Let The People Vote: Should Heterosexual First-Cousins be allowed to be Married?

[Ian David]

And if we vote "no," then let's make sure the law also vacates any marriages between first-cousins.


Graphic: States That Allow Same-Sex Marriage Vs. States That Allow Marriage Between First Cousins
by David Badash on December 26, 2009



More:
http://thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/graphic-states-that-allow-same-sex-marriage-vs-states-that-allow-marriage-between-first-cousins/news/2009/12/26/6464

[dalaigh lllama]

1. Wow. I didn't realize ANY states allowed first cousins to marry

That is messed up.

[Cirque du So-What]

5. Does first-cousin marriage pick your pocket?

Interfere with your daily routine? Trouble your sleep? Didn't think so.

Same-sex marriage doesn't do any of those things either, yet some say it's 'messed up' as well. Who are we to pick & choose which actions - ones that don't harm the aggrieved party - deserve protection under the law and which ones don't? Just because it triggers someone's gag reflex isn't sufficient reason to roll back the clock to more ignorant times.

Oh, and if anyone's concerned about the children, take a look:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/theres-nothing-wrong-with-cousins-getting-married-scientists-say-1210072.html

Let those who are outraged remain outraged if they can't overcome their outmoded mores, but it's a damned shame that laws are shaped by the 'yuk factor' whether it's 1st-cousin marriage OR same-sex marriage.

[dalaigh lllama]

34. Don't have a problem with gay marriage -- and it shouldn't be up for a vote

It's a civil right. And if first cousins want to get married, huzzah. I still say it's messing with fate. I doubt if it's as prevalent now anyway, since there's more mobility in society. But if you do genealogy on some of these families in small burgs in the 1800's and earlier, you'd see first cousins marrying generation after generation -- not so good for the gene pool. Hapsburgs were just a famous example of what can go wrong.

[noamnety]

35. "I still say it's messing with fate."

Do you bring that up when you hear about someone 35 or older getting married?

[dalaigh lllama]

36. One could say that whenever ANYONE gets married

But usually I just say "Congratulations."

[noamnety]

37. There's a response we can agree on. (nt)

[TheWraith]

39. Do you know the actual risks of genetic abnormality in a first-cousin marriage?

About 2.3% higher than for a marriage between any other two random people.

[noamnety]

25. Being prejudiced is what's messed up.

This OP was offensive both other times it was posted (by other people). It remains so, it appears to be flamebait designed not only to support gay marriage, but also as an invitation for bigoted comments against couples who marry.

20% of ALL marriages throughout the world are of cousins. It's legal and normal in most countries, including western developed ones. In some countries/ethnic/religious groups, the rate is as high as 50%. It's insulting to cousins in this culture who are married, and it's a broadbrush insult against cultures where it's the norm.

[Cirque du So-What]

2. I see your point

but I'm unwilling to advocate punishing a group of people - apparently out of spite - because another group of people are aggrieved.

When I saw this posted here a couple days ago, I felt it necessary to point out that studies don't show compelling evidence of elevated risk of birth defects among the offspring from 1st-cousin unions. Also, note that it's legal in California, New York & practically all of New England, while it remains (officially) taboo in Kentucky & West Virginia - those places some here love to condemn at the drop of a hat.

I'll take the opportunity to point out a similarity I neglected to see when I posted the other day, however: opposition to both 1st-cousin marriage and same-sex marriage stems in no small part from a 'yuk factor.' It's a damned shame when liberties are curtailed because some are sent reeling for the fainting couch with a case of the vapours - all over someone else's behavior that doesn't affect them one jot or tittle.

[The_Commonist]

3. Only if the man has had a vasectomy.

There are reasons for some taboos.
Inbreeding is not a good idea.
If cousins want to marry, and don't produce any offspring, well then, that covers the reason for that taboo.

[Cirque du So-What]

6. Got a link to this assertion?

or is it just something that you 'know?'

[The_Commonist]

8. What assertion?

I'm not sure what you're referring to...

[Ian David]

10. You're supposed to use THIS when you say that...

[Cirque du So-What]

17. Start anywhere you want:

'Only if the man has had a vasectomy.
There are reasons for some taboos.
Inbreeding is not a good idea.
If cousins want to marry, and don't produce any offspring, well then, that covers the reason for that taboo.'

