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

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

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?

[Nearly Sane]

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.

[Sriram]

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.

[Nearly Sane]

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?

[Sriram]

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.....

[Nearly Sane]

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.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

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."

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

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 Accountant, OBE, KC]

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.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Great, thanks. And a note to Gabriella, you were right, and I was wrong.

Ok thanks for that - nice of you to say that.

[Nearly Sane]

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.

[Nearly Sane]

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.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

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."

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

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 

[jeremyp]

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.

[jeremyp]

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.

[Nearly Sane]

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.

[Sriram]

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.

[Sriram]

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....

[Sriram]

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."

***********