Sociological Images

Comments

• 

  Eve 10:58 am on December 14, 2009 | # | Reply

  I lived in an Jordan for a year, and at least in the villages cousin marriage is accepted and often preferred, by the families and the marriage partners themselves. Because there is such strict separation between the sexes, if the girl and boy are cousins they are much more likely to actually know each other (via family events, etc.) before marriage. Also, folks are often clannish and don’t want to intermarry with other families.

  Obviously in the US things are different. Most everyone I know is disturbed by the idea of cousins marrying. I have to say, though, that I know a woman who fell in love with her first cousin. It was a little weird at first but she’s a grownup and has the right to her own life. I’m glad she’s happy.

• 

  Cats 11:02 am on December 14, 2009 | # | Reply

  It seems very much like a class issue, to me. Culturally, it seems to happen when a group doesn’t have access to larger/different groups of people. Historically, that was the wealthy who kept to themselves so as to retain their titles or property. More recently, that’s the very poor, who don’t have access to travel beyond a small area.

  While, logically, I recognize the reasoning behind it may not be accurate, it still freaks me out. For me, though, that’s because of it association in my mind with abuse. I’m freaked out by the idea of cousins, step siblings, step cousins, babysitters, whatever. If two people had significant influence or contact when they were children in a caretaker, or familial sort of context, I can’t help but consider any sexual or romantic contact to be abusive at worst and exploitive at best. Sometimes even “we’ve been best friends since we were five!” makes me a little uncomfortable.

  • 

    Cats 11:04 am on December 14, 2009 | # | Reply

    I should clarify that my first paragraph is very euro/america centric. In other cultures, I’m sure there are cultural reasons why a group would remain insulated that may not be class related.

  • 

    Eve 11:11 am on December 14, 2009 | # | Reply

    Yes, I think my experience would back that up as well. Along with the reasons I mentioned, it’s probably also true that poor people in various countries wouldn’t have an opportunity to marry people outside their immediate area, and that would probably also include cousins. I think it’s probably also a function of having large extended families. If your parents each had six or seven brothers and sisters, and they all have lots of kids, most of the people you know are probably going to be your cousins. If your parents are arranging your marriage, they’re happier dealing with their brothers and sisters as well.

  • 

    Currence 1:05 pm on December 14, 2009 | # | Reply

    I’m an American and I find the ban on cousin marriage more disturbing than cousin marriage itself, especially in light of the emerging evidence regarding birth defects.

    More recently, that’s the very poor, who don’t have access to travel beyond a small area.

    Do you know of any data/empirical research to support this?

    Dr. Bittles argues, “People with severe disorders like Huntington’s disease, who have a 50 percent chance of passing it on to their offspring, are not barred from marrying because of the risk of genetic defects… so cousins should not be, either.”

    Perhaps people with Huntington’s disease should be barred from having children. (There’s no reason to prevent marriage here, as adoption is always possible, childless marriages are just fine, etc.)

    • 

      Lance 1:25 pm on December 14, 2009 | # | Reply

      Perhaps people with Huntington’s disease should be barred from having children.

      The slipperiness of this slope makes me extremely nervous.

      • 

        Meems 2:02 pm on December 14, 2009 | # | Reply

        I think that’s the point.

    • 

      rachel 7:58 pm on December 14, 2009 | # | Reply

      Um, you don’t HAVE Huntington’s Disease there, do you, Currence? Didn’t think so…

      • 

        MeToo 12:36 am on December 15, 2009 | # | Reply

        I think Currence was reiterating the anti-marriage-b/c-of-disease position as problematic, not advocating it.

        • 

          rachel 12:06 pm on December 16, 2009 | #

          Yeah, you’re right. Could be…

    • 

      Cats 8:31 pm on December 14, 2009 | # | Reply

      Do you know of any data/empirical research to support this?

      I’m sorry, you’re correct. It’s incredibly easy for anyone below the poverty line to buy cars, plane tickets, and similar items. What was I thinking? That’s also why we don’t care one whit about regional reproductive legislation, and why the libertarians are correct when they say the free market solves everything. If you can’t get birth control in one area, it’s so incredibly easy for low income folks to simply go to a new city, or even state!

