Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

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
BundleBoogie · 06/10/2025 18:07

Imnobody4 · 06/10/2025 10:10

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

Good point. So a Muslim country is making moves to stop this harmful practice and several other countries are banning it, meanwhile people in the UK are arguing to justify it and against a ban.

Meanwhile the Muslim Council of Britain are working closely with the Labour government to create an absolute definition of Islamophobia which will be designed to prevent conversations like this.

The current definition within the Labour Party is already designed to have a chilling effect on speech criticising ‘expressions of Muslimness’ (from observation examples seen to include first cousin marriage, forced marriage, use of the burqa and hijab, sexual abuse of white girls etc).

For those reading the definition below and thinking ‘no reasonable person would prosecute or threaten prosecution for just discussing these issues’, just look at the police harassment experienced by ordinary people for talking about women’s rights and being accused of ‘transphobia’. Hate crime laws allow the police to be weaponised against ordinary citizens to silence our free speech.

From the Labour Party website:
One definition is the All Party Parliamentary Group on British Muslim’s definition (APPG). The APPG defines Islamophobia as:
“… rooted in racism and is a type of racism that targets expressions of Muslimness or perceived Muslimness”.

TempestTost · 06/10/2025 18:09

happydappy2 · 06/10/2025 10:10

I've found this conversation fascinating. I hope we follow in the footsteps of other countries and ban the practice, as it is so dangerous to the unborn child. Anyone who accuses me of racism for wanting this practice to stop needs to back up why it is racist....highlighting a problem within a particular group of society is not racist.

You know, no one has said it's racist.

People have argued it could have unanticipated effects and set undesirable precedents, and people have argued that it would be ineffective at reducing these kinds of births.

Both points that were completely ignored by most of the posters who think the law is a good idea.

TempestTost · 06/10/2025 18:10

Imnobody4 · 06/10/2025 10:10

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

Apparently unless they change the law they are all for cousin marriage, discouraging it through education does not count.

BundleBoogie · 06/10/2025 18:11

TempestTost · 06/10/2025 18:03

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.

Lots of harmful behaviour isn't legislated against.

Can you give an example of this - something that is practised by a significant and growing number of people (it may be declining slightly amongst Muslims but the number coming here is growing) and causes harm not only to the person doing it but to others?

BundleBoogie · 06/10/2025 18:19

TempestTost · 06/10/2025 18:10

Apparently unless they change the law they are all for cousin marriage, discouraging it through education does not count.

But we’re not even doing that - the NHS has to be told off recently for saying it has benefits!

Other countries in similar situations to us have looked at this and decided legislation (presumably alongside education) is necessary. There are people in the UK that don’t even want us to have a conversation about how best to stop it - we haven’t got that far yet. See Matthew Syed’s article (I think on this thread) about the researcher earned off the subject entirely. I have seen mention on here that NHS staff working with these kids have been told not to discuss it widely.

I think we need both as it is an urgent issue condemning an a possible 7,500 children per year and their families to a lifetime of ill health and distress.

Imnobody4 · 06/10/2025 18:21

TempestTost · 06/10/2025 18:10

Apparently unless they change the law they are all for cousin marriage, discouraging it through education does not count.

There's a huge difference between disapproval by established Islamic authorities and disapproval from Western infidels.
I don't see Muslim clerics in this country speaking out against the practice. If they were maybe the situation would be different.

MainframeMalfunction · 06/10/2025 18:31

PrincessSophieFrederike · 06/10/2025 17:52

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.

So a slippery slope upwards?

Sounds terrifying.

Look at what was going on in our own country during most of the periods mentioned in your articles: homophobia, marital rape and domestic abuse was legal, women denied financial independence and immense misogyny. There is still huge prejudice here against disabled people. There are threads full of ableism on Mumsnet pretty much on a daily basis, often left to stand.

