Culture Cousin marriage is probably fine in most cases - The Economist?

1708231542916.png

t just seemed so wrong. In January Nick Wilson, a Kentucky state legislator who achieved reality-tv fame for winning “Survivor” in 2018, created a frenzy on social media when he sponsored a bill that removed “first cousin” from the list of incestuous family relations. Mr Wilson said that the omission was a mistake and the bill was quickly withdrawn. The new draft put “first cousin” back on the list of criminal sexual relations, alongside parent, sibling, grandchild and other blood relatives.

Since much of Kentucky is covered by the Appalachian mountains, a region stereotyped for encouraging incestuous sexual behaviour, jokes quickly spread online. The reactions on X (formerly known as Twitter) ranged from humour to disgust to fear for the resulting offspring. Only a few pointed out that in many states it is legal to have sexual relations and marry one’s first cousin. Is it really ok to kiss your cousin?

Geneticists mostly say that it is, with some caveats. In 2021 the National Society of Genetic Counsellors (nsgc) published updated guidelines for consanguineous couples (people descended from the same ancestor) and their offspring. The risk to offspring is greater, but the increase is quite small. According to the Centres for Disease Control and Prevention about 3% of all babies born in America have birth defects. The nsgc guidelines state that for “couples with no known genetic disorders in the family, there is an additional 1.7% to 2.8% risk for significant birth defects.”

Many other couples face far higher risks of genetic complications for their offspring, and those unions are not banned. Classic Mendelian genetics (the kind taught in biology class) predicts that if two people each have a recessive gene for certain disorders, such as cystic fibrosis or sickle-cell anaemia, there is a 25% chance their child will be born with that disorder. Yet those marriages are allowed. “The law against first-cousin marriage is a major form of discrimination,” says Robin Bennett of the University of Washington’s department of medicine, who was a co-author of the nsgc guidelines. For offspring “the risks are very low and not much different than for any other couple,” she says.

Throughout Western history attitudes about consanguineous marriages have varied. The Bible does not directly ban sexual relations between cousins—how else would all of mankind have descended from Adam and Eve? The Roman Catholic Church did later prohibit first cousins from marrying, though exceptions were made for a fee. Martin Luther, the father of Protestantism, objected to such payments, so many Protestant denominations allowed these marriages free of charge. As is clear from novels such as “Mansfield Park” and “Wuthering Heights”, the people of Georgian and Victorian England were not too squeamish about such relations. Queen Victoria was married to her first cousin, as were both Albert Einstein and Edgar Allan Poe.

In some cultures, marriage between close family members is encouraged today. It secures wealth and reinforces social connections within the family. It might even make marriages easier, on the optimistic assumption that the in-laws are more likely to get along. In some areas of the world (Pakistan, the Middle East), nearly half of all marriages are between close relations. No European countries ban marriages between first cousins (though Norwegian policymakers recently debated doing so).

There are limits to the amount of intermarriage that is healthy. Charles Darwin, the father of evolutionary biology, who married his first cousin in 1839, was reportedly conflicted about his own arrangement. The Darwins had ten children, but three of them died during childhood and three of his surviving children never had any offspring with their spouses. Some historians surmise that the children suffered from genetic abnormalities due to their parents being closely related—the families of Darwin and his wife had a long history of intermarriage.

Yet despite the fairly low genetic risk for most couples, the “ick” factor prevails in Western culture. The family dynamics can be difficult to explain to others. Many consanguineous couples choose to keep quiet, says Ms Bennett. For this reason it is difficult to know how many of these couples exist in America.

Despite the fact that first-cousin marriages are pretty low-risk for offspring, 25 states do not allow first cousins to marry. In six states, it is legal to marry a first cousin, but with caveats (if one person is unable to reproduce or elderly, for example). However, if Mr Wilson’s experience in Kentucky is indicative of the public’s reaction, it will be a long time before such laws will be stricken from the books. ■

https://www.economist.com/united-states/2024/02/15/cousin-marriage-is-probably-fine-in-most-cases (Archive)
 
The "ick factor"? It's fucking wrong you stupid retard, for assclowns that screech about diversity all day, you'd think they'd understand the importance of actual literal genetic diversity.

1708234374190.png
 
This is actual harmful misinformation for the public but I have a hunch nobody's going to sic any "fact checkers" on this author or his article.
 
How often does this really happen in the US? If it's legally banned, are the people who would do this going to shack up anyways? What would be the 'punishment' if it's discovered?

On the one hand, there's a bit of a squick factor for me. On the other hand, I don't think it's a horrendous moral violation that the law should come down on people for in most cases, and in the marginal cases, a bit of daylight is good.

I lean towards the libertarian here.
 
How often does this really happen in the US? If it's legally banned, are the people who would do this going to shack up anyways? What would be the 'punishment' if it's discovered?

On the one hand, there's a bit of a squick factor for me. On the other hand, I don't think it's a horrendous moral violation that the law should come down on people for in most cases, and in the marginal cases, a bit of daylight is good.

I lean towards the libertarian here.
If you're wondering why it's in the public interest to butt in and ban it, look no further than Pakis in the UK.
 
I lean towards the libertarian here.
I'd still be for small government banning it, or at least I'd vote for it in my area to be banned if for some unholy, arcane reason it needed to be put to a vote after whatever process brought the fed down several dozen notches in power level.
If you're wondering why it's in the public interest to butt in and ban it, look no further than Pakis in the UK.
As helpfully pointed out in this post, it's not akin to drugs or firearms. There's also the murky issue of if it's even ethically possible to consider any incestuous relationship as anything other than abusive/destructive mental illness of the same sort as other horrid, delusional states of mind such as homicidal psychopathy or violent paranoid schizophrenia.

