Kissing Cousins

re: Kissing Cousins

sieg6529 — Wed, 31 Dec 2008 18:50:42 GMT

I remember when my cousin and I were both really young, like under 8, she said she was going to marry me. Glad that didn't happen.

re: Kissing Cousins

henrywillett — Wed, 31 Dec 2008 19:11:23 GMT

Growing up in an Italian family - extended closeness - cousins were/are very much like siblings. So the taboo for me is definitely a cultural/social one. And that still brings up the "ewww" factor for me.

re: Kissing Cousins

henrywillett — Wed, 31 Dec 2008 19:11:27 GMT

re: Kissing Cousins

sheena72 — Wed, 31 Dec 2008 19:18:54 GMT

seems like the old 'you may be a redneck joke'-----going to a family reunion looking for a date!!!!!!there are too many people on this planet to choose from to risk marrying a close relative such as a first cousin. one good reason,the rate of divorce being what it is, a divorce between first cousins would split the remaining family down the middle. thumbs down in my view regardless of the related [bad pun] laws!

re: Kissing Cousins

meithello — Wed, 31 Dec 2008 19:25:37 GMT

I married my cousin so I can get my inheritance. We have a kid now. So far so good. Dont think my son will grow up to be retarded (knock on wood). I would marry her again in a heart beat, cousin or not.

re: Kissing Cousins

lionssmile — Wed, 31 Dec 2008 19:27:37 GMT

"...Hamish Spencer of New Zealand’s University of Otago and Diane Paul of Harvard’s Museum of Comparative Zoology argue that the genetic risk to children born of cousin marriages is much less than widely believed." They are right of course. Marrying your cousin is not big deal unless it goes on generation after generation. Which is exactly what happens in the communities. If people don't reproduce outside of their families for a very long time genetically speaking they are not marrying their genetic cousins they are marrying what is more like their genetic sibling. When first cousins marry and then their children marry their first cousins and then their childrens' children marry, you can see that the genetic pool they are pulling from gets smaller and smaller with each generation.

I know of some families in Pakistan that for mostly inheritance reasons will absolutely not allow their children to marry outside of the family. My husband's family, who is from Pakistan, stopped this practice with his parent's generation. He has some anatomical peculiarities that I am almost positive comes from his ancestors having married their own family members. One being his two middle toes are far longer than even his big toe. Very strange looking foot and hard to find shoes for. Every one of his eight siblings have this same trait.

re: Kissing Cousins

WhatsTheDifferenceProp8supportors — Wed, 31 Dec 2008 19:30:20 GMT

Everyone who supports gay marriage better support the idea of kissing cousins and they should be allowed to marry. Heck, those same people should also support brothers and sisters getting married. If you believe in their stance, then there is not legitimate difference between these two issues.

re: Kissing Cousins

auntetr — Wed, 31 Dec 2008 19:46:56 GMT

To "What's The Difference": Once again, small minds reveal themselves! The difference? Unless some miracle occurs, two of the same sex people cannot reproduce from their union. That goes along with the similarly assinine idea that if gays marry, then it will hurt hetro marriages...how?

While I am not gay, I defend the right for people to be happy and not hate them for not "being like me" or going against what mommy and daddy told me is right. Hey, if the guys want other guys, more women for me to choose from! You know why the "religious right(?) is getting so unpopular? Because they always seem to want to foist their beliefs on others. If you don't like gays, don't be gay. What if one day you woke up and it was "wrong, sinful and perverted" to be attracted to, or to love the opposite sex, yet you still felt that way? What would you do? Live a lie and hide in shame because you were "wrong"? Let them live their lives as they want and you live yours. Bet they won't tell you what to do!

re: Kissing Cousins

LiberalsLoveLogic — Wed, 31 Dec 2008 19:57:28 GMT

Common sense should tell you that unless you want to create a genetic bottle neck, that you should look for as much genetic diversity as possible. Maybe marrying your cousin for one generation may not create birth defects, but what about two generations? three generations out? If this becomes a practice then it will create problems. Look at the royalty of Europe. How many of them were stark raving mad or had bizarre birth defects. Take the Hapsburgs, for example. If there were a reason to marry one's cousin, such as lack of availabilty of viable mates, I could understand this, but that is not the case in most places. Also, to the enlightened individual that said if gay marriage were legalize brother/sister marriages should be also: Would you care to explain your logic? The prohibition against incest is to prevent genetic defects. I don't think marriage between committed individuals of the same gender can possibly produce genetic defects unless my biology is way off. Would you care to explain, or can you?

re: Kissing Cousins

Uriah — Wed, 31 Dec 2008 19:58:44 GMT

I am constantly amazed by the hypocrisy of people such as auntetr.....always championing fairness and tolerance -- except if you hold an opposing view/belief to their's.

re: Kissing Cousins

auntetr — Wed, 31 Dec 2008 20:13:04 GMT

Then cast the first stone Uriah...or better yet! ...Forgive me! lol.

re: Kissing Cousins

bull5281 — Wed, 31 Dec 2008 20:13:04 GMT

To "What's The Difference": If there is no legitimate reason to illegalize cousin marriages then by all means let those people marry. There is, however, a strong link to birth defects when siblings reproduce. Of course, that's not really your argument. You simply hate the fact that anyone is different than you and still can be happy.

Sorry, but there are people different from you. They don't share you values of hate. They believe that what doesn't directly affect them is none of their business. What could it be about two consenting adults sharing their lives that affects you?

Marriage is not about sex. People have sex all the time without marriage. All homosexuals want is the rights afforded to married heterosexuals. That would be the right to see their loved one in ICU, to share common property, lower taxes, etc. What is so wrong withthat?

re: Kissing Cousins

LiberalsLoveLogic — Wed, 31 Dec 2008 20:14:16 GMT

Auntetr, I'm right there with you. I recently got engaged and my new fiance and I are really excited about planning our wedding. However, I have two really good friends of mine who are a committed gay couple. I almost felt bad telling them the news, knowing that they have been together longer than my fiance and I have known each other and can never share in the excitement that we are currently enjoying. While a legitimate, logical reason exists for keeping cousins or close relatives from marrying, no such reason exist in the prohibition of gay marriage, yet there are more jurisdictions that allow cousin marriage than allow gay marriage. Are laws are based more on emotion and belief rather than on logic and fairness.

re: Kissing Cousins

auntetr — Wed, 31 Dec 2008 20:46:05 GMT

One last thought for the year: If the Bible is correct and not just a book of fables....how did Adam and Eve propigate the whole human race without some pretty sick stuff happening?

But then again, how would condemning a "serpent" to crawl in the dust on its belly for all time make a difference to a snake? Maybe it was symbolic? Happy New Year all!

re: Kissing Cousins

ltnelson — Wed, 31 Dec 2008 20:49:20 GMT

You can talk all you want about "legitimate" genetic reasons to not allow brothers and sisters to marry, but face it: when it comes down to it, it is all about culture and social norms. If the brother or sister was sterile, would it be allowed? Accepted? If the brother or sister was willing to have a vasectomy or have their tubes tied, would they be allowed to marry? Would people think it was ok to do? As the person stated, whether you agree with it or not, there doesn't appear to me to be much difference between same sew people marrying and sterile brothers, sisters or cousins marrying.

I think it is fair to say that nepotism is widely frowned upon. It is interesting that a primary purpose of such close marriages in some cultures is to maintain wealth in a family. In essence, it helps to keep the rich rich and the poor poor. For that reason alone, I think the practice should be frowned upon. But I don't know if that should make it illegal.

One issue I haven't seen discussed is this: There have been many reports about the practice of forcing ones family members to marry someone else. We in the west don't like this. Immigrants sometimes disagree. Allowing close marriages makes it easier for the cultures that force people to marry to continue on with the practice.

To the contention that gays simply want the same rights: I don't think that is entirely true. I have seen quotes from people who clearly want to try to make the government to give their unions a measure of social legitimacy.

re: Kissing Cousins

Patton34 — Wed, 31 Dec 2008 21:08:42 GMT

For thjose who believe that laws are made to be fair or equal for all are greatly mistaken. Laws are created to guide the masses in a general way. Creating laws and rules for every specific instace is stupid and a waste of time. So the masses get one set of laws and the exceptions get another?? Take for instance Gay marriage. This is something that has been voted no on by 49 of 50 states. This is not about fair or equal rights. It was put up to the people to decide and they said no...more than once in California. My problem with it is what specail laws are created for everyone else? where is the special treatment for the 25-40 year old white male/females that make up the majroity of the US Tax paying Population? Why do minority groups keep getting another bite at the perverbial apple. As long as America continues to pander to the minority of its people and increasingly lean on its majority the US will continue to falter. So what is wrong with kissing cousins? Scientifically nothing I guess. But whne we continually discard or morales so we can accomidate a small sect of our population where does that end? We do this all of the time and that is why people are still allowed to by "altered" automatic weapons, or conduct ponzi schemes or have "medical" marijuana or "rent control" or have a disabled vehicle plate for irritable bowl syndrome. We need to stop making the exception the rule and make the majority the rule. Like in baseball you "gotta be strong up the middle".

re: Kissing Cousins

bobcomment — Wed, 31 Dec 2008 21:17:50 GMT

Oh, I get it now! Since personal freedom to enjoy a loving relationship is the justification for same sex marriage, why prohibit any other marriage? polygamy, father to daughter or father to son (or to both at once), or same or mixed sex group marriage - as long as they love each other, of course, and promise not to have genetically defective children (as defined by the government, naturally). Why can't a progressive pastor declare all loving members of her congregation all "married" to each other in one big group?

Am I the only one who thinks this is crazy and that there are legitimate limits to marriage?

re: Kissing Cousins

Patton34 — Wed, 31 Dec 2008 21:24:26 GMT

And if social groups need "Big Brother" <aka the Government> to step in to make its people legitimize their lifestyles that should speak volumes about the views of the people. You can not force people to condone things they feel are morally against. Preaching tolerance has been overused for way too long. Tolerance in and of itself means to put up with something you dislike. If one continually has to tolerate things they dislike you have a part population that has become disgruntled. If that part of your population is your majority you have a problem.

Life styles are not rights in this country. If they were then polyligimists would have their run at every of age girl willing to be in a marriage like that. Extremist cults and militant camps would be ok as long as they dont break laws. Smoking pot would be ok as long as you are Rhastafarian like smoking Paeote is ok for certain Native Americans. But we the People decide to say no to that. So gays and other life style people who want Uncle Sam to rubber stamp and give credance to them after the People said no. Too bad. Want to be married? Live in Massachusetts or dont be gay.

re: Kissing Cousins

Patton34 — Wed, 31 Dec 2008 21:35:50 GMT

bobcomment~ If people of non traditional married couples want to have a civil ceremony and be life partners that is fine. they are entitled to the same rights and privileges as other married couples. However to offend tha majority of your nations population to accomidate the very small minority is bad public policy and a sure way to not get re-elected. As far as a religios ceremony goes. The bible clearly states its position on this and does not need to be reiterated by an agnostic. If a "progressive Pastor" wishes to have his following recognized by whatever denomination he is by its governing authority still he/she would never do that. there is religious docterine. Breaking away from your flock and breaking docterine makes that group no more than a cult.

there are limits to marriage. People define marriage as a union between man and woman. If you change what the majority of your people view their morals as then you are saying as the Government "We dont care what you ALL think we want this little group here to be happy". That led to a Revolutionary War.

re: Kissing Cousins

inmywords2008 — Wed, 31 Dec 2008 21:50:53 GMT

Regarding the original point of the article... first-cousin marriages, and even sibling marriages which happen once in several generations really do not pose any genetic risk. When these laws were created, the writers probably didn't even know what genetic risks were. These marriages were outlawed based on the social norms of the majority group which probably found the practice (mostly among immigrants and other ethnic groups) distasteful and wanted to impose their moral superiority. In today's USA, does anyone really think that first-cousin or sibling marriages would really become the norm anywhere? Even in immigrant communities? The children in these communities go to public school and more than anything want to become "American" and have the same lifestyle as their "American" counterparts (Britney Spears CDs, fancy clothes, McDonalds fries, etc). As a geneticist by training, I think as long as these couples have genetic counseling, this will really not be an issue to concern our society.

Regarding the larger debate of the government regulating relationships... it is not the government's role to impose the majority moral values on the population. It is the government's role to protect all of its citizens. Just because something is illegal, does not make it go away. It simply makes it go underground where innocent people get hurt because they are too scared to ask for help for fear of themselves (the victims) being penalized. So while you, I, Steve, Hank, and Mary may disagree with various practices like same-sex marriage, polygamy, first-cousin marriages, marijuana use, prostitution, gambling, etc... making these things legal, brings them under the purview of the judicial system where predators can be prosecuted and people are not fearful of reporting abuses. Our highly outdated social laws do only one thing - make those who believe that way feel superior. They do not work to discourage these practices or to make our society a better place.

re: Kissing Cousins

tricare — Wed, 31 Dec 2008 22:00:46 GMT

Whatever...however, I do not want to pay for health risks through public funding!

re: Kissing Cousins

Patton34 — Wed, 31 Dec 2008 22:15:54 GMT

That is a fantastic way of thinking and I am sure the 4 or 5 generations of people who were opium born addicts in England in the 1700-1800's when opium was legal would whole heartedly agree. Lets just make it all legal. Believe me laws are not there to serve the minority of people or to make people feel superior. They are there to guide the masses. If people wish to walk on their own path against the grain then they get to suffer the consequences. If things become legal how are they under the purview of the judicial system?? As a person with a degree in law I can tell you that once a thing is legal it is almost impossible to set limits on it. It goes to committees who then in turn have to figure out what is the limit. but how do you limit something that is legal? Only alcohol has a limit. you can smoke as many cancer sticks and drink as many Pepsi Colas as you want. So if pot or drugs become legal how much drugs is ok?

When is enough enough? So if it is ok to marry your sister or marry into same sex where do we as a people draw a line? How can you draw a line on anything when you comprimise your morales everytime some group cries foul or gets a high profile attorney to go on TV and make us feel bad because their little club "wants to sit at the table with everone too"? the peoples vote and the government guidance loses credibility when it continually cant say no to one group in one hand and in the other it asks the people it just disregarded to not only put up with it but potentiall pay tax paying dollars to support it. Sounds like a loser to me and the majority of Americans. There is no reason to change meanings of institutions to accomidate people just so we have to accept them. Acceptance is a choice. Not a right. The majority of Americans put up with and pay for enough from a defunct Social Security system to a addictive wefare system. there are enough losing social programs out there we shell out trillions for we dont need another group and their special interest groups furthering the derailed process of our ineffective political system. Then again maybe we need another revolution.

re: Kissing Cousins

Patton34 — Wed, 31 Dec 2008 22:19:35 GMT

Tricare...there is a great healthcare system. I agree. we need to stop paying for not only our own healthcare but the poor, disabled too??? If people make their beds they need to lie in them. The "lets take care of the world" mentality was great when their were less people in it. We need to demand accountability of our population. If you do things that lead to genetic problems in your kids (drugs having sex with your parents or whatever dont expect me to cry and pay for it.

re: Kissing Cousins

LiberalsLoveLogic — Wed, 31 Dec 2008 22:23:41 GMT

So, Patton34 if the majority of the country felt that African-Americans and whites should not be allowed to marry, then we should pass laws to restrict that? Or what if the majority felt that people of a minority race should have to be sit at the back of the bus, or attend different school systems or not be allowed to eat at the same restaurants, or drink at the same drinking fountains, would those types of laws be justifiable simply because the majority wants them or that the majority would not condone these things? What if the majority felt that it was acceptable for one race to hold another race in bondage? Would that be acceptable. Our Constitution guarantees us equal protection under the law. It sets out the principles of majority rule WITH RESPECT TO THE RIGHTS OF THE MINORITY. Just because the majority of people want something doesn't mean it's right.

re: Kissing Cousins

js100@msn.com — Wed, 31 Dec 2008 22:25:16 GMT

This is great news. I am now engaged to my beautiful cousin !

re: Kissing Cousins

Patton34 — Wed, 31 Dec 2008 22:51:12 GMT

no Liberal. When people discriminated against people for the color of their skin it was totally different. We are talking about lifestyles here. If you and I were blind we would have no concept of race. However once we reached below the waist you would know I was a man and I would know what you are.The constitution does guarantee equal protection and here are your constitutional rights. So here are the first ten after this it does not really pertain to our conversation.

