Cousin marriage

[Bojack Horseman]

Currently 20 states allow first cousins to get married with no restrictions or requirements. If you include the states where the couple may not reproduce, that number increases to 26, and if you live in a state where it's not allowed, if you get married in a state where it is legal, your marriage must be recognized.

Should cousin marriage be legal? Why or why not?

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Is there any particular reason why this is such a big deal for you?

[angus]

Edgar Allan Poe.

[Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck]

Are we talking America?  Ya know, if they really want to... just let them.  Outside of a few bumpkinvilles 100 miles from the nearest interstate, life's gonna be hard enough for first cousins that want to do this. 

[dead0man]

Are we talking America?  Ya know, if they really want to... just let them.  Outside of a few bumpkinvilles 100 miles from the nearest interstate, life's gonna be hard enough for first cousins that want to do this. 

Most people aren't going to know unless you tell them.


I don't have a problem with it.

[TNF]

I don't think that the state should tell people who they can or can't marry, so I obviously wouldn't support any prohibition on cousin marriage anymore than I would support any prohibition on same-sex marriage.

[Mechaman]

I don't think that the state should tell people who they can or can't marry, so I obviously wouldn't support any prohibition on cousin marriage anymore than I would support any prohibition on same-sex marriage.

This.

The reason why laws like this exist in the first place is because of moralistic paternalistic WASP Eugenics prudes who desperately wanted to limit the kind of "folk" who could reproduce.  But of course, knowing how much many on this forum loves such "freedom fighters", I don't expect many to understand the consequences of having a state dictate sexual mores because "West Virginia" or other reasons.

Of course, this is the part where somebody opens up the pro-rape accusations to which I counter you must be pretty desperate if you are using a rape argument to counter why sex should not be allowed at all between consensual actors.

And I'm saying this as somebody who is not at all attracted to any of his cousins.

[DemPGH]

No, because there is a high risk of genetic defect and also it's a hallmark of a bygone era. Seriously, the gene pool is in a precarious enough position - let's not have this.

[Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck]

No, because there is a high risk of genetic defect and also it's a hallmark of a bygone era. Seriously, the gene pool is in a precarious enough position - let's not have this.

Didn't know people had to be married to make sexy times. 

Are we talking America?  Ya know, if they really want to... just let them.  Outside of a few bumpkinvilles 100 miles from the nearest interstate, life's gonna be hard enough for first cousins that want to do this. 

Most people aren't going to know unless you tell them.


I don't have a problem with it.

Deado, the thing is I think the type of person who would marry their cousin had probably made some insecure mention of, "man I'm really into my cousin, I think" to somebody.  I remember, and I think it was at my stepbrother's high school in the Philly 'burbs, that some dude was dating his second cousin, and that he didn't really advertise it but EVERYBODY knew about it.  Naturally, you can imagine how these people were thought of.  That's why I'm saying just let them go get married.  Who cares at this point?  I'm not into this whole telling people what to do with their lives thing. 

[DemPGH]

No, because there is a high risk of genetic defect and also it's a hallmark of a bygone era. Seriously, the gene pool is in a precarious enough position - let's not have this.

Didn't know people had to be married to make sexy times. 
 

Indeed they do not, which is why incest should be vigorously shamed, for one thing.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

I really couldn't care less if it became legal everywhere.

[Rockefeller GOP]

Meh, I'm not married to mine.  Never really crossed my mind, because it grossed me out, and I think it's odd.

But lots of couples gross me out, so who am I to say that it should be *illegal*?

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

The map of where this is legal:

not sure what to make of that.

[Deus Naturae]

No, because there is a high risk of genetic defect and also it's a hallmark of a bygone era. Seriously, the gene pool is in a precarious enough position - let's not have this.

It is?

[AggregateDemand]

Kinship restrictions are an integral part of the SSM and definition of marriage debates. Many states have outlawed marriages between first cousins for public health, and I support kinship restrictions between first cousins.

However, same-sex couples don't have a complete set of gametes between the two of them so first-cousin same-sex marriage doesn't really pose a problem. Honestly, none of the kinship restrictions are relevant from a health standpoint, only for politically-correct sexual propriety.

The situation underlines the dangers and complications created by societies that promote marital inequality (mainly via the tax code in the US).

