http://www.sciam.com/blog/60-second...ncest-may-not-be-best-but-marriage-2008-12-22 Incest may not be best, but marriage bans should be rolled back, scientists say Inbreeding is the source of jokes about British royalty and is associated with increased birth defects among offspring. The practice is so reviled that 31 U.S. states ban marriage between first cousins or allow it only if the couple has undergone genetic counseling or at least one partner is sterile or no longer fertile because of age. But those laws "seem ill-advised" and "should be repealed," a geneticist and medical historian write in today's PLoS Biology. "Neither the scientific nor social assumptions that informed them are any longer defensible." The US "cousin marriage" prohibition stretches back to the 1858, when Kansas barred such marriages; Texas was the most recent state to pass a ban, in 2005, write Diane Paul, a political scientist emeritus at the University of Massachusetts, Boston, and Hamish Spencer, head of zoology at the University of Otago in New Zealand. (European countries didn’t ban the practice because there, "the rich and noble were marrying" their cousins, Spencer tells us. "In America it was immigrants and the rural poor — a much easier target of legislation than your monarch.") First cousins share about an eighth, or 12.5 percent, of their genes, according to a 2002 study in the Journal of Genetic Counseling. Because of that overlap, there's a 1.7 percent to 2.8 higher risk of intellectual disability and genetic disorders, including seizures and metabolic errors among children whose parents are first cousins than among the general population, says Robin Bennett, a certified genetic counselor and lead author of that research. That elevated risk is "comparable to a 40-year-old woman having children and we consider that perfectly acceptable," Spencer tells ScientificAmerican.com. "I can't imagine a law saying they're not allowed to have children." The father of evolution, Charles Darwin, married his first cousin, Emma Wedgwood, as did Albert Einstein when he walked down the aisle with cousin Elsa. But while marriage between first cousins occurs often in some parts of the world, and was not uncommon among immigrants and the rural poor during early American history, the practice is rare in the West, Spencer says. "It's not an issue because most people aren’t interested in their first cousin," Spencer admits. "But it does affect some individuals and it doesn’t seem particularly fair." It's worth noting that sex between more distant cousins may actually offer reproductive advantages. Pairings between third and fourth cousins result in more offspring and grandkids than more conventional couplings between folks who aren’t related, the Icelandic biotech company deCODE genetics reported in February.
It's legal in: Alabama, Alaska, California, Colorado, Connecticut, District of Columbia, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Vermont and Virginia It's legal under certain circumstances (if you're above a certain age or have undergone generic counseling) in: Arizona, Illinois, Indiana, Maine, Utah and Wisconsin http://www.ncsl.org/programs/cyf/cousins.htm
AL, GA, MS, FL, KY, TN, SC, NC, VA, LA and then the border states of IN, MO, and AR with WV thrown in for obvious reasons and PA as well because many parts are of similar culture. Add to that AK because there aren't many women up there, NY because they all think they're royalty, CA because they're strange, and of course, any disparaging list of states has to include UT. There's your 19.
The article talks about a single generation of first cousin marring first cousin. I would like to see the statistics after 3 or 4 generations of first cousin marring first cousin. In that way, the comparison to the 40 year old woman is not so valid. The older woman takes a one time statistical penalty, while I’m betting that multigenerational successive marriage of first cousins creates a strong cumulative effect. I know a lot of the problems with European monarchies didn't appear until after several generations of inbreeding.
Jebediah Springfield: People, our search is over! On this site we shall build a new town where we can worship freely, govern justly, and grow vast fields of hemp for making rope and blankets. Shelbyville Manhattan: Yes! And marry our cousins. Jebediah Springfield: I was- wha... what are you talking about, Shelbyville? Why would we want to marry our cousins? Shelbyville Manhattan: Because they're so attractive. I... I thought that was the whole point of this journey. Jebediah Springfield: Absolutely not! Shelbyville Manhattan: I tell you, I won't live in a town that robs men of the right to marry their cousins!
Are these the same brilliant scientists who said pedophilia was ok and didn't really hurt children all that much?
Wait so let me get this straight. Same-family marriages are legal in that many states. But Same-sex marriage is not legal? Yeah that seems like a logical law .
Why would anyone think a geneticist was qualified to issue an expert opinion on an issue of public policy?
Probably. Is anybody else bothered that a scientist decided to say that it is ok to meet women at a family reunion?
I call BS on this one. Please show me a link or story on any scientist anywhere who says that pedophilia is OK.
To be fair, the public policy in question is supposedly based on science (genetic complications of same-family marriages). So he was basically just saying the science that created the public policy is incorrect, therefore the public policy itself doesn't make sense.
Yep. One can legislate on moral grounds, but the fears of an extra limb or rabid Jazzmania through incest are overblown. Jazz fans are r****ded through their own merits.
Rhad, I'm being serious. He is speaking to the genetic argument for banning incest, but I disagree that it is the issue of genetics that is the justification for banning incest. It is a moralizing law. The genetics is, I think, a bolster. It seems presumptuous to me for a scientist to conclude that we as a society are making decisions based exclusively on one criterion and that that criterion falls into his area of expertise so his opinion should matter in some way. Thank you, Drs Paul and Spencer, for letting us know that the risk associated with first-cousin offspring are roughly equivalent to that of a 40 year-old mother. That's where their expertise stops.
Is it a moralizing law, though? Historically, the wealthy & powerful have been the ones that had a lot of the intermarriage stuff. Are you sure laws against it were passed for morality reasons? Or has it being illegal made it seem like it's a scandalous and immoral thing?