#1 Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances

#2 A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

#3 No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law

#4 The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized

#5 No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation

#6 In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

#7 In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

#8 Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted

#9 The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people

#10 The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

So read #10. When in the absence of direction of Federal and Local laws the decision falls to the people. Meaning a vote. that means a majority of the people will decide the outcome. Sorry but in life we try to make rules that pertain to most of us so that we have a sense of order. That is why ebonics are not taught anymore and perception math is not part of our public school curriculum. It would be great to make everyone happy. But that is why we are in the mess we are in as a nation. You cant make everyone happy. there is an old Native american saying "If you chase two rabbits you will lose them both". I dont apologize to minority groups for this view either. They have things that white men will never have, like special interest groups that lobby on their behalf, colleges that allow only their race, and college funds that are specifically for them only. Who is racist again? Who is discriminated against? Talk about slanted perception. The majority have to hack it out with their own two hands and if you are unfortunately part of the 95% of the not rich you are competing with the rest of the majority to get whatever leg up you can. The majority have to pay the way for the poor on social aid, the retired seniors, bad foreign policy, and everything else. So if the minoritys gripe is that gays cant be married then they need to get in line.

re: Kissing Cousins

joelpalmer — Wed, 31 Dec 2008 22:54:26 GMT

The missed point is not an isolated first cousin marriage, it is the endemic practice. While the rise in defects in an individual case may be small, the cumulative defects from the repeated practice of marrying one's cousins can be devastating. Look at the British Royal family for a good example

If it were such a hot idea to marry your cousin, it must be genius to marry a sibling, by logical extension. Sorry folks, this argument doesn't wash.

re: Kissing Cousins

Patton34 — Wed, 31 Dec 2008 22:59:06 GMT

And by the way who decides what is right or wrong? You? Me? the answer is yes and no. We collectively do. And we say the most yes votes is right. That DOES mean it is right. Just because it is not what you wanted does not mean we are wrong or you are wrong. It means the majority of the pople have spoken. People take this personally. If you are on the outside looking in you feel slighted. If you are on the inside you feel vindicated. Such is life. And in life in a democratic world Majority rules....at least it should.

re: Kissing Cousins

ivegotthemarketcorneredonbrains — Wed, 31 Dec 2008 23:04:54 GMT

Doesn't matter. Americans are getting stupider by the generation even without incest.

re: Kissing Cousins

Patton34 — Wed, 31 Dec 2008 23:05:55 GMT

joel you are right. Also another great example is a place in an isolated part in Siberia. They have been nomadic for hundreds of years. Now there are more women than men so they have congenital birth defects wide spread because men have more than one "wife". Must be great unless they all look the same and are "ugly". LOL. Actually it is sad and I am surprised that government hasnt done anything.

re: Kissing Cousins

LiberalsLoveLogic — Wed, 31 Dec 2008 23:14:15 GMT

People don't "choose" to be homosexual. It is biological. Ask yourself, WHY would anyone choose that? I have a friend who is gay and is in committed relationship. He didn't CHOSE to have feelings toward men. He will tell you that he tried to have feelings for women. Biologist are finding that the brains of homosexuals are wired differently than heterosexual. Also, at one time we collectively decided it was right to have separate school systems for African Americans. We collectively decided it was acceptable for one human being to own another one. Were we right then? Sometimes the majority can be wrong. Besides, Patton, attitudes are changing. It is true Prop 8 passed, but it barely passed and a recent poll suggest that because of all the attention it got that it might fail if the election were held now. This is not about behavior; it's about biology.

re: Kissing Cousins

Patton34 — Wed, 31 Dec 2008 23:15:56 GMT

you may be right. But why do you want to piss turpentine on an electrical fire??? The reason we are becoming less intelligent is becasue we dont require a standard that is high handed for our youth. Average is "ok" and is all that is enforcable. So our youth grow up thinking that it is ok to not be exceptional. Which is why Indian children can come here and smoke americans in education, because their parents and society have higher standards and not only want but demand more from them...because in the end the parent move back in with their children in lieu of an old folks home. :) Who wants to live in squalor??? Raise your hand. So why do we have welfare again?? Exactly, because in the end the question asked before "who wants to live in squalor?" is, " who doesnt want to work for a living?" All of this is tied together in our disaterous social policy of trying to make everyone happy. It has never worked and never will. But as long as the GOV can show that they are trying to appease everyone to get reelected it will continue.

re: Kissing Cousins

DallasNorth40 — Wed, 31 Dec 2008 23:16:30 GMT

LiberalsLoveLogic, you might want to review the US Constitution again. There is NO "principles of majority rule WITH RESPECT TO THE RIGHTS OF THE MINORITY" anywhere in there. The reason the United States is a Republic and not a Democracy is because the Founding Fathers (FF) saw this potential flaw and realized the possibility of tyranny of the masses. They also realized the best way to guard against this was to consolidate the power into fewer people who would be elected. It was hoped that the debate amonth these fewer people in the halls of congress would result in calmer, more educated minds making the big decisions. The FFs knew it was far less likely that there would be egregious errors made in the passing of laws this way. BUT, the Constitution NEVER did and DOES NOT NOW provide for "majority rule WITH RESPECT TO THE RIGHTS OF THE MINORITY." That is a lie fabricated by those too stupid to either read or understand the Constitution of the United States of America. If you are going to make atatements and assert them as fact, you should at least be smart enough to do a little research and make sure your statements actually contain fact!

re: Kissing Cousins

fmlndn71 — Wed, 31 Dec 2008 23:22:28 GMT

In my culture (American Indian) your first and second cousins are referred to as your brothers or sisters and you don't have kids with your brother or sister. I'm a liberal and all for freedom of religion but this is just way out of bounds. Do they even realize how incestious it becomes. It's so awful that they don't even recognize the birth defects anymore. At some point these people aren't even born with full brains with the ability to make rational decisions and it's then that we suffer the consequences of their irrational decisions.

So yeah I think their so called religious practices are irrational and I doubt anyone's god would want them to covert with their close relative. Heck that makes what the Warren Jeffs group does alright and it's not.

re: Kissing Cousins

Patton34 — Wed, 31 Dec 2008 23:26:27 GMT

we actually have a "representative democracy". I have posted the first 10 amendments previously and they are listed a couple posts down for all to Reference. Actually Dallas you are right to a point. The FF did do all that you said and that was their intention, however when it comes to major national law those decisions are made by the People. The reason being that no politician wants to be tied to major national policy changes anymore. Elections are big business and there is a lot of money to be made/lost there. Noone wants to bet their fortunes and careers on the wrong pony.

re: Kissing Cousins

ltnelson — Wed, 31 Dec 2008 23:26:42 GMT

Patton: democracy does not equal majority rule. That it necessarily does is a huge misconception, probably believed by a majority of people in the world.

Democracy can take many forms. For many things, more than a majority is needed to make a rule. In California, it takes 2/3 of people to raise taxes. In the U.S. Senate, much has been made about the 60 member mark, determining whether the minority party can stop legislation through filibuster. In addition, there are minority rights built into the constitution, too.

I think your analyses are a little simple minded. There are more than the original 10 amendments in the bill of rights. People are guaranteed equal protection under the law. You can't vote that away with a simple majority.

re: Kissing Cousins

LiberalsLoveLogic — Wed, 31 Dec 2008 23:35:02 GMT

Actually the PRINCIPLE is in there not the phrase. Otherwise why are rights granted? I have a bachelor's degree in political science and a masters in public administration, so I have read the Constitution a time or two. Try reading the thirteenth, fourtheenth and fifteenth ammendments. Are those not meant to protect the rights of the minority? The first ammendment guarantees the freedoms of speech, religion, assembly and petition. Do those with majority points of view or religion need these protections? The fifth ammendment guarantees trial by jury. Is the majority on trial? I've actually written papers on this at both the undergraduate and to a lesser extent the graduate level. Look at the electoral college. This was meant to protect states with smaller populations from domination by those wth larger populations, the same is true of the Congress having a Senate. Furthemore, this isn't the 18th century, we don't have a largely illiterate, agrarian population with limited opportunities to obtain information about the activities of the government. This is why we now elect Senators rather than having them appointed by the legislatures of the states. It's also why the electoral college has not gone against the will of the people in well over a hundred years. Now, DallasNorth40, this is why people with an I.Q. of less than 70 should not post. Because you are too stupid to keep your mouth shut so people won't realize just exactly how stupid you are. Why don't you go sit in the corner and be REAL quiet and let the grown ups talk about all this grown up stuff.

re: Kissing Cousins

Patton34 — Wed, 31 Dec 2008 23:44:09 GMT

We do not live in a tru democracy. We live in a representative democracy designed after Spartan society not Athenian.

this is Bill of Rights #10. The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

So when Federal and Local laws (which are voted on by the people for all intents and purposes) do not reflect policy the People can put bills up for vote. Like Ca Prop 8 in 2008. Which again outlawed gay marriage (actually it defined marriage as between man and woman).

People feel that if they dont get their way that their "rights" are being violated. As long as you are not being denied the basic fundamental constitutional guarantees you have no gripe. There is nothing in here saying if you are gay you can get married. Being married is not a "right" per se.

As for California. I believe that it is 2/3 because it believes that 50% ish is not a true majority and more of a even split not really indicative of the "masses".

So you are wrong. Eventhough Democracy does not mean majority rules it does. The bill goes up for vote and the majority of the vote wins. This normally is the consensus of the peoples wishes so that a general policy can be made. that is how we elect politicians and pass our laws. It is the wishes of the majority of our people. Not of a specific race but of People wanting the same thing to be the direction of our Nation. So majority rules. If the majority happens to be white people all voting one way or even for example all black people voting for someone because he is black and white people voting for the same person because he is the exact opposite of who is in office now...that is the majority, even if it is for different reasons. can you handle that?

re: Kissing Cousins

inmywords2008 — Wed, 31 Dec 2008 23:58:14 GMT

In response to various comments by "Patton34"

>When is enough enough? So if it is ok to marry your sister or marry into same sex where do we as

>a people draw a line?

>If things become legal how are they under the purview of the judicial system??

The argument that "once X is legal, then it's a slippery slope and nothing can ever be controlled" is completely fallacious. The other common argument is "If gay people can marry, then that means a farmer can marry his goat!" Sure, that's completely logical, because a goat can sign a marriage license just as well as a consenting adult.

Having laws means that there are still limitations and regulations in place. For example, allowing same sex marriage will still mean applying for a marriage license, meeting age requirements, etc. It does not mean a father can marry his underage son. Allowing people to get multiple marriage licenses (as in polygamy) would also mean they have to meet the same requirements, so that a law abiding polygamous family will not be scared to report on their neighbor who is coercing a minor into marriage.

>Tricare...there is a great healthcare system. I agree. we need to stop paying for not only our own

>healthcare but the poor, disabled too??? If people make their beds they need to lie in them.

>The "lets take care of the world" mentality was great when their were less people in it.

Sure. Lets just allow them to roam the streets and die in the alleys. Perhaps we should herd them up into prisons and throw away the key. This kind of mentality is completely unrealistic. Sure it costs society to take care of those who can't take care of themselves (for whatever reason) but the alternative is a society of extreme classes, perhaps even castes. Is that the kind of country you want to live in? Unfortunately there is no simple or quick solution. But a society, especially a religious, pious society (as some people who have this view identify with) is measured by how it treats the least fortunate in its midst.

re: Kissing Cousins

Patton34 — Thu, 01 Jan 2009 00:00:17 GMT

Hey easy now Liberal. No name calling here just folks sharing points of view. Do not put personal interpretation into the Bill of Rights. It does not ever even imply Majority rule with respect to the minority. It spells itself out clearly and it adapts itself to political and necessary social changes demanded by the people.

Now the 13th abolishes slavery. It was obvious that Slavery was bad as was segregation. But lets be honest what we as Americans did to them pales in contrast to what happened to Native Americans.

The 14th amendment outlines what makes one a citizen of this nation so that it isnt a "white male only club"

the 15th allows all citizens defined in the 14th to vote.

the majority can not be on trial. If you broke the law how can you throw me under the bus for it. you cant say society isnt fair so I went on a killing spree. That is anarchy. Dont peddle liberal innuendos that are great for deep thinking what if pot smoking sessions. This is the way it is. I dont like all of it but I have 2 choices stay or go. Pretty simple. For the most part it works.

there will always be two types of groups. Have & have nots inside or outside right wrong. If things stay as simple as possible and down to the lowest common denominator decisions are easier to make. Furthermore if we had a true democracy we would never be able to go to work becasue everything would require a vote from each of us and nothing would be decided. That is why we have senators and Reps. So we can power the car and they can drive it...albeit with our input (except when they want a raise LOL)

re: Kissing Cousins

LiberalsLoveLogic — Thu, 01 Jan 2009 00:17:47 GMT

YOU'RE telling ME not to call names? I invite you to go back and read what you wrote to me in previous post. Maybe people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones!

re: Kissing Cousins

Patton34 — Thu, 01 Jan 2009 00:19:46 GMT

We do live in a society with extreme social classes. We have ultra rich with most of the Nations wealth tied up in 5% of its citizens who have loop holes in tax laws so big you can float the planet through them. We have the tax paying middle class who dont have those loop hole available to them carrying the load. then we have he poor. they dont pay taxes because many of them are on non taxable social assistance. These systems have so many flaws that you can float two planets through them side by side.

The whole "Lets just allow them to roam the streets and die in the alleys. Perhaps we should herd them up into prisons and throw away the key" is what is unrealistic. People need to be accountable for what they do. If people were made to be responsible for their actions where dying could be the result those instances would be less. We constantly throw money at our problems hoping they just go away. But whose money is that? And the real reason is why doesnt that offend you?

Paying a person who destroyed their brains from illegal drug abuse is preposterous. The mentality you use is the mantality that allows that to happen. We dont want "Tweeker John" to rob rich person on the street so lets give them life time disability. Well does that constitute rewarding a person for a lifetime of bad decisions and illegal activities?

Paying a person to stay at home and have children with no means of supporting them is preposterous.

Healthcare and lifetime money for disabled is not the responsibility of the people for a lifetime. At some point this person either needs to work and earn a living. Granted there are those who cant work but they are not the responsibility of the People to pay for. That person needs to lean on their family, church, or other charity organizations.

Social security as it is now is preposterous. the benefit amount for most if not all fo these seniors was paid out long ago. Now they are taking money from the next generation of retirees. This is preposterous. Save for your own retirement. Bre fiscally responsible. but if you are not well there is no safety net for you provided by John Q Taxpayer.

the world has changed. We cant make social policy when we have lots of money. What happens when we dont? That is happening in California. We made policy and promises when we hada surplus now we have a deficeit and cant fulfill those promises.

The point is we should not collect money from hard the hard working/or less hard working people and do anything other than run the country. Socialist Programs like the above become a crutch for the next generation to abuse. If our GOV money spenders took a breath and made these hard decisions we as a nation would have money to repair or deteriorated infrastructure.

re: Kissing Cousins

addam0123 — Thu, 01 Jan 2009 00:20:40 GMT

Patton34, where do I start. Democracy is a balance of both the majority rule and minority rights. Our system was set up so that the majority could not steam roll laws into being without respecting the rights of the minority opposition. A supermajority was needed to do that. I don't care what you quote, if you don't understand that, then whatever you quote means nothing. Major national law is not made by the will of the people. If it were then we would be governed by referrendum, which if you haven't noticed we aren't. The FF that you love to quote set things up so that very few things would be decided by the will of the people because they feared the ignorant masses, which I'm here to report the masses are still as ignorant and shallow minded as ever. To say that gay marriage is not a civil rights issue is to be ignorant, I can think of no snappy line to compare it to that really sums it up as well as just plain ignorant. Marriage was around before the Bible. Did you put a Christmas Tree up for Christmas? Because last I checked, history tells us the adorning of an Evergreen tree during this time of year was originally a Pagan tradition during the Winter Solstice. Isn't it odd that Christianity's most imporant holidays seem to coincide with Pagan celebrations? Do Hindus, Muslims, Native Americans, Atheists, and all other faiths not marry? Are Mormons not Christian, do they not believe in God. Then why did they accept multiple wives in their religion. Isn't marraige defined BY GOD (or at least Rush Limbaugh, Focus on the Family and every other right-wing idiot) as a marriage between ONE man and ONE woman? Or is that just the convenient argument of the day. Why is it that Christianity is able to set the doctrine of what is and is not a marriage. Just because a majority of people are against something in no way makes it right, it makes it the social norm, but norms change all the time. Not long ago the majority of people were against interracial marriages, was that a civil rights issue? Wait, didn't many pastors use the Bible to prove that interracial marraige was against God's will and teachings. The truth is people will use religion to rally people because most people will not question a person who holds religious power and they don't call a group of church members the flock or sheep for nothing, they are able to be guided and herded as the pastor or church leader decides on most "moral" issues. What about divorce if we are going against the Lord in our conversation today. If marriage is defined as a life long committment, shouldn't all divorced people be dead or lined up to be killed? Why? Because a majority of people are against it, but what if they weren't. They'd have the Bible to back up their insane argument wouldn't they. I think its an abomination that people are allowed to be divorced and yet gay marriage would destroy the sanctity of marriage. Absurd. If other cultures, older than ours I might add, marry cousins, so be it. Who am I to judge what they view as culturally acceptable, am I a part of their culture? No. Would I marry my cousin, no. Am I happily married? Yep. Would people marrying their cousin or their "life partner" bother me or my marriage one bit? Nope. The point to my whole article is for everyone to stop being so damn judgmental and stop placing their own morality above everyone elses. Get perspective people, look around, listen, stop being so close minded and strong headed that you think your beliefs are infallable, because believe me they aren't. Lifestyles, skin color, hair color, nationality, shoe size. What makes judging based on skin color wrong? Because society already ruled on that? So I'll judge based on shoe size. Anyone who wears a shoe size smaller than a 9 has to live in segregation from the rest of us. Sound reasonable? Neither does discriminating based on "lifestyle choices."

Don't even get me started on welfare and social safety nets. You think they are hand outs? They are to curb the ebbs of Capitalism. What about unemployment??? Its the same thing as welfare but you get that money for a different reason, what makes it any better? If someone wants to stay at home for $600.00 a month from the GOV and raise their child, its better than that child not being raised and growing up with no parental influence. You have free riders on any program that will abuse something or take advantage, but overall that percentage is small. It is however often exaggerated by pundits. How many people get unemployment and don't actively look for work for a few weeks or few months? "Oh I've worked and paid into it for years and now I'm going to draw some of those benefits for a little while," and they take a little "paid" vacation. Free rider. No different than the Welfare Moms everybody loves to pick on. If you don't have social safety nets, society will eat itself whole. Look at the Great Depression. Look at today. How can half a million people lose their job in a month and be without any income and society continue to function? More mortgages would default which means higher interest rates for people who do pay. Crime would rise because people may be civil when they are well fed and warm, but you take away a lot of peoples ability to survive and things will get ugly quick. Curbing capitalism's downfalls has a cost, not curbing it's downfalls has a higher cost. If you don't think so, your ignorant, plain and simple. Ignorant isn't dumb. Ignorant means you haven't studied the subject. It normally means you repeat sound bites you hear and base your entire opinion on the subject around those sound bites.

re: Kissing Cousins

Patton34 — Thu, 01 Jan 2009 00:24:17 GMT

I did not call you names. I asked you a question. As per #1 I am allowed to scream at the top of my lungs what you would spend a lifetime opposing. Slander however is a no-no. I was trying to keep it "civil"

re: Kissing Cousins

Patton34 — Thu, 01 Jan 2009 00:57:46 GMT

In california we have unemployemt insurance. It is a benefit we pay into that DOES run out. In Ca welfare is something that is perpetual. As is federal food assistance (which is outrageous at 270 per month!) National Law is made by the people. When was the last social change decided by the US Gov or state GOV??? They write bills have them checked by people who ensure they do not conflict with other laws and we vote on them. Being that I am agnostic I care less where a Christams tree is from. Mormons are not Christian. they are Mormon. Jesus Christ did not come to America read their stuff it is out there. As far as the past goes on interracial marriage that was a "lifestyle" practice. there was no law saying you cant marry a mexican. As far as divorce goes it is allowed in the Lutheran/King James Bible.

As far as welfare goes here is 2008 Ca budget for welfare and I quote..."The Governor’s budget proposes $2.5 billion from all funds and $695 million from the General Fund for the child welfare system."

Hey man I can think of a few places that could go other than that. Like our 49th ranked road system. How about that deficeit? how about more cops? Teachers? Firefighters. How about our levees that are 150+ years old? How about instead of paying them to sit at home we pay them to clean up the streets and then use the rest of that fund to pay day care?

This is 3.1 Billion for payments to people who are not contributing. Not to mention they get 270 for food tax free and free health care for them and their families. Dont say if we pay them off it is better than them committing crimes? If they didnt have these options we dont have the backdoor option. I am going home!

Have a fantastic new years.

re: Kissing Cousins

bull5281 — Thu, 01 Jan 2009 19:02:23 GMT

When the subject of abortion comes up I'll be sure to use this ridiculous slippery slope argument. If they illegalize abortion then they'll illegalize masturbation, because the sperm is a potential human being. Then, birth control will be illegal because of that potential. A Republican controlled government would then fund scientific research to stop wet dreams. Every child entering puberty would then be forced to take that medicine. You can't waste potential humans afterall. Then again, there are factions within the Republican Party that would support many of those laws. I don't see anyone supporting incestuous marriages.

re: Kissing Cousins

deangejd — Fri, 02 Jan 2009 01:45:00 GMT

Just a call for more specificity: In some sub saharan African cultures (Xhosa, for example) there is traditionally a huge taboo on first or second cousin marriage. In fact, the sparse European settler population of South africa practiced "keeping it in the family" far more often, to the disgust and dismay of indigenous groups. Cousin marrige is not exclusively, as this article subtlely (and probably unintentionally) points out, a third world or non-western feature (note: see the Amish)....

re: Kissing Cousins

ChristianAmerican — Fri, 02 Jan 2009 14:46:20 GMT

"..Cousin marriages are similarly common among China’s majority Han ethnic group.."