No country is perfect and all are flawed. It is, however, undeniable that if one was to be able to pick one’s birthplace anybody rational would choose Europe, Australia, NZ, Japan, Canada, Korea or a few others where at least the is the rule of law and the trajectory of society has generally been improvements over time towards more equality of rights and the rule of law and the Scandinavian countries have certainly done a better job of this than that vast majority of places on Earth. It is notable that no majority Muslim country features in this list or is generally considered a desirable place to live (except by bribing people to live there temporarily with low/ no taxes to make it worth the sacrifice of quality of life in pretty much every other area). There’s a very strong correlation between societies dominated by this religion and those which have been less successful, less stable, less happy, more violent, more lawless, and contributed far less to scientific and technological progress in the last few centuries than those who have not adopted this set of beliefs/ effectively forced its population to adopt them.

What we should all be pursuing as a society is to continue our upwards trajectory which certainly won’t be served by ignoring science, medicine, data, and burying our heads in the sand excusing harmful behaviour on the basis of people’s “belief” in maintaining social structures outdated by hundreds of years which have now been proven beyond doubt to be harmful to their own descendants and to wider society. It’s bad enough that we have dubiously-funded populist, authoritarian, Trump-wannabes in various places in Europe who are determined to try to destroy our way of life and drag us backwards. Enabling religious extremists to try to do the same would pour fuel on that fire as well. The moderate, reasonable people in the centre have lost their voice and need to stand up to both sets of extremists before it’s too late and hundreds of years of work to drag us out of the swamp are undone in a matter of decades.

PrincessSophieFrederike · 06/10/2025 18:39

BundleBoogie · 06/10/2025 18:11

Lots of harmful behaviour isn't legislated against.

Can you give an example of this - something that is practised by a significant and growing number of people (it may be declining slightly amongst Muslims but the number coming here is growing) and causes harm not only to the person doing it but to others?

Tbf there are such things : maybe reckless sex for one? Or deadbeat dads? Or adultery? Would need stats to see if they were increasing, though.

Imnobody4 · 06/10/2025 18:40

TempestTost · 06/10/2025 18:09

You know, no one has said it's racist.

People have argued it could have unanticipated effects and set undesirable precedents, and people have argued that it would be ineffective at reducing these kinds of births.

Both points that were completely ignored by most of the posters who think the law is a good idea.

Actually near the beginning of thread somene implied OP was being rascist.
People have argued it could have unanticipated effects and set undesirable precedents, and people have argued that it would be ineffective at reducing these kinds of births.
The first point is impossible to argue about. Everything can have unintended consequences. Free contraception could lead to plummeting birth rate so let's not go there.
The second, well it's not going to increase them is it?

MainframeMalfunction · 06/10/2025 18:51

BundleBoogie · 06/10/2025 18:07

Good point. So a Muslim country is making moves to stop this harmful practice and several other countries are banning it, meanwhile people in the UK are arguing to justify it and against a ban.

Meanwhile the Muslim Council of Britain are working closely with the Labour government to create an absolute definition of Islamophobia which will be designed to prevent conversations like this.

The current definition within the Labour Party is already designed to have a chilling effect on speech criticising ‘expressions of Muslimness’ (from observation examples seen to include first cousin marriage, forced marriage, use of the burqa and hijab, sexual abuse of white girls etc).

For those reading the definition below and thinking ‘no reasonable person would prosecute or threaten prosecution for just discussing these issues’, just look at the police harassment experienced by ordinary people for talking about women’s rights and being accused of ‘transphobia’. Hate crime laws allow the police to be weaponised against ordinary citizens to silence our free speech.

From the Labour Party website:
One definition is the All Party Parliamentary Group on British Muslim’s definition (APPG). The APPG defines Islamophobia as:
“… rooted in racism and is a type of racism that targets expressions of Muslimness or perceived Muslimness”.

Shocking. Utter nonsense to equate criticism of any religion to racism. Being Muslim is not a race. Over 2 billion people of every variety of race on Earth are muslims. It’s utter nonsense, and an attempt to piggy back on valid law in the Equality Act to protect people from discrimination based on race and enable them to practice beliefs about whatever sky fairy they like in private, but it absolutely is not and can never be acceptable to try to silence criticism of damaging behaviour that impacts children (who have no choice or agency) or women (whose equality already set out in UK law is being continuously violated breaking multiple laws) and which causes harms to the whole of our society, using “religion” as an excuse. All behaviour can of course be criticised and must be if it is harmful, and in cases of unacceptable harm to individuals or society as a whole, made illegal. That’s the purpose of having laws. The motivation for the damaging behaviour is fairly irrelevant and I really cannot fathom why they think anybody else should care about it.