      Additionally, I don’t believe I mentioned legislation at all, so the rest of your comment doesn’t really apply to anything I said.

      • 

        Sisi 1:23 am on December 15, 2009 | # | Reply

        My parents have spent all of my life below the poverty line and we moved ten times in my lifetime alone, in seven different cities and three different provinces.

        I’m sorry, you’re correct, clearly the poor that live in shanty towns that surround metropolitan centers around the world were magicked there by FAIRIES. Circular argument is circular, and exclaiming that your thoughts are ethnocentric doesn’t excuse you for it. Take off those ethnocentric glasses.

        The poor are more mobile today than they ever have been before.

• 

  jfruh 11:17 am on December 14, 2009 | # | Reply

  Interestingly — and I wish I could remember the exact details — cousin-marriage laws may end up figuring into court fights over gay marriage, because they’re one of the few instances where a straight marriage considered valid in one U.S. state is invalid in another. I believe an early 20th century court case actually stated that a state that doesn’t recognize cousin marriages does not have to recognize the marriage between two cousins contracted in another state. Such a decision would obviously be relevant in any court case where a gay couple married in (say) Massachusetts was attempting to have their marriage recognized in (say) Maryland.

  • 

    peebs1701 11:52 am on December 14, 2009 | # | Reply

    That would already be covered by the Full Faith and Credit clause of the US Constitution. The issue with gay marriage and inter-state validity is the Defense of Marriage Act, which specifically exempted same-sex marriages from that responsibility as well as any type of federal recognition. I would imagine that eventually that law will be determined to be unconstitutional, but it will probably depend very heavily on which SCOTUS hears the case.

    • 

      jfruh 11:58 am on December 14, 2009 | # | Reply

      Right, my point is that the court decision on this matter specifically said that states could refuse to recognize cousin marriages DESPITE the “full faith and credit” clause, because the states had a “compelling state interest” in restricting those marriages. You and I might not agree with that interpretation in regards to the constitution (and for the record, I don’t agree with it), but precedent goes a long way in U.S. court decision.

      Interestingly, in a recent US Justice Dept. filing defending DOMA, they used a similar example: some states don’t recognize uncle-niece marriages, and it’s considered settled law that they don’t have to if they don’t want to, even if such marriages were legally contracted elsewhere. A lot of gay rights groups took offense at gay marriage thus being compared to “incest”, but isn’t that reaction itself culturally contingent? After all, there are many cultures where uncle-niece marriages are legal and not considered abhorrent.

      • 

        peebs1701 12:03 pm on December 14, 2009 | # | Reply

        I’m sorry, I completely mis-read that sentence in your post.

• 

  peebs1701 11:48 am on December 14, 2009 | # | Reply

  Amazing. I’ve lived in California all my life and I had no idea cousin marriage was legal here, I guess I just assumed it wasn’t.

  Also, regarding the risk of consanguineous marriages, I think we need to distinguish a bit more clearly between absolute risk and relative risk, because marrying a cousin does significantly increase the risk for genetic disorders, something like triples it–I’d have to look it up to be sure, it’s just that even then the risk for any disorders is very, very small.

  • 

    John Yum 12:41 pm on December 14, 2009 | # | Reply

    Well, that also opens up another Pandora’s Box: that of genetic testing. I mean, if person A and person B both have no genetic chance of passing on a genetic disorder X, then it doesn’t matter – biologically speaking, and with regard to that particular genetic disorder – whether these two people are siblings or haven’t shared a common ancestor for several thousand generations.

    Conversely, even if persons A and B are separated genetically by 1000 generations, if they both happen to have a genetic predisposition to genetic disorder X, the risk of passing it to a child is quite high. In other words, the genetics of the parents create the risk to the children.

    Of course, genetic testing also opens oneself up to problems on the other side: genetic diseases that may increase one’s future cost of medical care or may carry with it some social stigma.

• 

  Jessica 12:35 pm on December 14, 2009 | # | Reply

  It’s interesting that in West Virginia, the state about which cousin marriage jokes are often made, it is actually illegal.

