Religion and Ethics Forum
General Category => Politics & Current Affairs => Topic started by: Nearly Sane on December 15, 2024, 12:51:20 PM
-
Matthew Syed on the attempt to ban cousin marriage.
https://www.thetimes.com/article/723d4ade-fbfa-4bbf-a63a-69f5f1807096?shareToken=c4d0343fc863335cfd6ff62ae0d03799
-
This article seems to focus on the Pakistani community.
I wonder what the research is on recessive gene disorders in other South Asian communities - cousin marriage seems widespread amongst Hindus - not sure about Christian South Asians. Or if there is any evidence of extremism in Hindus due to cousin marriages.
I think cousin marriages are more likely where people still follow the custom of arranged marriages rather than meeting potential partners themselves and dating them. It is relatively easy when people live together in communities with their relatives to have the opportunity to approach a relative to discuss the possibility of your child marrying their child. In previous generations the added benefit, apart from keeping wealth in the family, was knowing that there were shared family values and customs, which they felt would increase the chances of compatibility for the couple and the in-laws and less likelihood of friction, separation or a divorce.
-
This article seems to focus on the Pakistani community.
I wonder what the research is on recessive gene disorders in other South Asian communities - cousin marriage seems widespread amongst Hindus - not sure about Christian South Asians. Or if there is any evidence of extremism in Hindus due to cousin marriages.
I think cousin marriages are more likely where people still follow the custom of arranged marriages rather than meeting potential partners themselves and dating them. It is relatively easy when people live together in communities with their relatives to have the opportunity to approach a relative to discuss the possibility of your child marrying their child. In previous generations the added benefit, apart from keeping wealth in the family, was knowing that there were shared family values and customs, which they felt would increase the chances of compatibility for the couple and the in-laws and less likelihood of friction, separation or a divorce.
Do you support a ban?
-
I'm indifferent.
To form an opinion I would need more data on cousin marriages in other communities as this article seems to be about the Pakistani community. I could see there might be objections in Hindu communities to a ban.
-
I'm indifferent.
To form an opinion I would need more data on cousin marriages in other communities as this article seems to be about the Pakistani community. I could see there might be objections in Hindu communities to a ban.
Why would you need data on other communities. The case is about the increase in birth defects.
-
Syed refers to an earlier article by him on this, I don't have a share tokenned version of that so here's an archived version.
https://archive.vn/E1M7l
-
Why would you need data on other communities. The case is about the increase in birth defects.
I need data about other communities to form an opinion because the article says (my emphasis):
"When inbreeding persists through generations (when cousins get married who are themselves the children of cousins), the risks are far higher, which is why British Pakistanis account for 3.4 per cent of births nationwide but 30 per cent of recessive gene disorders, consanguineous relationships are the cause of one in five child deaths in Redbridge and the NHS hires staff specifically to deal with these afflictions."
So I want to know what the percentage of recessive gene disorders are in other communities when cousins get married who are themselves the children of cousins. Given this is quite a widespread practice in Hindu communities, they might object to a ban. Maybe the Hindus are better at analysing their family history or having genetic tests done before they go through with a cousin marriage so as a result there are less recessive gene disorders in their community.
-
I need data about other communities to form an opinion because the article says (my emphasis):
"When inbreeding persists through generations (when cousins get married who are themselves the children of cousins), the risks are far higher, which is why British Pakistanis account for 3.4 per cent of births nationwide but 30 per cent of recessive gene disorders, consanguineous relationships are the cause of one in five child deaths in Redbridge and the NHS hires staff specifically to deal with these afflictions."
So I want to know what the percentage of recessive gene disorders are in other communities when cousins get married who are themselves the children of cousins. Given this is quite a widespread practice in Hindu communities, they might object to a ban. Maybe the Hindus are better at analysing their family history or having genetic tests done before they go through with a cousin marriage so as a result there are less recessive gene disorders in their community.
Still don't get it. Are you suggesting that because one group may be better at doing checks, that we just accept the rate of birth defects, until you have somehow managed to produce a complete change in behaviour from another group, with no current justification that your hypothesis is correct, or any follow up action would work?
Why does it matter if Hindus object if the case of about birth defects rates?
