Posted under Science
People have long intuitively known that marrying co-ethnics is healthy, as it increases one’s inclusive fitness. Furthermore, the more closely related to the child a parent is, the more the parent is likely to care for the child.
But while co-ethnic marriages have long been praised, cousin marriage has been criticized for the past century or two on the grounds that it is “unhealthy.” Looking at genetic research, however, it turns out that these claims are largely mythological. Alan Bittles has a new book out by Oxford University press, Consanguinity in Context, which shows that the harms of cousin marriage are largely exaggerated and that cousin marriage might have certain genetic benefits, such as increased cooperation.
Tacitus on 29 Apr 2012 at 5:40 pm #
Ummm, ok. Just when I thought conservatives couldn’t get any more marginalized . . .
Feltan on 29 Apr 2012 at 5:44 pm #
Science is going to have speak louder on this issue to effect any change.
For me, reading such an article invokes sound of banjos in the distance.
Regards,
Feltan
Tacitus on 29 Apr 2012 at 6:44 pm #
By the way, let’s suppose “science” proved that having children with your sister did not result in increased risk of genetic abnormalities, contrary to previous beliefs. Would that provide a basis for allowing incest? What kind of conservatism would remove a traditional taboo based on speculative scientific research?
It’s not as if the taboo against incest is based solely on an abstract scientific property such as “genetic variability.”
And, yes, cue the banjos . . .
Kirt Higdon on 29 Apr 2012 at 6:48 pm #
I assume this refers to first cousins. If I’m not mistaken Catholic canon law forbids consanguinous marriages out to second cousins, but in practice it’s not hard to get a dispensation for second cousins. I have no idea what the rules are for other religions or the status of cousin marriages in civil law. As far as the genetic benefit of increased cooperation is concerned, I’ve heard it speculated that the stubborness of resistance to US invasion forces in Afghanistan and Iraq is enhanced by the high frequency of cousin marriages in those countries. Maybe. Are there a lot of cousin marriages in Vietnam?
Matt on 29 Apr 2012 at 7:21 pm #
Even if cousins don’t have a higher likelihood of handicapped offspring, the taboo is still helpful. People often have extra-marital sex with those they consider potential mates, and that would absolutely tear families apart in this case.
We’ve evolved this taboo to protect against this outcome, and it’s working. Swapping it out post Sexual Revolution just because some other people more traditionalist than ourselves lack it would be naive.
RonL on 30 Apr 2012 at 7:34 am #
Take a good look at Arab cultures and their consanguinious marriages. These are perfect for maintaining clans, not common cultures, and are vectors of disease.
As an Ashkenazi Jew, I can tell you first hand that they are a bad idea.
Kirt Higdon on 30 Apr 2012 at 4:03 pm #
Cousin marriages, though not necessarily first cousins, have been widely practiced throughout history and in most groups, not just by Semites. Indeed, as long as human beings lived mostly in fairly isolated groups; i.e. all of pre-history and most of history, cousin marriages were unavoidable. Genetic variety was obtained by the rape/kidnap of women of enemy tribes. As civilization advanced, enemies became allies through arranged marriages, but at the lower levels of society, you still had cousin marriages, many of them arranged. C.S.Lewis has called the revolution of romantic love, the choosing of one’s mate based on stranger attraction, to be a far more important event in human history than the industrial revolution. He traces this back to the Middle Ages, beginning with the troubadors. Other writers refer to this as the “Romeo and Juliette revolution” and point out that it has yet to take place in the Islamic world.
roho on 30 Apr 2012 at 6:13 pm #
Scots/Irish/English clans often married second cousins. It held a clan to a more bonding loyalty, but it also provided young women with more prosperous men. (Do the math.) Girls often married at 13-15, where men would actually be in their early thirties. The concept of a 13 year old girl marrying a 14 year old boy, was nothing more than two families entering into a state of confusion where the husband could not manage or control his wife.(At 14, the immaturity of the boy was such that he could not support, much less protect his wife and family……..And his father was not as ready to give up a finally productive farm worker, where he was more than willing to have some older man feed his daughter, and take her off of his hands.
The world has always known that girls mature much faster than boys, and knew that women would rule the world if they were allowed to rule their mariage?
Contrary to Hollywood, Wars were fought with bachelors, which then returned home to marry and start a family.
“A History Of The American Bachelor: Colonial And Revolutionary America”
http://republicbroadcasting.org/?p=20113
Marrying your daughter off to a 2nd cousin was also a way to create major embarassment for his side of the family, within the clan, if he was not a hard worker.
