Funny how you don't say one thing about the ignorance Ronny displayed when he linked the Pakistani kid who allegedly hired someone to kill his mother, to it being a cultural issue.
I said he was a loon but in this thread he has been on point and on target. Meh, I like Indian food better anyway.... :grin: At least I was able to grow my ignore list....good times...good times..... DD
Not taking sides here, but just to clarify to everyone, ignorance by definition is the "lack of knowledge or information". If someone knows that his/her actions are risky or harmful but do it anyway, that's not being ignorant.
Yes but you can be ignorant about the risks which arise from ur actions OR you can be ignorant about the risk even existing. They're both ignorance. However, in this situation, there's no ignorance, because for the most part, it is a conscious decision. What DD's ultimately trying to say is that they're ignorant of his opinion that science should overrule their societal norms.
DD's definition of ignorance: These people don't know they're breaking "good ole American values" that I believe in. Everyone else's definition of ignorance: What you posted Hence, the mix up.
You always believe you're right on every issue, don't you? People do cousin marriages for family stability as they won't have to worry about divorces and such. The risk of offspring developing significant genetic disorders is only slightly higher and those people view value family stability more than a low chance of their kid being abnormal. Btw, that troll above is not me with a different username. I don't know why he has a similar username. Check my history of posts to confirm it's not me and that I don't resort to personal insults on anyone, or Clutch can check his IP address.
Thanks for clearing it up. Exactly, that's being just stupid. So in that case, smokers and most unhealthy eaters are worse than foreigners who marry their cousins not knowing the (slight) consequences.
DD is right about this one. And once again, there is a culture clash at work here. Almost all the people who seem to defend the practice on this thread seem to be Muslims or of Pakistani or maybe Arab descent. What do you mean they "won't have to worry about divorces and such"? Could cousins not get fed up with each other and get divorced? Or does the woman not have the right to demand a divorce because it would go against "family honor"? And by the way, how voluntary are these cousin marriages anyway? I read about this a lot in Germany with regard to Turkish families. "Honor killings" because a girl didn't want to marry her cousin, which she was "told to do" by the famly.
Yet you're defending ronny? Really? Do you really think this thread was intended to enlighten anyone about the potential dangers inherent in inbreeding? You need to step back and reassess before you lose more respect by defending this race-baiting troll.
If making a point and backing it up with evidence and situational examples is trolling, then feel free to label me as one. We're not all born to be goats, following the herd, caressing each others tails, fantasizing about our next poop, while basking in the mutual support we receive from our fellow goats. Like my friend Morgan said, some birds aren't meant to be caged. Their feathers are just too bright. It's become fairly obvious to me that there is an ideology in most all Muslim communities that is being ignored at the expense of scapegoating the rest of the world for their issues. And that's why we see so much violence from them, because they have consistently failed to improve themselves from within. I think it requires a separate thread to be honest, because this is a trend that people are too afraid to speak up on due to apologists screaming out, "Ignorance, ignorance, you don't know us! You don't understand us! You don't know where we come from..." like some Jenny from the block. Take a look at this article from the Kashmir Herald. http://www.kashmirherald.com/featuredarticle/democracyinpakistan.html Give me your thoughts on it, understand people living near these communties are asking similar questions, then tell me how a topic like this is "baiting".
So is anybody going to pictures of their family reunion and point out which ones that they would like to marry?
eckostylez and NMS is the Best, this point has been gone over repeatedly in this thread. As grown men, it's our job to a little background research and take a quick survey of what's going on before jumping head first into the line of war. If this was a war, you would both be dead. Arif summed it up nicely: Which leads to the statistics you find in British Pakistani's (it's not just prevalent in third world countries, Saudi Arabia, etc.): http://bbs.clutchfans.net/showpost.php?p=5044759&postcount=121 Mathloom has mentioned that genetic testing is now "mandatory" in certain nations in the Persian Gulf, but how many people do you think go through with it... or even agree with it? Is it a free service provided by the government? How many people, besides the extremely wealthy, would even care to inform themselves on this matter and change a centuries-old tradition? If the last few decades have taught us anything, it's that change and Islam are oxymoron's... unless you're loaded with black Gold and have unlimited funds at your disposal - and even then the countries seem to be more interested in turning things into a penis measuring contest.