Saying it's "leaning towards libertarian" to consider the possibility of legalizing incest is akin to saying you're "leaning right" to consider the possibility of legalizing fag-drags and cross-burnings.
 
If you're wondering why it's in the public interest to butt in and ban it, look no further than Pakis in the UK.
There are large-scale Mormon cults where fucking your relatives is expected. The Amish and some Jews are also very inbred.

Maybe Pakis here fuck their cousins, maybe they don't.

I feel like the government going in and busting up insular cousin-fucking groups has never ended well.

I've never fucked a cousin, but I feel like if I met a consenting, of age cousin and got involved with them, the government telling me that my relationship with my cousin wasn't allowed would just make me squirrely and secretive.

I'm not only grinding on my cousin, but I'm armed to the gills while I do it.
 
Secular society always seems to struggle to erect (pun intended) any kind of moral barrier in the realm of sexual morality. It's somewhat tired to tap the "slippery slope" sign but it seems like no liberal can ever get it through their head that uncontrolled, rampant human sexuality can be anything but morally neutral, so long as it's between 'muh consenting adults!'
 
this is the end point of letting cousin marriage and spawn offsprings.
pakistains in Uk are only 1.5 million, but 33% of all childrens that are bone with defects are pakistans.
 
it seems like no liberal can ever get it through their head that uncontrolled, rampant human sexuality can be anything but morally neutral, so long as it's between 'muh consenting adults!'
It's not just liberals. A lot of seemingly apolitical and/or centrist people get tripped up by that due to the concept of unwitting self-degradation/abuse, and in this specific instance the concept of mutual abuse, aren't widely used or explained as counterarguments.

That and societal concerns regarding sexual practices are just a complete non-starter with anyone even slightly left for reasons I don't know and don't care to know.
 
How often does this really happen in the US? If it's legally banned, are the people who would do this going to shack up anyways? What would be the 'punishment' if it's discovered?

On the one hand, there's a bit of a squick factor for me. On the other hand, I don't think it's a horrendous moral violation that the law should come down on people for in most cases, and in the marginal cases, a bit of daylight is good.

I lean towards the libertarian here.
There was a woman on my street growing up who married her 2nd cousin. Both her kids have dwarfism. 1st and 2nd cousin marriages are way too close and not worth the cost to society if their kids end up retarded or disabled.
The only reason they're whining about diversity is Muslims are notorious cousinfuckers. No one cared when it was white people cursing their kids with shit genetics.
Now we've gotta suck rapeugee ass about how they just love fucking their cousins and being a fucking menace on public healthcare systems around the Western world. Your grandma WILL die from undetected cancer while their inbred brown tardbaby homunculus is afforded every treatment possible.
I don't think it's a horrendous moral violation
I think it is. Why would you put your innocent child at a higher risk for defects?
The nsgc guidelines state that for “couples with no known genetic disorders in the family, there is an additional 1.7% to 2.8% risk for significant birth defects.
What good parent would not care about the extra risk? We know even a drop of alcohol is not worth the risk to the fetus, yet conceiving with your 1st cousin is a fine risk?
I've never fucked a cousin, but I feel like if I met a consenting, of age cousin and got involved with them
This is why growing up without knowing your cousins well is bad for society. They aren't much different than siblings.
 
Just ban 1st and second cousin marriages. They're too close genetically.

That was the conclusion I read up on the last time incest came up on here (granted, it was Wikipedia).

Everything after second cousins is so genetically dissimilar that it approaches the background average in gen pop. And fourth cousins are too hard to track because most family trees aren't consistently known that many generations back.
 
Its incest and it is disgusting, godless degeneracy.

Think about it this way: Cousin marriage is extremely popular amongst Pakistanis.

Case closed.
 
What good parent would not care about the extra risk? We know even a drop of alcohol is not worth the risk to the fetus, yet fucking your 1st cousin is a fine risk?
I find it helps to think of percentages as rounds in a comically-sized revolver, that you're using for Russian roulette.

Most sane people wouldn't play Russian roulette even if the gun has only 1.7 bullets out of 100 chambers.
 
Everything after second cousins is so genetically dissimilar that it approaches the background average in gen pop. And fourth cousins are too hard to track because most family trees aren't consistently known that many generations back.
I've read there is a "sweet spot" where 3rd and 4th cousin unions have more reproductive success than both outbreeding and close inbreeding.
I think first cousing is enough
Like we should only ban first cousin marriages? I think we should 2nd cousin marriage too, just to make sure. They still have a higher risk of birth defects in offspring, compared to unrelated couples. After that, there is evidence that third and fourth cousin marriage can have benefits so let them have at it.
The risk for second cousins to have a child with a disability is even lower. Their risk is just a bit higher than the 3% risk that all unrelated couples have. So, for every 100 second cousins who have kids, 96-97 children are perfectly healthy.
Doesn't sound like a big deal with how it's written, but still extra risk you shouldn't be allowed to burden your potential failed abortion with.
 
Última edición:
Yeah, Westerners can get away with it in the majority of cases because it's not a cultural tradition so when the occasional couple of deviants do get together it's highly likely that their parents were unrelated and that their children will choose unrelated partners.

When you get people from places like Pakistan, they've been fucking their cousins for generations upon generations upon generations to the point where a lot of first cousins are more genetically similar than siblings.
 
Atrás
Top Abajo