[ElectionsGuy]

I don't think that the state should tell people who they can or can't marry, so I obviously wouldn't support any prohibition on cousin marriage anymore than I would support any prohibition on same-sex marriage.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Even without any genetic reasons, one can make a case for banning cousin marriage as a way of preventing a group of people from becoming too insular and isolated from the rest of society.  It's not merely genetics that makes close marriage a bad thing when it is the norm.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

Rules against cousin marriage made sense when people were largely limited to isolated populations. Then, generation after generation of intra-family copulation would result in a horrifically shallow gene pool. See: much of the British Pakistani diaspora, the "village idiot" phenomena. A crude ban makes sense in that case.

However, now  the vast majority of us live in large and non-insular populations, the bans are useless. One pair of cousins marrying and producing offspring are practically just as likely to produce healthy children as non-related couples (OK, we have a slight increase in risk; but that's not enough reason to force the government to "regulate the gene pool", something I frown upon for obvious reasons). It's repeated

(Incidentally, I think it would be gross; but whatevs)

[Goldwater]

I don't think that the state should tell people who they can or can't marry, so I obviously wouldn't support any prohibition on cousin marriage anymore than I would support any prohibition on same-sex marriage.

[Swedish Rainbow Capitalist Cheese]

Let them marry! If we're going to limit two persons, who love each other, the right to matrimony we better have damn good reasons for doing so, and since the genetics of it is only a problem if it's double first cousins, or if it happens over several generations, I don't really consider that a strong enough argument in favour of a ban. And the "uwww gross" argument is as ridiculous here as it is when it comes to same-sex or interracial marriages.   

[ingemann]

Even without any genetic reasons, one can make a case for banning cousin marriage as a way of preventing a group of people from becoming too insular and isolated from the rest of society.  It's not merely genetics that makes close marriage a bad thing when it is the norm.

I have heard this argument before, it usual come from the anti-Muslim right in Europe. I'm personal not a fan of it, through it make more sense that the genetic one, the latter suffer under the fact, that groups which practice cousin marriage to an limited extent, tend to be more healthy than one which doesn't practice it all. As for the cultural ones, people do have a right to isolate themselves and keep their cultural aspect, as long as they're not a burden on the rest of society it's not something the state should deal with.

[DemPGH]

I'm astounded that anyone could downplay the negative genetic repercussions of inbreeding. Well, maybe not.

http://www.as.wvu.edu/~kgarbutt/QuantGen/Gen535_2_2004/Inbreeding_Humans.htm

http://helorimer.people.ysu.edu/inbred.html

[ingemann]

I'm astounded that anyone could downplay the negative genetic repercussions of inbreeding. Well, maybe not.

http://www.as.wvu.edu/~kgarbutt/QuantGen/Gen535_2_2004/Inbreeding_Humans.htm

http://helorimer.people.ysu.edu/inbred.html

We just lack a smug smiley here.

Yes I guess you're unable to get the difference between "limited extent" and mutual generation continued inbreeding.

Edit: Also haemophilia have nothing to do inbreeding, as male carriers also always die before they can reproduce. The negative effects we see in inbreeding are when two carriers of a recessive chromosome get a child with both chromosomes having the disease (somehing which have 25% chance of happening if both carry the chromosome). Haemophilia on the other hand are carried on the x chromosome, which mean that a woman need two of the chromosome and men only one, the result is that male children of the carriers have 50% of getting the disease no matter who their father is.

[Deus Naturae]

I'm astounded that anyone could downplay the negative genetic repercussions of inbreeding. Well, maybe not.

http://www.as.wvu.edu/~kgarbutt/QuantGen/Gen535_2_2004/Inbreeding_Humans.htm

http://helorimer.people.ysu.edu/inbred.html

Did you even read the first link?

[DemPGH]

I'm astounded that anyone could downplay the negative genetic repercussions of inbreeding. Well, maybe not.

http://www.as.wvu.edu/~kgarbutt/QuantGen/Gen535_2_2004/Inbreeding_Humans.htm

http://helorimer.people.ysu.edu/inbred.html

Did you even read the first link?

I did. While the second one is more consistent, there is of course this, which is not really arguable:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It wasn't the best example, but I was hunting a .edu.

I find it most interesting that there is very likely an evolutionary impulse against inbreeding, which would make a lot of sense.

In any event, no one is going to convince me at this point in time that inbreeding is not harmful, so we probably just won't agree on it.