-
Still don't get it. Are you suggesting that because one group may be better at doing checks, that we just accept the rate of birth defects, until you have somehow managed to produce a complete change in behaviour from another group, with no current justification that your hypothesis is correct, or any follow up action would work?
Yes
Why does it matter if Hindus object if the case of about birth defects rates?
Because people don't like their freedom to marry being restricted, especially if there have been cousin marriages for centuries. If it's about birth defects we could find another way to deal with birth defects without restricting people's freedom to do what they have been doing for centuries.
-
Yes
Because people don't like their freedom to marry being restricted, especially if there have been cousin marriages for centuries. If it's about birth defects we could find another way to deal with birth defects without restricting people's freedom to do what they have been doing for centuries.
People have had their right to marriage restricted for centuries, by age, by consanguineity. Why is it an issue that some people might object to some specific restriction unless you are arguing that there should be no such restrictions?
Why, given you have no actual proposal on how to change the behaviour not support the ban as part of that?
-
People have had their right to marriage restricted for centuries, by age, by consanguineity. Why is it an issue that some people might object to some specific restriction unless you are arguing that there should be no such restrictions?
Why, given you have no actual proposal on how to change the behaviour not support the ban as part of that?
Yes agreed that people have had their right to marry restricted for centuries. But if you are going to introduce a new restriction and ask my opinion, then my opinion is it depends.
Bans are pretty drastic and curtail freedoms so I don't need to make a counter-proposal to not be in favour of a ban. To be convinced of the need to ban something I would think there needs to be evidence that a particular behaviour by its nature is causing such widespread severe harm that it needs drastic action to prevent it. I was under the impression that this is the approach taken in a liberal culture. Hence, I wanted to know how widespread the harm is e.g. is it just a British Pakistani problem or more widespread?
I would want information on whether other communities are following processes that adequately manage the risks of genetic defects. If they are, there is an argument to not curtail their freedom to marry cousins.
-
Some of the pro-ban arguments sound uncomfortably like eugenics to me.
Cousin marriages are hardly unknown among white Christians, especially in the past, when people lived n the same small community all their lives, and travelled much less. Maybe that explains village idiots, but it doesn't seem to have led to widespread disaster.
-
Some of the pro-ban arguments sound uncomfortably like eugenics to me.
Cousin marriages are hardly unknown among white Christians, especially in the past, when people lived n the same small community all their lives, and travelled much less. Maybe that explains village idiots, but it doesn't seem to have led to widespread disaster.
So you don't think consanguineity because of its impact is of any worth? And you think that the birth defects caused by it are OK?
-
Yes agreed that people have had their right to marry restricted for centuries. But if you are going to introduce a new restriction and ask my opinion, then my opinion is it depends.
Bans are pretty drastic and curtail freedoms so I don't need to make a counter-proposal to not be in favour of a ban. To be convinced of the need to ban something I would think there needs to be evidence that a particular behaviour by its nature is causing such widespread severe harm that it needs drastic action to prevent it. I was under the impression that this is the approach taken in a liberal culture. Hence, I wanted to know how widespread the harm is e.g. is it just a British Pakistani problem or more widespread?
I would want information on whether other communities are following processes that adequately manage the risks of genetic defects. If they are, there is an argument to not curtail their freedom to marry cousins.
So old bans fine, even the ones that ban cousin marriage fine but new bans based on cousin marriage even based on the scientific evidence bad. K.
-
So old bans fine, even the ones that ban cousin marriage fine but new bans based on cousin marriage even based on the scientific evidence bad. K.
Are they debating old bans in Parliament? Which old bans of cousin marriages are you referring to? I don't have an opinion on old bans except to note that things were banned in the past that might not need to be banned today because technological developments might mean there are alternatives to banning.
A new ban on cousin marriages does seem to be being debated in Parliament so yes I was interested in looking at the scientific evidence. If genetic defects are an issue for all communities then that would support the necessity of a ban. Since I know cousin marriages are widespread in Hindu communities and many of the ones I have met seem to have off-spring that do not have genetic defects or extremist views, I was wondering whether there were any studies on other communities before forming an opinion as my experience is very limited. Seems a pretty reasonable position to take on the issue.
