ForumGarden

i came across this article - it is quite old 2002 & wondered what you all felt about it seeing as contriversial issues go down well here

from my own point of view i had a massive crush on one of my older cousins when i was about 12, nothing ever happened but its not uncommon for cousins to get together

http://fire.biol.wwu.edu/trent/trent/firstcousins.pdf

pinky - :yh_rotfl

seriously tho, what do you think?

I am not sure I would want to get together with a cousin. Especially if we had known each other all our lives.

But this brings to mind an interesting thought, though. What with all the newest technology and break throughs in conception, sperm banks, in-vitro fertilization....what if you were to meet someone, fall in love and then find out the person was a half-sibling, or a cousin?

Marie5656 wrote: What with all the newest technology and break throughs in conception, sperm banks, in-vitro fertilization....what if you were to meet someone, fall in love and then find out the person was a half-siblingThe problem is addressed - after a fashion - in http://www.emule.com/poetry/?page=poem&poem=4963 Madame La Marquise by Robert W. Service (a poet I, like Ronald Reagan, admire immensely).

You'll be aware, no doubt, that an uncle may marry a niece in Rhode Island in some circumstances?

spot wrote: The problem is addressed - after a fashion - in http://www.emule.com/poetry/?page=poem&poem=4963 Madame La Marquise by Robert W. Service (a poet I, like Ronald Reagan, admire immensely).

You'll be aware, no doubt, that an uncle may marry a niece in Rhode Island in some circumstances?


Interesting, Spot. I never heard of the Rhode Island thing..I have to wonder what "circumstances" are considered there.

Marie5656 wrote: Interesting, Spot. I never heard of the Rhode Island thing..I have to wonder what "circumstances" are considered there.It is, I understand, a religious dispensation for a specified sect or creed, but I'd not put money on that.

spot wrote: It is, I understand, a religious dispensation for a specified sect or creed, but I'd not put money on that.


Well, thank you, Spot. This is why I like coming here, we always learn new things.

spot wrote:

You'll be aware, no doubt, that an uncle may marry a niece in Rhode Island in some circumstances?


I never had feelings for any of my cousins, and have never gave it any thought what so ever, but to be honest for others to engage in it, I feel its none of my business.

But uncles marrying nieces should not only be illegal in my opinion, but should also be shot. At least labeled as a sexual predator.....something.

K.Snyder wrote: But uncles marrying nieces should not only be illegal in my opinion, but should also be shot. At least labeled as a sexual predator.....something.No doubt in Rhode Island you could be prosecuted for expressing such a point of view. I would at least hope so.

I'm so unutterably sick of these "X should be shot" expressions, it demeans everything civilization should stand for.

Pinky wrote: You'd have to be a bit sick to want to marry your niece wouldn't you?My understanding - and again I'm not going to look it up - is that the sect or creed in question considers it possible that they are acting under divine instruction, and that the State legislature concurred. I'm also sure that it's astoundingly rare in their community.

spot wrote: My understanding - and again I'm not going to look it up - is that the sect or creed in question considers it possible that they are acting under divine instruction, and that the State legislature concurred. I'm also sure that it's astoundingly rare in their community.
From the small amount of info you gave us, that is what I think too. Religeous beliefs are very powerful.

There's a good reason for not normally fancying your family. There are various parts of the UK which have problems with weird inbreeding.

There is a village near me where virtually everyon has ginger hair!:-2 Odd but tru!

Draco the third wrote: There's a good reason for not normally fancying your family. There are various parts of the UK which have problems with weird inbreeding.

There is a village near me where virtually everyon has ginger hair!:-2 Odd but tru!


But could it just be a cultural thing, or ethnic..like so many Irish having red hair and freckles??

Wasn't there a period where folks married within thier families. It was second cousins and such. But I think the marriages were done to keep the blood pure or something?

Sheryl wrote: Wasn't there a period where folks married within thier families. It was second cousins and such. But I think the marriages were done to keep the blood pure or something?Perhaps you're thinking of a couple of thousand years' worth of Pharaohs tending to marry their sisters? Now that really was an Empire to look back on with a sense of achievement.

http://www.cousincouples.com/info/facts.shtml

I was always under the misconception (no pun intended) that the offspring of 1st cousins would run a much higher risk of birth defects. I found this article that states that living in a small community can increase the chances, also. That would allow for the example I can give of 1st cousins who had 8 children. Five of them died before they were 2 years old. Three lived to be adults with 2 of them seemingly normal. One definitely not normal, but very gifted musically. They lived in a community of 2000 population, so I guess the gene pool was getting pretty weak.

Thanks for bringing up this topic.