Nonsense! The Chinese law prohibits first cousin marriage and Chinese are avoiding marrry someone with the same family name. The so-called "expert" quoted in the article is ignorant and sloppy.

re: Kissing Cousins

transplant in China — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 09:25:20 GMT

In response to ChristianAmerican (January 2, 2009 at 9:46 AM)

"..Cousin marriages are similarly common among China’s majority Han ethnic group.."

Nonsense! The Chinese law prohibits first cousin marriage and Chinese are avoiding marrry someone with the same family name. The so-called "expert" quoted in the article is ignorant and sloppy.

I beg to differ and will side with the experts. Your comment is correct regarding the marriage of paternal cousins (those bearing the same last name - and the cousins can actually be several generations removed from each other). The taboo is easing in urban areas, but is still strong in rural area. However, if we look at a different class of cousin marriages, the reverse can be true, as the "expert" asserted. In many areas, the marriage between the children of sisters can be greatly favored as it was believed to allow the new couple to be in greater harmony since there was a common way of dealing with the household. You must also consider that there is no restriction on marriage between the children of a brother and sister, though I read less about these types of marriages.

re: Kissing Cousins

mthakkar — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 09:31:13 GMT

..Cousin marriage is very less in India.Some comunity allow cousin marriage but that for cosuin from mother's brother and cousin from father's sister only ,Parsentage of such marriages are less han i% even.There is no LAW in Indai prohibittung such marriage. Acording to the article Genetoc

problemes aret also not so high .

Mahen INDIA

re: Kissing Cousins

asw2590 — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 09:40:04 GMT

People keep referring to homosexuality as a "lifestyle". It is clearly not. A lifestyle is something chosen. No one wakes up in the morning and say "Gee, I think I'll be Gay and be shunned by society" any more than someone decides one day that they are straight. It is something biological, we cannot control who we are attracted to. These marriages between frist cousins are often arranged. I doubt that anyone in their right mind would want to marry their uncle's or aunt's children, especially when you look at it from that perspective. I do agree that the effects may not be so serious the first generation, but 3, 4, maybe five down the line, there will be serious complications. As to the argument about the US Constitution not protecting everyone. The Constitution protects everyone, although certain privileges are given to some and not others. It is wrong for a government to totally overlook minority groups. That is the reason why there are laws against hate crimes.

re: Kissing Cousins

pro- — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 13:01:39 GMT

hey, this is a very interesting topic. cousin marraiges have always been popular and it was very interesting to learn about your opinions on the matter.

on the whole, the comments i read regarding cousin marriages is negative, mainly due to the social/cultural thing.

i am middle eastern and have been born and bred in the UK and raised with western values, although i do appreciate my own culture.

i am not against cousin marriages if they are not forced and if you wish to do so by your own wil. i myself am seeing my cousin and there is no weirdness or feeling of incest. however, i think it is important to say that i didnt grow up knowing my cousin...i came to meet her later on in life which is also an important factor bcos if i had grown up with him, our relationship wouldnt have exsisted maybe.

re: Kissing Cousins

Starlite — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 13:38:12 GMT

The human genome on a whole is in a state of decay. Experts say that the mutation rate for all types of mutations may be more than 600 per person per generation. You see so many genetically caused diseases and problems. Not all are deadly such as cancer, but they are there, . . some hiding until later years and then striking. Even cancer, even though we can cure it more often now, . . the mutation gets passed along. Marrying 1st cousins increases the chances of having a child with defects, and it is only a preview what is to come in our population in the future becuase of the genome being loaded with mutations. If you want an eye opener into the problem, read "Genetic Entropy & The Mystery of the Genome" by Dr. J.C. Sanford. Published by FMS Publications. We don't need to hurry our developing problems along in the human genome by ignoring the issue like we have done with our environment.

re: Kissing Cousins

i have to say — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 13:49:07 GMT

I agree with Starlite. This new study is just to quiet all the cousins that are already breeding.Besides with so many people in the world why would you pick a cousin unless your just perverse. Another words in the words of Jerry Lee Lewis,"Have you ever had sex with your cousin ?, it's good real good."

re: Kissing Cousins

Starlite — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 14:16:53 GMT

In the world of genetics, "natural selection" plays a role. Natural selection is not some magic miniature little man playing with the genes like some would like it portrayed, but it is merely the ability of the host (the person, creature, etc. ) as a whole to survive and reproduce. As the articles states, the survival rate of children has increased even though there were congenital defects, and that is a great thing, but that child will now grow to adulthood and reproduce, thus passing along the genetic mutation. "Natural selection" was defeated, and a wonderful child is allowed to stay with us, but in the long run, thier child, and thier child's child could most likely suffer. We can cure or stop the symptom of the mutation, but it is now thrown back into the gene pool. The human genome is large enough to not be impacted heavily on the norm until you reproduce with close family members such as 1st cousins, and then because the same genetic mutation may be in the genome, . . now it has more of a chance to pop up as a physical deformity in the offspring. Let's ignore the "evolutionary psychologists" on this one. The evolutionist thinks we can evolve upward because of genetic mutations, where in fact they are dead wrong. The human genome is declining. Ask an evolutionist to show you one instance where "new" information has been proven to been added to the genome. Now think about how many genetic diseases and problems we now have. That is why the family doctor always wants to know about your family medical history. The mutation load in the human genome is growing at an exponential rate, and we shouldn't ignore that, although most do. The evolutionary geneticist don't ring the alarm bell because they are still too interested in trying to prove that we are going the other direction . . upward. Dream on . . think about what your family doctor asks you about the family medical history, and think about why?

re: Kissing Cousins

bklip55@hotmail.com — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 14:27:04 GMT

Risk is in the eye of the society footing the cost of adverse behavior.

re: Kissing Cousins

LittleMo83 — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 14:31:27 GMT

While I believe in - and honestly try to adhere to - the notion that you can do as you like, so long as it causes no one else harm, which means yes, I do believe that, if BOTH parties do please, they may marry whomever they choose, I notice that the countries mentioned all have "prearranged marriage" still embedded deep in their cultures. It makes me wonder whether the marrying parties, the cousins in question, are ever two people who actually WISH to marry one another, rather than being forced to do so by their families, either by a sense of duty, or an actual, physical force. While I admit that I know little about the Middle Eastern, Chinese, etc, cultures, the idea that a goodly deal of the marriages in those cultures, especially those ones the articles mentioned, are prearranged by family rather than the two consenting adults to be married, didn't come from thin air. There must be some truth to it. So, are these marriages forced, or is it choice? If it's choice, then it's no one's business other than that of the two people involved who love each other and want to share their lives with one another. I think our inbred (pun intended) dislike of incest started a long, long time ago and came from the Church - whichever Church, doesn't matter which - seeing a rise in inexplicable birth defects and simply - sometimes even wrongly - correlating the two. After all, we know now that there's a risk to eating raw shellfish, right? But when you DON'T know that, but you DO see people getting sick and dying from it, what's the fastest way to change the behavior? Tell them it's forbidden AND that there will be terrible consequences, of course! Makes sense to me...

re: Kissing Cousins

dsmith100 — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 14:48:42 GMT

As one person commented that this would be an underground thing and something to be embarrassed of, I would disagree. I do NOT agree with "kissing cousins"; however, I work in a city that is home to the most Arabs outside the Middle East. I work directly with these immigrants who have been here ranging from 1 week to 15 years. And in the past 7 years working with them, I have yet to encounter any that feel ashamed or embarrassed that they have married their first cousins, which is exceptionally normal for those I teach. I try to bite my tongue and not give any expression or comment....not allowed really. But it is difficult. While I believe that in mainstream America, this practice will never be accepted, it flourishes in this culture. And this culture is one that is flourishing here in the States. For the most part, I do not see them changing their practices. For those of who would like to disagree and say they know Arabs from the Middle East who do not do this, I agree. But I am heavily inundated with this population and have lived in it my entire life. I know. There's always an exception, but the vast majority practice this and continue to practice it despite being here for generations. And, yes, I do notice a difference in intellect. I have already realized the reason for such a great gap between those whose families do not practice marrying off their first cousins and those who continue to do so. It's unfortunate, but something that I do not see changing.

re: Kissing Cousins

Starlite — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 15:09:17 GMT

Wow, after reading all of the comments, I sure see a lot of "yelling". Why can't the discussions be a little more civil. My postings were on the scientific/medical aspect of it, which is what I believe is the correct foundation for looking at this. Centuries ago, marrying 1st cousins was a normal thing to do, which is still going on to this day, but we have to look at what it has caused, and again I say that it is the damage to the human genome and the exponential decline of that genome that it will bring in the future. I have just returned from California, where as an invited speaker I touched on this problem. Talk to the cancer researchers in the Universities and hospitals, . . they'll tell you. We are plagued with genetically passed on health issues from minor ones to major ones. Marrying close family members WILL only increase the problem at an exponential rate !

re: Kissing Cousins

teopa — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 15:18:24 GMT

This is another cultural issue. THere have been societies that had sibling marriage--- native hawaiian for example, and ancient egypt. Birth defects are never fully predictable some mutations appearing spontaneously. As for 'inbreeding' lowering intelligence, as some have suggested here, what might at first seem to be a reduced capacity could simply be a conservative attitude (believing in the already known/traditional explanations) suppressing a natural human curiousity about the world.

re: Kissing Cousins

theotherside1117 — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 15:26:37 GMT

I have a child who was born with disabilities. I know being different can be scary to other people or seem downright wrong, but I would like to point out to those who perpetuate the idea that these are subhumans that have no part of the human race...that they are still indeed people. They were born into this world with the same ability and rights to love, feel and make their way just like the rest of us. Who is to say it's a lesser existence? How many "normal" people walk around and squander their abilities and "superior Intelligence" or simply have it all and still are miserable? "Defects" do no mean lesser than. This idea of superiority totally negates the essence of what it means to be a human that exists; the "I am" of living. And often, these humans with "defects" are better people than the ones that judge them. I just wanted to point this out when you all are discussing them as you are.

And no, I did not marry my cousin.

re: Kissing Cousins

ReasonableSteve1948 — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 15:31:00 GMT

Cultural issues aside, there are health issues for children born of these marriages. What is it about the cousin marriage promoters that leaves them unable to understand simple math? The studies cited in the article show significantly a higher incdence of birth defects when cousins reproduce. An increase from 3% to 6% (the rate reported in one study) in the incidence rate is not a 3% increase; it's a 100% increase. None, not one of the studies, shows such a small increase as 3%.

re: Kissing Cousins

a30chevy — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 15:31:43 GMT

26 states allow first cousin marriages; most people can marry their cousin in the US.

US prohibitions against cousin marriages predate modern genetics.

No European country prohibits marriage between first cousins. It is also legal throughout Canada and Mexico to marry your cousin. The U.S. is the only western country with cousin marriage restrictions.

Children of non-related couples have a 2-3% risk of birth defects, as opposed to first cousins having a 4-6% risk. Genetic counseling is available for those couples that may be at a special risk for birth defects (e.g. You have a defect that runs in your family) In plain terms first cousins have at a 94 percent + chance of having healthy children. Check the links section for more information on genetic counselors. The National Society of Genetic Counselors estimated the increased risk for first cousins is between 1.7 to 2.8 percent, or about the same a any woman over 40 years of age.

Second cousins have little, if any increased chance of having children with birth defects, per the book "Clinical Genetics Handbook�� courtesy of the March of Dimes.

The frequency of cousin marriages in the USA is about 1 in 1,000. The frequency of cousin marriages in Japan is about 4 in 1,000

It is estimated that 20 percent of all couples worldwide are first cousins. It is also estimated that 80 percent of all marriages historically have been between first cousins!

In some cultures, the term cousin and mate are synonymous.

Albert Einstein married his first cousin. And so did Charles Darwin, who had exceptional children.

Franklin D. Roosevelt, the longest serving US president in history married his cousin (not a first cousin, however they shared the same last name).

Leviticus 18 lists all forbidden sexual relationships. Cousin relationships are not included.

God commanded many cousins to marry, including Zelophehad's 5 daughters, Eleazar's daughters, Jacob (who married both Rachel and Leah, first cousins), and Isaac and Rebekkah (first cousins once removed)

It is likely that Joseph and Mary -- Christ's earthly parents were first cousins.

Current studies indicate that cousin couples have a lower ratio of miscarriages -- perhaps because body chemistry of cousins is more similar. The verdict is still out.

We are all cousins. No two people are more distantly related than 50th cousins.

re: Kissing Cousins

teopa — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 15:35:52 GMT

Genetics can work both ways too...... there are lines that have particular resistance to some inherited anomalies as well so put that into the mix. Also there are the definitions of 'cousin'. In societies that have plural marriage there are lines of inheritance are not as clear.

re: Kissing Cousins

Starlite — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:06:45 GMT

Some of you really don't get it. Yea, they may have healthy children NOW, but those hidden little mutations that didn't come out have more of a chance in the near future or distant future. It's like adding raw sewage to a river. At first from one or two contributors, you don't see much change or damage, but the more contributors and more sewage, that gets added, well, . . . if I have to go on anymore, I guess you're not getting it anyway. Stop it now so the future doesn't have to suffer. Mercy . . And teopa, please . . what's this "resistance" thing. Please don't go into talking about bacterial resistances against antibiotics or anything like that. I hope you aren't throwing something like that in there. If you are, you should know better, and if that isn't where you are going, then where are you going??

re: Kissing Cousins

Decibella — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:27:33 GMT

I am coming from Europe and I don't know anyone who has married his/her cousin (although it probably happens, since it is the custom within some groups of people). If cousin marrige increases the risk of birth defect or other illnesses, even if only by a little, I think it is wise to have laws against it. Common sense says that we as humans must care about the future generations and not only think about what we want NOW. Also, since humans are overpopulating the planet, I cannot see any difficulty in finding love beyond your own door step. Get out and mingle people and we might solve cultural tension as well.

re: Kissing Cousins

MAR-MAR — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:28:11 GMT

My grandparents were first cousins and my grandfather's side through his father included another cousin of both sides. There were 9 offspring, all of whom lived into their 80's, (or older) and no instances of genetic retardation, though there were 2 cases of birth trauma retardation, in the 19 grandchildren and 23 great- grandchildren and an unknown number of great-great grandchildren. In the example of our family, good genes were passed on, as well as any apparent resistance to genetic predisposition to negatives. We're proud of our "good stock" and longevity.

re: Kissing Cousins

sheera — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:32:14 GMT

I only know of one instance of 'kissing cousins'. They were in the town I grew up in. They had children, and their children were, 'slow'. They had to be in special classes in school. I remember growing up wondering why they were in those classes. Neither parent seems to have all their ducks in a row. And unfortunately, that seems to have been passed down to their children. Now their children have children. I don't know much about the second generation of kids. But I can say this, if you know that something you are doing or might do would at a very good possibility cause problems with your future children, I would say to NOT do it. Having said that, after 40, there will be no more children for me even though I am steadily trying as we speak. I'm 34, BTW. I just don't want to risk it. I will also agree with someone else who stated that true homosexuality is something you are born with. I've met a few gay men who stated that they tried being with a woman, but it just didn't feel natural to them. It might be a genetic mutuation, it might not. But I don't go around calling homosexuals a disease. Keep in mind, the human race didn't have mitochondria at the beginning...it was later discovered and now we are evolved. Does that mean we are all freaks? Something to definitely think about!

Oh, and I wouldn't marry a cousin. I just think the blood lines don't need to be crossed.

re: Kissing Cousins

DD50 — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:49:45 GMT

Marriage of first cousins is "yuck". This was discussed in a class I attended, many cultures present, and this concept grossed out most there, some to the point of anger. Sure, it happens, but it is seen as an abomination by many in the U.S. in modern times. Eww.

re: Kissing Cousins

s&dvenziano — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:58:31 GMT

I married my 1st cousin! We are very much in LOVE! We never even admitted we were in love with each other until we were in our 30's. We did a ton of research before we got married!

Only the people that are uneducated disagree with this marriage. Some of the most intellegent poeple in the world have 1st cousins as parents. Cousins have little, if any increased chance of having children with birth defects, unless there is a defect already in the family genes then it increases for that defect.

If you are 40+ years of age you have about the same risk of having a child with birth defects as you would if you had a baby with your cousin!

NUMBERS 36:11 in your Bible says God commanded many cousins to marry, including Zelophehad's 5 daughters, Eleazar's daughters, Jacob (who married both Rachel and Leah, first cousins), and Isaac and Rebekkah.

Or it could be worded to marry Fathers Brothers Son (COUSIN!)

26 states allow first cousin marriages; most people can marry their cousin in the US.

US prohibitions against cousin marriages predate modern genetics.

Second cousins have little, if any increased chance of having children with birth defects, per the book "Clinical Genetics Handbook�� courtesy of the March of Dimes.

The frequency of cousin marriages in the USA is about 1 in 1,000. The frequency of cousin marriages in Japan is about 4 in 1,000

It is estimated that 20 percent of all couples worldwide are first cousins. It is also estimated that 80 percent of all marriages historically have been between first cousins!

In some cultures, the term cousin and mate are synonymous.

Albert Einstein married his first cousin. And so did Charles Darwin, who had exceptional children.

Franklin D. Roosevelt, the longest serving US president in history married his cousin (not a first cousin, however they shared the same last name).

Leviticus 18 lists all forbidden sexual relationships. Cousin relationships are not included.

It is likely that Joseph and Mary -- Christ's earthly parents were first cousins.

Current studies indicate that cousin couples have a lower ratio of miscarriages -- perhaps because body chemistry of cousins is more similar. The verdict is still out.

We are all cousins. No two people are more distantly related than 50th cousins

re: Kissing Cousins

IsItNotTrue — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:12:57 GMT

Poorly put , but appropriate enough here:

If two people both have a recessive gene for a defect then they have a 25% chance of having a child with that defect.

If both people do not have a copy of that recessive gene then they have a zero chance (absent the chance of a spontaneous mutation) of having a child with that defect.

If 100 couples of that "ethnic clan" have offspring then studies show 4-6% of total children will end up having the defect. We all have some bad genes so background "melting-pot risk" is 2-3% defects.

This has nothing to do with intelligence. Gaussian statistics , which commonly is shown to apply to nature , points out that for every 4-6% of offspring that are dumber because their parents were cousins , there will be 4-6% of new geniuses because there parents were cousins. If you understand Einstein marrying his cousin might be a good thing , then you might realize that yes , natural selection no longer favors the "smart" reproducing , as much as in historical times (even if we are all children of Adam and Eve). But even a dog breeder or crop producer knows the advantages and disadvantages of inbreeding Bell curves.

Cousins reproducing is not historically a bad tool affecting the gene pool. We have survived just fine marrying the people within 30 minutes walking distance of our ancestor's villages. (how many cousins live within 2 miles of each other in America? that is one reason why our culture is different than the undeveloped world when it comes to marriage laws). Nature is not "gross" ; it is not judgmental about itself . Funny that as humanity get more developed , we like our roots less.

re: Kissing Cousins

garbergoodies — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:18:24 GMT

I think I just got my answer by reading the post by s&dvensiano. What if you have no intention of having children. I'm 50 and have had the tubal, children are not an option. I'm not sure how family would feel about it and it's not like we grew up together. I've only know him for a few years. I'd be interested in comments.

re: Kissing Cousins

sunrisegal — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:19:37 GMT

S&dvenziano, personally ... marrying my first cousin would never enter my mind. Why?

