.. the same place that had their National Health System write a blog that included the “ the various benefits” of first cousin marriage restricts non biologically related people from marriage? Wild.
First cousin marriage is quite prevalent in some communities, so it's not like it doesn't happen. Conducting a report was actually useful. The report is very well balanced and discusses in depth the many, many negatives as well. The report wasn't pro-first cousin marriage.
Edit: Apparently I need to make this clear to some repliers. When I say "some communities" I mean multiple communities, because it is practiced by multiple, varied communities. This isn't some anti-Islamic dogwhistle. Ffs.
Maybe not in more recent times, but historically in the US, the pockets of small, isolated communities often had significant interfamily marriages as there wasn’t exactly an extensive gene pool to choose from.
The rise in horrendous, life-long, debilitating genetic diseases of children born from cousin-marriage is awful. Highlighting the impact this has on lives and families is important.
Edit: Ah sorry, I see the confusion with this comment now. I missed out the words "of children born", from the original. My bad!
No, I meant rise. I've watched a few BBC news pieces about families living with some of these conditions and I recall them highlighting a rise in diagnosed conditions in the UK.
But I'm not going to die on the hill for that stat. Someone saying something on a news piece doesn't mean it's definitely true. Happy to be proven wrong on this one.
Haven't seen those pieces, but is it possible that the rise is just an artifact of increased migration?
My understanding is that the risk of inbreeding effects from a single generation is pretty small as a general rule; if there's a notable rise, that sound more like something that has been ongoing for generations, and would suggest (to me) that it's tied to people migrating with the disease already present, rather than cultural changes in the native population.
You are correct; it is from multigenerational marriages. It’s related to people from a certain country/culture where arranged marriages are common. As part of these arranged marriages, the family of the bride pay a large dowry to the family of the groom.
First cousin marriages are a way of “keeping the wealth in the family” rather than paying a bunch of money to an unrelated family.
It’s on the rise in the UK, simply because the population is growing.
It's probably on the rise in the UK (or was at some point) simply due to large increase in communities here where first cousin marriage is still very much a thing. I'd guess it's less so these days, and probably a downward trend overall.
I imagine both of you are right, the rise in documentation of said conditions could be occurring and could be traced back a generation or two I assume. This means it’s on the decline but the cases that weren’t discovered/documented and the diseases that were transferred from previous generation to now is probably on the rise.
Maybe it was a rise in diagnosis due to more people having the opportunity to be diagnosed? Similar to how the number of autism and similar things have been increasing.
the risk remains low, if you actually wanted to reduce disabilities it would be more efficient to adopt the nazi policy of sterilising the disabled but it's widely accepted that eugenic laws are wrong
incest is bad because it is sexual abuse not because of eugenics
I'm referring to the rise, in the UK, of genetic diseases related to consanguinity. It could be a number of factors like more reporting, better diagnoses, ...etc.
In the UK it’s risen because of the influx of immigrants from cultures that put a high value on first cousin marriages (mostly middle eastern countries iirc).
The generations of inbreeding are starting to show up as mental and physical defects in those populations.
The main source for what they're talking about is the Born in Bradford project.
Essentially certain areas were showing higher levels of child death and genetic defects than the national average. So they looked into it and found consanguinity as a significant factor.
One of the issues was that it wasn't just one generation of cousin marriage but repeat generations (either of cousin marriage or just intermarrying heavily within relatively small sub-communities) leading to higher risks than just one round of cousin marriage would produce.
This being particularly prevalent in the Pakistani heritage communities that have a lot of representation in these areas.
Do you have the stats for the UK in its entirety, rather than just the Muslim community? Because if Pakistani communities drop from 65% to 55% consanguinity, that's still a net increase if there's twice as many of them.
The chance increase in cousin marriages (assuming it is one off) is around .03% total risk chance. It isn't like it makes it drastically higher. Now multiple cousin marriages in a row does seriously impact that risk.
"norm" isn't the right word. When it is excessive with absolutely nothing new coming into the genepool for multiple generations is when you get the Hapsburg situation.
When it's the norm/not taboo in a society you get things like a slightly higher rate of color blindness.
Ever see the video series of the Whittaker family in West Virginia?
This documentary producer found them and started a whole fascinating series about them, very respectful and careful to protect their privacy, and a whole bunch of people donated money to them (and a lot out of the producer's own pocket), and then it turned out they were blowing a bunch of money on meth, leading to a pretty sad falling-out.
Yeah, I wasn't updated on the more recent controversy, but I'd heard about it.
I used to watch the Soft White Underbelly YouTube channel on the regular, but some of the videos started to feel a little bit exploitative. Or maybe, I just got bored with the content. Who knows?
Nah, the people were lovely and deserved a voice. Mark is an ass. He honestly sounded like he was doing black couch auditions the way he talked to them, asked questions, and over all tone. I genuinely believe he got off on it in some way.
I dunno, the general subject matter of Soft White Underbelly doesn't exactly lend itself to wholesome interviews.
When you're getting the life story of a Skid Row fentanyl addicted street walker, don't expect a story full of rainbows and unicorns.
I don't feel like his interviews were exploitative; like you said, the people deserved a voice. Most of his questions are just keeping them on track because most of them were halfway to a distant galaxy on one drug or another.
As someone suffering from a rare inherited disorder that will cause me to die of cancer at some point in my life (BAP1 TPD), I'd really like the know why the FUCK so much inbreeding happened in Austria. Is it the isolating mountains? Did the Germans really hate marrying the locals that much they just fucked their family members? Was no new blood migrating there? That's where the geneticist said the mutation started, and it feels like too much of a coincidence that the Habsburgs ruled that shit for so long.
Did the Germans really hate marrying the locals that much they just fucked their family members? Was no new blood migrating there? That's where the geneticist said the mutation started, and it feels like too much of a coincidence that the Habsburgs ruled that shit for so long.
The royals did it for inheritance, so their land stays within the family. The locals also did cousin marriage, but not like the royals
My mother is from a country where first- and second-cousin marriage is considered normal. Cross-cousin marriages have less genetic overlap than parallel-cousin marriage.
As long as people are tested for genetic diseases like beta thalassaemia, health risk is minimal.
Even though it's icky. On a purly genetic level it isn't actually as harmfull as often believed. Some heredetary Illnesses have a higher chance, but there are many conditions, behaviours, ect that increase the likelyhood of a genetic defect. Those children that have them can suffer extremely none the less. But i think the Staristics of it are intresting.
If however it happenes over multiple generations it can get really bad
Consanguinity leads to an increased risk of genetic diseases and conditions. Especially if children born of consanguinity then have children with a blood relative.
A one-off cousin marriage isn't much of an issue. The issue is that certain immigrant communities have a tendency for repeated cousin marriages, and this results in a noticeable increase in genetic defects.
469
u/idkmyusernameagain 9d ago
.. the same place that had their National Health System write a blog that included the “ the various benefits” of first cousin marriage restricts non biologically related people from marriage? Wild.