I'll go with this definition:

assertion: asserted - stated, declared or alleged, especially with confidence but no proof.

[The_Commonist]

27. How about...

...the incidence of hemophilia among European royalty?

[Cirque du So-What]

29. European royalty has been aware that they possess the recessive gene for hemophilia for a long time

and, yes, they should have taken it into account before procreating with their cousins. The gene for hemophilia is not so widespread in the general population. Cousins who would marry with procreation in mind should keep recessive genes in mind, but the risk is not significantly elevated by selecting someone from the general population with whom to have children.

Besides, what's to prevent cousins from procreating without benefit of clergy? Any laws against that? Are you prepared to climb into those beds too? I swear...some people...claim to be socially liberated and yet when it comes to their own peculiar pet prohibitions, they're no different from the born-again Taliban in the restrictions they would impose on the rest of society.

:eyes:

[The_Commonist]

30. You know, you really are very unpleasant.

This could have been quite an interesting discussion.
But you have ruined it for me.

G'bye!

[Cirque du So-What]

32. Yep, that's me. Mr. Unpleasant.

I get that way when I see people advocating curtailing the liberties of others based on unfounded assumptions. That's how I roll. FWIW, I consider bigotry in all its forms unpleasant as well.

[noamnety]

33. The equivalent argument to "what about hemophilia" appears to be

"what about aids?"

Neither is a reason to disallow marriage - for a number of (hopefully obvious) reasons.

There is a risk factor which can be mitigated - and those risks are related to having sex (and reproducing), not related to a marriage contract directly. Neither of those risks is something the state needs to legislate. Mother Theresa and Abraham Lincoln both had hemophilia - doesn't seem to me like the state should have made their births a crime.

[racaulk]

12. That's the thing about taboos, they're all relative.

What is considered taboo for one society may be completely acceptable for another.

For example, in some parts of the Middle East it is considered taboo for women to show their hair and faces in public. In some Hindu cultures, it is considered taboo to slaughter cattle and eat beef. At one time in the United States, discussion of the issues of divorce, abortion, and sex before marriage was considered taboo.

For most present-day Americans, however, most of these things are certainly not considered taboo. At least the discussion of them is not.

No taboo is universal. So when one says something is taboo, it is not a universal truth and is subject to change over time. Why should first-cousin marriage be different?

[noamnety]

26. I am sorry to see this post here. It's based on bad science.

The risk of birth defects among couples is LESS than the risk of defects in noncousins when the woman is over 40. I don't see you advocating that men must have a vasectomy once their wife hits 40.

The risk of birth defects among couples is LESS than the risk of defects in noncousins when in vitro fertilization is used. I haven't seen anyone trying to stigmatize in vitro to the same degree that cousins are stigmatized.

The term "inbreeding" when applied to cousins is an offensive slur.

Albert Einstein, btw - a product of a cousin marriage. He married one of his cousins.

FDR and Eleanor Roosevelt - cousins.

[Arkansas Granny]

4. An interesting question.

I have heard all my life that if first cousins married, their children, if any, would be at high risk of mental and physical defects. Apparently, this is not true, so lifting the ban wouldn't really be that big of a deal.

http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2564/whats-wrong-with-cousins-marrying

I found this paragraph to be very interesting:

"...First-cousin marriage is currently illegal or restricted in 31 states. (Some states allow it if there's no chance of procreation--interesting in light of conservative opposition to gay marriage on the grounds that the institution's function is to produce children.)..."

[Cirque du So-What]

7. That IS interesting

especially the part about conservative opposition to same-sex marriage. Conservatroids are capable of incredible feats of doublethink, however, and with a couple flips of mental switches, they can pretty well reconcile anything - no matter how ironic or contradictory in terms.

[Ian David]

9. See also: Documentary spotlights Catholic denial of paraplegic weddings

Documentary spotlights Catholic denial of paraplegic weddings
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x3662570

[stray cat]

11. and if we vote yes - more power to them....Same for multiple marriages

are you going to use a similar argument for letting adults marry children? There are better arguments to make - this one waters down and weakens the case for same sex marriage

[Cirque du So-What]

19. Unlike cousin marriages, there's a good reason for a prohibition against multiple marriages

Legal rights of the spouses & their children. Courts have plenty on their plate handling disposition of property and other legal rights with just one set of spouses. Imagine the legal nightmares that would inevitably occur if multiple spouses & their children are involved.