Because I view all my male cousins as brothers ... and I love them as brothers.

To me, marrying my first cousin would be like committing incest with a brother ... totally unacceptable and totally repulsive.

re: Kissing Cousins

jggau — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:28:40 GMT

I think cousins should be the least of people's worries. With anonymous adoption and sperm banks there are brothers and sister being married.

I for one wouldn't want to add any extra risk, but people over 40 are having kids...that adds risk, radom partners is producing unwanted children...that is a risk, and divorce is considred the norm now days. So if they are in love and ready for the responsibility, why not?

re: Kissing Cousins

Starlite — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:43:03 GMT

There are no "genetic resistances". It is only the luck of the draw, and the closer you marry to a related genepool, the higher the odds go against you. There are many mutations in the genome that are considered "neutral", but yet they are "mutations", and the genome keeps getting loaded up, and the odds one day will strike. It will catch up to you. It is like I said earlier, . . the genome is huge, so a 1 to 2 % loss of information per generation per person doesn't seem like much, but when you keep throwing them in there, then the odds are that it will show up sooner or later in the future. "Deleterous" mutations are also thrown in there, and these are the luck of the draw unless your closer family member also has it stuck in there too. It's like ammunition in a revolver. If you only have one round, and you spin the cylinder, then you could be lucky, but if you have two or three rounds in the same gun, now the odds are that a round will fall under the firing pin. Why play the game? Why take the chance? Why increase the odds. Maybe it won't show up in your child, but what about the grandchild or great grandchild? We are pretty good at only thinking for today and not for tomorrow. Our problems with the environment around the world show us that. Will we ever learn ??

re: Kissing Cousins

whisperingsage — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 18:00:05 GMT

The research of Weston A Price in the 1930's showed that most anomalies blaming genetics was in reality POOR NUTRITION! This was a very racist time and there were many Eugenics groups around including Margaret Sanger's Planned Parenthood "Negro Project". Darwin's throry which was in reality very racist was used as an excuse to try to "prove" other races, especially blacks in America were of another species. These were people who never questioned treating their own dogs better than blacks. Sanger shared company with Henry Ford, who supplied Hitler's tanks. There were many big names of the time who were trying to engineer our genetics.

Today, Planned Parenthood's goals are unchanged. Here is a quote from http://www.blackgenocide.org/

"Minority women constitute only about 13% of the female population (age 15-44) in the United States, but they underwent approximately 36% of the abortions.

According to the Alan Guttmacher Institute, black women are more than 5 times as likely as white women to have an abortion

On average, 1,876 black babies are aborted every day in the United States

16 million black babies have been aborted since 1973."

The healthy groups Weston Price studied were in every continent. Time and again he showed groups that married within the groups and time and again, and if they had a dense nutrient diet with plenty of the fat soluble vitmains and all the trace minerals, they were beautiful, healthy, long living, and "superb" as he put it often. Most of the tribes were people of color. A few were white, and the healthy whites, showed signs of broad faces and broad noses, high cheekbones, etc. The characteristics that were and still are associated with race, but after seing these faces, you have to see that they are really associated with healthy nutrition and good development. Breadth and beauty are the model of Nature. The narrow and pinched "Caucasian" characteristics, are misnamed, they are poor nutrition!

Price's pictures are a great education. He also counted cavities and wrote every detail so anyone can see time and again which foods were life supporting (they were always animal based, he could not find any "superb" healthy vegan groups).

Please do the research www.westonaprice.org. He is often misnamed the "Darwin of nutrition" but this is insulting. He stood in stark oppostition to the principles that Darwin stood for which was really an excuse for racism.

And look up Darwin's original work Origin of species; the preservation of favored races in the struggle for life

Note that second part of the title, and understand in "proving " evolution, he was opening the door to validating the death and destruction of unfavored races in human society. I implore yuou to look into this concept, Get into the history, it is very dark and if you look at the wording of things now, it is still here. People talk of genetics like they are written in stone, and they are the causes of all diseases, when in reality they are modified profoundly by nutrition in the WOMB, nutrition in childhood, teratogens like Alcohol use while pregnant, Alcohol use by the FATHER will change the DNA of his sperm and cause the same issues we deal with in FAS adults. But there will be no facial features.Tobacco use while pregnant, vitamin and mineral deficiencies while pregnant There are many, many things that cause oddities, Zinc derficiency causes scoliosis and diarrhea, Often skeletal deformities, copper deficiency causes immune disorders, many mineral deficiencies cause extra limbs or double faces or clubbed feet. (Price showed some of these in his work Nutrition and Physical Degeneration). Vitamin A deficiency causes any number of eye issues and eye development issues and also skin disorders. D deficiency causes IBS and immune issues. Alcohol use can affect ALL the nutrients, because the body uses up the nutrients quickly trying to split the poison it knows alcohol is. So any or all of the nutrient deficeincy defects can arise in children whose mothers drank.

In the past, researchers compiled books with pictures of people with oddities and named them syndromes after some doctor's name, but once I researched the nutrients in depth, I started to understand what really was causing these problems.

I raise animals, livestock. I put these principles to practice and I have seen my "genetics " improve because of the nutrients I have put into them. We are copper deficient in our area. I had a lot of swayback in my herd. When I began to supplement with copper, that disappeared. When I supplemented with kelp meal (a rich source of trace minerals) , I had stronger more solid babies, that were smarter (learned to suckle quickly without my assistance), that were heavier at birth and multiples were more even in weight and all larger. (example, one goat had quints, all were about 5 lbs apeice, none were below that, that is a good weight for multiples and have a higher survival rate. They didn't need any special care like a warming area in the house or tube feeding, They acted like normal babies and did fine) Mothers had fewer problems with birth, I had fewer losses of offspring.

Nutrition works.

re: Kissing Cousins

mckinnon2 — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 18:21:57 GMT

While there is a low risk of birth defects among 1st cousin marriages; she fails to mention that 1st cousin marriages is the common practice among many Muslims. So, two cousins marry and have children, No problem, But then their children also marry their first cousins. Then THEIR children marry their first cousins and so on and so on.... This is what actually causes the birth defects. Not just the ONE TIME marriage of two cousins.

re: Kissing Cousins

Catherina — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 18:35:25 GMT

I don't think that it is appropriate to go around making law against who can and can't marry and have kids. It gets us into very dangerous territory. As the article cited, women 40+ have increased risks, people that already have known genetic disorders have risks, etc. And what are where does the definition of "bad genetics" end? Next thing we know - obese people and people that have increased risks of heart disease, diabetes and certain cancers won't be allowed to marry. I certainly would not think of marrying my first cousin - all of them are too much like brothers to me - but everyone is different and if that is what they want to do - then they should be able to.

re: Kissing Cousins

brandonrthompson — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 18:40:27 GMT

What about Gay Cousins??? LMAO

re: Kissing Cousins

rbyrd68 — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 18:40:47 GMT

How about hearing from one of the affected offspring? My parents are 6th cousins, my mother's parents were cousins, my great-grandparents were cousins, it goes on and on and on in my family tree. I suffer from a rare genetic defect that is found in communities where inbreeding is common. There is a reason why Jewish couples are tested for Tay Sachs and African-Americans for Sickle Cell Anemia. These are genetic defects that are passed on thru inbreeding. Look at the Hapsbergs with there deformed lower jaws, the European royalty with hemophilia, insane Roman emperors and Egyptian pharoahs. I deal every day with the consequences of cousin marriage and no one can tell me that it is okay.

re: Kissing Cousins

debrah2002 — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 18:40:51 GMT

I do believe that human beings have shown a natural realization of the importance of genetic diversity. Anthropology could probably point to many instances of the propensity of tribal peoples to go outside the immediate tribe to find mates. I don't know how much "lusting after" is involved in the 1st and 2nd cousin marriages that you cite; I feel these are most like arranged marriages based on cultural dictates. I don't want to ban anything, but I would like to see more freedom of choice, especially for the women in these cultures.

re: Kissing Cousins

tunacan — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 18:45:06 GMT

I can think of a few cousins I'd like to marry!

re: Kissing Cousins

debrah2002 — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 18:54:00 GMT

I think anthropology could point to a lot of instances of a natural realization of the importance of genetic diversity in studies of tribes whose natural inclination was to go outside the immediate tribe to find mates; it probably was the norm. The 1st and 2nd cousin marriages that you cite arre probably from cultures which dictate arranged marriages. I don't want to ban cousin marriages, but I would want more choice allowed, especially for the women in these cultures.

re: Kissing Cousins

kaywhite — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 19:13:26 GMT

The genetic defects you refer to are a result of 'imbreeding' of several generations. However, these genetic defects can happen even if you don't reproduce with a cousin. I had a son with my first cousin and he is completely healthy. I am a CF carrier (a genetic defect) and his father is not. My nephew and his wife (not cousins) turned out to be CF carriers. Their daughter has CF. It turns out 1 in 31 people carry that genetic defect. So you are as likely to get CF with a complete stranger as with a relaive. As for Sickle Cell Anemia, I'm not sure if that is due to 'imbreeding'. There is a health advantage for those who are carriers. The effects of malaria are not as severe and therefore the carrier is less likely to die. This would increase that trait without any 'imbreeding' taking place. While the chance of genetic defects can be increased in families that carry the trait, in general, I think the article makes a good point. That cousin marriages doesn't drastically increase the chance of birth defects in the offspring. My son is very healthy. I am more concerned about the reaction some narrow minded people with have when they learn his parents are cousins.

re: Kissing Cousins

meeable — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 19:17:15 GMT

I would just like to say that I am a result of a first cousin marriage... and I have 4 other "normal" sibilings too... and one final note my parents are still married going on 40 years!!! :)

re: Kissing Cousins

Truth_Sayer — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 19:22:29 GMT

In a world where we accept homosexuality and many other kinds of perversion, such as polygamy and bestiality, incest is also becoming less taboo. This is certainly NOT a good thing for the future of society. Many diseases are traced back to this type of behavior. Just take a look at any animal that has been inbred and the results are clear. People need to think about their future children and not just copulation for the moment.

re: Kissing Cousins

DesRose — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 19:25:08 GMT

No one may be saying that women over 40 or people carrying the Huntington's gene should not be encouraged to reproduce. But maybe they should.

We used to be concerned about the over population of this planet. it seems as though that idea has gone by the wayside. I

re: Kissing Cousins

somi — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 19:25:21 GMT

i think there is nothing problem in the cousin marriage my fiance is my first cousin and i m perfectly alright about it and in my family mostly couples r first cousin of each other and therre is none of the abnormalties in their children

re: Kissing Cousins

LadyLeatherNeck — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 19:32:51 GMT

Cousins marrying is a VERY old school 'tradition' when it too you months to travel what today we would term a short distance. The lin must go on, and the people that lived in your village where close. Theer are some, like int eh great dynasties, and Lots of Englisnoblemen who though that blood lines were pure. And if you married outside of that you would weaken 'water down" the lineage. Now, when everyone so mobile, that is not a common preactice. But of course there are risk. just like with dogs... If youre family has a genetic defect, then if you marry soeone close to the same make up, your chances are increased. Not a forgone conclusion.

re: Kissing Cousins

Palomita59 — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 19:37:30 GMT

Coming from a ranching and farm background, most people would be surprised by just how much inbreeding goes into almost all livestock and purebred animals. Scientifically speaking, the most reliable way to reproduce desirable traits among livestock (horses, cattle, sheep, dogs) is to inbreed. Of course, the opposite is true too...you run the risk of passing on less desirable traits, so new animals with similar traits or even less related types are introduced. How is that people think certain ethnicities (color, hair, skin, and body types) came to be? I am not suggesting that marrying cousins is OK...just that nature & man have manipulated nature's genetics for eons. There is and has been a purpose for genetic manipulation, even it it's accidental or arranged by marriage.

re: Kissing Cousins

Alexia1975 — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 19:37:57 GMT

I don't agree with cousins marrying regardles, family is family, no matter how far apart they are in family tree. But I do have 2 cousins that married each other and had to very beautiful normal girls. So, I believe just because they are kissing cousins doesn't make it hard for them to have normal children.

re: Kissing Cousins

WebMiner — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 19:42:45 GMT

With respect to certain lineage's resistance to genetic mutation, either the two first-cousins would share a recessive genetic mutation or they would not. If they do not, then luck has no part of the discussion, other than the spontaneous mutation that all of us are susceptible to, which really isn't germaine to the issue.

If you and your first cousin are genetic carriers of the same negative trait/disease, however, then the risk exists and luck enters the picture. After all, the recessive gene showing up as a full-blown manifestation of the trait/disease is a function of whether those little letters pair up (I'm having flashbacks to grade school and plants and stufff). The odds are 25% that the genes will line up, but if you're unlucky enough (or your baby is to be specific), then the child will exhibit the abnormality.

And obviously, if two first-cousins already exhibit a genetic anomaly, the child has a 100% chance of exhibiting it as well. If it's a case of your middle toes being longer than usual, then that is certainly not a problem other than maybe special needs regarding footwear. But if it is something like hemophilia, or sickle cell, PKU, or cystic fibrosis, is that really something you wish to pass along? Our post-Deliverance society inappropriately conjures up images of backwoods kids with cleft palates and varying levels of retardation, which are generally a cause of factors other than genetics. The bottom line is that there is an increased risk here, but we're talking somewhere in the range of 2%. If the couple checks their background/histories first, there really shouldn't be an issue.

I would not agree that for every 2-3% of negative defects, there are also 2-3% new geniuses created. Although I can appreciate the nature of how the bell curve works, the human genome does not play according to the field of statistics. In fact, nature has a rather efficient way of controlling those 'outliers' by either rendering them sterile, unable to propogate into the next generation, or by reducing their lifespan and limiting their ability to further promote their irregularities for better or worse. I'd find it more believable that some of Charles Darwin's kids were brilliant due to his parenting rather than genetics.

I think it's safe to say most of us are unaware of undesirable genetic recessives we currently carry, unless you have a sibling who exhibits one or more of them. So the question becomes one of responsibility. A background check addresses that. To me the most controversial issue is what happens as we continue to dirty the genome by adding more and more recessive carriers to the population. We learn more about the human genome every year, and we're able to address some things now if detected early, regardless of how the gene mutation occurred. It is important for people to understand that there are many factors that contribute to genetic mutations, this is merely one of them.

Think about it, if it was really a major problem, it would be outlawed everywhere. Not because of religious pressure but because of the social and economic strain it would put on a country's economy if one out of every four children born in a community had dire genetic problems.

re: Kissing Cousins

s&dvenziano — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 20:07:30 GMT

Like I said in my 1st comment! Only the people that are uneducated disagree with this marriage.

Cousins marriage is a VERY old school 'tradition' Lots of Englisnoblemen who though that blood lines were pure. And if you married outside of that you would weaken 'water down" the lineage. Now, when everyone so mobile, that is not a common preactice. But of course there are risk as there are risks in any pregnacy. If youre family has a genetic defect, then if you marry someone close to the same make up, your chances are increased. Same in if you were to marry a person not close to you with the same genetic defect.

Cousins have little, if any increased chance of having children with birth defects, unless there is a defect already in the family genes then it increases for that defect.

If you are 40+ years of age you have about the same risk of having a child with birth defects as you would if you had a baby with your cousin!

Also known that there is a less chance of divorce, most documented cousin marriages have not ended in divorce.

All I know is that I love him and our bond is as strong as a three cord strand. GOD-HUSBAND-WIFE

Bible Verse NUMBERS 36:11

re: Kissing Cousins

Champyple — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 20:09:50 GMT

While it never occurred to me to get romantically involved with any of my first cousins, (who by the way are hot), I am aware of the diffent cultures around the world where this is totally acceptable. Lets face it folks, these customs have been in place before most of us breathing right now, were even a germ or gleam in our grandparents' eyes. If you already know that pro-creating with cousins may result in a child with birth defects as a result of that union, then you don't have anything to worry about.

Those who decide to take that gamble will meet the consequences of that act all in good time. If not in this generation, then unfortunately maybe in the next or the next. Eventually, any existing anomalies, regardless of how minor, will manifest themselves. Why would you want to put your child or yourselves as parents in this predicament? Are things not hard enough for parents with children? Why compound that by playing gene pool roulette?

In the end, there's not much that can be done to stem this custom. It is unfortunate that the children are often the ones who end up paying for the actions of their parents, regardless of customs, religious (HA!) beliefs, etc... '"You know its sad but true."'

re: Kissing Cousins

PRETTYNPINK — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 20:25:50 GMT

If you believe in the bible the first book of Genesis states that god made Adam and Eve came from a rib bone of Adam. so if we are all from Adam and Eve wouldn't we all be a retardation of them?

re: Kissing Cousins

kerryg — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 20:30:02 GMT

my paternal grandparents are first cousins...not something I choose not to share with people I know, since socially it is somewhat embarrassing. I'm not even sure my husband knows. Anyway, I have 3 "normal"sisters, we have "normal" kids, the only "problems" in the family are in the formal of mental illness, anxiety disorders and the like..ironically, they are all from my mothers side...go figure ;)

re: Kissing Cousins

WestCoast Connie — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 20:39:25 GMT

It happens closer to home than you think...It is legal in Canada to marry your first cousin. EWWW

re: Kissing Cousins

PompeyRoad — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 20:43:42 GMT

This is a flash back to the banjo picker from the movie Deliverance. I have see some on her "prop 8 proponent" say if you could support gay marriage you should support this. The prospect of allowing brother & sister miarrage was thrown in the mix. I feel the first cousin thing is close enough, common place generations past in appalachis. I don't know if this has anything to do with the high level of special education students or not. With the worlds population reaching 8 billion soon the need to marry a first cousin would seem less than as a hundred years ago as in the landlocked hollows of appalachia.

re: Kissing Cousins

momwow7 — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 20:43:48 GMT

In Islam, most cousins who marry are from the line of the father. Where as you would not marry someone from your mother's side of the family.

Culturally speaking, it is better to marry with in the family, as you know this person better than you would from someone you met at the market. Although first cousin marriage is widely practiced, it is always acceptable to bring other blood lines into the family. Meeting a prospective marriage mate outside of your family and community is rather narrowed in most Muslim countries and communities through out the world

Also, the term cousin is mainly for those on your father's side of the family. His brother's or sister's children would be your cousins and children of the Aunts and Uncles on your mothers side are not considered cousins in the same manner.

I am not a scientist, however there is a high incidence of health issues that I have seen working with the Middle Eastern Muslim Community when it comes to deafness or diabetes and some forms of Mental and Physical Handicaps.

According to the Quran, the blood line from the fathers side of the family is better when it comes to marrying one's cousin. Even so, I have seen issues that are more prevalent in these families than counterpart families of other cultures I have worked with.

