At minimum, 3 of the 6 I mentioned. How many of the Pakistanis that you generalized had this information at their fingertips? Exactly. You are either being purposefully disingenuous, or just have an arousal from spouting superfluous ignorance. 1.7%-2%. Go educated yourself on the "problems" associated with interfamily marriages. Just like others have said before, 41 year old's have a higher percentage of giving a genetic defect in newborns. I guess they too are "ignorant" of these problems. I think the only one here who has problem with the definition of ignorance is you. No, because then it doesn't fall into the definition of ignorance. I guess this further proves my point that you have no idea what ignorance really is. Again, go learn the definition of ignorance. If they know the consequences, in what way is that ignorance? There is a difference, and you seem to be only who doesn't understand it.
I did before. I can't remember the exact amount, but I didn't make the cut-off line for contributing members. I probably should donate again. But as a poor ass student again these days, I tend not to have much in the bank at any time.
The hot Pakistani girl according to DD will have a third eye on one of her t***......still interested?
Not really a valid point because the divorce rates being significantly lower have a lot to do with culture, too (i.e. it's not as socially acceptable for a Pakistani woman to get a divorce as it is in Western culture).
LINK. I'm also curious to know what you guys think about marrying second cousins? It looks like the risk of birth defects lowers significantly.
Again, I'm still interested in seeing which genetic disorders are running rampant in the Pakistani community. Anyone have any sort of link about this at all? Are we really getting eyes on nipples as DD suggests?
Is it that hard to sift through the first post in this thread? It's quite pathetic to see grown men unable to click on links and follow the arguments provided in a thread, then come steaming in clamoring for attention and evidence. Here's a 3rd link for further clarification, and more links are provided on this site: http://wwwwakeupamericans-spree.blogspot.com/2008/02/british-muslim-inbreeding-causing.html Here is a 4th link, done by an independent medical group, that proves inbreeding causes genetic defects: http://www.neurology-asia.org/articles/20073_015.pdf
That's exactly what this, it's an enlightened debate. Inbreeding in Saudi Arabia is just as prevalent as Pakistan; I think it eventually boils down to the Islam world being unable to adapt to modern society. If you don't mind me saying, it's a culture mired in the past, unable to look to the future. I shouldn't be chastised for actually caring and trying to reduce the income disparity in the world. You can point to the royal families and say inbreeding has always been around, but they can afford to have weaker genetics. It's not like they will be challenged or forced to think for themselves in modern times - not with the resources they are born with. The upper class work force in Europe, Japan, Australia and America certainly aren't having kids with their cousins anymore. Ethnic minorities don't have the advantage of being able to idle around their entire lives like the royal families, and if they want to ensure the health and prosperity for their babies (or atleast give them the best chance to succeed), I think genetic diversity is the answer. Call it eugenics, call it racism, call it whatever you want to continue living in your ignorant bubble. Evidence has been provided, and all I'm seeking are some logical explanations besides the typical "If it doesn't affect me, I can just look the other way" approach to life. http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2005/nov/16/immigrationpolicy.politics
It isn't just that they practice cousin marriage, its the fact that children of cousin marriages marry cousins and those children marry cousins that causes the problem. A singular cousin marriage in and of itself is minimally dangerous, its the accumulation of genetic traits that occurs when close relative marriages occur over the course of many generations.
If you've read Gustave Le Bon, you'd know there is such a thing as the domino effect as well as the psychology of the crowd. There might not be a report on the yahoo front page that links the two, which is what people here need, but it's just one event out of many that has been adding up. I only bring this issue to light because I want to see more Pakistani success stories, or at least one once in a while. Every story we hear out of Pakistan or from a Pakistani is extremely negative, so I took out my x ray glasses and took a gander at what lies beneath. Just because widespread cousin sex stems from poverty or lack of education doesn't make it any less of an issue. We also don't know enough about genetics to say it doesn't impact south Asians in a much worse way than white phenotypes who do it - as the links provided in the post above show some alarming statistics.
Yes, it's been mentioned several times in this thread. http://bbs.clutchfans.net/showpost.php?p=5035499&postcount=23
It's a completely irrelevant point. Not to mention marrying cousins also stems from not really having your options open and wanting to keep it "in the family", so it's a lifetime commitment.