  • 

    Stentor 10:07 am on December 15, 2009 | # | Reply

    The jokes may be *why* it’s illegal. Most people seem to be unaware of the legal status of cousin marriage in their state (I know I had presumed it was illegal everywhere), but hearing those kind of jokes might have motivated some state legislator to look it up and introduce a law to combat the stereotype. Although apparently that didn’t happen (or was blocked) in most of the rest of the South, which is also often the target of cousin marriage jokes.

• 

  CharlieMcMenmamin 12:41 pm on December 14, 2009 | # | Reply

  This issue is explosive here in the UK. Rates of Learning Difficulties are roughly three times higher amongst British Asians than the population as a whole. & this is very heavily concentrated amongst Muslim Asian people, rather than Hindus or Asian Christians. http://tinyurl.com/yadtua

  To understand the significance of this is is necessary to know that – though I can’t find the source – it is commonly believed that up to 25% of all British Muslim marriages are between cousins.

  The technical literature emphasises, rightly, how socio-economic factors influence LD prevalence. Poverty can increase the likelihood of low birth weight for instance, and this in turn can increase the chances of having a child with LD. Racism can deny minority communities access to services. All of this is true, but it can lead to a glossing over of the consanguinity issues. See page 10-12 here http://tinyurl.com/yeafmso for an official govt discussion for instance.

  • 

    Eurasian Sensation 6:55 am on December 15, 2009 | # | Reply

    I’ve heard about this too. And while it’s not nice to say so, I can’t help but wonder if some of the extremely regressive medieval attitudes of many people in rural northern Pakistan and similar places are related to the societal preference for first cousins as spouses.

• 

  Elena 12:55 pm on December 14, 2009 | # | Reply

  Relevant TV Tropes page for examples in media.

• 

  Duran2 1:00 pm on December 14, 2009 | # | Reply

  This is probably the only issue in the entire domain of morality and legislation that the South has it right on. The real question, then, is whether two male cousins who marry can legally conduct sodomy.

• 

  JF 2:06 pm on December 14, 2009 | # | Reply

  I agree that it’s illogical to bar cousins from marrying “just in case” they might produce defective children when it’s perfectly legal for people that *definitely will* produce defective children aren’t treated similarly.

  • 

    cb 2:31 pm on December 14, 2009 | # | Reply

    I agree that we shouldn’t bar cousins from marrying each other, but I don’t think the second half of your sentence makes sense. There are hardly any cases of couples that “definitely will” produce “defective” children. Genetics is chance, so even two people with a disease or disability almost always have the possibility of passing along their ‘healthy’ genes to a child. Plus, I take issue with the word “defective” to describe any human being.

    • 

      JF 2:44 pm on December 14, 2009 | # | Reply

      Some genetic defects are dominant and so only one parent need be affected to produce affected children.

      • 

        JF 2:47 pm on December 14, 2009 | # | Reply

        LOL I agree the second half of the sentence doesn’t make sense now that I’ve re-read it. Two thoughts kind of colliding into one there. 1) It’s perfectly legal for people that definitely will produce defective children to reproduce. 2) These people aren’t treated the same as blood relatives that want to produce children.

        • 

          MeToo 12:41 am on December 15, 2009 | #

          As noted by cb, referring to people as ‘defective’ is extremely offensive (particularly to those of us who have non-typical genetic configurations).

        • 

          Sarah 12:46 am on December 15, 2009 | #

          @MeToo – I am taking from your statement that you are (or at least consider yourself to be) someone with non-typical genetic configurations.
          I would really sincerely like a suggestion or two from you as to a succinct way that people with non-typical genetic configurations can be referred to in discussions about that particular group, as “disabled”, “genetically defective”, “handicapped” and so on and so forth seem to be more and more loaded and offensive words as time goes on. While “individuals with non-typical genetic configurations” is viable, it seems a little clunky for conversational use.
          What do you prefer to be used?

