'Silence on cousin marriage is the unspeakable face of liberalism'

[Nearly Sane]

Matthew Syed on the attempt to ban cousin marriage.

https://www.thetimes.com/article/723d4ade-fbfa-4bbf-a63a-69f5f1807096?shareToken=c4d0343fc863335cfd6ff62ae0d03799

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

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. 

[Nearly Sane]

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?

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

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. 

[Nearly Sane]

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.

[Nearly Sane]

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

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

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.

[Nearly Sane]

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?

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

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.

[Nearly Sane]

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?

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

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. 

[Steve H]

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.

[Nearly Sane]

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?

[Nearly Sane]

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.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

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.

[Nearly Sane]

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.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

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?

[Steve H]

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?

[Sriram]

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

[Nearly Sane]

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.

[Nearly Sane]

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.

[Nearly Sane]

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

[Steve H]

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.)

[Nearly Sane]

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.

[jeremyp]

  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.