it would be a start.

BundleBoogie · 06/10/2025 14:47

For PPs claiming that there is no point making a law for people’s own good because some will persist in breaking it, remember the outcry when it became law to wear a seatbelt in the UK? There were huge objections and I remember male family members making a point of not wearing a seatbelt to exercise their personal freedom.

But eventually people got their heads around it and now look at us! Seatbelts all round. In fact, I’d go so far as to say it has become socially unacceptable to not put on a seatbelt - particularly on children.

So for those arguing that because first cousin marriage was ‘socially acceptable’ 120 years ago therefore we can’t say it is unacceptable now (especially since that lady discovered the human genome), look at how things have changed on seatbelts.

BundleBoogie · 06/10/2025 14:52

Imnobody4 · 06/10/2025 13:57

Without the intervention of the law how many generations before the practice dies out. We've known for years but looked the other way.
We talk about integration but how do you do that in a climate of cultural acceptance.
Considering that it is accepted in practically all Muslim countries (as the Qur'an doesn't forbid it) even though it is practised by specific groups not necessarily generally, I really can't see it just dying out without intervention. We should have acted a long time ago.

The last thing many families want is for their daughters to become Westernised.
If Mosques spoke out clearly it would be a start.

Exactly. I think it was Raja Miah, an ex Muslim campaigner highlighting the cultural issue the Pakistani Muslim rape gangs specifically, who used the phrase suicidal empathy.

We are making decisions and giving power to people that are not for the good of our society. Allowing a clearly harmful practice to continue and even grow as greater numbers move into our country is not good for all of us. Not making it illegal because we are scared to upset them is detrimental to all of us.

CraftyNavySeal · 06/10/2025 15:02

BundleBoogie · 06/10/2025 14:47

For PPs claiming that there is no point making a law for people’s own good because some will persist in breaking it, remember the outcry when it became law to wear a seatbelt in the UK? There were huge objections and I remember male family members making a point of not wearing a seatbelt to exercise their personal freedom.

But eventually people got their heads around it and now look at us! Seatbelts all round. In fact, I’d go so far as to say it has become socially unacceptable to not put on a seatbelt - particularly on children.

So for those arguing that because first cousin marriage was ‘socially acceptable’ 120 years ago therefore we can’t say it is unacceptable now (especially since that lady discovered the human genome), look at how things have changed on seatbelts.

No it’s more like a lot of us are pointing out that it’s not illegal to not wear a seatbelt if your car doesn’t have seatbelts (like classic cars).

Similarly banning legal marriage between cousins does not prevent cousins who are not legally married in the first place from having children together.

Only 2 people can be legally married to each other but there is no law banning you from having 2 boyfriends and calling them your husbands.

People seem to fundamentally misunderstand what law actually is and what it has the power to do.

Imnobody4 · 06/10/2025 15:13

CraftyNavySeal · 06/10/2025 15:02

No it’s more like a lot of us are pointing out that it’s not illegal to not wear a seatbelt if your car doesn’t have seatbelts (like classic cars).

Similarly banning legal marriage between cousins does not prevent cousins who are not legally married in the first place from having children together.

Only 2 people can be legally married to each other but there is no law banning you from having 2 boyfriends and calling them your husbands.

People seem to fundamentally misunderstand what law actually is and what it has the power to do.

I pretty sure Islam is committed to the institution of marriage. It's haram to have sex outside marriage.

BundleBoogie · 06/10/2025 15:36

CraftyNavySeal · 06/10/2025 15:02

No it’s more like a lot of us are pointing out that it’s not illegal to not wear a seatbelt if your car doesn’t have seatbelts (like classic cars).

Similarly banning legal marriage between cousins does not prevent cousins who are not legally married in the first place from having children together.

Only 2 people can be legally married to each other but there is no law banning you from having 2 boyfriends and calling them your husbands.

People seem to fundamentally misunderstand what law actually is and what it has the power to do.

No it’s more like a lot of us are pointing out that it’s not illegal to not wear a seatbelt if your car doesn’t have seatbelts (like classic cars).

It’s not actually. That would only make sense if we were talking about annulling existing first cousin marriages. We are not.

All new cars must be built with proper seatbelts. All drivers and passengers are required to wear them. When caught without a seatbelt there is a penalty so almost all drivers wear them.

