She ain't my wife, she my cousin!
Cousins marrying cousins are a classic target for jokes and scorn. It's the last "race" we can joke about without being scolded about not being politically correct, but after reading this I began to look at this topic from a different angle.PITTSBURGH Apr 5, 2005 - It began as the kind of childhood crush that often becomes family lore shared at reunions years later. Eventually, first cousins Donald W. Andrews Sr. and Eleanore Amrhein realized they had a deeper love and wanted to wed. It couldn't happen in their home state of Pennsylvania, though, or 23 other states that prohibit first cousins from marrying each other. Instead, they tied the knot in Maryland last month.
[...] Their nuptials highlight a relationship that often draws scorn, yet advocates say is equally misunderstood. Such marriages are common in the Middle East, Asia and Africa and are legal in Europe and Canada. In the United States, 26 states and the District of Columbia allow first cousins to wed, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. Of those, five have requirements aimed at preventing reproduction and one state requires genetic counseling.
Robin Bennett, associate director of the medical genetics clinic at the University of Washington, said that laws prohibiting cousins from marrying are "a form of genetic discrimination." Bennett led a 2002 study on risks of genetic problems in children born in such marriages. The study found that children born to couples who are first or second cousins have a lower risk for birth defects than commonly perceived. On average, an unrelated couple has an approximately 3 percent to 4 percent risk of having a child with a birth defect, significant mental retardation or serious genetic disease. Close cousins face an additional risk of 1.7 percent to 2.8 percent, according to the study, funded by the National Society of Genetic Counselors, and the U.S. Health and Human Services Department.
It'd be easy to quote facts about how marrying cousins or brothers and sisters was once common practice among nobility, and it'd be no hard task to pull up statistics about other cultures that think nothing of it, but in the end the question of the morality of marrying a cousin is personal opinion. So lets focus on the facts of genetics. If -- and I'm not going to claim this study by Bennett is gospel. Feel free to link to other studies. -- the above is true, then is it really that much greater a risk of birth defects? But even if this study is wrong and the risk is significantly greater, let's look at this way. If the government denies cousins from marrying and reproducing on the basis of increased genetic disease, why stop there? If two people both have an increased risk of other physical ailments -- sickle cell (more common among African Americans), diabetes (Hispanics), or any disease genetic or otherwise -- then why not stop them? As I see it, the genetic argument is just a screen behind which the government is enforcing its ethics, the same values that are the center of the gay marriage debate. Someone suggested that it's partially the government’s job to serve as a moral enforcer; that's why we have laws. I agree in part, but in this case should it?
I finish off with a few links. First there are trailers and behind the scenes interviews of the latest Harry Potter film here.
Next is a link for stuffed toys, but not any old toys. Where else can you find Injured Turkey Leg but Shawnimals.
Finally, I find this absolutely… ick! Some of the advertising for Axe Deodorant bodyspray is amusing, all variations of women assaulting men who spray the stuff on, but then came Pitman, a disembodied armpit with three toed feet that’s appearing in nearly every men’s gadget magazine on the planet. I don’t see a pit at first glance at all with those feet sticking out, and I hope I’m not the only one. *shudder*
[...] Their nuptials highlight a relationship that often draws scorn, yet advocates say is equally misunderstood. Such marriages are common in the Middle East, Asia and Africa and are legal in Europe and Canada. In the United States, 26 states and the District of Columbia allow first cousins to wed, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. Of those, five have requirements aimed at preventing reproduction and one state requires genetic counseling.
Robin Bennett, associate director of the medical genetics clinic at the University of Washington, said that laws prohibiting cousins from marrying are "a form of genetic discrimination." Bennett led a 2002 study on risks of genetic problems in children born in such marriages. The study found that children born to couples who are first or second cousins have a lower risk for birth defects than commonly perceived. On average, an unrelated couple has an approximately 3 percent to 4 percent risk of having a child with a birth defect, significant mental retardation or serious genetic disease. Close cousins face an additional risk of 1.7 percent to 2.8 percent, according to the study, funded by the National Society of Genetic Counselors, and the U.S. Health and Human Services Department.
It'd be easy to quote facts about how marrying cousins or brothers and sisters was once common practice among nobility, and it'd be no hard task to pull up statistics about other cultures that think nothing of it, but in the end the question of the morality of marrying a cousin is personal opinion. So lets focus on the facts of genetics. If -- and I'm not going to claim this study by Bennett is gospel. Feel free to link to other studies. -- the above is true, then is it really that much greater a risk of birth defects? But even if this study is wrong and the risk is significantly greater, let's look at this way. If the government denies cousins from marrying and reproducing on the basis of increased genetic disease, why stop there? If two people both have an increased risk of other physical ailments -- sickle cell (more common among African Americans), diabetes (Hispanics), or any disease genetic or otherwise -- then why not stop them? As I see it, the genetic argument is just a screen behind which the government is enforcing its ethics, the same values that are the center of the gay marriage debate. Someone suggested that it's partially the government’s job to serve as a moral enforcer; that's why we have laws. I agree in part, but in this case should it?
I finish off with a few links. First there are trailers and behind the scenes interviews of the latest Harry Potter film here.
Next is a link for stuffed toys, but not any old toys. Where else can you find Injured Turkey Leg but Shawnimals.
Finally, I find this absolutely… ick! Some of the advertising for Axe Deodorant bodyspray is amusing, all variations of women assaulting men who spray the stuff on, but then came Pitman, a disembodied armpit with three toed feet that’s appearing in nearly every men’s gadget magazine on the planet. I don’t see a pit at first glance at all with those feet sticking out, and I hope I’m not the only one. *shudder*