It’s imperative that we all make clear to our politicians that this is where we draw the line. Religion does not override the law, human rights, freedom of speech (obviously within the usual legal constraints, but which it appears certain groups are trying to extend in a totally unacceptable manner). The UK needs to entirely separate politics and religion and make it clear that the latter has no place in discussions on the former in this country, more like France. I think this will be the only way to protect our democracy from extremists. The Christians in the US are almost as bad. The effect of religion being involved in public policy is almost always toxic and negative and we must safeguard our democracy from these people. Of course they can believe whatever they want to but whenever such beliefs are used as a justification for trying to influence law or public policy and inflict them on others it should be shut down immediately. Our tolerance of intolerance will be used against us to destroy everything we’ve built if we don’t stand up against these backwards practices and attempts to move the Overton Window, by those attempting to pull it to both extremes.

Frankly, if people are fanatical about any religion there are plenty of other countries that they can choose to reside in where the alleged words of their chosen sky fairy are the basis of organising society. If they wish to live in a democratic country then they must accept that religion is a private matter and that when it is incompatible with the evidence-based legal systems of the country they live in their beliefs don’t not override the law and irrelevant to determining what the law should be.

MainframeMalfunction · 06/10/2025 18:58

PrincessSophieFrederike · 06/10/2025 18:39

Tbf there are such things : maybe reckless sex for one? Or deadbeat dads? Or adultery? Would need stats to see if they were increasing, though.

Improvements have been made in all of these areas though, have they not?

I’m not sure what “reckless sex” is. However, teenage pregnancies in the UK are far, far lower than 30 years ago, contraception and abortion are available to all, women are able to leave abusive relationships. “Deadbeat dads” is a product of ongoing misogyny and the UK certainly could do better on this in terms of enforcing child maintenance at non-joke levels of payment and actually collecting it, treating non-payment with the same severity of penalties as non-payment of taxes. People can now divorce useless/ dishonest spouses who have committed adultery without having to prove that they have done so. Domestic violence is now illegal as is marital rape.

As I said earlier, all countries are still very far from perfect, but society in western countries has generally made very significant progress in the last few decades and there are various groups of people very deliberately trying to undo this. We must not let them, regardless of whether their motivation is racism or religion, it matters not: what matters is that they are not successful in destroying the progress that has been made to date and preventing this continuing.

WearyAuldWumman · 06/10/2025 19:09

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.

I had written a lengthy response to this, but thought better of it - it was rather outing.

Suffice to say that I've seen clearly genetic problems within four groups of pupils in my time as a secondary school teacher in Scotland: in all four, kinship marriage obviously had a part to play.

PrincessSophieFrederike · 06/10/2025 20:03

TempestTost · 06/10/2025 01:06

I think you are right that with very small populations like Travellers, a lot is to do with the small population. And there is a desire to keep culture and traditions, and if we are being honest, marrying outside would very likely dilute those things in the case of a group with such a different way of life.

Some social anthropologists think that is the reason that Jews at certain times in their history, for example, had so many complicated rules for remaining kosher. It makes it quite difficult to fully integrate into the general population, you can't really live together that easily, and intermarriage would be much less likely. So they continue as a distinct and separate population. And there is much less chance of dilution of religious observance then as well.

I think we should probably be honest that for groups like this, they are in many ways being asked to give up parts of a distinct way of life, and that will feel like losing their culture. And that is a hard thing in your own country.

The situation with immigrant communities is a little differernt. With small numbers coming into a large, established community, a family of newcomers will by necessity have a lot to do with the people around them. It will be natural to adapt in many ways to what people do around you, and certainly children born there are likely to do so. Such newcomers are often also, in such cases, disposed to do so - they know when coming to a new place they will have a new culture to adapt to.

And then there is the economic element - the fact that once you come to the UK, a lot of the economic drives toward things like cousin marriages are not there. That should make them less desirable over time.