My mind is still boggling that you and so many posters have such a low view of the character of Muslims and their lack of desire to integrate into our society that they would deliberately flout a law designed to improve health outcomes.

Btw, sibling marriage is illegal and that seems to work well enough, along with social disapproval.

CrostaDiPizza · 06/10/2025 15:41

@Imnobody4 , the Nikkah marriage isn't a legal marriage.

Imnobody4 · 06/10/2025 16:51

CrostaDiPizza · 06/10/2025 15:41

@Imnobody4 , the Nikkah marriage isn't a legal marriage.

I know. The legislation would follow this pattern. An Imam is at this moment being prosecuted under this law.

The Marriage and Civil Partnership (Minimum Age) Act 2022 . This Act applies to marriages performed under any circumstances, including religious ceremonies like nikah, making it a criminal offence to arrange such a marriage for a minor.The Act came into force on February 27, 2023, and those found guilty of arranging a child marriage face up to seven years in prison.

PrincessSophieFrederike · 06/10/2025 17:01

Imnobody4 · 06/10/2025 10:10

And as a PP shared, Saudi Arabia has introduced a program to discourage cousin marriages.

Yes, I hope the new king there is good news. He's done some pretty unpleasant things AFAIK, but otoh he seems to be improving women's lives & cracking down on Salafism (fundamentalist sect which has caused a lot of issues since the 18th century)..

Northquit · 06/10/2025 17:03

Hybrid vigour is what society needs.

The opposite is not good.

MainframeMalfunction · 06/10/2025 17:18

Marriage is, by definition, a legal contract. It is literally what the word means. Therefore, a “marriage that is not a legal marriage” is not a marriage at all.

PrincessSophieFrederike · 06/10/2025 17:29

Imnobody4 · 06/10/2025 16:51

I know. The legislation would follow this pattern. An Imam is at this moment being prosecuted under this law.

The Marriage and Civil Partnership (Minimum Age) Act 2022 . This Act applies to marriages performed under any circumstances, including religious ceremonies like nikah, making it a criminal offence to arrange such a marriage for a minor.The Act came into force on February 27, 2023, and those found guilty of arranging a child marriage face up to seven years in prison.

Good. We need more of this

. I was reading Sue Lloyd-Roberts' book the War on Women
& she talks about her work as a video journalist reporting on FGM, forced marriage & honour killings in the UK. She speaks to more liberal Muslims, including imams, and they argue that the type of Imam you get in Bradford is often a sectarian rural type who typically isn't even that educated on the Quran but believes it fanatically. As has been pointed out on other threads, the brave Muslim women who speak up & women like Anne Cryer who bring attention to these issues are often ignored by male politicians who'd rather be in with the community leaders.

Essentially listening to the imams on this leads too often to a corrupt getonotocracy forcing younger people to stay in unhealthy practices.

People who say that Pakistanis are brining their culture here & want to preserve it : Pakistan & many other Muslim countries want to limit this. Both population & government increasingly want to stop or at least limit cousin marriage. It's a bit like Chinese immigrants in the US 'tiger parenting' - it's not always like that, but a lot of Chinese-Americans suffered borderline abusive parenting at the same time that parents back in mainland China were becoming less strict (within reason).

That's the thing with immigration : the immigrant community can preserve practices which the people back in the home country may be discarding, often for good reason.

PrincessSophieFrederike · 06/10/2025 17:32

Imnobody4 · 06/10/2025 13:57

Without the intervention of the law how many generations before the practice dies out. We've known for years but looked the other way.
We talk about integration but how do you do that in a climate of cultural acceptance.
Considering that it is accepted in practically all Muslim countries (as the Qur'an doesn't forbid it) even though it is practised by specific groups not necessarily generally, I really can't see it just dying out without intervention. We should have acted a long time ago.

The last thing many families want is for their daughters to become Westernised.
If Mosques spoke out clearly it would be a start.

Tbf I think cousin marriage is being actively discouraged by Muslim countries that want to develop (Saudi Arabia, for one) and I don't think it's such a thing in urban Pakistan. The issue is that most British Pakistanis are from the regressive rural areas which still practice it now. Yes, intervention is needed.