Matty, I think it's quite inappropriate of you to act like I'm the only one with a predisposed bias. You are so caught up in making sure "outsiders" don't make assumptions and wrong judgments about Islam and the culture in the Middle East that you're failing to see the big picture. "No society can live outside the parameters of its basic ideology." There is a certain ideology associated with Islamic nations. An ideology that wants to resist change and believe they can continue to do so. An ideology that wants to blame outsiders for their internal problems - problems that have plagued them long before globalization took off. And the society is defined by the religion, so you can blame archaic thought processes "brought down from Europe" all you want, but there comes a certain point where you have to look within. Do you feel following the Quran is more important than economic opportunity? Can they go hand in hand with prosperity in the current global climate? I was in the UAE (Abu Dhabi and Dubai) for 4 months last year. I understand the local landscape very well, the sentiments of the locals and the expats, and why the govt continues to approve massive real estate projects despite the alarming number of vacancies. Even with certain strict laws and practices, these places are not indicative of the Islam world as a whole simply because of the funds they have flowing into the country. I think you'll also agree that almost everything there is a facade - the place lacks a real soul and heart. Do you think certain compromises were made, in terms of the interpretation of the Quran, once black gold was discovered and huge revenues started flowing into the country? To me, it ruins your credibility to use them as an example of "development" in the Islam world. There's a lot of fluff in what you're saying Matty, and I've provided cold, hard evidence to go against these assumptions. I sincerely believe that if we were to go to Lebanon, probably one of the most liberal Islamic countries in the Middle East, and took a poll of the various religions and how many of them routinely engaged in cousin marriages, that Islam would far and away outnumber the rest. Based on everything else that we've seen, why shouldn't it? Are you that defensive that you refuse to believe there is any connection between the religious ideology of these people and their culture? Of course, this is the one bit of data I can't provide in this thread. In regards to the genetic testing, see my posts above. In conclusion, what would you like to see happen in Islamic nations? In regards to development, in regards to ideology, in regards to distribution of wealth, etc. I'm just asking for a brief paragraph. Despite the great lengths you go to to uphold the "integrity" of Islam on these forums, you seem to be pretty content with the way things are. And that just isn't right. Spoiler I know I asked a lot of questions, but sometimes one has to be overwhelmed with the reality of his situation before he can accept what the situation really is.
Through force. Through hard hitting advertising campaigns. Through more corporate nationalism and less archaic thought processes. Through less of an emphasis on Islam, and more of an emphasis on development and prosperity. "We're tired of being different. We're tired of constant suffering that goes unnoticed by the West. We're tired of the bitterness, we're tired of the hate." To me, Malaysia is the perfect example of a nation that balances Islamic ideals with Western capitalism. And the transition wasn't a cake walk, it required the implementation of strict and controversial policies. But in the end, it resulted in one the most secular Islamic nations in the world and a constitution that grants religious freedom. All of which results in a platform for economic success and a general sense of content amongst the population when looking at the 'outside world'.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/4964934.stm http://washingtontimes.com/upi-breaking/20050213-055110-5116r.htm/ It's quite ironic that you say this because a Pakistani I talked to mentioned he had no problem admitting Pakistan is a failed state to other Pakistani's, but a small sense of pride prohibited him from telling the "outsiders" this. And it's this "me versus them" Islamic ideology that is what has always been holding the country back. It's why India has been quite successful after the partition and Pakistan has gone around in circles. The only thing propping them up all these years is their proximity to Russia and Afghanistan, making them a US ally. [ Is Pakistan close to a Yugoslavia-like defragmentation? It's too difficult to say but the current situation is a recipe for disaster: ethnic and sectarian violence, poverty, an authoritatian leader who refuses to compromise and a large influx of military weaponry and aid from a country widely seen to be anti-Muslim. Getting defensive doesn't help your case. Treat me like a fellow Pakistani and pour your heart out to me. Tell me if you think the dire fate of this nation can change without drastic measures.
