• red_giant [comrade/them, he/him]@hexbear.netEnglish
    441·
    11 days ago

    Cousin marriage isn’t even bad, speaking in terms of risk of genetic diseases, unless you do it repeatedly for generations. The risk of an abnormality from a cousin marriage isn’t much higher than a random marriage.

    First cousins have a 3-7% risk of genetic disease vs 2-4% for any two random individuals, with full siblings having about a 50% risk for comparison.

    It becomes an issue when a small population group does it repeatedly.

    Like western royalty for example, or a small Swedish village perhaps.

    • Keld [he/him, any]@hexbear.netEnglish
      14·
      11 days ago

      That’s… I mean yes that is how it works but it’s also not.

      It doesn’t matter if you do it seventy billion times, the issue with cosanguinity is the increased risk of passing on mutated alleles which would have significantly less risk of being passed on in a non consanguinous coupling. The more consanguinous the more risk of sharing a mutation, hence the greater risk. As soon as you have a mutation you have the risk. If you don’t have a mutation you could go full Ptolemy without any problem. Theoretically at least. Of course everyone has minor mutations in their germline so consanguinity is always risky. In that sense inbreeding is both much, much, worse and much better than having kids in your late 30s.

      But there is genuinely a problem with consanguinity in some immigrant communities. If they don’t marry and reproduce outside a specific social structure, and there’s only like 20 of them in the country, then by necessity you end up with consanguinity.

      • SootySootySoot [any]@hexbear.netEnglish
        10·
        11 days ago

        You are effectively describing the same thing. Yes the % risks are indicative for a general population, but they represent exactly what you’re saying.

        • Keld [he/him, any]@hexbear.netEnglish
          101·
          11 days ago

          In a sense yes, in a sense no. If you boil it down to “Cousin marriages have an X% of resulting in a genetic disorder” then you give a good overview of one of the many reasons consanguinity is problematic, but it is rhetoric that could also be applied to things which we don’t otherwise find problematic (Like geriatric pregnancies), while also conceding legislating on grounds of eugenics.

          We’ve long since realised that (Well in Scandinavia not that terrible long) banning people vy force of law from having children due to risk of genetic abnormalities is bad. But also these people aren’t doing this to stop genetic disorders, they are doing it purely because they associate cousin marriages with minority groups that they wish to persecute. The genetic risk is a smoke screen.

    • Blakey [he/him]@hexbear.netEnglish
      71·
      11 days ago

      Nearly doubling the risk is pretty serious tbh. Definitely worth considering and, although first cousin marriages are legal in way more places than people seem to believe, I do actually think that, combined with the high risk of grooming/problematic dynamics, it’s serious enough to outlaw the practice over.

      I would like to see a source on the 50% claim! Seems higher than I would expect. 3-7% is about what I recall for first cousins but I don’t recall the risk for siblings being that high, and those figures (pretty low for cousins, much, much higher for siblings) just don’t feel consistent with one another to me (admittedly based largely on vibes and just an itsy bit of genetics knowledge).

      • Le_Wokisme [they/them, undecided]@hexbear.netEnglish
        3·
        10 days ago

        Nearly doubling the risk is pretty serious tbh.

        relative increases aren’t serious if the initial chance is extremely low. this is statistics pedantry not an opinion on the topic at hand.

  • Piltdowntown [they/them, any]@hexbear.netEnglish
    7·
    11 days ago

    I’ll repsect Sweden for this only when they make bestiality illegal too.

    Yes that’s a thing as long as the animal is “of a certain size” and the animal “doesn’t come to any harm” (now if you’re normal you’d say SAing an animal for any reason is definitionally bringing it to harm but never mind) you can legally fuck animals in Sweden.