        • 

          cb 10:36 pm on December 17, 2009 | #

          Sarah, apparently I can’t reply to you directly but here is my opinion: no person should be called “defective,” ever. That, to me, is way worse than “disabled” or any of the other options you suggest. Coffee makers can be defective, people cannot.

          The main problem with labels such as “handicapped” or “disabled” is simply that the usage of those words as adjectives seems to define the people by them. “Handicapped person” puts the handicap first and person second, literally and figuratively. I believe “person with a disability” or “person with a handicap” is much more humanizing, and not too clunky as to be unusable.

• 

  Meems 2:11 pm on December 14, 2009 | # | Reply

  I’ve never understood why this is such a big deal. Admittedly, I did grow up in a state in which it is legal for cousins to marry, but statistically, the likelihood of their offspring having genetic diseases is still quite small. Besides, all Jews, whether cousins or not, get tested for Tay Sachs before having children. It’s simply a good idea (in my opinion) to know if you’re a carrier.

  I also don’t know about the class thing. I’m from a northern state and grew up middle to upper middle class and still hold the view that cousin marriage really isn’t a big deal.

  I think for many people, it has more to do with how they were raised. My cousins and I vacationed together yearly from the time we were very young and have a sibling-like relationship, so I don’t think of them as anything more than close family. Not everyone grows up knowing their extended family, and I can see how cousins might meet at an older age and develop feelings for each other.

  I will note that I’ve been made fun of for my stance on cousin marriage (when it came up in conversation with a former roommate, she immediately called to my cousin – who also shared our apartment – to “let him know” that I had a crush on him. I don’t.).

• 

  livinonfaith 2:50 pm on December 14, 2009 | # | Reply

  Two of my first cousins actually did end up getting married. Contrary to popular stereotypes, they are both college educated, and one has a Masters degree. They also both dated others extensively before they realized that they were attracted to each other. One was in her late twenties and the other was in his early thirties, so they had plenty of chances to meet other people.

  They did the genetic counseling before they were married, because they knew they wanted children eventually. Now, eighteen years later, they have two beautiful and intelligent kids who are in High School.

  It was a little strange when they first told the family about their relationship. Some of us, especially the ones in our generation, were kind of disturbed at the thought, especially since the nine cousins have always kind of thought of each other in a sibling-like way. Oddly enough, the older generations got over it much more quickly. I have to say, I don’t think any of us really think about it anymore. They love each other and that’s enough for us.

• 

  fuzzytheory 6:08 pm on December 14, 2009 | # | Reply

  Anthropology is helpful here. Much of the concern about incest as taboo, and exactly what is defined as incest (whether first cousins etc. is included) is an issue of kinship. And so forth. It has been a while since i looked at the material, but I think it provides an interesting perspective.

  Another interesting analytical perspective is a genealogical one. As Foucault and others have intimated, the construction of adolescence and the policing of pre-adult sexuality today was framed by 19th century reconstruction of society to construct a bourgeois class. I think a lot of our concern over close kin marriage (first cousins, step-siblings) is wrapped up with our idealization of child sexuality. Somehow we connect that close kinship with adolescent innocence and a resulting marriage with sex/sin and thus joining the two is abomination.

  I think, like in many issues where it is applied, the genetic argument is a smokescreen for other things–whether that argument is for or against.

  • 

    Sarah 12:51 am on December 15, 2009 | # | Reply

    Do you think it’s possible that the law is an anti-elitist thing (since way back when, it was the royal and elite bloodlines that made marrying one’s relations so prominent)? America (and I’m sure other places, although I don’t know what the sentiment is throughout Europe) generally has a very anti-elites atmosphere, which would mean that people who want to “keep it in the family” (in terms of bloodlines, riches, and marriage) would be considered unwelcome – thus making a law like the one banning cousin-marriage easy to pass and easy to maintain, regardless of the quality of the science that backs it up.

• 

  Sue 6:22 pm on December 14, 2009 | # | Reply

  As the child of two only children marrying a cousin has never been an option, but I’ve known for a while that science claims that first cousin marriages do not produce greater-than-normal birth defects. So I don’t have a problem with it. I’m more troubled by older laws that permitted uncles to marry nieces, but not aunts to marry nephews.