PrincessSophieFrederike · 06/10/2025 17:52

MainframeMalfunction · 06/10/2025 11:56

Indeed, those pesky Scandinavian countries, so well-known for treating their citizens horrifically and ensuring they are all oppressed, have a terrible standard of living, and of course - according to a PP - have clearly fallen down an imaginary but allegedly inevitable “slippery slope” and are therefore living under an authoritarian regime where disabled people are murdered and forced abortions take place and anybody carrying a gene for genetic disease is denied medical testing and IVF so that they can have healthy babies and instead forcibly sterilised.

The alternative and sane view being that these countries act in the best interests of their citizens and are therefore happier, healthier and wealthier. They are also some of the most fiercely genuinely democratic countries on Earth where the rights of minorities are most protected and nefarious influences via bribery from vested interests to influence public policy are stamped out and involve severe consequences. The people I know from these countries have found what has happened in UK politics and the type of people that the UK public deem fit for public office in recent decades baffling, amusing and horrifying in equal measure, and increasingly so.

Strangely, the countries which implement evidence-based policies have a very high standard of living and consistently have the highest rates of health and happiness anywhere on Earth. Well done to them for actually caring about their people and doing the right thing, unlike the cowardly, populist, self-interested, incompetent and sub-standard so-called potential “leaders” that we are allowed to choose between.

It speaks volumes that countries like the UAE and even Saudi Arabia are recognising that allowing the marriage of close relatives is disastrous public policy. I didn’t know about Uzbekistan, thank you for posting this. It’s great that even impoverished countries like Uzbekistan are enacting policies to attempt to stamp out this inbreeding due to the public health and economic implications - a country where only 60% of the population attend formal education and many of those drop out before having completed secondary school primarily due to poverty - but this also makes the contrast to the UK even more shocking in that we have people who have had the privilege of living and being educated in Britain still ignoring and dismissing science and attempting to campaign to prevent us implementing similar evidence-based legislation in the UK; this shows just how disgraceful it is that our politicians are pandering to people with such unacceptable and unscientific views who are inflicting this entirely preventable harm on children and wider society.

Edited

Great post.

On the Scandi countries, I would mostly agree, except to say some people do have valid concerns based on stuff that's happened there in the past.

Sweden carried out eugenics via forced sterilisation from 1906 until 2013. It was apparently, of the Nordic countries, the one most into eugenics, including to my sadness the great anthropologist Gunnar Myrdal

https://muse.jhu.edu/article/225135/pdf

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compulsory_sterilisation_in_Sweden

We know about the Greenlandic women made to wear IUDs (not sterilised as some have said) in Denmark in the 60s and 70s and in some cases even the 1990s.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spiral_case

In Norway, from the 1930s to the 1970s people were sterilised forcibly, especially the Romani community and the mentally disabled.

https://ecpr.eu/Events/Event/PaperDetails/9016

Forced sterilisation of the disabled was legal until recently in Finland (and still is, worryingly, in other European countries)

https://www.autismeurope.org/blog/2023/06/27/forced-sterilisation-of-persons-with-disabilities-a-widespread-violation-of-human-rights-across-europe/

I agree they are mostlying good countries NOW but I also understand why some people are wary of slippery slopes given these terrible cases.

Project MUSE - Eugenics and the Welfare State: Sterilization Policy in Norway, Sweden, Denmark, and Finland (review)

https://muse.jhu.edu/article/225135/pdf

TempestTost · 06/10/2025 18:03

MainframeMalfunction · 06/10/2025 01:18

But in a way it doesn't matter, because no one is saying cousin marriage is beneficial. And I think you know that, and you are being quite deliberately manipulative in your argument.

You admit it isn’t beneficial and the thread has included an immense amount of information and links to evidence about why it is extremely harmful.

Please explain, therefore, why we should not legislate against it as we do with other harmful behaviour.

Lots of harmful behaviour isn't legislated against.

If that is the basis of your argument it's not only completely unaware of reality, - surely anyone actually on the planet knows that it is not the case that everything that isn't a desirable behaviour is illegal - it doesn't understand how the law works, what it's for, or how legislators decide what kinds of things should be legislated against and which shouldn't.

You don't even seem to have any idea what people are actually saying, which is I suppose why you keep producing massive walls of text saying the same thing, which don't in any way address what people have said.