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

[Nearly Sane]

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.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

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.

[Nearly Sane]

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.

[jeremyp]

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.

[jeremyp]

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.

[Nearly Sane]

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.

[Nearly Sane]

They are both still new restrictions in the abstract. I think you are splitting hairs.

isn't that what law does?

[jeremyp]

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.

[jeremyp]

isn't that what law does?

For the most part, yes.

[Nearly Sane]

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.

[jeremyp]

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.

[Nearly Sane]

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.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

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.

[Nearly Sane]

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?

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

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 

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

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.

[Nearly Sane]

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.

[Nearly Sane]

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.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

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....

[Nearly Sane]

I wonder what assumptions caused you to jump to the conclusion that Sriram disapproves of genetics....

The tone of that sentence.

[Steve H]

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.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

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 Accountant, OBE, KC]

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.

[Nearly Sane]

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.

[Nearly Sane]

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.