• 

  Sarah 7:32 pm on December 14, 2009 | # | Reply

  I can’t think of any way to phrase this without sounding like kind of an ass, so I’m just going to go for it and hope that people will be able to see the point instead of picking on the wording.
  Also, I don’t know of a word that accurately describes the genetics that cause what would be classified as the “problem” with cousin-babies, so “defect” and “abnormality” are all I really have to work with. If anyone has a better word, PLEASE share because these conversations always feel awkward.

  To the point:
  I think the issue here is the dog-breeding thing. To get a “pure-bred” dog, there must usually be extensive inbreeding in that dogs background, which is why purebreds have such predictable health problems. Say a golden retriever puppy mates with his sister (which is not uncommon) – no, there isn’t a guarantee of genetic defect. However, if his sister has puppies, and two of the puppies from *that* litter mate with each other, the chance of inherited genetic abnormality rises – and so on and so forth.

  So, if cousins A and B have kids, those kids are certainly not guaranteed to have a genetic abnormality. However, if those children create offspring with children on a neighboring branch of their family tree, the chances of an inherited genetic abnormality rise accordingly.

  If inbreeding becomes a way of life, the overall populative risk for genetic abnormality goes up. It’s easier to make cousin-marriage illegal altogether because it would be incredibly costly to the government and the people to go through and say “well, your grandparents and parents were related, so you can get married to someone related to you”.

  • 

    rachel 8:03 pm on December 14, 2009 | # | Reply

    Well, um, maybe if EVERYONE decided to start marrying their cousins, then it might be of concern…but just the same way that “gay” isn’t going to become a way of life for the majority of people when gay marriage gets legalized, I don’t think people who never looked at their cousins would start doing it cuz it’s ALL the rage these days…these laws just bar a handful of people who happened to fall in love with a cousin.

• 

  wondering 7:45 pm on December 14, 2009 | # | Reply

  I live in Canada. I know people who are first cousins who are married. Many of them are middle class and well educated, included a school principle. Their children are just as bright and capable – or messed up – as any other random sampling of people.

  Regarding animal breeding – you need to get some serious inbreeding happening to get that level of genetic similarity. It’s not going to happen from the occasional cousins having children. Purebred animal lines always go back to the same well – generation after generation – or they are no longer considered purebred. Very, very different. Compare it to the lines of Egyptian pharaohs, where siblings often married if you must, but even the European royal families (where marrying cousins was all you did!) don’t have the same kind of genetic fingerprint that a purebred animal line has – despite the unfortunate inclusion of hemophilia into the family line. (But hell, we don’t stop hemophiliacs from marrying and having children!)

  • 

    Sarah 8:34 pm on December 14, 2009 | # | Reply

    You are clearly more educated about what makes a pureblood than I am – thanks for making the distinction between those practices and the way that humans practice inbreeding.

    Do you think an issue would arise with the slippery slope argument that often arises, of cousins marrying cousins –> sisters marrying brothers –> fathers marrying daughters, and so on?

    • 

      Sarah 8:35 pm on December 14, 2009 | # | Reply

      LOL @ “pureblood” – I meant to say “purebred”. I guess I’m more influenced by Harry Potter than I thought.

  • 

    Louche 3:05 pm on December 15, 2009 | # | Reply

    I’m not sure how many generations were involved, but after just 3-5 years, my family’s cats multiplied from two to twenty, and the kittens started having 6-7 toes per paw.

    • 

      Onion 11:22 pm on December 15, 2009 | # | Reply

      Polydactyly is not a result of inbreeding. ANY gene can show up more frequently because of inbreeding, but implying inbreeding actually causes polydactyly where it would not otherwise exist is sketchy reasoning at best. Polydactyly is a dominant gene in any case; it’s more likely for inbreeding to affect the incidence of recessive genes.

      Also for god’s sake, spay and neuter your cats.

• 

  Sue 7:50 pm on December 14, 2009 | # | Reply

  Sarah:

  There’s a difference between making intermarriage a “way of life,” and removing legal impediments that have been imposed because of an overstatement of the risks. If several states have abolished cousin-marriage laws, the science must be very strong. Admittedly, there are communities in which marriages seem to lack desirable genetic diversity, i.e., certain Hasidic commununities, but those problems cannot be laid at the feet of the statutes that permit marriage between first cousins. There are many other factors at play in favor of in-group marriage.

  Also, we’re not dogs.

  • 

    Sarah 8:29 pm on December 14, 2009 | # | Reply

    “Also, we’re not dogs.” *(sigh)*

    Regarding the rest: Perhaps, Sue, the answer would then be education after the said legal impediments were removed? It would be, of course, difficult to remove the social stigma in the U.S. and Europe that surrounds cousin-marriage – but education goes a long way in that direction. The question then becomes that of how one educates the ways to properly avoid “too much” inbreeding (which raises the question of what *is* “too much”) and how to have healthy romantic relationships within a preexisting family dynamic.

    • 

      lsmsrbls 2:04 am on December 15, 2009 | # | Reply

      Why do you think some sort of public education plan is needed if you don’t think people are going to start marrying their cousins in huge numbers?

      • 

        Sarah 2:47 am on December 15, 2009 | # | Reply

        Because education is the best way to deter an unfounded social stigma. If there is no scientific backing for the social stigma against cousin-marriage, then people must be educated as to that fact – just as with any social stigma based on ignorance of scientific facts should be defended against with education. At the same time, if cousin-marriage is going to be taught as an “okay thing”, then it should be taught how to do it properly: just as safe-sex is now being taught in schools instead of abstinence, and just as safe relationship practices are being taught (how to recognize an abusive relationship, for instance), healthy relationships within the family dynamic should be taught as well.

        Above, it was brought up that intrafamilial relationships can put more confusion into the issue of intrafamilial sexual abuse – children who are abused are sometimes told that “this is how daddies love their daughters,” for instance. If intrafamilial relationships become a socially integrated part of our society, it will be necessary for children to understand the boundaries between abuse and normal relationship practices in the family, just as they must understand the boundaries between abuse from a close friend and normal relationship practices. There are so many problems with nationwide sex education as is – at present, the socially acceptable viewpoint is “if someone in your family has sex with you, it is abuse”. If intrafamilial relationships become more socially acceptable, then it should be socially acceptable as well to teach what constitutes intrafamilial abuse and what constitutes an acceptable come-on.

        • 

          lsmsrbls 3:05 am on December 15, 2009 | #

          I’m not aware of any gaping problems in the many states which have legal marrying of cousins requiring educational programs or a special section in sex ed. I’m not sure it’s intentional as I know you’re a regular commenter, but your comments are really coming off as concern trolling.

        • 

          Sarah 4:17 am on December 15, 2009 | #

          Oh, jeez – thanks for letting me know, lsmsrbls. I’m really terribly sorry to any and everyone that I offended. I’ll go ahead and let this line of discussion drop, and if admins want to delete it, I will completely understand. Again, apologies.

        • 

          lsmsrbls 8:20 am on December 15, 2009 | #

          Thanks. : )

• 

  Sue 8:35 pm on December 14, 2009 | # | Reply

  Sarah:

  Yes, I was snide, but as others have pointed out, there a big difference between human intermarriage and purebred dog breeding. As for education, you seem to be making a floodgates argument. Where’s the flood?

  I would imagine that general premarital genetic screening would suffice. If you carry the gene for sickle cell anemia or Tay Sachs disease, you’re going to factor that into you decision about a spouse whether or not he or she is a first cousin.

  • 

    Sarah 8:43 pm on December 14, 2009 | # | Reply

    There is a big difference, yes – and summing it up as “we’re not dogs” does nothing to address the fact that the difference is purely behavioral, as wondering so beautifully pointed out above.

    And I don’t see the floodgates argument there, so (not being snarky, this is a serious request) to see your side of that viewpoint. I’m seriously asking how we as a society would handle the education aspect of legalizing interfamilial marriage and reproduction – not only to eliminate the stigma associated with it, but also to address the preexisting family dynamic within an interfamilial relationship.