Speaking for myself, I never would have been attracted to any of my cousins. All the males were a bunch of dorks.

spot wrote: Perhaps you're thinking of a couple of thousand years' worth of Pharaohs tending to marry their sisters? Now that really was an Empire to look back on with a sense of achievement.


No wasn't there some in more current history. I could of swore I read bout Royal families doing it at one time. And other blue blood families. Dunno may be something I just thought I read.

Marie5656 wrote: I am not sure I would want to get together with a cousin. Especially if we had known each other all our lives.

But this brings to mind an interesting thought, though. What with all the newest technology and break throughs in conception, sperm banks, in-vitro fertilization....what if you were to have the child of your brother


:-3 :-3 :-3 :-3

I slept with my cousin when I was 13, I'm not saying it was great but dont knock it till you tried it.

Sheryl wrote: No wasn't there some in more current history. I could of swore I read bout Royal families doing it at one time. And other blue blood families. Dunno may be something I just thought I read.


Sheryl, in my post above you the article explains about the preference for marrying cousins

Little Chamonix wrote: I slept with my cousin when I was 13, I'm not saying it was great but dont knock it till you tried it.Some people arrive with a whimper, others with a bang. This is quite a loud one. Do hang around and get to know us better, even if we're not related!

Sheryl wrote: No wasn't there some in more current history. I could of swore I read bout Royal families doing it at one time. And other blue blood families. Dunno may be something I just thought I read.The British Royal family has gone in for marrying first cousins now and then but not very frequently - William III, George I, George IV and Queen Victoria all did it.

There's a well-known recent study in communities where first-cousin marriage is commonplace:

Researchers' data from United Arab Emirates University, Al Ain highlight new research.

Parental consanguinity in Arabs was not associated with a higher risk of breast cancer.

"An estimated 600 million people in the world have consanguineous parents. The effect of consanguinity on the risk of breast cancer is uncertain," scientists reported.

"The objective of this case-control study was to examine whether parental consanguinity and different levels of inbreeding affect the risk and pathology characteristics of breast cancer. Material over a 36-month period, consecutive female breast cancer patients were recruited in the main cancer hospital in the United Arab Emirates. All were locally born Arabs with a tissue diagnosis of breast cancer. The controls were locally born Arabs without breast cancer matched to cases by sex, age, and residence," explained S. Denic and colleagues, United Arab Emirates University.

[...] The researchers concluded, "The rates of pathological stage of disease, tumor histologies, and tumor grades were similar between more and less inbred patients. Parental consanguinity in Arabs, even when a marriage is between first cousins or double first cousins, was not associated with an altered risk of breast cancer."

tmbsgrl wrote: Why would you even think to sleep with your cousin.. Aren't there any other people in your town??Maybe it's frowned upon in small-town America for two 13-year-old boys to sleep together unless they're close relatives?

Err I'm a girl.

One of the benefits of small town life I guess. Anyways like I said don't knock it till you've tried it .

Zapata wrote: Sheryl, in my post above you the article explains about the preference for marrying cousins


Thanks Zapata, I'll take a look at it.

Is there any chance of genetic inbreeding from 1st cousins?

Jives wrote: Is there any chance of genetic inbreeding from 1st cousins?


I would think there would have to be, especially if there were any genetic abnormalities in the family history.

My own opinion shall be summed up with one word..ok then it will actually be two, but hey..







Totally gross...................

Jives wrote: Is there any chance of genetic inbreeding from 1st cousins?That's how you define inbreeding. Inbreeding = closely related genetic inheritance.

Let me try to explain it using short words. Every time I try doing this I get spat at for insulting peoples' intelligence but even so it's worth trying.

Inheriting deleterious traits harms people.

Deleterious traits can be inherited or they can spontaneously appear in a person and be subsequently passed on to the person's children.

If the deleterious trait only needs one parent to pass down it for it to show up physically in their children, then it's called Dominant instead of Recessive. If it's Dominant then the only way it can spread in a population is if some carriers of the trait are immune - like women not suffering from Haemophilia for example, so they can spread it to a new bunch of boy children - or if the child is statistically lucky and doesn't inherit that particular part of the parent's makeup - different diseases have different proportions of children inheriting the trait.

If it's a recessive deleterious trait then it only shows up if both parents are carrying it, and then only in half their children, so it can float around in a population for many generations without being cleaned out by early deaths of the carriers.

The thing about marrying a parent, a parent's sibling, a sibling or a first cousin is that the chance of both new prospective parents carrying a recessive deleterious trait are higher, given that one of them has it, because they're both closely related to an ancestor who was passing it down.

If the family, or the prospective parent, has no recessive deleterious traits then marrying any of them is purely a cultural problem, not a biological one.

If two random people from anywhere on earth both have the same recessive deleterious trait then the effect of their marrying is the same, biologically, as what you describe as "inbreeding" even though they're not closely related.