We don't introduce a ban on all male minicab drivers driving young girls to destinations in minicabs because the media focused on the Pakistani minicab drivers in Rotherham who kept coming into contact with vulnerable young girls, and exploited and raped them.
-
Are they debating old bans in Parliament? Which old bans of cousin marriages are you referring to? I don't have an opinion on old bans except to note that things were banned in the past that might not need to be banned today because technological developments might mean there are alternatives to banning.
A new ban on cousin marriages does seem to be being debated in Parliament so yes I was interested in looking at the scientific evidence. If genetic defects are an issue for all communities then that would support the necessity of a ban. Since I know cousin marriages are widespread in Hindu communities and many of the ones I have met seem to have off-spring that do not have genetic defects or extremist views, I was wondering whether there were any studies on other communities before forming an opinion as my experience is very limited. Seems a pretty reasonable position to take on the issue.
We don't introduce a ban on all male minicab drivers driving young girls to destinations in minicabs because the media focused on the Pakistani minicab drivers in Rotherham who kept coming into contact with vulnerable young girls, and exploited and raped them.
Any ban would be new. You seem confused.
-
Any ban would be new. You seem confused.
Your posts are confusing. That's why I asked for clarification of what you meant when you wrote "So old bans fine, even the ones that ban cousin marriage fine".
Which old bans that ban cousin marriage are you referring to here?
-
We don't ban people who are or may be carriers of serious genetic illnesses from marrying or procreating, and quite right too, so why ban the much lesser risk from cousin marriage?
-
Hi everyone,
In Hindu communities, particularly in the South of India, cousin marriages were quite common. But there were conditions. Only children of a brother and a sister can marry. Children of two brothers or two sisters cannot marry.....they are considered as brother and sister.
This tradition is of course, on the decline due to modern ideas.
Cheers.
Sriram
-
We don't ban people who are or may be carriers of serious genetic illnesses from marrying or procreating, and quite right too, so why ban the much lesser risk from cousin marriage?
Because one is accidental and the other deliberate.
-
Hi everyone,
In Hindu communities, particularly in the South of India, cousin marriages were quite common. But there were conditions. Only children of a brother and a sister can marry. Children of two brothers or two sisters cannot marry.....they are considered as brother and sister.
This tradition is of course, on the decline due to modern ideas.
Cheers.
Sriram
Modern ideas like genetics? You sound as if you don't really approve of such things.
-
Your posts are confusing. That's why I asked for clarification of what you meant when you wrote "So old bans fine, even the ones that ban cousin marriage fine".
Which old bans that ban cousin marriage are you referring to here?
See article
-
Because one is accidental and the other deliberate.
Someone who is known to be a carrier of a serious genetic condition choosing to have children is deliberate. (Just stating the obvious, not condemning them.)
-
Someone who is known to be a carrier of a serious genetic condition choosing to have children is deliberate. (Just stating the obvious, not condemning them.)
It is if they know. But in many cases they won't which makes the analogy flaky. We already ban marriage on the basis of consanguineity, this is just an extension.
If we were to ban marriage on the basis of a serious genetic condition, then it's a new argument.
-
It is if they know. But in many cases they won't which makes the analogy flaky.
Should the parents of a child with cystic fibrosis be banned from having more children? I think that is a reasonable analogy.
We already ban marriage on the basis of consanguineity, this is just an extension.
The word "just" is doing some heavy lifting there. We'd be making something illegal that previously wasn't illegal.
If we were to ban marriage on the basis of a serious genetic condition, then it's a new argument.
But the same in the abstract. You are taking away people's right to do something that was previously allowed.
-
Should the parents of a child with cystic fibrosis be banned from having more children? I think that is a reasonable analogy.The word "just" is doing some heavy lifting there. We'd be making something illegal that previously wasn't illegal.
But the same in the abstract. You are taking away people's right to do something that was previously allowed.
It's an extension of the principle that marriage can be restricted on the basis of consanguineity. Restricting marriage on the basis of specific conditions is a new principle.
-
See article
It mentions the Catholic Church banned cousin marriages. Is that what you are referring to when you said you think "old bans fine, even the ones that ban cousin marriage fine"? Why is that relevant in the UK? In case you hadn't realised, Parliament makes the laws and not the Catholic Church.