    • 

      Sue 8:55 pm on December 14, 2009 | # | Reply

      YOU were suggesting the fallacious floodgates argument, not me. That is, you were suggesting that if first cousins are permitted to marry that it would unleash a parade of horribles: Cousin indiscriminately marrying cousin, proliferating terrible birth defects in untold numbers. The evidence doesn’t suggest that.

      • 

        Sue 8:57 pm on December 14, 2009 | # | Reply

        The key was your very loaded phrase:

        “If inbreeding becomes a way of life ….”

      • 

        Sarah 12:56 am on December 15, 2009 | # | Reply

        I’m sorry, but I’ve looked over my post again and I think you’re reading more into what I wrote than was intended. I am not saying that a “parade of horribles” would be unleashed – I’m saying that the likelihood of inherited genetic anomalies would go up, which is true, because the intersection paths of inherited genes would be closer together. That’s a far cry from “proliferating terrible birth defects in untold numbers”.

        Regarding the loaded phrase – I apologize for using a phrase that I wasn’t aware was loaded. Should I have said “If inbreeding becomes a standard…”? Or perhaps I should have said nothing at all?

        • 

          Sue 11:01 am on December 15, 2009 | #

          Sarah:

          I concur with the commentator who said you are acting trollish.

          “Inbreeding,” when used in reference to human beings, and especially given the topic, is highly loaded.

          As apparently you aren’t sensitive to your own exaggerated turns of phrase, perhaps you should refrain from voicing your opinion so freely, or at least from criticizing others for their legitimate readings of what you wrote.

        • 

          Sue 11:05 am on December 15, 2009 | #

          You’re the one who raised the spectre of fathers marrying daughters, etc.

          “Do you think an issue would arise with the slippery slope argument that often arises, of cousins marrying cousins –> sisters marrying brothers –> fathers marrying daughters, and so on?”

          How is that even suggested by permitting first-cousin marriage? That a parade of horribles. Perhaps you don’t know what the phrase means.

• 

  Sue 8:37 pm on December 14, 2009 | # | Reply

  you’re going to factor that into youR decision

  –Tried to correct this but canceling the post, but got a rude message telling me that I was posting too fast.

• 

  Justa 10:48 pm on December 14, 2009 | # | Reply

  Well, if I was super into someone and they just happened to be related to me, I sure wouldn’t make a big deal out of it.

• 

  Andrew 7:30 am on December 15, 2009 | # | Reply

  It’s interesting to me how quickly then discussion on marriage policy – especially among Americans – turns to reproductive concerns. Never mind that it’s perfectly legal and normal for unmarried couples to have sex and procreate (40% of US children are born out of wedlock), or that plenty of marriages do not result in children. Many of us still take for granted that the state may enact a genetic agenda through who it allows to marry.

  Now let’s say the chance of two people having “defective”* children, should they reproduce, is 100%. Would this fact alone justify the giving the state the power to prevent them from entering into a contract which is, by and large, a fundamental right of adults? And if so, what is the threshold of genetic probability that we can’t accept? 50% chance of defects? 25%?

  I think fuzzytheory has a good point about the whole broken-babies thing being a smokescreen – few of us would passionately defend eugenics, even while accepting policies that appear tantamount to it. But on the other hand, I’m always surprised anew by how wobbly and fickle our belief in civil liberties is compared to our sense of social norms.
  __
  *Before anyone jumps down my throat…I use that offensive word to express the gulf between our general compassion for parents of people with unpredictable or non-congenital disabilities, and the widespread contempt for parents whose behaviors we believe are to blame for their children’s disabilities.

  • 

    Andrew 7:33 am on December 15, 2009 | # | Reply

    “40% of US children are born out of wedlock”

    Oh wow…Palinesque data fail!

    No child is born in wedlock…of course, I was referring to the parents.

  • 

    Sue 11:11 am on December 15, 2009 | # | Reply

    You make interesting points. For example, we’d never consider passing a law against Little People intermarrying, although many consider dwarfism and related conditions a genetic abnormality, if not necessarily a disability.