Not Even Close Bud What I am saying is that if they did not know of the genetic risks inherent to inter family marriages, then they are IGNORANT of it. You can not blame someone for being ignorant. - please note I am not saying they are stupid, or dumb, only ignorant....big difference. But those that do know that there is greater risk and do so anyway, are not ignorant, they are irresponsible. And I understand it is culturally acceptable, but that does not make it ok. It does mean that culture needs to take a better look at what is good for itself, IMO. DD
I really don't have a horse in this race, but since I find ronny's rationale for his thread to be disingenuous... FindLaw Forum: A Genetic Report Should Cause a Rethinking of Incest Laws By Joanna L. Grossman, FindLaw Columnist, Special to CNN.com (FindLaw) -- Jerry Lee Lewis is notorious for having married his cousin. So are Charles Darwin and Albert Einstein. All three suffered for having violated a widely held social norm against "incestuous" unions. Yet there may be less reason for this norm, and for the laws enforcing it, than was once believed. A panoply of state laws say cousin marriages are taboo. But a new report in the Journal of Genetic Counseling, described in the New York Times last week, might send state lawmakers back to work revising their incest laws. The report concludes that cousins can have children together without running much greater risk than a "normal" couple of their children having genetic abnormalities. Accordingly, the report potentially undermines the primary justification for laws that prevent first cousins from marrying or engaging in sexual relations with one another. The laws regulating incest in different states Incest in this country is regulated through two parallel sets of laws: marriage regulations and criminal prohibitions. Marriage laws prohibit unions of parties within certain relationships of consanguinity (by blood) or affinity (by marriage). They declare such marriages void from the start. Criminal laws prohibit marriage and sexual relationships based on the same ties (with the necessary consanguinity and affinity usually defined the same way as in the marriage laws). They penalize those who disobey with fines or imprisonment. Every state today has a statute defining eligibility for marriage, and each and every one prohibits marriages between parents and children, sisters and brothers, uncles and nieces, and aunts and nephews. Some prohibit all ancestor/descendant marriages, regardless of degree. Four states extend the prohibition to marriages between parents and their adopted children. Twenty-four states prohibit marriages between first cousins, and another seven permit them only under special circumstances. Utah, for example, permits first cousins to marry only provided both spouses are over age 65, or at least 55 with evidence of sterility. North Carolina permits first cousins to marry unless they are "double first cousins" (cousins through more than one line). Maine permits first cousins to marry only upon presentation of a certificate of genetic counseling. The remaining nineteen states and the District of Columbia permit first-cousin marriages without restriction. The origins of incest laws Incest laws in this country have largely religious origins. In England, incest was punishable only in ecclesiastical courts, which ostensibly applied the law of Leviticus prohibiting persons more closely related than fourth cousins to marry. This ban applied equally to relations by blood and by marriage, based on the canonical maxim that husband and wife were one, and therefore equally related to each other's kin. American jurisdictions departed from English law by declaring incest a crime, as well as a basis for invalidating marriage. However, many states only punished relationships between first cousins and closer, and others only punished relationships of consanguinity, but not affinity. The modern justifications for incest laws Today, the justifications given for retaining statutory prohibitions on cousin marriage (and even debating the passage of new ones) are largely based on the fear that such unions will cause genetic problems for the children they produce. The states that permit cousin marriage only under certain circumstances make this underlying justification clear - since a common thread runs through all their laws. Each requires a showing that the couple will not reproduce (because of age or sterility) or, at the very least, that they have undergone counseling to understand the risks of reproduction. There are other justifications for incest laws that might be more compelling. Anthropologists Margaret Mead and Claude Levi-Strauss both wrote convincingly in defense of the "incest taboo." Mead characterized the widely held belief that incest is wrong as "among the essential mechanisms of human society." According to Mead, the taboo has strong benefits: Because certain sexual and marital relationships are categorically forbidden, and the categorical ban is instilled early on in children's minds, children can grow and develop affectionate, close bonds with a wide span of relatives, without the intrusion of "inappropriate sexuality." Children can "wander freely, sitting on laps, pulling beards, and nestling their heads against comforting breasts-neither tempting nor being tempted beyond their years." Levi-Strauss focused on the benefits of the incest taboo to society at large. The ban on intrafamily marriage forces families to reach outward and connect with other families -- and it is those connections between many different families that make society function. Possible constitutional challenges to incest laws Will the new data -- which strongly suggest, for cousins, that the genetic justification does not hold water -- mean that state prohibitions on cousin-marriages are vulnerable to constitutional attack? Certainly, the new data dramatically strengthen the basis for such an attack. The Supreme Court, in a long line of due process cases establishing the right to make important decisions about family life, has treated the right to marry as fundamental. State laws that significantly interfere with the right to marry have, therefore, been subjected to heightened scrutiny. In other words, states must show that they have a compelling reason for restricting the right to marriage, and that they have chosen means that are closely related to their stated goals. What will the states assert as the "compelling interests" that justify banning cousin marriage? One might be the desire to discourage reproduction when the children are likely to have significant birth defects. Another might be the desire to preserve intrafamily harmony. (The desire to replicate Levitical law would, of course, not be a legitimate interest for a state, given the Constitution's ban on state establishment of religion). These ends are probably sufficiently compelling under a constitutional analysis. The problem comes in another component of the constitutional analysis -- the "narrow tailoring" requirement, which tests the closeness of the relationship between the state's chosen means and its desired ends. According to the recent report, children of unrelated parents have a 3 percent to 4 percent chance of being born with a serious birth defect. Children of first cousins have only a slighter higher risk--roughly a 4 percent to 7 percent chance. Thus, the ban on cousin marriages will not go very far toward the general problem of preventing birth defects. Likewise, the concerns about intrafamily harmony are most compelling with respect to members of the same household, and thus seldom implicated in our culture, where it is fairly unusual for first cousins to grow up in close confines. The potential for family disruption is limited where cousins grow up in separate households and then marry as adults. A few courts have applied this reasoning to invalidate incest laws with respect to couples with no blood relation, like a step-sister and step-brother who became related only as adults when their parents married. The prohibition of cousin marriages suffers from problems of both under- and over-inclusiveness--flaws that are usually fatal to a statute under heightened scrutiny. These bans are underinclusive in that they do not prohibit marriage in other cases where the risk of producing children with birth defects is significant. Carriers of diseases like cystic fibrosis, for example, are permitted to marry and reproduce with other carriers, even though resulting children have a one in four chance of developing the disease. For most individuals, the decision whether to marry and reproduce in the face of known risks to resulting children is left to their discretion. The bans are over-inclusive to they extent they prevent marriage for the 93 percent of cousin-couples who will not have children with birth defects. Genetic testing may even allow those couples to prove that they do not carry any of the recessive genes known to become dangerous when doubled. Nonetheless, the broad-sweeping bans on cousin-marriage would still prevent them from marrying (except in North Carolina, which creates an exception for cousin couples that have undergone genetic counseling). More generally, scientific advances that enable doctors to screen for many potentially harmful genes may render general presumptions about genetic risks, like those embodied in marriage bans, inappropriate. When a particular individual can know his or her specific risk of passing on dangerous genes to children, how can a presumption as to the average person's general risk of doing so constitutionally be applied? Will cousins be allowed to marry? Prohibitions on cousin marriage are unique to the United States. Most other countries permit first-cousin marriages without restriction, and the rate of cousin marriages in some countries is as high as 60 percent of all marriages. But that has always been the case, and being unique has rarely motivated Americans to change their ways. A constitutional challenge to a state's ban on cousin marriage may well be successful, and studies like this recent one will be important to such a case. But even if legal barriers to cousin marriage are removed, the cultural taboo (the so-called "ick" factor) will be harder to remove. The term "incest" -- which conjures an image of a sexually exploitative relationship between an older male relative and a young girl -- is one barrier to cultural change. Cousin marriages between two adults are not, of course, incestuous in this sense. Just as the term "b*stard" gave way first to "illegitimate child" and later to "nonmarital child" in the literature on unwed parenting, perhaps "incest" could be replaced with more palatable terms like "kinship marriage" or "distant consanguineous relationships." Beyond nomenclature, cousin marriage faces other barriers. Regardless of widely reported scientific advances, many will continue to believe that cousin couples are destined to produce genetically inferior offspring. Just two years ago, one Maryland legislator spoke in favor of a proposed bill to prohibit cousin marriage, claiming that one in 32 children born to cousins has a birth defect, compared to one in 100,000 born to unrelated parents. Correcting such misperceptions will be important to the success of those advocating for cousin marriage. http://archives.cnn.com/2002/LAW/04/columns/fl.grossman.incest.04.09/
FALSE.Cousin marriages were the norm in many cultures all over the world. It's marriage within the nuclear family that is considered a universal taboo.
