Prime Minister refused to ban 1st cousin marriage

[happydappy2]

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?

About 100 years ago maybe.

Ok, let’s analyse this. You think that the Islamic conquests of 7th century are more influential on the 21st century than the conquests of the 17th century?

It’s really off too that you keep referring to Muhammad. There were numerous Muslim majority countries that were never part of the British empire. Saying Muhammad this Muhammad that is like saying Jesus this and Jesus that. There are tons of different Muslim sects, same as Christianity.

Btw, Pakistan was founded by the British Empire through Partition. And yes, by permitting a practice, we approved it. We also role modelled it. Other practices we outlawed and stamped out,

It has nothing to do with “brown people unable to think for themselves and could only be in awe of the great white colonialists.” it has everything to do with imperial power and oppression. Conformity by force. There was always resistance and, finally, independence.

I don't think it would necessarily matter if the ate of problems is the same with older parents vs cousins having kids.

The issue is if we say that state can have a right to ban marriages on the grounds that there is a higher possibility of defects in the children, and that is a way of protecting children, that same argument could apply to all kinds of people who have a higher incident of genetic defects.

Maybe people with the Huntington's gene. Maybe women who carry the genes for breast cancer. Sickle cell anaemia. Maybe people with Downs Syndrome.

What other kinds of things might genetic testing enable us to predict in the coming years?

It's fundamentally the argument of eugenics, even if we think the science is well founded. Do we think the problem with the Nazis ideas about eugenics was just that they were wrong about the Jews and others being genetically inferior?

I won't say this isn't tricky, because at hear we all know that a significant reason for incest taboos is to prevent too much inbreeding. It's not that it's wrong to want to minimise that within society. But I would question that the law might not be the best way to do that because it makes reproduction to be at the licence of the state, which is also very dangerous.

We don’t avoid making laws because some people will persist in breaking them. Are you suggesting that this is what most Muslims will do? You must have a low opinion of them.

Exactly, it's like an Irish SM post I saw recently blaming the big bad British colonisers for ROI bans on gay sex & abortion..

^This is what a ban could lead to. So well put @TempestTost

You literally just posted this:

It did not take long to see the faux concern slip and see the real reason was to tell these pesky immigrants that their risky practice is disgusting, while we laud and support the exact same level of risk amongst our own.

won’t actually prevent a single birth defect baby from being born

That is your opinion. It is not shared by all. What’s your solution then? A soap storyline raising the issue like Brookside did with sibling incest?

We already have a law against sibling incest.

The poor girls and women here. I doubt they have much choice in the matter.

This sounds like PO was making the regular trans activist argument that black people didn’t know who was male or female until white people stepped in. And makes as much sense.

I share those concerns. It's worrying when I see comments on MN recommending voluntary or even forcibly sterilisation after child parental/neglect cases. Understandable to be angry, but it's definitely a slippery slope....

I think the difference here is that it's significant in the British-Pakistani community. If it weren't, there'd be less reason.

We do control this kind of significant danger already by banning incestuous marriages. Partly because incest is morally evil, but also because of the genetic risk.

Is banning first-cousin marriage so different? Especially as many (including me) see it as incestuous?

Exactly.

Yes, Laverne Cox was expounding recently on the 'racist & colonialist' gender binary 🤦‍♀️

It did not take long to see the faux concern slip and see the real reason was to tell these pesky immigrants that their risky practice is disgusting
Yes, when I posted the above, I was referring to posts like yours that implied exactly that:

As we see by the reaction of many, first cousin marriage is socially unacceptable. This is clearly an area where practises of Islam are incompatible with British values. Other areas practised by some (but obviously not all) Muslims are child marriage, forced marriage, racial abuse of white people, especially girls etc. (evidenced by the widespread view found by investigation into the grooming/rape gangs where girls were targeted because they were there). -Boogie, pg1

”won’t actually prevent a single birth defect baby from being born”
Yes that is my informed opinion based on the historical record littered with nothing but failed attempts to control human sex and reproduction. Do you have any evidence to back up that a ban on 1st cousin marriage it would eliminate babies born with birth defects due to consanguinity? Isn’t it more likely people will just not get legally married and still have the children? That’s what happened in S. Africa for example in regards to the ban on mixed race marriages.

My solution? I’ve said it before. Genetic testing and counselling of couples. The education route is the way to go. And if we are serious about reducing babies with birth defects, we should be doing this for all couples. Including genetic testing for couples using IVF to be sure the donor’s genetic profile is a good match for the couple getting fertility treatment.

It was not just first cousins who were banned from marrying by the church but 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th,6th cousins too although this was rarely imposed and eventually moderated. It was however remarkably successful policy that changed Western Europe from a tribal society to a more civilized one where different bonds of trust not simply based on kinship developed - the church, guilds, universities.

Cousin marriage does eventually become less taboo as the numerous examples listed on thread have pointed out but never returned on the scale that it had existed and still does in many parts of the world.

Love is love

all that achieved was putting people off Brookside !

It used to be may favourite show until Nat and Georgia showed up

I mean, 4th, 5th, and 6th cousins are really far apart, most people would have no idea who their 6th cousins were! People can have 1000 6th cousins.

Yes, rarely used except where there is also abuse. It would be interesting to see if it would survive a real legal test.

I assume that in practice the checking of those levels only really applied to royalty and aristocrats who would have kept records but it still would have made a cultural impact

Are you being sarcastic?! This trite saying can be used to justify paedophilia, incest and bigamy. All are rightfully crimes in the UK!

The UK Government should ban 1st and 2nd cousin marriage AND also require all religious marriages within mainstream religions to be accompanied by a civil ceremony within a short specified timescale.

This must include marriages abroad involving one or more British citizens, if the intention is to live in the UK afterwards.

British women and children should be protected from these cruel patriarchal traditions.

Surely she's being sarcastic....I hope!

You are priceless. You think that the Islamic conquests of 7th century are more influential on the 21st century than the conquests of the 17th century?
Yes. The impact of Islam on current geopolitics is immense and is having just as significant an impact, though I'm not sure it's very positive.
Pakistan was not created on a British whim. The Ladybird book of anti colonialism doesn't stand up to serious study.

The Pakistan Movement[a] was a political and social movement, emerging in the early 20th century, that advocated the formation of a separate Muslim homeland in the Muslim-majority parts of what was then British Raj.[1] It was rooted in the two-nation theory, which asserted that Muslims of the subcontinent were fundamentally and irreconcilably distinct from Hindus of the subcontinent (who formed the demographic majority) and would therefore require separate self-determination upon the Decolonisation of the subcontinent. The idea was largely realised when the All-India Muslim League ratified the Lahore Resolution on 23 March 1940, calling for the Muslim-majority regions of the Indian subcontinent to be "grouped to constitute independent states" that would be "autonomous and sovereign" with the aim of securing Muslim socio-political interests vis-à-vis the Hindu majority. It was in the aftermath of the Lahore Resolution that, under the aegis of Muhammad Ali Jinnah, the cause of "Pakistan" (though the name was not used in the text itself) became widely popular among the Muslims of South Asia.[2][3]

Cousin marriage is legal in 18 US states but illegal in the other 32. Maine mandates that cousins who marry must receive counselling on genetics, seems a sensible measure.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cousin_marriage_law_in_the_United_States

I really think blaming African tribal violence on British colonialism is a bit rich too. People in Africa (or North America, or Asia....) did not start slaughtering each other because the British introduced the idea to them. And that is not why anyone is doing it today.