Cultures are so vast and different in many parts of the world. If the laws for any country per say does not allow 'first-cousin" marriages, they will still take place. Either they will return to a Muslim country to marry or have a Iman in their community to marry them according to Islam. This will not make it a binding and legal wedlock under most states in the United States and some countries abroad.

re: Kissing Cousins

busturia — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 21:22:20 GMT

I met my 1st cousin on a trip to Europe and went to meet the Uncle (brother) of my mother and his family my 1st cousins, I was totally drawn to one of them and he to me, after the summeer I came back home and he came to America the following winter, we married a year later. Our marriage lasted 44 years till his death this past April. it was a beautiful union. We have two beautiful children (no defects) and we have 3 beautiful grandchildren with no defects.

re: Kissing Cousins

Sitara82 — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 21:24:58 GMT

Its funny how the west will be ok with Gay marriages but will have a problem with cousin marriages! you people are sick!

re: Kissing Cousins

dereksgray — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 21:25:01 GMT

I am a 38 year old good looking american/Mexican male who married my 1st cousin who is a very attractive mexican female. Our mothers are from Mexico and the connection is through them. My father is from Indiana and her father from Mexico. We have a 2 beautiful children, a girl who is 4, perfectly healthy, and in our opinion and many other, she is a beautiful, brown hair, hazel eye girl. Our 2 year old boy is perfeclty healthy and in our opinion and anyone who sees him tells us he is absolutely gorgeous. He has blonde hair and blue eyes, which is quite unique since his mother and I have hazel eyes. They both are well behaved and have no problem with social skills. So to all of you that have said they will suffer in the long run, should re-think what you posted and never wish anything bad on anyone. Who are you to judge anyway? I could give a rats ass what anyone thinks. You are not God. And I for one am certain God blessed us with our children and is very content in the way we raise our children in a very loving Christian home. God is not frowning upon us because the choice we made. If anything I feel He has blessed our marriage more for enduring 5 hard years dealing with the family and societies outlook on our situation. We have been married nine years and really only met for the 1st time when I was about 25. She lived in Mexico until visiting in California where I live. So our choice was not one of rebellion, perversion, or because we had a hard time getting someone to be with us, but of a choice defined by love.

re: Kissing Cousins

sargrum — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 21:26:27 GMT

Its NASTY to marry & procreate with a cousin, let alone a 1st cousin. The only thing seperating them genetically is 1 parent. Back in the bible days when humanity was first getting started you had to marry a close relative because the pickings were slim. Sooo anyway, why would one want to marry a cousin when the gene pool has evolved so far. Isnt there a hottie who lives down the street or in the next village that would be willing to marry these people who measure up to their social class.

re: Kissing Cousins

sargrum — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 21:28:58 GMT

Hey Sitara82... they're both sick, but that's society and moral values for ya!

re: Kissing Cousins

BlackGarnet — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 21:33:41 GMT

I have read several of the comments regarding "Kissing Cousins", although there are too many for me to read between taking care of my two young sons.

First I would like to comment on something regarding sexuality. My first husband found out he was gay and although the relationship didn't work out as origionally planned we are still friends. But my question is this: Why are opinions regarding sexuality, religion, race, etc always brought up no matter the origional conversation? Not that they are unimportant, but there are other issues besides these.

I agree that an individual should be allowed to love those of their choosing, a lot of the time we do not even really "choose" those we love. That being said, I disagree with marrying within the family, or rather procreating with them. It has been mentioned that around the world, and especially within world history, this was done much of the time. But why was this done? Did they sit down and decide to marry their cousin? As a previous poster commented, there was more to it than that. First, you're going to marry someone you know. In history it wasn't as easy to get around, espeically into other towns, and meet other people. This is hardly an issue now. Also there was the idea of properties. For instance, in England females couldn't inherit. So what happened? Keep it in the family by marrying the daughter to the cousin who would inherit. Did the girl or boy have a choice? And then look at the blood lines. What was a result? Down the road the closely related genes came rearing their ugly heads. On a broader spectrum, take a look at different races. Some have dark hair, dark skin. Some have light hair, light skin. Others are in between. There is a basic look for each race. Why is this? Because of seperation. Once you put together a cacasion with a Philipino, which is myself and husband, you get a mix of each race. Keeping them together brings out the dominate genes. So if my son has a child with a girl who has Philipino genes what would that child look like? Would he or she be like me with my European looks or my husband with his Oriental cast?

And about the comment from the parent with a child who has special needs, if that's not exactly correct I appologize. I don't think people who are different than the norm are less fortunate or a mistake or any other negative comment I've heard. But can you honestly say when you found out you were having a baby didn't you expect even hope for a "normal" child? My sons have really irritable skin. It takes lots of time and money to keep their skin somewhat normal. And I don't mind. But if I had forknowledge of this lifelong problem I may have rethought having children. It really bothers me to know this is something that is in my family, I think it was my maternal grandmother who had it, and therefore my fault they will always be like this. Hopefully when they're older it will not be such a problem. Hopefully it will not effect their children or children's children.

Another issue I have is the prejudiced idea that children born of this are less than others who are not. Whether or not a child is smarter or faster or healthier or whatever, I would be worried about how they were treated. As noted by the majority of the comments to this story, at least in America, this is highly frowned upon. Being the mother of mixed race children I worry about thir school age years. As a matter of fact we are having to move soon because of this very thing. I just want them to be happy and safe no matter their genetic background. My husband's family has finally decided that it's ok he married a "white girl" and our oldest is almost seven!

So basically, in my opinion, a person should be allowed to marry who they choose (race, gender, bloodlines, etc). Unforetunately if the decided parter is no the predetermined ideal mate you must expect problems - and there are lots that don't have anything to do with undesirable genes. You choose to leave your son uncircumsised, well most boys are circumsised and therefore the one who's diffrerent will be singled out. I think ANYONE who is thinking about having a child by any means should look at it from every direction. Our children come first, what is best for THEM, not us?

re: Kissing Cousins

s&dvenziano — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 21:35:05 GMT

Agian like I said in my 1st posted comment!

Bible verse

Or it is also worded to marry Fathers Brothers Son (COUSIN!)

I am married to my Fathers Brothers Son!

You are right there is nothing about cousin on the mothers side! Only Fathers Brothers Son! To keep the inheritace in the fathers family (tribe)! NUMBERS 36:11

We are very happy! Our family accepts it! Our freinds accept it! Our Church accepts it! As a matter of fact we went to our pastor and a few other pastors before we were married and they all pointed out Numbers 36:11& when we talked about some of our freinds making fun about it he pointed out Isaiah 5:20

Isaiah 5:20 Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!

He said if the Lord picked us to marry our cousin then for us to divorce would be a sin.

Only the people that are uneducated disagree with this marriage. Facts are Facts! We did our research at every angle so we could answer any question with a quoted FACT! We also have any documents to back our decision!

If you are 40+ years of age you have about the same risk of having a child with birth defects as you would if you had a baby with your cousin!

Current studies indicate that cousin couples have a lower ratio of miscarriages -- perhaps because body chemistry of cousins is more similar.

re: Kissing Cousins

maxwin — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 21:35:46 GMT

It is too easy, and likely erronious to take tha attitude that the socio-political problems in the Middle East- Muslim communities is related to this genetic issue. In smaller isolated communities like in rural and mountainous Syria, Iraq, Lebanon, there is a clearly perceptible problem of rampant genetic defects and issues. This is a result of a too small gene pool. In larger communities, there is enough of a wider gene pool to prevent or hold down the incidence of the recessive gene traits. However the real issue is not a narrow gene pool, but rather a narrowed cultural and social comprehension and intelligence. Constant marriage within the same clan or tribe will limit a person's understanding of what is going on outside of the group. The comprehension of possible options and solutions in addressing problems, the ability to adapt effectively to modernization and overcome crises, becomes severely limited. That, is the most evident and likely outcome and is part of the real problems of Middle Eastern societies.

re: Kissing Cousins

DrReid — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 21:47:19 GMT

Okay i am reading this right in 31 States in the United States of America 2 first cousins can get married or any cousins for that matter ...............BUT THE USA has a problem with GAY MARRIAGES ....ONLY IN THE US

re: Kissing Cousins

sunrisegal — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 21:50:17 GMT

s&dvenziano: Since you are quoting the bible ... what does the NEW Testament say about this topic?

It does not matter to me whether marrying a first cousin will create a super-human child or a long-lasting marriage etc.

To me, marrying a first cousin is like marrying a brother. Therefore, to me it is incest.

By the way, my parents are 2nd cousins who married one another. I do not know where to begin in listing all the congenital deformities and diseases that my siblings and I INHERITED from these cousins who chose to marry each other.

It is very ignorant and uneducated for you to judge all those who disagree with your philosophy ... by stating that they are uneducated. I have college degrees in business and languages ... and I STILL disagree with your beliefs.

re: Kissing Cousins

PRETTYNPINK — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 21:58:59 GMT

If you believe in the bible the first book of Genesis states that god made Adam and Eve came from a rib bone of Adam, with that being said, wouldn't we all be a retardation of them?

re: Kissing Cousins

rcole1959 — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 22:02:00 GMT

DrReid: no you are not reading it right, 31 states do not allow this type of marriage.

re: Kissing Cousins

Fred P Garvin — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 22:04:51 GMT

It would sure save alot of driving going to the in-laws during the holidays!

re: Kissing Cousins

redredsocialist — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 22:11:21 GMT

if there was such a gene then there would be a a no thugg gene ora no drunkard gene. LOL

re: Kissing Cousins

s&dvenziano — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 22:13:30 GMT

GOD HAS BLESSED cousin marriages. ONLY THE UNEDUCATED can put us down!

SERIOUSLY ONLY GOD CAN JUDGE US!

In smaller isolated communities like in rural and mountainous Syria, Iraq, Lebanon, the problem is NOT Constant marriage within the same clan or tribe it is FOOD, HEALTH CARE & NOT HAVING CLEAN DRINKING WATER.

It is very clear that anyone that says anything negitive about this IS CLEARLY UNEDUCATED!

There are more defects in children from a none cousin marraige then ever has been from a none cousin marriage!! THESE ARE KNOWN FACTS! ONLY THE UNEDUCATED can say such unture comments!

GOD BLESS dereksgray,busturia,kerryg,PRETTYNPINK, somi, meeable and all the other poeple out there that have married there cousin and are as proud as I am to tell the world, any one who puts us down is obveously uneducated. We are BLESSED and our children are BLESSED.

HAVE A WONDERFULL AND LONG LIFE!! :)

re: Kissing Cousins

redredsocialist — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 22:17:18 GMT

why are people mentioning the bible as a point of referance? the bible is not a history book and it does not reflect reality. if the bible was some thing to be refered to it is not for moral advice that is for sure.

re: Kissing Cousins

ItMo — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 22:19:28 GMT

Actually, DrReid, you couldn't have read it more completely wrong. In your rush to jump into your [America's a mess; What's wrong with Americans??] "ONLY IN THE US" rant, you just did what the media (and, consequently, much of the viewing public) has been doing for years: Have some rant in mind to begin with, catch a morsel of information from anywhere, COMPLETELY bastardize that information with your own knee-jerk interpretation, and finally bluster your way to your intended gripe (which typically has little or nothing to do with the original subject).

31 of the 50 United States, "either bar cousin marriage entirely or permit it only if the couple undergoes genetic counseling or cannot have kids."

I can only hope "Dr" is just some nickname you've picked up along the way...

re: Kissing Cousins

theotherside1117 — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 22:19:38 GMT

BlackGarnet, it would be a fair characterization to say my child is special needs, so that is okay. I will be honest with you and say that of course I did hope for a "normal" child, but I instead received a very rich and gratifying human experience. I wouldn't be the human being I am now without having had this journey. There are some pretty big challenges like you mentioned, but this is the nature of life and as parents, we all take on unforeseen risks and possibly daily tedious challenges by assenting to become parents at all. There is no guarantee my older child who is perfectly fit and healthy will not get into an auto accident and be brain damaged for life either. There is no guarantee of a purity and safety bubble for any human in the world from accidents and diseases that are congenital or acquired. We like to think so, but we're all fragile. Anyone who has a child takes a risk putting them into the world one way or the other. I just hoped to point out that these "genetic defects" are people and not necessarily something worthy of being wiped off the face of the earth or used as a baseline of determining a better class of people by putting them in the lowest dregs.

I don't think cousins should be disallowed to marry or have children, but I tend to be for less government on personal lives anyway so that may be my bias.

re: Kissing Cousins

logiguy — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 22:22:36 GMT

Maxwin -"Constant marriage within the same clan or tribe will limit a person's understanding of what is going on outside of the group. The comprehension of possible options and solutions in addressing problems, the ability to adapt effectively to modernization and overcome crises, becomes severely limited."

I'm not taking sides, but do you have any data to back this up, or is this just your opinion?

re: Kissing Cousins

redheadedbird — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 22:30:16 GMT

Wow. Some of the posts got WAY off topic and I can see that this issue really touched some people's "hot" button.

Before you condemn the whole idea of "kissing cousins," there are many other scenarios besides hillbilly teenagers groping whomever is available and/or nearby, or an arranged marriage.

When I was 7 years old I attended the wedding of my 19 year-old first cousin. I had a huge crush on him but that was one of the last times I saw him for many years. Twenty years later, he was divorced and moved back to our home state. One of our uncles passed away and we both attended the funeral. We went out that evening with a large family group, spent all evening talking and have been together ever since. We dated for two years and then married. He had a vasectomy in the 70's so we could not have children, but to be legally married in our state he had to "prove" he was sterile. Use your imagination...Anyway, on Valentine's Day it will be the 20th anniversary of our first date and we are still totally, madly in love. I don't know if it reduces some people's "ew" factor, but we did not grow up together. He is not someone I played with at our grandparent's house on holidays and family get-togethers. He was not like a brother. We have a huge family and I have many other male first cousins that the idea of dating or marrying would be completely out of the question. I could not possibly think of them in that way.

Because of our age difference and the fact that he moved out of state shortly after getting married, he was basically a complete stranger to me. However, I will say this. We have the same background, religious beliefs, values, sense of humor and both of us knew exactly what we were getting into with regards to each other's immediate family. We really have no in-laws. We get along unbelievably well.

I do understand the issue about having children with close relatives. While the risk of birth defects in marriages between first cousins is small, it is obviously multiplied if cousins marry and then their children marry cousins and so on.

Keep an open mind people. Very rarely can things be pigeon-holed into one or two possible scenarios.

re: Kissing Cousins

Lute — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 22:36:57 GMT

The article and its reasoning may be a bit flawed in that the risk assessment appears to only deal with a single instance of cousin marriage. In communities where cousin marriage is commonplace, many individuals are the products of generations of intrafamilial marriages. It’s quite likely the risks of birth defects increases with each generation this is practiced. It might be worth the effort of the author of this article to determine the risks of multiple cousin marriages along a family lineage over many generations.

re: Kissing Cousins

r_doss — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 22:42:12 GMT

I think more studies are in order. If, as some people believe, marriage between cousins produces defective children, then we should know, because most rational people would try to avoid it under those circumstances. I don't think the case has been made that marriage between 1st cousins, of itself, results in defective children.

I've never had a cousin I wanted to marry, simply on the basis of compatibility and mutual attraction. But I don't think it should be condemned in those cultures where it's considered desirable. Unless, as I say, it can be proven that it's a genetic mistake to do so.

I believe most of the genetically inferior children in the U.S. are the result of older men impregnating older women. Nowadays many women are postponing parenthood in favor of career building, then they suddenly realize they are up against the clock in producing offspring. It would appear that the older female is probably the greatest cause, but I believe research has suggested that older sperm impregnating an older egg increases the risk. It's a gamble, at best, and many women refuse to terminate the pregnancy, even when tests have determined that the fetus is defective in some way. Certainly I seem to see more children (and adults) with Down's Syndrome than I did in my youth ( I am a senior), but I realize that this fact alone proves nothing, but merely suggests a certain conclusion. As for cousins, more studies are needed.

re: Kissing Cousins

s&dvenziano — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 22:47:48 GMT

I mean uneducated in this matter only!

I married my cousin and I am very educated in this matter!

all the congenital deformities and diseases that siblings INHERIT can be inherited from your parents weither they are cousins or not!

whether your parents are not cousins or not and either parent or both parents have congenital deformities and diseases then you have a high chance of recieving those gene's

whether your parents are not related or not and neither parent genes have congenital deformities and diseases then you will be fine.

I am not insulting your intellegents READ NUMBERS 36:11 and tell me.

degrees in business and languages has nothing to do with this subject!

You are probably a very smart individual! To say that the Old Testament is wrong and the New Testament is right is saying that GODs word is wrong and that he has changed his mind later on and that we should not beleive his word wether The bible is the old or new testement! All is Gods word!

re: Kissing Cousins

ViBrAnt ReD — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 23:05:04 GMT

I don't understand why people are so judgemental. If there are only slight risks in cousin marriages, then why does it matter? If the couple is happy and not harming anyone, then why is it a problem? You might not want to, but other people might. Can someone please tell me why this is such a horrible thing? I wouldn't marry my cousins, but why is it a problem if others do?

re: Kissing Cousins

PRETTYNPINK — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 23:10:41 GMT

s&dvenziano, I never said I married my cousin, in fact that would be the furthest thing from my mind. I just think its funny how people believe in the bible versus evolution.

IF HOW WE ALL GOT HERE WAS BY THE HAND OF GOD,.....IN THAT SENSE ADAM & EVE ARE OUR PARENTS......WOULDN'T WE ALL BE RETARDED?

re: Kissing Cousins

Starlite — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 23:26:13 GMT

s&dvenziano, you ARE NOT as educated in this matter as you think you are. Yes, you can get something passed on from your parents, but when you have TWO people in the same family liniage, you INCREASE the risk !!! If a mutation is in the father's side and not the mother's, then the risk is smaller, but if BOTH have it in the genome, the the risk is higher !!!! Remember this, . . in Numbers36:11, they were saying that, but that was centuries, . . milleniums ago. In case you haven't figured it out, mutations build up over those centuries or milleniums. Look at Noah's flood, . . after the flood, God said that man was too evil and He would shorten man's days, and if you read the geneologies after the flood, you see them decreasing exponentially from 800 some years down to 120 years. Strange, but they follow the same exponential information loss figures very closely that geneticist see today. I don't see anyone sacrificing animals for the cleansing of sins anymore, but they did that in the Old Testament too. Try reading"Genetic Entrophy & the Mystery of The Genome" by Dr. John Sanford (FMS Publications). There are many others, but this book is good for the lay person in the field. See what has been reported by geneticist (Crow, Kimura, Muller, Morton, Haldane, etc, etc.) for the past few decades and then consider yourself a little educated in the matter. Factual information is important, . . not emotions and rantings and ravings and moral philosiphies being slung around.

re: Kissing Cousins

Twister52 — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 23:43:12 GMT

I've got a first cousin I wouldn't have minded marrying. She was GORGEOUS and on top of that she has a killer personality; a woman who is a real go-getter and as smart as a tack.

People freak out about it here in America and maybe it isn't smart to marry cousins generation after generation but why should love be forbidden between a male/female cousin just because you happen to share the same grandparents? It wasn't the cousins' fault their parents are related.

Had she not been my cousin I would have pursued her in a hearbeat!!!

re: Kissing Cousins

MaureenPatrie — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 23:55:06 GMT

We should also recognize that the stigma that Woods was perpetuating is a common one today in Western cultures and has existed in many cultures through time. This idea that marrying certain individuals is taboo has a great deal to do with kin relations. What we call first cousins- your mothers siblings child or your fathers siblings child- is not the same social relationship everywhere. The incest taboos that have been culturally constructed have a great deal more to do with encouraging both breeding and trade with larger groups than a matter of morality or genetic health. It would take bad luck and multiple generations of first cousins breeding to produce an observable pattern of increased or concentrated genetic abnormalities. Woods was culturally insensitive, but I hope that that insensitivity was primarily due to ignorance and not his sense of morality or 'ewww' factor.

re: Kissing Cousins

mobiusm — Tue, 06 Jan 2009 00:04:19 GMT

If I hear one more comment involving the bible........in a scientific conversation, I'll throw up......seriously, you'll see vomit splattering all over this web page.

...as for the article: WIN ! I have several hot cousins that have nice a**es [coincidentally just like mine :) ]

Reinforcing that gene can't be a bad thing. Society makes things taboo so perverts like myself can have fun on friday nights doing things that are "taboo". LOL

re: Kissing Cousins

MaureenPatrie — Tue, 06 Jan 2009 00:10:34 GMT

Thank you very much about the clarification about genes being neither good nor bad. I only meant to imply negative connotations to genetic mutations that resulted directly in shortened lifespan- a value judgment I admit, but one I feel comfortable standing by.

Also, try not to get vomit on my keyboard. These things are impossible to clean.

re: Kissing Cousins

SweetAndSpicy — Tue, 06 Jan 2009 00:15:12 GMT

My mother taught us: "there are too many other people in the world, without having to date, have sex with, or marry our own family". We are not animals (ex. dogs, hogs, etc.). We are of higher intelligence and should use the common sense that the Good LORD gave us. Should we allow this---what will happen next??? Will the law allow mothers and fathers to HAVE their own children; and, they can have their own grandchild/child? IS incest now the "new" 'in' thing? Sorry, I have to disagree.

I know of families whom married first, second cousins---and..."YES!" you can see thier disabilities in many ways, besides their looks. The couple was not up in age either.

re: Kissing Cousins

tubes — Tue, 06 Jan 2009 00:41:21 GMT

brings to mind ,going to the family reunion to meet all the hot chicks.

re: Kissing Cousins

ladyjane555 — Tue, 06 Jan 2009 00:43:29 GMT

I am very intrigued by this topic. I have watched my how the two of the children of two of my brothers interact. They are very close and quite sweet on each other. They are still quite young (preschool but not toddlers). We think that this is just a phase they will grow out of - but if they don't - would that be wrong. I might add that my two brothers are half-brothers - same father, different mothers, which does minimize the "taboo" factor. Comments?

re: Kissing Cousins

Son-of-Butch — Tue, 06 Jan 2009 00:52:00 GMT

Many animal studies on this topic have been done. 1st cousin matings in animal pedigrees is refered to as LINE BREEDING closer relations such as half brother to half sister matings or closer is INBREEDING. The results prove that whatever gene pool, for better or worsre, is shared is intensified in the next generation. Line breeding is acceptable and in many cases desirable to achieve specific results. In breeding has proven to be very unacceptable in the vast majority of cases. But even there I can cite examples of mating 2 superior individuals, half brother mated to a half sister, that produced a superior offspring that was a son that went on to sire over 1,000 offspring that were rated superior to the breed norm. The problem with in breeding is the number of culls generated it takes to produce the individual that is both superior and transmits it to the next generation.

As for enviroment, research has shown that children of opposite sexes reared together at early ages (under 8) whether related or not, develop an eww factor which they will almost never cross when choosing a mate. Cousins raised next door to each or close childhood playmates will not be considered. Cousins that do not meet until after puberty would have the same chance for attraction as any other individuals and may well choose each other if not informed of social taboo.

re: Kissing Cousins

pfasolo — Tue, 06 Jan 2009 01:03:45 GMT

My paternal grandparents were first cousins. It was an arranged marriage. They later divorced. My dad and his siblings are healthy. But when my grandmother later remarried and had two more children they both got a genetic disease which has resulted in my uncle going through organ transplants etc. Each of their children have the disease too. My maternal great grandparents were also cousins, also through an arranged marriage. My grandfather is 85 and still healthy, my mother and her siblings are healthy and so are my siblings. Only problem I suffer is emotional from being too ashamed/ embarrassed that I have this on both sides of my family. It was really difficult making that family tree in grade school. I wish others could accept the fact that a long time ago in our culture arranged marriages with cousins was normal.

re: Kissing Cousins

Nebraskadave — Tue, 06 Jan 2009 01:11:12 GMT

I had some friends years ago who were a married couple from Bombay, India (yeahyeahyeah, Mumbai). They were first cousins, but, they said, their mothers were sisters; if their fathers were brothers, that would have been too close; they would not have even considered it! I guess there's a line to not be crossed...

re: Kissing Cousins

sciencegeek92 — Tue, 06 Jan 2009 01:11:59 GMT

First of all, we humans are creatures of habit. We eat lunch in the same place, brush our teeth in the same way, and we cannot escape from our routine lives. Naturally, we are attracted to those who look like us: similar is good. High cheekbones and blond hair is common in my family, and my familiarity with those traits leads to attraction. But that in no means says that I am attracted to family members, or should be. We reproduce to strengthen our genes and our race through generations, and by marrying someone as closely related as a cousin, we our strengthening the weak genes common to our family: maybe something as simple as no hand-eye-coordination or as complex and impactful as a genetic disease. What I'm saying is that it's against nature and our natural, survival instincts to purposefully weaken our genes.

I'm unbelievably sick of people mentioning the Bible and/or any religious "evidence"; it neither supports or persuades. Please stick to science or ethics, that's what this article is based on.

And s&dvenziano, I know you're trying to stick up for your own situation, but if you can't properly use an apostrophe or spell "intelligence", I'm not sure if I can agree with your "I'm educated with this" rant.

re: Kissing Cousins

thechef1955 — Tue, 06 Jan 2009 01:53:53 GMT

Well, use your common sense!

re: Kissing Cousins

Flashlight_In_Eyes — Tue, 06 Jan 2009 01:54:24 GMT

I never really have studied anything like this... But I've always assumed that deformities and retardations in relationships involving incest has been because both cousins carry the defect, so there is more of a chance.

If I'm wrong, you can tell me. And If you disagree, please argue. I would like to know other views but I'm too lazy to scroll down ;)

re: Kissing Cousins

katz0382 — Tue, 06 Jan 2009 01:56:50 GMT

To those of you sick of religion, shame on you..we are allowed to express our views as well. They might not be scientific in your opinion but that is your opinion. Personally, I believe that both religion and science can co-exist. For example a study performed by NASA, an attempt to find the beginning of time. According to what I researched the scientist had a problem with the calculations and nothing seemed to correct the problem, until one scientist factored one day that stood still. This corrected the equation, and guess what in the bible, there is mention of a day standing still. Many doctors do not believe in God let alone religion, until they witness a miracle. It is okay to have your opinions, but please do not lash out at us for having different views.

re: Kissing Cousins

7nationarmy — Tue, 06 Jan 2009 01:58:23 GMT

Figures lie and liars figure. The author states that the risks for congenital birth defects increases by only 1.7% - 2% with the implication that this is a low number and therefore represents the relative risk. That is, if the risk were 1 in 100 for some abnormality, then cousins would have only a 2% relative increase to 1 in 98. But if you read the studies she references, the 1.7% number comes from a difference of absolute risk of 0.8% for the general population versus 2.5% for cousins. Therefore, the risk of congenital birth defects triples by more than 300% on a relative basis, from 1 in 125 to 1 in 40.

As for the statement that death in childhood is increased only 4.4% from a vanishingly low number, that is not correct. It may be vanishingly low in the US but these studies were primarily done in relatively impoverished countries where the death rates ranged from 3.1% to 39.5% so an absolute increase of 4.4% would translate to relative increased chance of early death of between 15% and 130% approximately.

I don't care whether people marry their cousins or not but the article caught my eye because I study genetics and the numbers as they were presented just seemed unlikely. It appears the wording was chosen to make a point, as too often happens in the popular press.

re: Kissing Cousins

nitlystars_angel — Tue, 06 Jan 2009 02:04:17 GMT

OK, my husband and I dated for 3 years. We decided to get marry and life our life as one.

One day a few months after we were married, my grandmother called and told us to come

to her house. We did as we were ask/told as that was how we were raised. When we arrived at

my grandmothers' she sit us down at the big table and we listen. It came out to be that my husband and I are cousins. We asked if it was ok for us to stay together and what if we had kids. She explain to us that we would be ok. If we were not meant to be together it would not had happen.

Now we have been married 25 years, have two Adult children that has nothing that is wrong with them. Our daughter is disable but from being hit by a car when she was 17 years old. Our son has ADHD but that was inherrited from my dad and his, but he has a IQ of 112 and is very smart. Now let me say, My cousin and my cousin married each other, they were only 3rd cousin. They have 4 normal and smart children and now grandkids. So I don't believe any of this. Birth defects can happen to anyone at any time. We do have a niece that is mentally disable, with a lot of birth defects. Her mother did not marry any family members and look she still had a child that will always be 2 years old in the mind and thoughts. Her daughter is now 39 years old. I just wish people stop coming up with why people has defects. They need to come up with ways to stop it from happening, or to correct it. But, if it was not meant for them to be that way, they would not have been that way.

re: Kissing Cousins

*Lexie* — Tue, 06 Jan 2009 02:43:59 GMT

Oh wow. The Bible is the Bible. Science is science. They are two different things. Please, religious fanatics, GIVE IT UP! I go to Church every Sunday and all that jazz, but I am also a doctor. If there was any God in science, then I would be out of a job. I.e, people wouldn't be dying from strokes, car crashes, and parasites from the tropics. If God was in science, then there would be no starvation and pediofiles, and wars. And PLEASE, DO NOT give me that crap about how they're not worthy and don't pray enough. That is BS. Because everyone has a right to their religion, sweetie, read the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. You people who think you're so high and mighty and say religion is evrything and everywhere, well, good for you. Have fun rotting in Hell when you die. Because you should study Dante's 7 deadly sins once in a while. And maybe you'll discover somethings that you are VERY guilty for. Yes, katz0382 and s&dvenziano. I mean you. Now, I am not God. But I do know that people who are as narrow minded as you two make me sick. I suppose you're against Gay/Lesbian marrige, too? And Wicca and Muslims? And abortion?

To Get back on topic, I think that it is the idividuals' choices. I don't disagree nor agree with cousins marrying cousins.

re: Kissing Cousins

wegtherebycreation — Tue, 06 Jan 2009 02:47:36 GMT

Hey, Prettyinpink, I think its funny how people believe in evolution as apposed to the bible. But if you want to believe your ansectors were apes, feel free. Just as I feel free to believe in creation, no matter how much people like you feel they need to try and convince me and other Christians otherwise. But that is what you call faith.

re: Kissing Cousins

ndj_e23@msn.com — Tue, 06 Jan 2009 02:49:46 GMT

My parents were first cousins and had eight children, six girls and two boys. We are all healthy and all living. The ages range from 48 to 62. One sister does have ashma but, other than that, no birth defects. My parents were unable to get married by the catholic church until the bishop obtain permission from the Pope in 1957.

I now have two daughters, ages 30 and 23, there are 14 grandchildren and 12 great-grandchildren all healthy and well. My dad is 85, my mom deceased at 67.

re: Kissing Cousins

wegtherebycreation — Tue, 06 Jan 2009 02:51:11 GMT

Lexie, what does God have to do with pedofiles and war? Have you never heard of free will?

re: Kissing Cousins

kissthis! — Tue, 06 Jan 2009 02:59:02 GMT

~quote~ s&dvenziano: "There are more defects in children from a none cousin marraige then ever has been from a none cousin marriage!!" HUH?? =then (than) =negitive (negative) =there cousin (their) =obveously (obviously) (not to mention several other 'typos')

Seriously, WHO is uneducated here?? Sorry, but if you are attempting to use education as your argument, you have failed miserably.

As for the argument several people used: 'my cousin is hot' ... wow, not sure HOW to respond to that one. Does that mean it should be permissible then as long as you find the person 'hot'? Does that mean if your cousin is ugly then you shouldn't be allowed to marry him/her? Or if your neighbor/friend's wife/husband is hot, that makes it ok to commit adultery? Seems to be the logic behind those comments.

People need to understand that not all genetic problems due to inbreeding are immediately evident; some traits are recessive and get passed along, causing effects seen only in future generations. Also, these studies are by no means saying that inbreeding ALWAYS leads to birth defects or other genetic problems, but scientific research shows a marked increase in problems of this nature in such cases.

Do some research on the genetics of hemophilia, for example. It was called the 'royal disease' in Europe for a very good reason: many of the royalty suffered from it due to the amount of inbreeding that occurred. There are many such diseases that appear substantially more often due to inbreeding, and hundreds of studies have been done showing this outcome. 'Selective breeding', which is often used with livestock and other animals, CAN produce enhanced characteristics--higher milk production, etc.--but at a great risk, since unselected traits are also influenced & 'fixed' (meaning overall beneficial genetic traits will likely suffer while deleterious ones become permanent traits). Take a look at AKC (American Kennel Club) standards to see excellent evidence of genetic disorders unintentionally reinforced by inbreeding. Nearly all popular purebred canines have listed disorders that are a known by-product of such breeding practices.

Google 'does inbreeding cause genetic defects' & read what scientists who have NO religious, political, or moral position on this subject have to say if you really want to be 'educated'.

re: Kissing Cousins

billskol — Tue, 06 Jan 2009 03:13:26 GMT

My parents were first cousins.I have a brother 82 years old and I am 73 years old,one brother passed at 23 years old from a bad infection before they had modern medicine.

re: Kissing Cousins

Godsgirl247 — Tue, 06 Jan 2009 03:17:21 GMT

Hey *Lexie*, I hate to break it to you, but GOD IS THE CREATOR OF ALL... If God wasn't involved in the creation of this rotten world, then who is? You probably believe in evolution... If so, why aren't things still evolving?? If you want to know why you still have a job, read the Bible.. Everything's written in there.. This old world isn't gonna last.. It says so right in the book of Revelation. I don't need to see God to know that there's a heaven and hell. I don't need to see God to know that he created the world and everything in it. Just take the time to watch the sun rise or stand on top of a mountain and look. Don't tell me that God didn't create it all. Oh and tell me this, if this world evolved, how did the salt lake end up in the middle of Utah??

The reason there is starvation, pediofiles and wars is because of us humans.. We are self centered, uncaring, stupid people.. No one is perfect. We all were born into sin and coruptness. The only way out of it is through God's Son.. I know I'm not perfect. I screw up alot and I know other Christians who do the same.. But that's the awesome part about God, He'll take me back time and again because I'm his child. I believe in God, I believe in His Son, I believe in the Bible, I believe there is a heaven and a hell. I believe that as long as I have faith and trust God, everything will be okay.

Wegtherebycreation, it's good to know that there are other Christians willing to stand up and defend our faith. God bless you! Keep trusting and keep praying.. We both know this world needs it.

re: Kissing Cousins

MsSimmons — Tue, 06 Jan 2009 03:20:12 GMT

Thank you kissthis! I am a teacher and it has been KILLING me to read the comments posted, I know this has nothing to do with "kissing cousins" but have you people never heard of spell check? Who are you to be calling others uneducated, when you seem to barely be able to spell the word "uneducated"? I especially loved the comments made by one reader about "iMbreeding" (spelled with an "m" several times) and she did admit to marrying her cousin (hmm, maybe her parents were also cousin and grandparents and so on!!)

re: Kissing Cousins

Cheyenne2 — Tue, 06 Jan 2009 03:30:42 GMT

I've heard of cousins marryng my whole life, never thought nothing about it, till the age of electronics & talk TV. I see nothing wrong with it & have not seen any zombies as offspring.

As far as a University course, you need to be careful who's teaching you, & what there teaching you,

I had some cousins that were knockouts when we were all young, & if the timing had been right & we were compatable, & made a connection, would have married them.

re: Kissing Cousins

lgove — Tue, 06 Jan 2009 03:37:30 GMT

I lived in a community where 3/4 of my child's student body at school were related to each other. Scientific proof means not. The etupidity from her interbred classmates was beyond comprehension.

re: Kissing Cousins

vanmajeel — Tue, 06 Jan 2009 03:51:21 GMT

Ok, re: the Bible...and I'm only submitting this to put an end to the bickering about it, not to "convert" anyone...please check Leviticus 18...there are several prohibitions on marrying close relatives, but I was unable to find any references to a ban on cousins.

A Bible reference I checked indicated that some of the relationships may have been forbidden "to conserve the order of inheritance rights among the Israelites". Others were to prevent problems like jealousy among the women of men who had more than one wife: a man couldn't marry a woman and then take her sister, as well.

Of course, some marriages may have been banned due to the "inbreeding" factor: a man couldn't marry his daughter, etc.

Something to keep in mind: these rules were part of the covenant made with the Israelites; Christians are not bound by it (Jesus' death fulfilled the covenant)...otherwise, we would still be expected to sacrifice bulls, etc. One of the benefits to us is to find out God's feelings on certain matters--a reading of the whole Law Covenant shows that people were encouraged to help their neighbours, be honest, etc...still good qualities!

There was no intent to offend anyone with this...just to inform.

re: Kissing Cousins

delphinhexe — Tue, 06 Jan 2009 03:55:49 GMT

I must state that I am not a religious person and have never studied the bible with any real "heart" however, when someone quotes a passage without any back-up for their quote, I do reach for the dusty bible (next to my evolution book) in my book case to find out exactly what is being quoted.

In this case I wanted to clarify some issues in regards to s&dvenziano's consistent reference to Numbers 36:11 (Old Testament). If you read the entire passage Numbers 36: "Of the inheritance of daughters", verses 1-13, you would realize that the only reason that the daughters were given to "their fathers brothers sons" was to keep the "inheritance" within the tribe itself. Therefore, it was self serving in that the fathers would never lose their inheritance, i.e. their names, lands, etc., would continue to be passed on through generations.

Had the daughters chosen to marry outside of the tribe or outside of "their fathers brothers sons" all of that families inheritance would have reverted to the new tribe. Specifically, verse 3: "And if they be married to any of the sons of the other tribes of the children of Isreal, then shall their inheritance be taken from the inheritance of our fathers, and shall be put to the inheritance of the tribe whereunto they are received: so shall it be taken from the lot of our inheritance."

I have serious issues with people who read and quote only portions of the bible for their convenience. I suggest reading the entire Chapter (or maybe all of Numbers) before making anymore references to Numbers 36:11.

Furthermore, this is much more of a scientific debate and not a religious debate; I agree with the scientific foundation of not marrying your cousin; as for the children that you have may not show any signs of "defects" the possibility of passing on mutated genes to those children are higher than if you were to have married outside of your "tribe" (rate of recombination may determine this). Unfortunately, it is not always possible to know the types of mutations that can occur with cousin marriages and even if their children are normal what mutations those children will pass onto the next generation. Granted this mutation rate becomes higher if the children also marry cousins.

If you really want to understand whether humans or other animals have a built in "aversion" to mating with someone who is to much "like" themselves start at the basics and look at studies of the MHC (major histocompatibility complex) in animals (implicated in "kin-recognition" and "mate-selection"); also start reading up on why "dispersal" is important, specifically in birds and large mammals (there's much scientific literature showing that dispersal reduces the chance of mating with relations, therefore reducing the chances of populations becoming inbred).

I hope that I contributed a little information to this conversation...it's been quite interesting reading the posts; and actually commenting on them for the very first time!

Cheers!

re: Kissing Cousins

kasi7114 — Tue, 06 Jan 2009 03:58:40 GMT

quote Kissthis! - "Do some research on the genetics of hemophilia, for example. It was called the 'royal disease' in Europe for a very good reason: many of the royalty suffered from it due to the amount of inbreeding that occurred."

Actually that's not really true. If you really really do your homework you will discover that the royal families in Europe very rarely married as close as second cousins much less first cousins. In fact, close cousin marriages were far more common in the lower class citizens. In fact, the nobles of Europe changed the defintion of degree of relations (i.e. what a relation of the first, second, third, etc) meant so that they were "closely related" to just about everyone. That way when their marriages did not work out they would do huge extensive research on the family tree to find out where they actually were related (often six or seven generations back) and use that as an excuse to get their marriage annulled. It was positively scandalous and shameful to be married any closer than a sixth or seventh cousin. From a genetic perspective this is ridiculous as you share just barely more DNA (1/32) with your second cousin than you do with a random stranger (1/33) and you have absolutely nothing more in common with a third cousin than with a stranger.

Hemophilia on the other hand is a sex-linked (x-linked to be specific) genetic disorder. Queen Victoria was a carrier of hemophilia, probably due to a mutation of one of her parent's genes. Her parents were not related nor were grandparents. All of her children married to unrelated individuals. The problem was, she had a lot of children and it spread to all kinds of royal houses. Four of her five daughters (probably also carriers of hemophilia) were married into different royal families and so it spread. Her eighth child and fourth son both manifested hemophilia as did ten of her grandchildren and great grandchildren. So before you know it there's hemophilia in practically all the royal houses, but it had nothing to do with inbreeding. No close marriages took place in the spread of hemophilia.

I'm not saying there isn't an increased risk in cousin unions, but I am saying that the royal familes problems with hemophilia were not caused by inbreeding. The royal families were very particular in keeping close cousins out of the marital bed. Distant cousins though, different story.

Anyone can have a child with a genetic problem. Most genetic problems come from recessive genes meaning both parents have to have it for the child to manifest a problem. Now if you compare yourself to any random person you are going to have some identical genes. There's only a problem if the ones you share are the recessive bad ones. The increased risk in the case of cousins comes from the fact that they simply have more genes in common in general so are more likely to have the same recessive bad ones. But hey, the recessive good genes can double up too!

And you can never make the argument that only the uneducated marry their cousin either. Charles Dharwin, the father of modern genetics married his first cousin. He definitely understood the genetics behind it. He and his wife had ten children together all very healthy some of which went on to become as brilliant and successful as himself. Now Dharwin is just one case and therefore is not proof that a child between two cousins would be okay. But hey, you can never guarantee that your child is going to be okay.

re: Kissing Cousins

sliptrick — Tue, 06 Jan 2009 04:21:13 GMT

Wow... Godsgirl247... I had a long argument ready for you, but I decided one word could destroy your entire comment, "DINOSAURS."

If god created everything and evolution doesn't happen, then why is there no mention of dinosaurs in the bible? Im sure if man had been as evolved as we are today there would be written records of dinosaurs, but there are none, thats because man had to evolve before we could write at all (yes mental ability is evolution).

Evolution is a slow process that can take decades or centuries to begin to show, in thousands of years, future humans could look at us as if we were animals.

The point is: you have no hard proof that evolution doesn't happen, while science has a lot of proof that it does, you could try to religion it away but after a while you begin to seem crazy.

Slightly back on topic, according to the bible, everyone is related in some way.

also:

mountains form because of tectonic plates

Salt Lake (actually a lake at one point in time) was formed because of drying rivers and streams

Sorry everyone else.

Back on topic, I don't really see why it would matter, there are many influential and important figures in history who were born through inter-family relationships.

So as long as your not by cousins from a long line of inbred or linebred relationships (i mean if your great-grandparents, your grandparents, and your parents were all cousins, you shouldn't marry your cousin) its fine (just don't tell anyone, im sure they wouldn't like you afterward).

re: Kissing Cousins

chubbywhiteboy — Tue, 06 Jan 2009 05:13:36 GMT

I have never meet God or His Son. I do believe in both of Them through events in my life that have no other definition. I also believe in evolution, where are all the "eye" and "wisdom" teeth going?

I was also lead to believe Darwin confessed on his deathbed to his whole hoax of evolution......

have fun figuring it all out!!!!

re: Kissing Cousins

kasi7114 — Tue, 06 Jan 2009 05:14:41 GMT

Challenge of the Day: Research your own family tree. Within four or five generations you will mostly likely find a case of first or second cousin marriage. (Maybe even more than one!) Now to check the five generations above you you actually have to each it all the way out to seven so you can see if your great great great grandparents had the same grandparents. It's probably more than a day's worth of research now that I think about it, but it'd be fun. ^_^ But I'd betcha anything that you'd find it.

Research is now starting to show that the most important factors for having healthy children are nutrition and health of the mother anyway (that's why age increases risk) as these things have been shown to reduce the production of new mutations.

In any case, I believe in freedom. People have the right to make their own choices and decisions. For better or worse they are the ones that will have to live with the consequences. Its always easy for an outsider to tell a couple that is very much in love that they can't be together for all of these very rational and sensible reasons. Its much more difficult when you are the one being told that you cannot be happy because it is against the rules. The individuals involved are the ones who have to live with the choices they make and therefore I believe the individuals involved are the only ones who have the right to make that decision. That is what being free means.

re: Kissing Cousins

winkiesixtysix — Tue, 06 Jan 2009 05:14:43 GMT

All I can say is yuck. So 51% of marriages in Turkey and Morroco are either to a first or second cousin? So they marry their cousins.....they also believe in killing women and daughters for family honor. The major reason for the issue is the fact that these countries do not educate women and treat women as if they were cattle. Countries that have educated women do not have this cousin marrying issue as women are not treated as property and they have an option were as in these countries most do not.

re: Kissing Cousins

chubbywhiteboy — Tue, 06 Jan 2009 05:19:42 GMT

I have never meet God or His Son. I do believe in both of Them through events in my life that have no other definition. I also believe in evolution, where are all the "eye" and "wisdom" teeth going?

I was also lead to believe Darwin confessed on his deathbed to his whole hoax of evolution......

have fun figuring it all out!!!!

re: Kissing Cousins

winkiesixtysix — Tue, 06 Jan 2009 05:25:51 GMT

To Kasi7114:

I have researched my family tree on both sides back to the 1400's and I do not have any first or second cousin marriages or even third cousin marriages. Your assertation that most people would have this are false. Many societies/tribes in history married their daughters to neighboring tribes to avoid marrying within the tribe. Mabybe your assertation is an admission of either being married to a cousin and trying to alay the stigma of it by saying we all have it.

re: Kissing Cousins

Rocksanne — Tue, 06 Jan 2009 05:33:02 GMT

The Bible does not forbid marriage between cousins.

I think that back in the day before high powered travel - families settling in and populating villages, maybe cousin marriage was more practical.

Today, at least here in America, what excuse do we have for marrying our own kin? I admit, its not sin, just a natural aversion. To me it seems nearly as disgusting as marrying a sibling, which is as disgusting as mating with an animal. Just freaking gross - I don't care how nice or nice looking any of my cousins are, or whether or not I was raised close to them. We share grandparents, and in the cases of second cousins - great grandparents.

It is a distintly different type of love and affection that we naturally have for our blood relatives, in general. So to those of us who feel this way, of course people who are sexually and romantically interested in their own cousins, seem like total perverts. Not much different than sibling sex. Ralph. I have four cute brothers and I'd honestly rather die than think of one of them that way.

re: Kissing Cousins

Rocksanne — Tue, 06 Jan 2009 05:35:35 GMT

"And what of the belief that humans have an incest-avoidance gene that keeps people from lusting after their cousins? None has ever been found. And if avoiding incest with a cousin is part of human nature, as some evolutionary psychologists contend, then an awful lot of humans haven’t noticed. In Turkey and Morocco, first-cousin marriages account for 22% of all marriages, and second-cousin marriages for another 29%, finds demographer Georges Reniers of the University of Ghent. Cousin marriages are similarly common among China’s majority Han ethnic group and in the Middle East and sub-Sahara Africa."

Right. Just like "an awful lot of people" haven't noticed that it is perverted and unnatural to lust after children or animals, and so on. Its still perverted and unnatural to most of us.

re: Kissing Cousins

Rocksanne — Tue, 06 Jan 2009 05:54:42 GMT

What is sickening is ungodly people saying that bringing the Word of God into a discussion about science makes them want to vomit.

That is because the "gospel is foolishness to those who are perishing".

Actually, the Lord CREATED science, so it is ridiculous to say that the there is no room for God's own Word in a discussion about our limited pea brain understanding of His glorious creation.

God says that our philosophies or the wisdom of man will come to naught. Yes, God did give us intelligence to study His amazing workmanship, but so much of our scienctific finding is constantly changing because we are so limited.

And please, anybody who discredits God's Word because the word "dinosour" isn't found in it, please study the Bible. Just as an example, look at the word "leviathan" which can be found multiple times. Its described as an enormous reptile - and it refers to an beast in the water and also on the land.

Truly, God's Word will stand forever and I can't wait until every knee bows. Defending God's Word is infinitely more important than protecting your keyboard from vomit.

re: Kissing Cousins

SuzieS — Tue, 06 Jan 2009 05:54:59 GMT

My parents are first cousins and they had nine kids and are still married after 36 years and none of their kids or grandkids have any defects. Science or no science, it is the will of God on what happens to everyone and while many will like to have a logical or scientific explanation for it; it is what it is.

I am also Middle Eastern and depending on your family, yes cousin marriages can be arranged and in some cases even forced. Often times the individuals are killed for not obeying and because the society that they live in has such strong opinions in regards to their culture and religion, they think its ok. While in the U.S. these individuals do have a bit more room to not obey their family's forced rules, there are some who will find a way to punish them no matter what.

Yes, it is disgusting to some people because the majority of people in the US do not practice these lifestyles. Having grown up here, I see their point of view but I also see the point in which my parents had. Marrying each other was not about wealth or keeping the wealth in the family, They were already without everything because they were always moving and constantly hiding from people that didn't like them because they were of a different culture. it was about respect. In those days and even now; people treated anyone from the "outside" far more rigidly because their ideals and ways were different from their own. How many marriages do you see now with conflicting religious beliefs or better yet political views? While some do make it, people are often more drawn to people of their own kind, whether that is by race, color, culture, religion, or just social norms.

Believe it or not, the only difference between the people of the 18th century and those of today is the media and how fast news travels. How many people knew about other cultures or ways of living from other countries 50-100 years ago? But because we have so much access to other cultures and social norms, we compare them to our own and base our opinions solely on what was passed down from one generation to the next. I dont care what anyone says, its true, how we view one another does not come from within us but by taking sides and looking up to someone else. Its human nature.

There is no right or wrong answers here. You have to put yourself in their position and have an open mind. Everyone has their own reason for what they are doing no matter how wrong they might seem in another individual's eyes.

re: Kissing Cousins

akuraoo — Tue, 06 Jan 2009 05:58:59 GMT

Cousin marriages are similarly common among China’s majority Han ethnic group and in the Middle East and sub-Sahara Africa.

I don't think so! Only communitite that have been corrupted by Islam would do so in sub-Sahara Africa. My people, the Luo of Kenya, cannot even marry from the same clan.

re: Kissing Cousins

mother84 — Tue, 06 Jan 2009 06:05:33 GMT

My husband and I are actually frist cousins and I couldn't resist not writing something here. We've never met each other bc we lived in different states. Then when he came to my state for school, we met and started talking. We knew what we were getting ourselves into but it's our choice. We've been culturely married for 6 years now and have two kids 2 and 5 years old and they are both perfectly healthy. I honestly believe and feel that if two people are in love then they should do what will make them happy. We don't mind what other people think or say because we don't let it bother us. What we have is strong and it is our choice. All I can say to people who are against it is that everyone has the right to chose who they want to be with in life wheather it's gay, lesbian, straight, or related, as long as they are happy.

re: Kissing Cousins

akuraoo — Tue, 06 Jan 2009 06:11:14 GMT

Among the Luo and many other non-Islamic cultures in East Africa we do not even have a word for "cousin" in our languages! We call them either sister or brother. And their parents are either mother or father. There is a story during the colonial British rule in Kenya when a worker asked for permission from his British boss for a week's leave (vacation) to go to his ancestral home and burry his father. A few months later he asked for another leave to burry another father. The boss enquired wondering how many father his worker had. He was surprised to learn that his biological father was still alive. Those who had died were actually his uncles!

re: Kissing Cousins

jftdh — Tue, 06 Jan 2009 06:26:22 GMT

When the topic is thrown out it seems as if it's a no-brainer, especially in western cultures. But after reading mother84's story I can see her point. I would still opt to find someone else, but in rare cases as in hers I guess you could say its destiny? Also the jokes about folks in the Southern states had to originate from somewhere however exaggerated they may seem (no offense, ya'll)

re: Kissing Cousins

mrstan — Tue, 06 Jan 2009 06:32:46 GMT

I expect that the same people that feel marrying family members also feel homosexual marraige is OK. Sometimes common sense and reason just break down entirely. Marry your cousin, daughter, or sister... why not just hook up with another dude (if you can call these people that). Why not hook up with a dog or cat for that matter if we are talking about crazy hook-ups.. If it feels good, do it.. right? This is what is wrong with our society today, and it is failing both in morality and common sense. We have evidently lost our collective minds obviously to even be debating this kind of topic... It is unthinkable that people actually have to be told what is acceptable in terms of relationships. Men do not connect with men, cousins, sisters, daughters, dogs, cats, horses, fence posts, or your right hand. Learn what it is to be a man for heaven's sake! Stop making stupid decisions and live your life correctly and life will give you the rewards that you are entitled.

re: Kissing Cousins

njqrn — Tue, 06 Jan 2009 06:42:54 GMT

Most nobility practices keep their blue blood by marrying cousins, so this is not something reserved to Muslim cultures. Muslims were given permission to marry their cousin but we also informed that marrying a person outside the family would be best to promote relations. The idea was not foreign to Americans as well as many of our ancestry married their cousins. Yet over time it became a cultural taboo. And yes if there is a bad gene it does have a chance of repeating however we have the world of genetic counseling that now affords us to be forewarned. There are plenty of people married to their cousins that have healthy children. It is just our thinking that has to adjust. We have to learn to accept the practices of all people and simply let people live their lives rather than try to define what we feel to be right or wrong upon them. Live and let live.

re: Kissing Cousins

jd5587 — Tue, 06 Jan 2009 07:05:21 GMT

What I'm not understanding in this conversation is the topic of homosexuality. I can understand the comments on incest and family relations, but what does that have to do with a man loving another man or a woman loving another woman? Why does it matter to you? Does it hurt you in any way? No, it doesnt, it has no affect on how you go on about living your life. If you want to go ahead and use a biblical reason for your stance then that is fine, but not every one feels the same way as you, just because everyone here is not Christian doesnt make you a bad person, just as being a homosexual doesnt make you a bad person. Christianity has the biggest problem with homosexuality and tolerance is part of your religion, so why are you intolerant of those who choose to live a different lifestyle than you? I am Catholic and straight and see NO PROBLEM whatsoever in a homosexual relationship. This shouldnt even be discussed, but a close minded individual would bring something as STUPID as that up in a discussion completely unrelated. I, in fact, feel stupid for even debating this or voicing my opinion, but I dont feel that it is okay to judge someone for their sexual preference, ESPECIALLY when it has nothing to do with you.

re: Kissing Cousins

Son-of-Butch — Tue, 06 Jan 2009 07:33:29 GMT

To all the Bible thumpers that seem to get their underwear in a knot concerning evolution. Charles Darwin made a great and important discovery ADAPTITIVE MUTATION. What is greatly misunderstood is he did not discover evolution. By extrapolating the variables, which is to say speculating as to the consequences based on his discovery and observations to estimate or infer the outcome beyond the known range, from which the estimated outcome is ASSUMED to follow. This is why it is known as the THEORY OF EVOLUTION. The problem arises because the general population (most likely repetitious reporting by the uninformed) accept it as scientific fact. When in fact it has yet to be either proven or disproven and so only remains as a theory.

Just last month an associated press story was released titled "Stone Age City Discovered" but when reading the article the discovery was the remains of the oldest city ever found, nearly 6000 years old, but 4000 bc puts it in the BRONZE AGE not the stone age, yet it was exaggerated by poor reporting into being more than what it was. Sorry for getting so far off topic, but misleading reporting and distorting facts is a pet peeve. Two years ago I came across a news report in a major newspaper with a headline that would lead the casual observor to believe that "Darwin's evolution proven" but upon reading found it to be nothing more than researchers reproving Adaptitive Mutation, this time studying finches. Science is a search for truth. Distorting facts may lead to additional funding but hurts the quest. To close I will quote Albert Einstien, "Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind." He also said the reason he was not an atheist was because he had walked in nature with marvel and awe. I hope when you get a chance you might do the same.

re: Kissing Cousins

SRKD — Tue, 06 Jan 2009 07:41:10 GMT

Hey, this world was not created after your Bible or Christianity. It was there millions of years ago & there were plenty of religions there even before Christianity! Humans are not here since 2,000 years but since millions of years. Grow up! Marriages between cousins/blood relatives were common till recent years. And is happening since thousands of years too. So, how come, humans have not been reduced to zombies yet? There were cousin-marriages in many nations till the law or research came into picture. I, personally don't vote for it. But each up to his/her own. BIble, God, homosexuality, animals, dogs, cats...hey, Godly people are always somehow too mixed up with myriad of emotions! I haven't met any God nor have you (face the truth!). Do good & do your duty & God (if he is there) will bless you. Why has not the same God given you any common sense yet?

re: Kissing Cousins

bohemianscene — Tue, 06 Jan 2009 07:50:28 GMT

Seriously? I have to read some dumb article about third hand smoke and cousin marriages both on the headlines of msn? WHO CARES? Why can I comment about cousin marriages and not about some bullshit about third second hand smoke? Who came up with this??? That is INSANE. If you are the rare instance in america where your parents are cousins then you might have some genetic defect...if you are the creation of smokers...which is HIGHLY likely..it is UNLIKELY that you really have any damage or disorders...because MANY of us were. It just shows you that we any more tolerant of INCEST then we are SMOKING!!!! Which is ridiculous....

re: Kissing Cousins

kissthis! — Tue, 06 Jan 2009 07:51:09 GMT

Rocksanne: Have you actually studied the bible yourself, or are you merely another person quoting

scripture in a vain attempt to make their point? It talks of Jesus teaching in parables; what makes

you think that the bible, written largely by His followers and translated unknown number of times,

was not fashioned in a similar manner? Just because something has been written down does NOT

automatically make every word of it literal or true. Literally the bible mentions ONE 'Leviathan'... how is this interpreted as the plethora of dinosaurs which fossil records indicate having once roamed the earth? I believe God gave us brains so we could learn, become more educated, think for ourselves. More people should try it.