Of course, the more similar the basic values and traditions people share, the simpler this process is likely to be. I think this even extends to religion to a large extent, a shared religion is another place where people can spend time together or can relate customs, holidays, and so on. It's a point of connection that draws people together.

The more differences, the more change is required, and the fewer connections, and the more effort is required on the part of the community to integrate new people. And it is far more difficult if there are a lot of them, and there isn't so much need for them to interact with the surrounding community. Especially on a social and friendship basis (rather than at work for example.) Especially where there is not a shared religion or belief system, pressure to change under these circumstances seem more like pressure on religious identity which is often resented.

I agree re Travellers. But tbf, the question needs to be asked if 'preserving their culture' should be the aim of ALL government interventions.

As I said upthread, I'm interested in the Romany & Traveller groups in the UK, and currently reading up.

From the little I know now, I do think certain Traveller customs should not be encouraged in the 21st century : pulling children out of school as early as 12, refusing any sex education (including the basic biology of reproduction), there are also issues with violence (including DV & SA of women) and ostracisation of gay people, among other problems.

I know Travellers (and this ofc applies to other groups) have a history of discrimination, and this creates a vicious cycle where officials & outsiders are avoided. But it should be possible to help people while making it clear that we don't have any issues with Travellers continuing their way of life, as long as they obey the laws of the UK.

MainframeMalfunction · 06/10/2025 22:26

TempestTost · 06/10/2025 18:03

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.

I’m sorry that you consider a few paragraphs to be “a huge wall of text”. That must be very limiting for you.

Perhaps, given your comment above, you’ve struggled to read what I’ve written, but I have indeed responded to the ridiculous and spurious comments that you’ve made including:

  1. your nonsense claims that legislating against something will not reduce its prevalence when history shows us this is not the case;

  2. your false and slightly barmy claims that legislating against marrying close relations is part of some kind of plan for imposing limits on normal relationships and reproductive choices;

  3. the false equivalences you attempted to draw between one set of very high risks that are cumulative and cannot be mitigated with testing and medical care, and another set of risks that are much lower in incidence, are not cumulative, and can largely be mitigated with testing and medical care.

  4. I’ve pointed out that your claim that “education” will be effective in addressing the matter is false given this approach has been attempted for over 20 years and been ineffective.

I could go on but I wouldn’t want you to be faced with a “huge wall of text” that you find unmanageable.

Which part of your false claims do you believe I have not addressed?

I note - with little surprise, to be honest - that you have refused to answer the questions posed to you by me and by other posters, instead calling me “manipulative” for unspecified reasons while putting forward no coherent argument to defend your own position. How ironic.

PrincessSophieFrederike · 06/10/2025 22:27

On a more hopeful note,,I looked on r/Pakistan for cousin marriage info & there were lots of posts that seemed just as opposed to it as we are, and appalled by the medical issues generational cousin marriage causes. Hopefully it will die out in Pakistan- people who use Reddit are likely to be educated & urban, but it is an encouraging sign imo.

https://www.reddit.com/r/pakistan/comments/7aumn0/cousin_marriage_in_pakistan_source_of_personal/

https://www.reddit.com/r/pakistan/comments/a6esf7/comment/ebuwabf/

https://www.reddit.com/r/pakistan/comments/rhjv0y/do_you_consider_cousin_marriages_bad_if_so_why/

https://www.reddit.com/r/pakistan/comments/qoecm8/my_cousin_is_merrying_my_cousins_daughter/

https://www.reddit.com/r/pakistan/comments/saf4yg/hot_take_ban_cousin_marriages/

https://www.reddit.com/r/pakistan/comments/n84wwt/comment/gxh9hkr/

PrincessSophieFrederike · 06/10/2025 23:38

Reading those threads is also interesting as it gives hints as to why it happens.

There is mention of the baradari (brotherhood) system. I bet this was key to the grooming gangs.

Also of the fact that Pakistanis traditionally have strict norms re mixed-sex socialising outside the family, so your cousin may be one of the few opposite-sex people you know well.