So - conclusion - with clean family genetics, there's no biological problem in first cousin marriages. With genetic editing, when it arrives, that can fix these diseases whenever they show up, again it's no longer a biological problem. Until then, random mutations will bring the diseases back into existence in every generation - it's where these genetic-inherited diseases come from in the first place - and some marriages will randomly bring two recessive carriers together anyway.

Some recessive deleterious traits (like sickle-cell anaemia) are tested for in some populations to confirm to potential carriers that they are clear to marry if they want. It's a purely cultural taboo that prevents those tests being offered to close relatives like first cousins to give them a go-ahead.

spot wrote: That's how you define inbreeding. Inbreeding = closely related genetic inheritance.

Let me try to explain it using short words. Every time I try doing this I get spat at for insulting peoples' intelligence but even so it's worth trying.

Inheriting deleterious traits harms people.

Deleterious traits can be inherited or they can spontaneously appear in a person and be subsequently passed on to the person's children.

If the deleterious trait only needs one parent to pass down it for it to show up physically in their children, then it's called Dominant instead of Recessive. If it's Dominant then the only way it can spread in a population is if some carriers of the trait are immune - like women not suffering from Haemophilia for example, so they can spread it to a new bunch of boy children - or if the child is statistically lucky and doesn't inherit that particular part of the parent's makeup - different diseases have different proportions of children inheriting the trait.

If it's a recessive deleterious trait then it only shows up if both parents are carrying it, and then only in half their children, so it can float around in a population for many generations without being cleaned out by early deaths of the carriers.

The thing about marrying a parent, a parent's sibling, a sibling or a first cousin is that the chance of both new prospective parents carrying a recessive deleterious trait are higher, given that one of them has it, because they're both closely related to an ancestor who was passing it down.

If the family, or the prospective parent, has no recessive deleterious traits then marrying any of them is purely a cultural problem, not a biological one.

If two random people from anywhere on earth both have the same recessive deleterious trait then the effect of their marrying is the same, biologically, as what you describe as "inbreeding" even though they're not closely related.

So - conclusion - with clean family genetics, there's no biological problem in first cousin marriages. With genetic editing, when it arrives, that can fix these diseases whenever they show up, again it's no longer a biological problem. Until then, random mutations will bring the diseases back into existence in every generation - it's where these genetic-inherited diseases come from in the first place - and some marriages will randomly bring two recessive carriers together anyway.

Some recessive deleterious traits (like sickle-cell anaemia) are tested for in some populations to confirm to potential carriers that they are clear to marry if they want. It's a purely cultural taboo that prevents those tests being offered to close relatives like first cousins to give them a go-ahead.
*sigh* :-4

I want your love child too...

sunny104 wrote: *sigh* :-4

I want your love child too...

:DGood lord sunny - I never see these things coming at me out of the sun...

When did you say you're in Ireland again next?

Pinky wrote: Hehe..lucky ole Spot!

How many admirers do you have now?;) :DNot only do I not know the answer to that, but it worries me that I have any at all. Nieces I can handle, admirers are scary.

Pinky wrote: Hehe..lucky ole Spot!

How many admirers do you have now?;)


I was thinking the same thing!

Spot has his own Forum Garden harem :-4

You see, Spot

we all think your brain is sexy :sneaky:

spot wrote: No doubt in Rhode Island you could be prosecuted for expressing such a point of view. I would at least hope so.

I'm so unutterably sick of these "X should be shot" expressions, it demeans everything civilization should stand for.


ok Spot...

whatever you say.

spot wrote: Not only do I not know the answer to that, but it worries me that I have any at all. Nieces I can handle, admirers are scary.
I'm not scary!

sunny104 wrote: I'm not scary!


I believe Spot is simply a modest and respectful gentleman (and I do mean gentleman) and this attention makes him blush.

Spot

That's part of your charm :-4

cherandbuster wrote: I believe Spot is simply a modest and respectful gentleman (and I do mean gentleman) and this attention makes him blush.

Spot

That's part of your charm :-4
I know, he's just fun to mess with though!

sunny104 wrote: I know, he's just fun to mess with though!


Oh Sunny

He most definitely is!

cherandbuster wrote: I was thinking the same thing!



Spot has his own Forum Garden harem :-4



You see, Spot



we all think your brain is sexy :sneaky:
Cher, don't say it....don't even THINK it!! NO HAREMS ALLOWED!! No matter how sexy we all think Spot's brain is....:yh_rotfl

SnoozeControl wrote: I wouldn't mind being a Spot groupie, but the harem thing is out... that requires brainless obedience.


Good point Snoozie

Obedience is difficult enough for me, let alone the brainless part!:rolleyes: