Cousin Marriage Bans?

[Mokele]

I just happened across this article on PLoS Biology, and figured it could spark some good discussion.

 

It's fairly short, and an easy read:Historical and Genetic Perspectives on Cousin Marriage

 

So, basically, should these bans be in place?

 

IMHO, this has interesting sub-questions:

1) Does the government have the right to forbid pre-natal activities that will result in injury or risk of injury to a child?

2) Does the governmental responsibility depend on the level of risk? What is more appropriate, the relative increase in risk, or the absolute increase in risk?

3) What if one person taking the risk increases the chances of damage for everyone else (including those who don't)? This is actually the case in cousin marriages, as the article spells out.

 

Mokele

[iNow]

Very interesting. I was glad to see the article mention how the closeness of genetics in parents and grandparents (and those who came before) plays an important role, as that was my first thought when reading your question... That it sort of depends on how closely related those who came before were.

 

It really comes down to "how much do we want the government controlling our actions and behaviors." This is something that applies in so many areas, and TBH I haven't really figured out where I personally stand on this. I hope to have more insight after reading responses from others.

[john5746]

 

1) Does the government have the right to forbid pre-natal activities that will result in injury or risk of injury to a child?

 

I think so, especially if society takes the responsibility for health care, etc. The more privileges one has, the more responsibilities one must take.

 

2) Does the governmental responsibility depend on the level of risk? What is more appropriate, the relative increase in risk, or the absolute increase in risk?

 

The devil is in the details. I think situations that are not genetic in nature - incest for example, would not be discriminatory, so that is easier than say family diseases. Also, disturbance to the nuclear family unit should be considered also. So there may be people with genetic diseases with a higher % of offspring problem, but they would be allowed, while incest would still be illegal. It isn't just the level of risk.

 

I guess cousin marriages would be ok, until you get into some of those cult situations, but that's pretty rare. I guess it should be illegal, but should not be promoted. Not sure how that's done.

[npts2020]

Does that mean that anyone with elevated risks of having children with Downs Syndrome, microencephaly, Huntingtons Disease, cancer, etc. should similarly be kept from having them or do we only discriminate against relatives?

[waitforufo]

I just happened across this article on PLoS Biology, and figured it could spark some good discussion.

 

It's fairly short, and an easy read:Historical and Genetic Perspectives on Cousin Marriage

 

So, basically, should these bans be in place?

 

IMHO, this has interesting sub-questions:

1) Does the government have the right to forbid pre-natal activities that will result in injury or risk of injury to a child?

2) Does the governmental responsibility depend on the level of risk? What is more appropriate, the relative increase in risk, or the absolute increase in risk?

3) What if one person taking the risk increases the chances of damage for everyone else (including those who don't)? This is actually the case in cousin marriages, as the article spells out.

 

Mokele

 

A similar article I recall reading in a doctor's office several years ago.

 

http://discovermagazine.com/2003/aug/featkiss

 

Includes the following.

The traditional view of human inbreeding was that we did it, in essence, because we could not get the car on Saturday night. Until the past century, families tended to remain in the same area for generations, and men typically went courting no more than about five miles from home—the distance they could walk out and back on their day off from work. As a result, according to Robin Fox, a professor of anthropology at Rutgers University, it's likely that 80 percent of all marriages in history have been between second cousins or closer.

[Mr Skeptic]

So, basically, should these bans be in place?

 

IMHO, this has interesting sub-questions:

1) Does the government have the right to forbid pre-natal activities that will result in injury or risk of injury to a child?

 

I'd say that it would be fair to give them some control, seeing as the children's problems may become our responsibility.

 

2) Does the governmental responsibility depend on the level of risk? What is more appropriate, the relative increase in risk, or the absolute increase in risk?

 

Yes. I'd say that both relative increase in risk and absolute increase are important. Otherwise you'd have the government telling women what to eat, drink, etc., which would be going too far.

 

3) What if one person taking the risk increases the chances of damage for everyone else (including those who don't)? This is actually the case in cousin marriages, as the article spells out.

 

This also needs to be taken into account.

 

---

 

As to what actually should be done to account for activities that increase the risk of disadvantaged children, my opinion is that they should be allowed, but taxed. Consider the cost to society of the activity, and require a tax on the people engaging in that activity, sufficient to offset the cost to society. On the other hand, such a tax would itself be a slight handicap for children, and especially so if the couple is receiving child support.

[SkepticLance]

Recent studies have shown that the probability of a defective child produced in a first cousin marriage is no more than the odds of a defective child in a marriage in which the mother is 40 years old plus.

 

http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2008/12/cousinmarriage.html

 

If it is acceptable to ban first cousin marriages, then it is equally acceptable to stop any woman of 40 years or more from having children.

 

In other words - it is not acceptable to ban first cousin marriages,

[Sayonara]

In the article, Spencer and Paul are quoted as saying that the defect risks are equivalent for cousins and women over 40. I would like clarification of that term, especially seeing as they wrote it in an editorial. Bennett appears to have conducted a study but not on the latter group.

[ecoli]

I have two sets of great gandparents (one on mother side, one on my father's side) who were first cousins.

 

This is a tough question because I don't like government telling me what to do. OTOH, I don't want a lot of retarded rednecks running around either :-/

[iNow]

This is a tough question because I don't like government telling me what to do. OTOH, I don't want a lot of retarded rednecks running around either

 

Be sure not to move to Texas, then, because here you get a great big double helping of both.

[bob000555]

I usually oppose government intervention but inbreed baby’s are rather bad in my humble opinion.

 

I should think the determining factor is weather or not person has the right to cause a high risk of negative outcome for another person without their consent, said person being the inbreed baby.

[john5746]

If it is acceptable to ban first cousin marriages, then it is equally acceptable to stop any woman of 40 years or more from having children.

 

In other words - it is not acceptable to ban first cousin marriages,

 

I made a typo in my first post - I think it should be legal for cousins to marry, but should be frowned upon.

 

I don't think the risk of defects is the only consideration. How deabilitating the defects are to the person, chance of cumulation and other effects to society should be considered. For example, incest has potential to cause strife in the nuclear family and is more easily repeated than say people with a certain recessive gene mating together.

 

In you example above, a ban on cousin marriages can be applied indiscriminately and is probably more easily repeatable than 40 year old women having children.

[npts2020]

I made a typo in my first post - I think it should be legal for cousins to marry, but should be frowned upon.

 

I don't think the risk of defects is the only consideration. How deabilitating the defects are to the person, chance of cumulation and other effects to society should be considered. For example, incest has potential to cause strife in the nuclear family and is more easily repeated than say people with a certain recessive gene mating together.

 

In you example above, a ban on cousin marriages can be applied indiscriminately and is probably more easily repeatable than 40 year old women having children.

 

Why is this? I would think that most peoples age (especially those under 40 yo) is far better known than their lineage. In general, other than possible DNA testing, the only people who know for sure a baby's lineage are the mother and possibly the father.

[john5746]

Why is this? I would think that most peoples age (especially those under 40 yo) is far better known than their lineage. In general, other than possible DNA testing, the only people who know for sure a baby's lineage are the mother and possibly the father.

 

oh, I didn't word that very well. I mean that cousin marriages could be repeated within groups much easier than successive 40-year old women having babies.

[iNow]

I don't think the risk of defects is the only consideration. How deabilitating the defects are to the person, chance of cumulation and other effects to society should be considered. For example, incest has potential to cause strife in the nuclear family and is more easily repeated than say people with a certain recessive gene mating together.

 

This is more of a question about where to draw the line in this large gray area, as even working several hours for a corporation for huge numbers of hours every week and travelling around the planet for business has the "potential to cause strife in the nuclear family," yet we would never dream of disallowing that.

 

We also need to better determine what the exact role is for government in marriage. As I tried to argue in the same-sex marriage threads, the governments laws on marriage have more to do with providing an infrastructure for the implied contracts, ownerships, and privileges issues for the relationship, not to define who or what is allowed to enter into said relationship.

 

Basically, the true purpose of marriage laws is to provide a legal framework for broader questions of ownership and contracts. The laws were more about the coming together of two people and setting up the implied contracts between them. To argue that the original laws were primarily intended to define who could enter into a marriage is like arguing that speed limit laws are intended to reduce wear on our tires. It's peripherally related, sure, but that is not at the heart of what was intended when written. The heart is how to legislate the implied contracts of the relationship and how to have that pairing recognized in other legal matters, not how closely related the individuals are or which genitals the participants need to have.

 

Again, it's more about "where to draw the line" and deciding what the true role of government should be in marriage. As the OPs article mentioned, the data doesn't seem to support the ick factor of first cousin marriage, so what do we do with that? Shouldn't our laws be based on good data, and not old-fashioned bias and misunderstanding? Shouldn't the personal freedom to choose who we love and spend our lives with be given greater precedent than the largely unfounded discriminations of our neighbors and fellow citizens?

[SkepticLance]

If we look at this issue as scientists and forget emotional hang ups, then it appears that the only objectively real issue affecting cousin marriage is the genetic health of offspring. Since the data shows that any harm is small, and no more than from older women having babies, then there appears to be no objective and scientifically valid reason to ban such marriages.

[john5746]

If we look at this issue as scientists and forget emotional hang ups, then it appears that the only objectively real issue affecting cousin marriage is the genetic health of offspring. Since the data shows that any harm is small, and no more than from older women having babies, then there appears to be no objective and scientifically valid reason to ban such marriages.

 

There also isn't any scientific and objective reason to stop pedophilia either - at least for say 9 year-olds? Just remove the emo crap out of it.

[SkepticLance]

John

I probably should have said "irrational emotional hangups."

The victims of pedophiles have all sorts of emotional trauma, but I do not think it could be called irrational. The emotional damage from pedophile abuse is very real.

[DJBruce]

If we look at this issue as scientists and forget emotional hang ups, then it appears that the only objectively real issue affecting cousin marriage is the genetic health of offspring. Since the data shows that any harm is small, and no more than from older women having babies, then there appears to be no objective and scientifically valid reason to ban such marriages.

 

Social scientist might beg to differ. According to sociologist John J. Macionis, "Because family ties define people's rights and obligations toward one another, reproduction between close relatives would hopelessly confuse kinship." Which makes sense that if my aunt became my mother in law and my uncle my father in law the relationship and the expected interactions between our families would be confused. If I then had a kid would my uncle be their grandfather or their second uncle. The roles played by a grandparent are incredible different than those played by a second uncle/aunt. The confusion caused by the role conflict would possible destabilize our social structure.

[SkepticLance]

DJ

Experience would suggest otherwise. First cousin marriage is legal in many countries, including Britain. Charles Darwin married his first cousin.

 

To the best of my knowledge, these marriages have not had any deleterious effect, such as you suggest.

[npts2020]

There also isn't any scientific and objective reason to stop pedophilia either - at least for say 9 year-olds? Just remove the emo crap out of it.

 

A nine year-old could hardly be considered a consenting adult, which I believe should have some bearing on the matter.

[DJBruce]

A nine year-old could hardly be considered a consenting adult, which I believe should have some bearing on the matter.

 

I think that john's point was that their are reason other than scientific reasons like moral reasons such as consent when discussing issues such as cousin marriage.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Be sure not to move to Texas, then, because here you get a great big double helping of both.

 

But at least you can shoot them if they get too close.

[npts2020]

But at least you can shoot them if they get too close.

 

Only if they come into your house or assault you....um, well I guess you could take them quail hunting if you are the vice-president.

[iNow]

I believe in Texas that we can also shoot a guy if we find him in bed with our wife (like caught in the act, in flagrante delicto), but that's probably another thread.

 

 

This is more of a question about where to draw the line in this large gray area, as even working several hours for a corporation for huge numbers of hours every week and travelling around the planet for business has the "potential to cause strife in the nuclear family," yet we would never dream of disallowing that.

 

We also need to better determine what the exact role is for government in marriage. As I tried to argue in the same-sex marriage threads, the governments laws on marriage have more to do with providing an infrastructure for the implied contracts, ownerships, and privileges issues for the relationship, not to define who or what is allowed to enter into said relationship.

 

Basically, the true purpose of marriage laws is to provide a legal framework for broader questions of ownership and contracts. The laws were more about the coming together of two people and setting up the implied contracts between them. To argue that the original laws were primarily intended to define who could enter into a marriage is like arguing that speed limit laws are intended to reduce wear on our tires. It's peripherally related, sure, but that is not at the heart of what was intended when written. The heart is how to legislate the implied contracts of the relationship and how to have that pairing recognized in other legal matters, not how closely related the individuals are or which genitals the participants need to have.

 

Again, it's more about "where to draw the line" and deciding what the true role of government should be in marriage. As the OPs article mentioned, the data doesn't seem to support the ick factor of first cousin marriage, so what do we do with that? Shouldn't our laws be based on good data, and not old-fashioned bias and misunderstanding? Shouldn't the personal freedom to choose who we love and spend our lives with be given greater precedent than the largely unfounded discriminations of our neighbors and fellow citizens?

 

So, what IS the primary role of government in marriage? Is it to regulate implied contracts and privileges, or is it to define who gets to couple with one another at all?