    • Blakey [he/him]@hexbear.netEnglish
      7·
      11 days ago

      4th cousins share one set of great-great-great grandparents. It’s far beyond the range where it would cause genetic issues above what exist between any two random people. Even a single cousin marriage really doesn’t increase the risk of genetic issues by a particularly concerning amount, it’s only in communities with either repeated cousin marriage or where closer relatives are reproducing that there’s a problem. I don’t even know any of my second cousins. Fourth? Forget it. This is genuinely not something we should be wasting our time on.

      For some perspective, about half of the world allows cousin marriage, some with restrictions. That includes most of Europe, multiple states in the USA, Canada, Mexico, Australia, New Zealand, and Japan. It also includes nations in Asia, Africa, and south America. There are ethical concerns regarding consent with first cousin marriage due to the close relationship and I don’t actually think it should be legal, if only for that reason. We don’t allow siblings with no direct relationship (adopted, blended families where both partners have kids from previous relationships) to be romantically involved either and that’s obviously not because of the risks of inbreeding.

      People massively overestimate the risks of inbreeding, historically a lot of reproduction was happening between first cousins, because until just a few hundred years ago most of the people you knew would be, at best, second or third cousins. The real horror stories only really happen with multiple generations of incest between cousins and siblings.

      TL;dr: there’s certainly an argument for banning first cousin marriage on the basis of “why even take the risk?”. But that is absolutely not a basis for banning more distant relatives, because you are no longer taking any real measurable risk. There’s a possibility for genetic issues to pop up between any two random people in the world and, once a couple is more distantly related than first cousins, the “risk” introduced by “inbreeding” (fourth cousins reproducing is absolutely not inbreeding) is dwarfed by the random risk any two individuals have.

      • queermunist she/her@lemmy.ml
        3·
        11 days ago

        My concern are power dynamics. A relationship between 4th cousins that happens entirely by accident is one thing, but for a lot of human history those kinds of relationships were arranged by the parents or by the family patriarch. That’s not something we want.

        • Blakey [he/him]@hexbear.netEnglish
          8·
          11 days ago

          I addressed the issue of power dynamics between first cousins, but I am talking to someone who thinks fourth cousin relationships should be banned. There just is not a higher likelihood of an improper power imbalance in a fourth cousin relationship than between a pair of randoms, absent some extremely unusual family structures. Again, do you even know any of your fourth cousins? I don’t even know any of my second cousins! I could sit down, think about it, and tell you all my first cousins, but nothing more distant than that.

          Edit: an arranged marriage doesn’t become more problematic if the couple shares a set of great great great grandparents, that’s… That is honestly a bizarre thing to say. It’s the arranged aspect that is problematic, not a very distant relationship between the couple. The power dynamic of the couple you describe is not in the least affected by the fact that they are fourth cousins.

          • Damarcusart [he/him, comrade/them]@hexbear.netEnglish
            5·
            11 days ago

            but I am talking to someone who thinks fourth cousin relationships should be banned.

            They said closer than fourth cousins though? So it’s third cousins they’re talking about being banned, not fourth cousins.

          • queermunist she/her@lemmy.ml
            51·
            11 days ago

            It probably doesn’t need to be banned, but maybe monitored? The fact that I don’t know any of my fourth cousins is exactly why the first thing that came to my mind was “arranged marriage.” Just check, make sure no one got sold to another family for a dowry.

            • Blakey [he/him]@hexbear.netEnglish
              5·
              11 days ago

              But again, the situation would be literally no better without a fourth cousin relationship. The fact that the couple may be fourth cousins is a total red herring, it’s got nothing to do with what’s wrong with that situation. Yes, a familial relationship is often an aspect of an organised marriage, but selling someone to another family for a dowry with no blood relationship between the couple of any degree is exactly the same as between fourth cousins. I don’t know why you are bringing the single shared pair of great, great, great grandparents into the scenario, it simply isn’t significant in any way.

              • queermunist she/her@lemmy.ml
                3·
                11 days ago

                Arranged marriages are often between cousins though? It’s a way to preserve family wealth and maintain cultural values in small communities and carry on family tradition. Maybe I’m just jumping to conclusions idk it just seems like a red flag to me.