Parliament is debating a new ban.
-
It mentions the Catholic Church banned cousin marriages. Is that what you are referring to when you said you think "old bans fine, even the ones that ban cousin marriage fine"? Why is that relevant in the UK? In case you hadn't realised, Parliament makes the laws and not the Catholic Church.
Parliament is debating a new ban.
And yet bans on cousin marriage are not a new concept.
-
It's an extension of the principle that marriage can be restricted on the basis of consanguineity. Restricting marriage on the basis of specific conditions is a new principle.
They are both still new restrictions in the abstract. I think you are splitting hairs.
-
And yet bans on cousin marriage are not a new concept.
But they would be a new law.
Bans on "taking the name of the Lord in vain" are also not a new concept, but I would hope we are all against blasphemy laws.
-
But they would be a new law.
Bans on "taking the name of the Lord in vain" are also not a new concept, but I would hope we are all against blasphemy laws.
I'm not denying it would be a new law, just that the concept isn't.
Not sure what the relevance of blasphemy laws are.
-
They are both still new restrictions in the abstract. I think you are splitting hairs.
isn't that what law does?
-
I'm not denying it would be a new law, just that the concept isn't.
Not sure what the relevance of blasphemy laws are.
It's to show that a concept being old doesn't automatically imply codifying it in law is a good thing.
-
isn't that what law does?
For the most part, yes.
-
It's to show that a concept being old doesn't automatically imply codifying it in law is a good thing.
And since no one has suggested that, I don't see the relevance.
-
And since no one has suggested that, I don't see the relevance.
True. Nobody has suggested it.
And yet bans on cousin marriage are not a new concept.
Oh.
-
True. Nobody has suggested it.
Oh.
That doesn't say that it should be enacted because it isn't new. It simply says that it isn't new.
-
Modern ideas like genetics? You sound as if you don't really approve of such things.
NS much as I enjoy your one brain cell Tommy Robinson routine, it's a bit pointless given there are plenty of doctors over the past few decades in South India who know about genetics, and who would have checked their family history first to assess the risks of any genetic disorders or illnesses before they went into cousin marriages and had children and grandchildren. Lots of them probably married other doctors, who also happened to be their cousins. Which is why most of their cousin marriages produce healthy children. Unless you have any evidence to show otherwise?
Also modern ideas most likely means people not having arranged marriages, not wanting to marry relatives, being open to new ideas and culture by marrying outside their extended family and community rather than continuing traditional culture, finding their own partners, falling in love. Calling these ideas "modern" is a statement of fact. But you carry on with your "the natives are too backward to understand science" approach to the world.
-
NS much as I enjoy your one brain cell Tommy Robinson routine, it's a bit pointless given there are plenty of doctors over the past few decades in South India who know about genetics, and who would have checked their family history first to assess the risks of any genetic disorders or illnesses before they went into cousin marriages and had children and grandchildren. Lots of them probably married other doctors, who also happened to be their cousins. Which is why most of their cousin marriages produce healthy children. Unless you have any evidence to show otherwise?
Also modern ideas most likely means people not having arranged marriages, not wanting to marry relatives, being open to new ideas and culture by marrying outside their extended family and community rather than continuing traditional culture, finding their own partners, falling in love. Calling these ideas "modern" is a statement of fact. But you carry on with your "the natives are too backward to understand science" approach to the world.
Is there a special offer on straw for the festive season?
-
And yet bans on cousin marriage are not a new concept.
Agreed it's not a new concept. If you're going introduce this old concept as a new law in the UK, presumably the people affected will want to know the basis for banning something that was previously allowed. Or maybe they won't care if a ban is introduced as law because maybe the current generation of South Asians (Hindu and Muslim) would prefer not to marry their cousins so the law would not limit their freedom of choice and they would be fine with it.
The trend for marrying cousins is falling in the Pakistani community https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-67422918
-
Is there a special offer on straw for the festive season?
If you're now backtracking on your comment that Sriram was referring to genetics when he mentioned modern ideas, glad you've seen sense.
-
If you're now backtracking on your comment that Sriram was referring to genetics when he mentioned modern ideas, glad you've seen sense.