<br> No, I got the point in the first post. I just asked what specific disorders were prevalent. Thanks for not answering From the article you provided: http://www.neurology-asia.org/articles/20073_015.pdf <br> The whole cousin marriage thing is pretty whack. The problems surrounding it are deep rooted and revolve around a huge lot of issues. I do hope things change sooner rather than later. Though, that is probably unlikely.
btw, your sig reminds me of this: <object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/1plPyJdXKIY&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/1plPyJdXKIY&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
Well, to be fair, what that article says is a bit different from the OP post, which deals with generations of inbreeding. As has been said, random pairings of cousins don't really matter much. But over time it becomes a big deal. 1 in 10 stated by the British statistics is pretty high. It's very unfortunate that I actually agree that such intermarriage is a problem. And I do hope the British Pakistanis change their way of life. But that is very different from the view of the OP, which made it a "cultural acceptance" issue. People should be free to do what they believe is best without being judged. I believe that one should try to inform someone else of risks, without attacking their culture at the same time. And whether they accept or reject the advice it is up to them.
Wow, you're extremely misinformed. Marrying your cousin has absolutely nothing to do with Islam whatsoever. It is rooted into Middle Eastern culture as a result of earlier 'European' culture. The reason it still exists is because it arrived in the Middle East later than it did for everyone else. In any case, if you want an explanation, it's quite simple. They view these types of marriages as having far more positives than negatives. Some of these positives include the fact that closer families means an easier marriage. Money, which is hard to come by, stays in the family. Husband and wife probably have similar upbringing and hence, some common interests. They understand each others' internal issues very well. Negates the need to get to know everyone for years and years (remember, poverty = daughters gotta go quick). That's their opinion. Since most of those things are not measurable, I think they have a right to their opinion. I think what's far more concerning that is your inability to differentiate between Middle Eastern culture and Islam while speaking as if you are an authority on the matter. It's a common mistake, but in this case, I hope you can see that you have mistaken the two, which is probably what leads to you thinking Muslims are in a "culture mired in the past". Islam isn't a culture. Christians, Jews and Hindus (not sure if this teerm is appropriate, my apoligies if not) in the Middle East, North Africa and the Indian subcontinent engage in the same practice just as often. If I'm mistaken, I apologise. But it seems to me as though you are using this theory to feed into your underlying theory - which is that Muslims can't integrate and are mired in the past. Though that may be true in certain situations (and with good reason mind you), it is certainly not true here. For the purposes of this argument, I think it's clear that you disagree with the practice and so do I. Whether we should consider it imoral that they carry on doing this is the main argument here, and I don't think it is unless someone can prove that eliminating that 1% of problems is more important than the visibly higher succes rate in keeping a family together that they've enjoyed. Having said that, if there was some sort of damning evidence to show that this type of marriage does not greatly increase family stability, I would be compelled to agree with your theory.
Send him an e-mail as a reminder. The guy is very busy and this is his "grand hobby." That's how I view it, at any rate. Clutch is a really nice guy. Just contact him again and I'm sure he'll fix you up if you've donated. Just be patient.
The article Sammy posted is irrelevant. It states, "An argument can be made that marriages of first cousins descended from strong stock can produce exceptional children." And goes on to say Darwin produced 7/10 healthy children who lived normal lives. There's no evidence what he could have produced if he married someone he wasn't related to, so there is no real barometer of success/failure in that case. I believe it was the Hindu's who used to commit the act of Sati, where a widow would be forced (or voluntarily) to throw herself on her husbands burning body at his funeral. Ala, Self immolation. It was clearly wrong and as a result soon became outlawed across India with the introduction of British rule. This is an example of a nation (and a religion) being forced to make an adjustment, and accepting it's wrong after the change was made. We don't know how much longer it would have gone on if the British hadn't abolished the practice. With Pakistan struggling as much as it is today, don't you think it's time to enforce some change and inform these people on the mistakes they're making? If they can follow the cricket team closely, they can listen to news updates about the genetic problems this practice is causing for their fellow Pakistani's abroad.