Some reference the fact that family can counsel a couple in difficulties to keep together. Ofc this could be a pro, but I fear too often it means 'pressure an unsuitable /abusive etc relationship to keep going'.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baradari_(brotherhood)%23:~:text%3DBar%25C4%2581dar%25C4%25AB%252C%2520or%2520Bir%25C4%2581dr%25C4%25AB%2520or%2520Biraderi,clans%2520among%2520South%2520Asian%2520Muslims.&ved=2ahUKEwjp6e2Sz5CQAxWpUkEAHRiLGDMQFnoECBgQBQ&usg=AOvVaw2jnb-l-5ApmvexCxgRDMBn

https://www.google.com/url?opi=89978449&rct=j&sa=t&source=web&url=https%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FBaradari_%28brotherhood%29%23%3A%7E%3Atext%3DBar%25C4%2581dar%25C4%25AB%252C%2520or%2520Bir%25C4%2581dr%25C4%25AB%2520or%2520Biraderi%2Cclans%2520among%2520South%2520Asian%2520Muslims.&usg=AOvVaw2jnb-l-5ApmvexCxgRDMBn&ved=2ahUKEwjp6e2Sz5CQAxWpUkEAHRiLGDMQFnoECBgQBQ

MainframeMalfunction · 07/10/2025 00:28

PrincessSophieFrederike · 06/10/2025 22:27

On a more hopeful note,,I looked on r/Pakistan for cousin marriage info & there were lots of posts that seemed just as opposed to it as we are, and appalled by the medical issues generational cousin marriage causes. Hopefully it will die out in Pakistan- people who use Reddit are likely to be educated & urban, but it is an encouraging sign imo.

https://www.reddit.com/r/pakistan/comments/7aumn0/cousin_marriage_in_pakistan_source_of_personal/

https://www.reddit.com/r/pakistan/comments/a6esf7/comment/ebuwabf/

https://www.reddit.com/r/pakistan/comments/rhjv0y/do_you_consider_cousin_marriages_bad_if_so_why/

https://www.reddit.com/r/pakistan/comments/qoecm8/my_cousin_is_merrying_my_cousins_daughter/

https://www.reddit.com/r/pakistan/comments/saf4yg/hot_take_ban_cousin_marriages/

https://www.reddit.com/r/pakistan/comments/n84wwt/comment/gxh9hkr/

Obviously this is anecdote not data but Pakistani friends of mine, and numerous colleagues over the years, would not entertain the idea of marrying a relative. One close friend who is a first generation immigrant here and whose parents are very traditional and still living in Pakistan had no expectations imposed on him in this regard. I am sure his parents would have been very dissatisfied if he’s married a white British woman (so they do have racist views), but he met a lovely unrelated Pakistani woman who also lives and works in the UK, and they had a fabulous wedding in Pakistan so that all of their family could attend. I think a PP is correct, from my limited experience, that the difference in attitudes seems to be not about how many generations a family has been in the UK but rather that those who come from more educated and affluent families are far less likely to buy into these kinds of inbreeding practices. I have observed a similar pattern with other friends and several colleagues who are first generation immigrants from Pakistan, all of whom were well-educated in Pakistan at private schools so while their parents are extremely religious and very old-fashioned, inbreeding within families is not something any of them have ever mentioned being an expectation or even a suggestion or a matter discussed as a possibility. Difficult though, to establish causality because obviously those families that haven’t been inbreeding over generations will inevitably have higher average IQs than those that have been doing so, and therefore generally become wealthier, and therefore not live in remote rural areas with backwards ideas and are likely to earn far more money and travel internationally more etc, and more likely to have received decent education in science!

It seems actually that perhaps those whose families have lived in the UK for several generations are more inclined to try to cling to old beliefs passed down from grandparents/ great-grandparents because they believe this is “pakistani culture”, not realising that Pakistani society has moved on and developed over the last 50-70 years, as society tends to do generally. They’d probably find that far fewer people in Pakistan than they would expect now hold the beliefs that they have been indoctrinated to believe are their “culture”, if they actually visited (many don’t) unless of course their distant family live in some rural, parochial remote areas as a PP noted because backwards beliefs tend to be more “normalised” in areas with such characteristics, like in most other countries.