============================================================================

kasi7114: I have done plenty of research on this subject; there are conflicting opinions on this as

there are on most topics. As there were literally centuries of inbreeding in the royal families

before hemophilia was noticed/diagnosed as such, and due to potential historical inaccuracies and

'cover-ups' (falsifying information), a truly scientific answer is not readily available. From what

I have been able to find on this, though, most of the royal families in Europe had noticeable

evidence of this disease, not just the British royals, due to such close genetic sharing amongst

them.

A few links I found with a quick search:

http://www.as.wvu.edu/~kgarbutt/QuantGen/Gen535_2_2004/Inbreeding_Humans.htm

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-513388/Minister-Muslim-inbreeding-Britain-causing-massive-surge-birth-defects.html

http://nepaliaashish.wordpress.com/2007/11/22/human-inbreeding-a-better-understanding/

I would be interested to read any links/information you could supply about this or the genealogy

of royal families, thanks!

=============================================================================

Now, all this talk of God being the creator & evolution being bunk with no mention whatsoever of

the actual subject at hand is more than a bit off topic, but definitely requires a response, so...

Let me begin by saying I was raised in a very religious household/community, and while I believe we are not the only 'intelligent life' (and i use the term loosely) in this universe, world, creation

(whatever word you want to use here), and that there is a God, higher power (again, whatever word

you choose); no one, not even scientists, have been able to prove this beyond a doubt.

There are plenty of things we simply do not understand or have not even discovered yet; however, to date there is an overwhelming preponderance of scientific evidence supporting evolution... of the universe, the planet, and PEOPLE.

No one forced me to believe in the science behind any of this, although religion was basically

forced upon me as a child and has been to an extent all my life. I choose to look at the whole

picture, at all of the information available. How do you think God created everything? Perhaps a

myriad of events were set in motion (evolution) that have led to this current outcome. Who is to

say who or what started them? God is a mystery, remember?

Godsgirl247 said things are still not evolving. Seriously?? Both nature and science cause us, our

world, and everything in it to constantly evolve. The fact that you appear to be quite unaware of

it is NOT evidence of a lack thereof. Read the news: new inventions, groundbreaking cures, exciting

discoveries, species never before known to exist--as well as environmental changes--are practically

daily occurrences. Insects, viruses, and bacteria, to mention a few, are rapidly adapting

(evolving) to survive the advances in pesticides, antibiotics, etc. as quickly as we try and find

other methods to counteract them. Sometimes we build immunities to these things naturally, and

sometimes we need science to help us. If this is not all evidence of evolution, what is??

Also let me point out the contradiction in saying: "If God wasn't involved in the creation of this

rotten world, then who is?" and later stating: "I don't need to see God to know that he created the

world and everything in it. Just take the time to watch the sun rise or stand on top of a mountain

and look." Is this world God created rotten, or beautiful? And if you believe in God and the bible,

then you should know that starvation, war, etc. do not exist because of humans, but because of

original SIN.

As for Salt Lake in Utah, it is the remainder of a lake that covered much of western Utah in

prehistoric times. Several rivers and numerous streams deposit over a million tons of dissolved

minerals into it yearly. Continual evaporation concentrates these minerals, as the lake has no

outlet.

BTW... why can no one manage to spell 'pedophile' properly?

re: Kissing Cousins

LongLostCousin — Tue, 06 Jan 2009 07:58:14 GMT

Hey, try not to bring in religion or culture, into the discussion... we all just human. And we always want to blame something, someone, anyone other than ourselves whenever some wrong happens. Birth defects, genetic diseases, different sexual orientation, skin color, hair color, no color, etc... all these things are from us, our ownselves. We were born with it, its out of our control. Its a done deal. We've been here now on this earth for generations, thousands of years, gone thru all kinds of evolution, and will continue to evolve. Hopefully for the better, not worst. Something is bound to happen, right? Good or Bad, all from us, our own doing. Look in the mirror. Live life the way you want to, be happy. Those with hot cousins still available & unattached, maybe you might want to introduce them to me... I have a few hot cousins available too ! Have A Happy & Prosperous Year, y'all.

re: Kissing Cousins

mporte25 — Tue, 06 Jan 2009 15:14:51 GMT

It sounds to as though the study says if you take two cousins from the average population an put them together there is only a small increase in the risk of birth defects. I don't think that it takes into account the increased risk that occurs with consistent and repeated inbreeding....

re: Kissing Cousins

PRETTYNPINK — Tue, 06 Jan 2009 17:22:41 GMT

wegtherebycreation: what I think is funny is the belief that"God" created Adam and Eve they procreated and had Cain and Abel. it doesnt say anything about god creating more people. He said "go forth and be fruitful". How did cain and abel become frutiful when there were no other women on the planet except their mother? and if they became frutful with mother, wouldn't we all be a retardation of that sick union?

re: Kissing Cousins

WebMiner — Tue, 06 Jan 2009 18:14:56 GMT

P-N-P,

Just because there is no mention of other people being created doesn't rule it out. Consider this - we read of the birth of Christ, read about him challenging the scholars in the temple as a boy, and the next thing you know he's 30 years old, getting baptized and starting his ministry. Was the vast majority of his childhood and young adulthood a reality? Did it even happen? I mean, it's not mentioned anywhere, could he have just *become* 30 years old one day? Not likely, people would have noticed. "Hey, you look a lot like that kid that was in here yesterday stirring up the Pharisees, what gives?"...

The primary message of the Good Book is well beyond the issue of how the human race was populated. To stay in theme with a Creationist account, following the flood there would only be four couples to re-populate the Earth, right? Not much of a gene pool, unless there were additional people created. People lived so much longer in the that era, it's hard to imagine a couple having children for 300 to 500 years. Each of the three sons could have fathered well over 200 children each. And with no daycare facilities! Or disposable diapers!!!

At any rate, if God wants to create additional people to help re-pop the planet, it's His call pretty much. Alternatively, from a scientific standpoint, the 20,000 to 25,000 gene pairs of the genome are awfully pure at this point, 500 to 1,000 humans with a clean genome (with descendants living and procreating for way longer than we do today), it would certainly be a while before recessives begin to take hold.

I sure don't have it all figured out, but lack of understanding does not equate to lack of possibility.

re: Kissing Cousins

PRETTYNPINK — Tue, 06 Jan 2009 18:50:20 GMT

WEBMINER:

Exactly!...in fact, we don't even know if its the same Jesus.... your words "Did it even happen?......indeed, did it?......I guess thats where "faith" comes into the picture...

The books of the Old and New Testament were written by men, who's to say there wasn't something lost in the transcription.

I'm way off topic, but I can't seem to get a reasonable explantion to my queries....

re: Kissing Cousins

Rocksanne — Tue, 06 Jan 2009 20:04:03 GMT

Dear "KissThis",

I will help you out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leviathan

There were obviously enormous creatures; serpents, reptiles, mentioned in the Bible, and just not termed as we refer to them today "dinosours". Leviathan is just one example that I know off the top of my head. That doesn't mean that there are others mentioned as well.

Yes, I study the Bible seriously. I was raised Mormon and once my eyes were opened, I realized how important it is to interpret the Bible correctly, using the Bible. I've found that this way, it doesn't contradict itself, and any mistranslations are extremely minor - exactly none of these mistranslations changing one truth in God's Word.

The Dead Sea scrolls are just one proof of how perfectly the Lord has preserved His Word. Those who claim that it can't be trusted, was written by men, must have been distorted, and so on, simply do not yet know know the Lord or the Bible, which the Lord said is God-breathed.

I have no idea why you are bringing up the Lord's use of parables. There is zero chance that you can miss when He is using a parable (it will say so) or when He is talking literally or historically. For example, many believers assume that amazing stories like Jonah/great fish or Noah/flood are allegory because of lack of scientific proof or whatever. Many of these people will say they mainly only believe in the New Testament. However, Jesus and Peter and other disciples referred to men like Adam, Noah, Job and Jonah as real, historic figures. So we can be sure they aren't allegory. I know I'm off subject, but please, I emplore you to study the Word of God seeking God, because He promised that anybody who seeks Him with their whole heart will find Him.

As for the other poster who asked about who Adam and Eve's children married, I think it was probably their own siblings, then neices/nephews, then cousins, and so on, but Genesis was written many years later by Moses and has so little detail included. So it isn't made clear.

God later had to lay out what was acceptable and not acceptable - no sex with siblings, parents, aunts and uncles, beasts, same gender, etc. I agree with the poster who said that its pretty amazing that this would have to be laid out for us. It seems like common sense. What about that "O" nerve scientists have found? Not sure if its good science, but its interesting. If so, we are naturally sexually attracted to people outside our families or otherwise different "in smell" than ourselves.

I really don't think we should look down on kissing cousins. Like I said before, it clearly is not sinful. I think its just a matter of a common aversion that seems prominent and natural. As somebody who is white with green eyes, I've always been attracted to very opposite looking men - some Latinos or Italians, and my husband is black, Japanese and Mexican. I don't want to be with somebody who looks like me. Opposites definitely attract. So its just difficult to comprehend the cousin attraction. But since it isn't sinful, I wouldn't judge a person for marrying a cousin.

re: Kissing Cousins

Rocksanne — Tue, 06 Jan 2009 20:08:21 GMT

PrettyPink,

I believe that you would be completely blown away if you wanted to find out how accurately the Bible has been preserved.

If you ever do - I would start with books and dvds by somebody like Lee Strobel, who came to the Lord as an atheist/scientis who was upset over his wife's conversion to Christianity. He wanted to prove it wrong but instead was converted to Christ. So his work is from a scientific perspective.

Some of his books/dvds include "A Case for Christ", "A Case for Faith", "A Case for a Creator", and to help protect people from following a false Jesus/ idolotry (cults like Mormonism, Jehovah's Witnesses, and many others) "A Case for the Real Jesus".

I think you'll be amazed by how much overwhelming proof is out there. There is another book by a former atheist "I Don't Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist", which might help open your eyes.

re: Kissing Cousins

Rocksanne — Tue, 06 Jan 2009 20:16:30 GMT

I didn't carefully read the question about Cain specifically.

This article might help: http://www.inplainsite.org/html/finding_a_wife_for_cain.html

It explains that people commonly misunderstand what it means to "know" your wife, in Biblical terms. It doesn't mean that the two didn't already know each other like we know our friends. "Know" means to have had sex with. Cain must have known his wife or bride (his sister, niece, cousin, etc.) when they moved to Nod, but hadn't had sex with her or conceived children with her yet.

re: Kissing Cousins

WebMiner — Tue, 06 Jan 2009 22:01:08 GMT

P-N-P,

Not to go completely off topic for too long, but to your comments -

The Jesus of the manger, the cross, and the empty tomb are all the same guy, of that history bears sufficient evidence. My comment "Did it even happen?' was with respect to the aging process between Christ the teenage and Christ the 30-year old man. Just because the Scripture didn't take us through each tiny bit of his life doesnt mean he didn't experience life between the ages of 14 and 30 (more or less). Do you see what I'm saying?

Think of the person you idolize the most, perhaps the person you'd most like to have dinner with. If possible, you'd want to capture the moments on film, movie, or whatever, to relive and treasure. How much more 'valuable' was the time of the Creator of the universe? He comes to hang out on our planet for a few years, and the vast majority of his time here is skipped over, not even mentioned! That he could have created 10,000 additional humans when needed would, to him, be more or less a boring footnote of history.

"The books of the Old and New Testament were written by men, who's to say there wasn't something lost in the transcription."

The Scripture states that men wrote the Bible as they were inspired of the Holy Spirit. That is to say, (presuming you're on board with the stance as such) while each author's integrity of writing style was kept intact, the message and doctrine contained in their respective writings were kept error-free as if God was the penman.

There are debates that surface about how to properly interpret this word or that word, but the primary message of the 66 book compendium runs consistent.

Either way you look at it, either we're all related, distantly, to Noah and his sons, or even if there were some 10,000 (arbitrary number there) blueprint human genomes whipped up by the Almighty, by now many of those 'gene streams' have crossed, making many of us distantly related still.

How distant away must someone be before it's okay? Some cousines have met and married unawares. Generally speaking, even in countries that practice cousin marriage, they do not try to match the the offspring to just one aunt or uncle's children. That would represent more of an inbreeding environment where recessives would be much quicker to appear after just three or four generations.

re: Kissing Cousins

PRETTYNPINK — Tue, 06 Jan 2009 23:40:58 GMT

WEBMINER -

your words "of that history bears sufficient evidence" again I have to say the history is of the men that wrote the book. you say "as if god was the penman" there again, who's words are those?

I COULD TELL YOU THAT GOD TOLD ME TO WRITE ALL THIS ON THIS BLOG......

WOULD YOU BELEIVE IT?

re: Kissing Cousins

kasi7114 — Wed, 07 Jan 2009 04:16:24 GMT

kissthis!: Thank you so much for the interesting reading! I'm always looking for new sources about this topic in particular.

I admittedly am not as well read on royal bloodlines as history was never my subject. I'm much more familiar with genetics aspect of the situation. The Queen Victoria was just an example that I'm fairly familiar with in general because it is brought up often in class as a misconception. What I told you before I got from the work of Dr. Martin Ottenheimer. He's a social anthropologist and most of his work has been on the topic of marriage. That particular bit about Queen Victoria can be found on page 117 of his book Forbidden Relatives, which specifically addresses cousin unions and how their have been perceived in Europe versus the US. Its very dry and dull at times but I learned a lot from it.

You might also take a look at the Textbook of Human Genetics by Levitan and Montagu who talk specifically about the case of hemophilia in the royal family but that book is a little older (1977) or at least my copy is - there might be a more recent edition.

I'm also familiar with the research that has been done by Dr. Robin Bennet, which specificially addresses the issue of consanguinity. She's a former President of the National Society of genetic counselors - www.nsgc.org), I'm honestly only familar with her because I had the pleasure of meeting her once for an interview. Very neat lady!

From what I understand about genetics though its not really the in-breeding or the line-breeding that cause genetic defects to manifest more often unless the breeding is repeated over and over again. Then the problem is not really from the inbreeding perse but rather just that you have a ridiculously small gene pool. If a 1000 or 2000 group of people (not related) that is isolated are left to themselves for a few generations they will have major increased genetic defects in their population even if no one ever mates with a relative. The population studies on the Aland Islands are a good example of this. They have a rare bleeding disorder and some kind of eye problem that is next to unheard of in Europe proper. I tried to find you a link but all the good ones required subscriptions to academic journals... sigh.

So inbreeding doesn't usually become a problem unless you stop outbreeding. Because its the small gene pool that is really the problem not the incest itself. Its just incest over and over again means that you have a small gene pool.

And now that I'm thinking about it - that may even be what happened with the Royal families in Europe. I'm still fairly certain that nobles very rarely married close cousins based on many genetic texts, but they did have a very limited select group of people to choose from when selecting a mate. The reason the Pakistani have a problem (and notice they have more a problem in Britain than they do in their native country) is because they have such a small gene pool to select from because they constantly are inbreeding and rarely outbreeding.

I enjoyed the first link you sent to me the most as it had some information that is new to me. I would be curious if they had anymore numerical numbers on how often inbreeding did take place in the royal family (rather than simply stating that it did). I hadn't even thought of the Egyptian or Incan royal cultures. I would love more information on them if you could point me in the right direction. I also am glad they took the time to define what they considered incest because it is defined differently from state to state or country.

The essay did site Dr. Bemiss in the beginning, and in the scientific world his work (while it was heavily influential politically) is highly criticized in the scientific community. His research did not contain representative samples as almost of his work was done in asylums and most of his "evidence" is merely anecdotal descriptions of behavior of the children of legitimately insane people. Also his data didn't support his claims as he saw more problems in the children of third cousins than in first of second cousins in the blind portions of the experiment.

You're absolutely right - there are no "right" or "correct" answers in science. Only debates! I think that's why I love science as much as I do. ^_^

*************************

To winkiesixtysix: You've looked up every branch of your family all the way to the 1400s?! You have got to give me some research tips girl! I would love to be able to build it that far. Not sure it would fit on my wall though as a family tree starts to flare out rather quickly! I mean, how on earth do you keep track of all those ancestors?! You have four grandparents, eight great great grandparents, sixteen great great great grandparents etc. It multiples by two every generation. If you go all the way back to the 1400s that's about 20-25 generations if you assume each generation is about 25-30 years apart. In the 24th generation back you have something on the order of 16 million (2^24 to be exact) ancestors in that generation alone to keep track of!! And you do it so well that you can remember off the top of your head that there are definitley no close cousin unions at all for twenty something generations! And considering that the world only had 350 million people total during the 1400s that's a lot of people!

Cousin marriages in the US now make up about one in a thousand and according to everything I've ever read on the topic its only become less common with time. But let's assume that its only been one in a thousand all the way back to the 1400s. Do you really think that in those millions of ancestors there have been no cousin marriages in your family tree?! You're honestly more likely to win the lottery.

PS. You only have 16 million ancestors in the 24th generation back if you assume no one ever married a cousin. Everytime someone does marry a first cousin they lose a fourth of the tree and a second cousin they lose an eighth, and so forth.

re: Kissing Cousins

WebMiner — Wed, 07 Jan 2009 07:20:29 GMT

P-N-P,

History is of the men that wrote the book, and the numerous accounts of eyewitnesses to events of the day. It is said that there is more documented evidence of Christ's existence than there is of Caesar's, yet people commonly doubt Christ's accounts and seldom doubt Caesar's. Given, Caesar never claimed to be a Messiah, but still, it gives pause as to why one guy gets the pass and the other gets the microscope.

"if god was the penman" there again, who's words are those?"

Depends. For base explanation of the message God wants us to hear, He is the ultimate author. But there is no denying the lyrical stylings of David in the Psalms, the sensuous writings of Solomon in his 'Song' book, or even the anal detailings of Ezra in the Chronicles (very boring stuff, Ezra would have made a stellar CPA - no offense to CPAs out there, lol). What I'm trying to say is that during the creation of the 66 books that would become the modern Bible, God didn't take over the authors to create a monotone tome; he intead expressed his message through their writing style, allowing each author's style to remain. It is more natural that way, but no less accurate than if he wrote the thing himself. I mean, considering he's the author of creativity, would you expect anything less? Cue up the Guinness guys - brilliant!!!

"I COULD TELL YOU THAT GOD TOLD ME TO WRITE ALL THIS ON THIS BLOG. WOULD YOU BELIEVE IT?"

Well...now don't take this personally... but no. But let me say that in all honesty, he didn't tell me to write this either, so we're even. God has said enough to this point, any more wouldn't do any good. You know, it is said that when Christ was dying on the cross, his tormentors mocked him in his state and said that if he was so great why wouldn't he save himself at that very moment. He had at his disposal all the angels in heaven looking on, ready to spring into action. Had he used his power to save himself, the masses would still have not believed. There's only so far you can go to convince someone, then you just leave them to their own devices.

re: Kissing Cousins

PRETTYNPINK — Wed, 07 Jan 2009 14:37:53 GMT

WebMiner - TOUCHE'

P.S. Thanks for the spell check!....and the interesting blogging....