I don't know what Sriram was referring to when he said 'modern ideas' but it seems obvious that an understanding of genetics may well drive a decline in the practice. The way he used the term seemed disapproving to me, which is why I asked the question.
None of that has anything to do with the pile of straw in your reply.
-
Agreed it's not a new concept. If you're going introduce this old concept as a new law in the UK, presumably the people affected will want to know the basis for banning something that was previously allowed. Or maybe they won't care if a ban is introduced as law because maybe the current generation of South Asians (Hindu and Muslim) would prefer not to marry their cousins so the law would not limit their freedom of choice and they would be fine with it.
The trend for marrying cousins is falling in the Pakistani community https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-67422918
Well that was made was that of the genetic cost. And perhaps the law would help speed up the process in terms of some groups.
-
I don't know what Sriram was referring to when he said 'modern ideas' but it seems obvious that an understanding of genetics may well drive a decline in the practice. The way he used the term seemed disapproving to me, which is why I asked the question.
None of that has anything to do with the pile of straw in your reply.
I wonder what assumptions caused you to jump to the conclusion that Sriram disapproves of genetics....
-
I wonder what assumptions caused you to jump to the conclusion that Sriram disapproves of genetics....
The tone of that sentence.
-
For anyone who doesn't object to abortion, there is a simple answer: Have the foetus checked for serious genetic diseases, and abort if found.
-
And since no one has suggested that, I don't see the relevance.
So what point were you trying to make in Reply #13 and previous replies where you brought up the Catholic Church ban on cousin marriages? You suggested I should support a ban on cousin marriages and said such a ban is not a new concept.
-
The tone of that sentence.
The sentence does not have a tone - you added one in your head when you read it based on your own interpretations and bias.
-
So what point were you trying to make in Reply #13 and previous replies where you brought up the Catholic Church ban on cousin marriages? You suggested I should support a ban on cousin marriages and said such a ban is not a new concept.
Ah you had some spare straw. At no point did I say that you should support a ban because there was already such bans. I pointed out that you don't oppose consanguineity rules in principle, and that there are bans, not just by the Catholic Church, on cousin marriage. Therefore it's not a matter of principle that you are opposed to such bans but you seemed to approve of those already in place.
-
The sentence does not have a tone - you added one in your head when you read it based on your own interpretations and bias.
All sentences have tones. Whether my interpretation is correct is a different matter. And yes, I have my boases, as do you. So we are both just expressing an opinion.
-
Well that was made was that of the genetic cost. And perhaps the law would help speed up the process in terms of some groups.
The law, if it introduced a ban on cousin marriages, would also prevent people who have no defective recessive gene from marrying their cousins if they want to. Why restrict their freedom to marry if there is no genetic basis to prevent the marriage?
-
The law, if it introduced a ban on cousin marriages, would also prevent people who have no defective recessive gene from marrying their cousins if they want to. Why restrict their freedom to marry if there is no genetic basis to prevent the marriage?
The same applies to closer family ties.
-
The tone of that sentence.
I am not disapproving of genetics or anything of that sort. I was only stating a fact that in modern times these traditional practices have changed. By modern ideas I meant globalization, greater interaction between people of different regions, inter racial marriages and so on.
But having said that, the fact that marriages between children of two brothers and two sisters was traditionally forbidden, shows that people even in earlier times had an idea of genetics in some form.
-
I am not disapproving of genetics or anything of that sort. I was only stating a fact that in modern times these traditional practices have changed. By modern ideas I meant globalization, greater interaction between people of different regions, inter racial marriages and so on.
But having said that, the fact that marriages between children of two brothers and two sisters was traditionally forbidden, shows that people even in earlier times had an idea of genetics in some form.
Thank you for the clarification. Could I ask for a further one, the list of what you cover as 'modern ideas' are you disapproving of them?
-
Thank you for the clarification. Could I ask for a further one, the list of what you cover as 'modern ideas' are you disapproving of them?
Why would I disapprove of anything like that?! These are just recent trends in a 'smaller' world.....
-
Why would I disapprove of anything like that?! These are just recent trends in a 'smaller' world.....
Great, thanks. And a note to Gabriella, you were right, and I was wrong.
-
All sentences have tones. Whether my interpretation is correct is a different matter. And yes, I have my boases, as do you. So we are both just expressing an opinion.
Are you suggesting that every sentence has a tone that can be objectively demonstrated as being the true tone of the sentence?
Or do you mean that the author of a sentence intends a tone by the words they choose, including a neutral tone e.g. in this sentence
"Atoms are the basic particles of the chemical elements."
Or
"Modern marriages are less to do with strategic alliances and more to do with intimate feelings such as love and companionship."
So it would make sense to ask the author what tone they intended rather than make assumptions about an approving or disapproving tone based on your own biases.
I don't even know what word(s) could cause you to interpret a disapproving tone in Sriram's sentence that "This tradition is of course, on the decline due to modern ideas."
-
Hi everyone,
In Hindu communities, particularly in the South of India, cousin marriages were quite common. But there were conditions. Only children of a brother and a sister can marry. Children of two brothers or two sisters cannot marry.....they are considered as brother and sister.
My parents told me that Sri Lankan Hindu custom has that concept and also means that if the children of two brothers or two sisters are of the same sex - so "cousin sisters" or "cousin brothers" - then their children, who would be second cousins, are not allowed to marry either because it is considered too close a relationship due to genetic risks.
-
The same applies to closer family ties.
Yes. Clearly many societies for many years have deemed the greater family complications caused by a brother and sister marrying and producing children as being unwelcome.
But when trying to introduce a new restriction in a liberal society, the people proposing it would usually need to have a convincing argument that the reason for the new restriction - birth defects - could not be addressed by other means.
There have been proposals to change the law to allow siblings to have civil partnerships, but it seems more about affording sibling couples, the ones who live together and rely on each other, the same protections under the law (including tax benefits e.g. IHT) as any other couple in a civil partnership.
Civil Partnership Act 2004 (Amendment) (Sibling Couples) Bill [HL] https://bills.parliament.uk/bills/2017 was introduced in the H of L to amend the Civil Partnership Act 2004 to include sibling couples. It does not seem to have progressed beyond the 2nd reading in the HofL.
-
Great, thanks. And a note to Gabriella, you were right, and I was wrong.
Ok thanks for that - nice of you to say that.
-
Yes. Clearly many societies for many years have deemed the greater family complications caused by a brother and sister marrying and producing children as being unwelcome.
But when trying to introduce a new restriction in a liberal society, the people proposing it would usually need to have a convincing argument that the reason for the new restriction - birth defects - could not be addressed by other means.
There have been proposals to change the law to allow siblings to have civil partnerships, but it seems more about affording sibling couples, the ones who live together and rely on each other, the same protections under the law (including tax benefits e.g. IHT) as any other couple in a civil partnership.
Civil Partnership Act 2004 (Amendment) (Sibling Couples) Bill [HL] https://bills.parliament.uk/bills/2017 was introduced in the H of L to amend the Civil Partnership Act 2004 to include sibling couples. It does not seem to have progressed beyond the 2nd reading in the HofL.
I think that law can be introduced as part of a series of measures to address an issue. It doesn't need to be the only thing that can work.
-
Ok thanks for that - nice of you to say that.
I've admitted to being wrong twice today on here. Just to warn anyone else, if I admit to being wrong for a 3rd time today, you get to keep me.
-
I think that law can be introduced as part of a series of measures to address an issue. It doesn't need to be the only thing that can work.
I think the Pakistani community does not follow the cousin marriage customs that the Hindu community follows to lower risk of genetic defects.
If there was going to be a ban on cousin marriages led by data, I would be interested to know the data on birth defects for first or second cousins marrying whose parent siblings are not the same sex, vs cousin marriages where their parent siblings are the same sex.
Apart form the genetic defect argument, I think there is of course an argument for forcing communities to break away from their traditions and integrate and change their culture, as Matthew Syed, the author of the article you linked to stated. But not surprised that many are afraid of integrating due to the negatives that come with the positives of British culture. Once they open the door they can't control which new cultural influences their children will adopt and whether those influences will only be positive ones and whether the result will be emotional distance or even estrangement between parent and child if they have completely different values and perspectives.
I can certainly relate to this para in the article:
"And it is striking that, the more Dad became integrated into his adopted society, the more he became a champion of British values. The reason is profound and should be trumpeted: he came to realise that, despite the lingering influence of racism here, the bigotry is as nothing compared with clan and tribal discrimination in other parts of the world. That gave him the courage to fight to improve life for himself and his family — and to join efforts to battle racism too."
-
I've admitted to being wrong twice today on here. Just to warn anyone else, if I admit to being wrong for a 3rd time today, you get to keep me.
You're on a roll ;D
-
That doesn't say that it should be enacted because it isn't new. It simply says that it isn't new.
No you were trying to argue against The Accountant's claim that people enacting new bans need to show their worth by insinuating it is not a new ban.
-
I am not disapproving of genetics or anything of that sort. I was only stating a fact that in modern times these traditional practices have changed. By modern ideas I meant globalization, greater interaction between people of different regions, inter racial marriages and so on.
But having said that, the fact that marriages between children of two brothers and two sisters was traditionally forbidden, shows that people even in earlier times had an idea of genetics in some form.
Given that incest is taboo pretty much everywhere, you could claim that everybody has some vague idea of genetics although it may be an evolution thing.
-
No you were trying to argue against The Accountant's claim that people enacting new bans need to show their worth by insinuating it is not a new ban.
No, I wasn't. I was saying that she was accepting that consanguineity bans are OK, and that where there are cousin bans, that she wasn't arguing against them. None of what I said was they should be enacted because they aren't new.
-
Given that incest is taboo pretty much everywhere, you could claim that everybody has some vague idea of genetics although it may be an evolution thing.
I agree that incest (between direct siblings) is taboo nearly everywhere (except ancient Egyptians I guess). But many societies allowed marriage between first cousins.
The fact that among Hindus certain relationships were allowed (marriage between children of a brother and a sister) while forbidding others, shows a more complex understanding of genetics. That was my point.
-
My parents told me that Sri Lankan Hindu custom has that concept and also means that if the children of two brothers or two sisters are of the same sex - so "cousin sisters" or "cousin brothers" - then their children, who would be second cousins, are not allowed to marry either because it is considered too close a relationship due to genetic risks.
Yes...that is true of South Indian Hindus as well....
-
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c241pn09qqjo
**********
In the UK and across Europe, cousin marriage is coming under increased scrutiny - particularly from doctors, who warn that children of first cousins are more likely to experience an array of health problems.
And there's now some new, potentially worrying data from Bradford to add into that mix.
Researchers at the city's university are entering their 18th year of the Born in Bradford study. It's one of the biggest medical trials of its kind: between 2007 and 2010, researchers recruited more than 13,000 babies in the city and then followed them closely from childhood into adolescence and now into early adulthood. More than one in six children in the study have parents who are first cousins, mostly from Bradford's Pakistani community, making it among the world's most valuable studies of the health impacts of cousin marriage.
And when parents are cousins, they're more likely to both be carriers. A child of first cousins carries a 6% chance of inheriting a recessive disorder, compared to 3% for the general population.
But the Bradford study took a much broader view - and sheds fresh light. The researchers weren't just looking at whether a child had been diagnosed with a specific recessive disorder. Instead they studied dozens of data points, observing everything from the children's speech and language development to their frequency of healthcare to their performance at school. Then they used a mathematical model to try to eliminate the impacts of poverty and parental education - so they could focus squarely on the impact on "consanguinity", the scientific word for having parents who are related.
They found that even after factors like poverty were controlled for, a child of first cousins in Bradford had an 11% probability of being diagnosed with a speech and language problem, versus 7% for children whose parents are not related.
They also found a child of first cousins has a 54% chance of reaching a "good stage of development" (a government assessment given to all five year-olds in England), versus 64% for children whose parents are not related.
Aside from health concerns, there's another reason some people want to see cousin marriage banned: its impact on social cohesion. This is what's largely driving the debate in Scandinavia.
Back at the Bradford house, the beautician is putting her finishing touches to the hair of the three sisters, ahead of their big wedding at the weekend. Ayesha, the sister who is in a cousin marriage, is reflective and thoughtful about her own near decade-long relationship. "There are difficulties - we've been through lots together, we have sacrificed a lot," she says about her husband. "But we are happy together."
"I think even with love marriages you're going to have problems. They'll just be different ones."
***********