RedPhillips on 30 Apr 2012 at 8:34 pm #
Recall that Scarlett O’Hare pursued Ashley Wilkes despite it being the tradition in his family to marry cousins. This is a throwaway scene in the movie that often gets a snicker.
I don’t necessarily have a desire to revive cousin marriages, I just hate the way “inbreeding” is considered a mark of backwardness by snots who think they are so sophisticated. Like most all practices, it arose in response to circumstances (clannish existence) and is relatively common throughout human history as Kirt pointed out.
hbd chick on 02 May 2012 at 9:22 pm #
@kirt – “If I’m not mistaken Catholic canon law forbids consanguinous marriages out to second cousins, but in practice it’s not hard to get a dispensation for second cousins.”
the roman catholic church changed its regulations on cousin marriage in 1983. now you can marry second cousins without having to get a dispensation. first cousin marriage still requires a dispensation.
@kirt – “As far as the genetic benefit of increased cooperation is concerned, I’ve heard it speculated that the stubborness of resistance to US invasion forces in Afghanistan and Iraq is enhanced by the high frequency of cousin marriages in those countries.”
absolutely.
@kirt – “Are there a lot of cousin marriages in Vietnam?”
interesting question. not sure, but if there are (or if there were historically), then the form was probably more like the chinese type rather than the arab type (see above link for explanation).
hbd chick on 02 May 2012 at 9:24 pm #
@ron l – “Take a good look at Arab cultures and their consanguinious marriages. These are perfect for maintaining clans, not common cultures….”
exactly!
Kirt Higdon on 05 May 2012 at 12:30 am #
hbd chick – Thanks for your commentary and for the interesting link. You have an impressive range of information.
Tim Page on 14 May 2012 at 2:24 am #
The Christian position, as laid out in the bible, allows cousin marriage, and in the Old Testament, it seems to be preferred in many instances. While the book of Leviticus may seem quaint to you, the laws on fornication (inbreeding) were pulled through into the New covenant Church at the Jerusalem Council, as recorded in the book of Acts. The only prohibitions carried forward from the old law were against idolatry, against eating meat with the blood, against eating meat from animals found dead (“strangled”), and against fornication (inbreeding). These laws are found all together in the book of Leviticus.
My old book of common prayer from the 1800′s (Anglican) gives the proscriptions in England at that time. It is exactly the same as the book of Leviticus. All the close family are proscribed, but cousin marriage was allowed, as per the bible.
Cousin marriage is practiced all over the world, and always has been. English propaganda against the Scots’ clan system created the myth that it creates diseases. It was a black lie, but it never died. Later the Yankees picked up the lie to use against the South, which largely followed the Scottish custom.
Now that the United States is dying, I am glad to see scholars taking a rational look at this issue. It is an issue of no small importance.
Kirt Higdon on 15 May 2012 at 12:42 am #
If cousin marriage is permitted, but “inbreeding” equals “fornication” and is forbidden, then this can only mean unions of brother/sister, father/daughter, or mother/son. While none of these are unheard of, neither have any of them been considered customary and unproblematic, either in the Old Testament times or the early Church. I have never heard fornication so narrowly defined. It generally just refers to sexual misconduct, any sexual relationship outside of marriage.
Jane on 27 Jul 2012 at 6:35 pm #
As a person who always scoffed at cousin marriages/relationships, and likened them to hillbilly practices, I was quite taken aback to recently discover my attraction to my first cousin.
We are both in our 40′s, and have only met about 5 times in our lives. At our grandmother’s funeral we found that there was a powerful attraction between us that neither could resist. We acted upon it, although we did not have sexual intercourse.
Now, he has gone back to New York and I remain in Texas. We text/call/Skype frequently and look forward to seeing one another soon.
This has prompted me to research (via the internet) the history and taboos and laws regarding cousin marriages/relationships. It is not considered incest, and the United States is one of the only countries with laws forbidding it. (in about 24 states, I believe).
Love is love, and we can’t help who we love.
consanguinitious one on 28 Oct 2012 at 5:13 pm #
Bans on 3 degree family are archaic. These laws were put in place before genetics were understood. I for one was against it until I met my cousin. We live together because we cannot marry where we live.
A bond you cannot understand and something I would never have supported now has my interest and drive to educate the naysayers.
Esinsteins parents were cousins as he married his cousin. The taboo is unfounded.