Once again, I disregard any 'yuk factor,' going instead with legal reasons for such a prohibition.

[Name removed]

13. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Cirque du So-What]

18. Now THAT's a different kettle of fish!

There's no (viable) society on earth that condones closer-kin unions like this. Those who engage in what is rightfully labeled as incest are ostracized (also rightfully so)...and BTW, it occurs at all strata in our society - not just among the 'rednecks.'

Speaking of which...why is it alright to tell jokes, openly express contempt, and otherwise show one's ass by denigrating 'rednecks,' 'poor white trash,' 'hillbillies?' All other forms of racism, sexism, ageism, whatever-ism are roundly criticized, but if you're on the lower economic rungs, white or from Appalachia (insert 'flyover country' as well), you're fair game and somehow deserve all the abuse coming your way. WTF?

[racaulk]

14. If two first cousins want to marry one another, I say let them. More power to them.

Should we put their rights to do so up to a popular vote? Absolutely not.

[Ian David]

15. No, we shouldn't. But we CAN. And THAT is the point. So, I say DO IT.

And by doing it, we can finally end the madness of putting people's rights up to a popular vote.

[racaulk]

20. I'm not convinced that would be the end of it.

Wouldn't putting the marriage rights of a different minority up for a popular vote just provide us with more of the same? It is the majority that is plaguing us with this process by forcing these votes, and if the majority doesn't lose anything (in terms of rights, power, privilege, profit, etc.) by doing so, how would demonizing this minority at the voting box produce results that are any different than what we are currently seeing in our own struggle?

When minorities go after one another, we only hurt each other and the majority wins. Every time.

[Ian David]

21. Maybe. n/t

[racaulk]

16. One more thing, that first map is inaccurate.

New Jersey certainly does not allow for same sex marriages. Yesterday's NJ Senate vote made that painfully obvious.

I know it's not your image, Ian David, but I wanted to point out the inaccuracy.

:hi:

[galledgoblin]

22. both maps seem to be a bit fibbed.

wiki has a couple pretty nice graphics:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Samesex_marriage_in_USA.svg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Cousin_marriage_map1.svg

according to that, the graphic is basically true, but it includes and excludes some states; take Wisconsin for example. it bans equal marriage, but does have domestic partnerships. it bans marriage between cousins, unless the woman is 55 or older, or one is unable to reproduce.

http://www.ncsl.org/default.aspx?tabid=4266
http://fairwisconsin.blogspot.com/2009/07/domestic-partnerships-reference-guide.html

[bluedawg12]

23. There doesn't appear to be a scientific basis for prohibiting 1st cousin marriage.

"According to the National Society of Genetic Counselors, birth defects are 2 to 3
percent more common in children born to first cousins than among the general population — a real risk, but not enough to justify the bans."

Source: http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2008/12/cousinmarriage/

Read More http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2008/12/cousinmarriage/#ixzz0c2d5xPMP

[sui generis]

24. do they have to be married before they can have sex?

Shouldn't we make the law "allow them to fuck and have kids"????

As usual the law confuses marriage with sex and with procreation. Marriage is about defining your family unit and about property rights, period.

[Raejeanowl]

28. Inbreeding

That's just nasty. What's left besides first and second degree relatedness? The law has changed significantly in my state since I last cared enough to ask, probably while in the throes of an unlawful (then) and unfulfilled teenage desire to grow up and marry my second cousin.

As for vacating the law and rendering a consummated-especially, consummated marriage with children-invalid, you know as well as I that things just don't happen that way.









(edited for clarity)

[LuvNewcastle]

31. Sure.

I see no problem with first cousins marrying. Saves money at Christmastime.;-)

[kevinbgoode]

38. I want to vote on whether evangelicals should be allowed to marry

since it is rather obvious that it is harmful to society, and the institution of the family, to allow con-artist con-servative evangelicals to produce children with the sole purpose of indoctrinating them against the rest of the community.

[Betty Karlson]

40. It's an interesting thought. But impractical.

Because it would require a definition of "evengelical" that can be proven and legally certified.