    Does our feeling about such things turn on whether we believe that the child will definitely suffer from a severe disability or a painful condition that may shorten life?

    • 

      lsmsrbls 12:03 pm on December 15, 2009 | # | Reply

      You know, I think it’s less about genuine concern for potential children than it is about keeping people from violating our norms.

      At least at this point, it seems like it must be the visceral “ew” that keeps people from legalizing it some areas.

      Tangentially, in response to Andrew:

      “Would this fact alone justify the giving the state the power to prevent them from entering into a contract which is, by and large, a fundamental right of adults? And if so, what is the threshold of genetic probability that we can’t accept? 50% chance of defects? 25%?”

      I’ve heard plenty of people argue that women with HIV should be barred from having children, even though the chance of the child having HIV can be be brought down to less than one percent.

      Some people who have no problem engaging in risky behaviors (and subjecting their children to them, e.g. driving them around in a car) suddenly say, “Any increase in risk is too much!” as soon as we start talking about reproduction.

      And as you said, oddly “concern” for potential children manifests itself as laws restricting marriage.

• 

  Shana 12:57 pm on December 15, 2009 | # | Reply

  I recall needing a blood test before my husband and I got our marriage license. They said it was to ensure that neither of us had any STDs that we could pass on to our children. I thought that it was a bit comical for the Clerk of Court in Frederick, MD to be concerning themselves with STDs. They also asked whether we were related. The lady compiling the paperwork said, “you two look alike, are you sure your not related?” Also pretty funny.
  On a more serious note, while I believe that the chances of producing offspring with genetic abnormalities is slight (if there is no known family history of these disorders); I wonder about the eventual effect on allelic variation. Since procreating only within your sanguinary family creates a very small genetic pool, genetic drift could present some very interesting shifts in allele frequency. These changes do not have to be deleterious, they can be advantageous or neutral as well. It would be interesting to investigate allelic uniformity in families where cousin marriages have been the norm for generations.

  • 

    Shana 12:58 pm on December 15, 2009 | # | Reply

    An aside: Didn’t that “concern for putative children” thing come up when the JoP from Louisiana denied interracial marriages?

• 

  Louche 2:57 pm on December 15, 2009 | # | Reply

  WOW. This is so interesting! So… I have this cousin who I didn’t meet until I was 17, and when she told me why she was attracted only to women, that is when I began to realize/accept what my attraction to women meant. Well, now, when I started college, I explained to my roommate (who was bisexual) how I realized my orientation… she thought I meant that I had realized it by having some sort of sexual/romantic encounter with my cousin, which I corrected. Then she said it would’ve been weird if I had meant what she thought. My understanding of the cousin issue was that it would be fine for cousins to be together, but maybe best not to have children, so I said, “It’s not like we could make babies together.” She said, “Still. It would be weird.”

  Weird? What, like two women together is weird to some people?

• 

  amgriffin 3:03 pm on December 16, 2009 | # | Reply

  It was good enough for the Wilkeses. They always married their cousins. It was bad news for Scarlet, though.

• 

  kelebek 12:01 am on December 19, 2009 | # | Reply

  I don’t have anything too productive to add, I was hoping somebody would bring up Arrested Development. Since no one did, I am bringing it up.

  • 

    Jennifer S. 6:45 pm on December 31, 2009 | # | Reply

    I read through this whole thread hoping someone would bring up Arrested Development!!

• 

  BG 9:51 pm on December 20, 2009 | # | Reply

  I don’t think the occasional cousin reproduction is going to vastly affect the human race, so I don’t really care. As long as relationships are consensual and not exploitative or abusive, then I have no problem with them. Not all cousin/incest relationships are exploitative and not all will involve having children together. Live and let live, I think.

• 

  Gem2001 6:31 pm on December 23, 2009 | # | Reply

  For some reason, reading this I think of the Hapsburg dynasty (Habsburgs)….Particularly the Spanish branch of the family.

• 

  Gem2001 6:35 pm on December 23, 2009 | # | Reply

  http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/revealed-the-inbreeding-that-ruined-the-hapsburgs-1668857.html