I don’t think education will work to significant change the behaviour of the people in the UK who are the ones who are resistant to scientific knowledge and medical advances. My impression (from very limited data, just personal relationships!) is that perhaps the positive changes to marriage practices in more affluent circles of Pakistanis are likely hiding the extent to which awful practices like marrying cousins are not just common but effectively mandatory within sub-sets of the community (and almost non-existent in others).

Education has been tried in the UK as a remedy for this inbreeding within certain communities for well over 20 years in the areas of the UK where it is common, which seem to be very concentrated in specific areas. The various campaigns to educate people about this have not been effective because the rates of inbreeding have not decreased and the levels of genetic disease have therefore continued to grow exponentially. Public health campaigns have repeatedly been met with hostility, threats, abuse at worst and, at best, ignored by the vast majority of those to whom they were targeted. Everyone living in the UK learns the most basic things about genetics as part of the national curriculum, yet still certain communities have stubbornly ignored all scientific data and research despite receiving this education and instead continued with what they were doing, even continuing to have multiple further children once a genetic disease caused by cousin marriage was identified in one child. It’s really quite shocking that some people would knowingly inflict such enormous and unnecessary risks on subsequent children.

Some have even blamed the doctors for their children’s genetic conditions (!), claiming that the medication provided to alleviate some of the symptoms and keep their children alive for longer was the cause of the disease, despite receiving “genetic counselling” explaining it all to them and showing them the scientific data and evidence. Again, it’s hard to untangle whether such absurd imperviousness to research data even when it’s presented to them very clearly is caused by the lowering of IQs across previous generations who engaged in the practice of marrying cousins, or whether having already married cousins they are simply determined not to admit the truth of the implications, particularly if it has already resulted in severely disabled children being born completely avoidably. Some would rather pretend that data has been fabricated than admit that they actions have directly caused their child(ren)’s suffering/ death.

It’s clear that people with such attitudes have absolutely no intention to “integrate” in our society. I mean, they’re threatening their own children in many cases just for not wanting to marry a close blood relative. Can you imagine the reaction if the child or such parents (if lucky enough to be born sufficiently healthy to have the opportunity to marry at all) announced to their parents that they intended to marry someone of a different ethinicity and religion? It has nothing to do with them being Pakistani or muslim because many Pakistanis and muslims or Pakistani muslims do integrate far more, but these are generally (it appears to me) the more intelligent, well-educated people with professional jobs. It appears that the insular subsets of people marrying their cousins largely refuse to be educated about genetics or revise their views based on evidence provided to them; sadly, usually, the people who are most in need of it are the ones who have no interest in evidence or facts at all.

The suggested approach of education being the way to reduce significantly the number of marriages of cousins in these communities in the UK quite clearly has not worked despite significant efforts over many years, therefore, legislation is necessary and quite frankly there’s no discernible reason why we wouldn’t legislate against something so harmful not just to the individuals engaging in it but to wider society including innocent minors, particularly when there is no counterbalancing benefit whatsoever in favour of cousin marriage. Ultimately the evidence on this matter is so strong that it’s extremely negligent of our UK Governments not to have legislated against it many years ago: they need to grow a backbone.

PrincessSophieFrederike · 07/10/2025 04:36

On reading up on the Traveller issue, I was disappointed to read an article by an Oxford ethicist in the usually sensible The Critic, arguing against the ban using the same arguments we've already thrashed out on this thread
. I hope general coverage of the issue has been better than this - Matthew Syed has certainly been excellent.

https://thecritic.co.uk/is-love-is-love-only-for-white-people/

CatchingtheCat · 07/10/2025 08:17

BuffetTheDietSlayer · 04/10/2025 11:21

How can they ban first cousin marriages when the royals have always been quite a fan of it?

Not for nearly two hundred years they haven’t. But the historical experience of royal families in Europe is exactly why it should be banned, not why it shouldn’t.

zanahoria · 07/10/2025 08:20

PrincessSophieFrederike · 07/10/2025 04:36

On reading up on the Traveller issue, I was disappointed to read an article by an Oxford ethicist in the usually sensible The Critic, arguing against the ban using the same arguments we've already thrashed out on this thread
. I hope general coverage of the issue has been better than this - Matthew Syed has certainly been excellent.

https://thecritic.co.uk/is-love-is-love-only-for-white-people/

It is a poor article

That Holden appealed to the Catholic Church in his speech is perhaps the most striking illustration of the Bill’s disingenuousness. Since when did Brits turn to papal decree for their understanding of national values?

Holden was not merely appealing to the Catholic Church's doctrine, he detailed how that doctrine had influenced the history of this country and others in Western Europe. He was absolutely correct. The Catholic Church undertook an extraordinary piece of social engineering that changed society and still has an impact today. Cousin marriage only ever made limited comeback in Britain, mainly among royalty and a few other groups who had some interest in protecting family wealth.

There are some public health reasons for banning cousin marriage. But again, these illustrate inconsistency more than anything else. It is true that marrying your first-cousin can perhaps double the chance of an inherited condition. But having a baby in your late 30s or 40s has a far bigger impact on the likelihood of a genetic anomaly, and no one would dream of banning marriage or sex at later stages of life.

This is twaddle too, there are other factors that can impact the chances of genetic anomaly but does having a baby in your late 40s really compare to cousin marriage? The problem is not just with one generation but with repeated cousin marriage creating a genetic time bomb

It is right to take a stand on British values and family values. But last I recalled, letting people do what they want with their own bodies

I am absolutely fine with that as long as it does not effect wider society. In this case, there is evidence that it does. Also if he wants to take that argument then would he allow sibling marriage?

If you want to win back Reform voters by painting Pakistan-British citizens as incestuous, have the decency to be honest about it.

Ah, the racism accusation. Such a low blow that I can only respond in kind. Cousin marriage is completely bloody racist, actually worse, never mind other races, cousin marriage is about hating anyone outside the Clan. It is a small minded tribal mentality. In the fifth Century, the Catholic Church opposed this tribalism, not sure what is progressive about bringing it back.

Where does Richard Holden stand on abortion?

Abortion, assisted suicide, embryo research voting record information for Richard Holden who is standing for basildon and billericay

https://righttolife.org.uk/votes/basildon-and-billericay/Richard-Holden

Pharazon · 07/10/2025 08:22

The prime minister has no powers to block a bill. Do you even understand how parliament works?

Thedevilhasfinallycaughtupwithhim · 07/10/2025 08:29

‘Is “Love is love” only for white people”

A totally disingenuous title too. A really low blow to attempt to latch on to the revulsion we feel towards homophobia.

White people will not be permitted to marry their cousins either.

And we currently have other laws imposed that “Love is love” is not a healthy concept.

We don’t allow teachers to have relationships with students, even ones above the age of consent.

We don’t allow sibling marriages.

We don’t allow adults to have relationships with children under the age of consent.

We have many laws to protect the vulnerable and to mitigate risk. We all have to comply to these laws. We don’t only apply these laws to people with particular skin colour.

CatchingtheCat · 07/10/2025 08:39

Pharazon · 07/10/2025 08:22

The prime minister has no powers to block a bill. Do you even understand how parliament works?

That a leader of a party with an overwhelming majority can direct his party MPs to vote against a bill?

CatchingtheCat · 07/10/2025 08:41

Thedevilhasfinallycaughtupwithhim · 07/10/2025 08:29

‘Is “Love is love” only for white people”

A totally disingenuous title too. A really low blow to attempt to latch on to the revulsion we feel towards homophobia.

White people will not be permitted to marry their cousins either.

And we currently have other laws imposed that “Love is love” is not a healthy concept.

We don’t allow teachers to have relationships with students, even ones above the age of consent.

We don’t allow sibling marriages.

We don’t allow adults to have relationships with children under the age of consent.

We have many laws to protect the vulnerable and to mitigate risk. We all have to comply to these laws. We don’t only apply these laws to people with particular skin colour.

Isn’t ‘love is love’ a phrase associated with attempts to normalise paedophilia?

Thedevilhasfinallycaughtupwithhim · 07/10/2025 08:43

CatchingtheCat · 07/10/2025 08:41

Isn’t ‘love is love’ a phrase associated with attempts to normalise paedophilia?

Precisely