Study: Marrying cousins not so risky - Dallas-Mavs.com Forums

Dooby · 04-04-2002, 10:58 AM

ARKANSAS REJOICE!!!!
(the imagined sound of banjo music playing in the background is appropriate for reading this article)

PHILADELPHIA, Pennsylvania (AP) --The risk of birth defects in children born to couples who are first or second cousins isn't as high as many experts had believed, according to a study that sheds new light on a practice that is stigmatized in many Western cultures.

The study released Wednesday says married cousins are still more likely than unrelated couples to have children with a birth defect, significant mental retardation or serious genetic disease.

An unrelated couple has about a 3 percent to 4 percent risk of having a child with such problems. But for close cousins who are married, that risk jumps only 1.7 percent to 2.8 percent, the study said.

Researcher Robin Bennett said that is lower than many people, including family doctors, believed to be the case.

"The commonsense point of this is that there is a definite risk, but the risk is rather small," said one of the researchers, Dr. Arno G. Motulsky, professor of medicine and genome sciences at the University of Washington.

Marriage of first cousins is illegal in 30 states and is taboo in many Western cultures, but that is not the case in other places, particularly the Middle East, Asia and Africa. In some countries, up to 60 percent of the population is related by blood, and cousin marriages are preferred to unions of unrelated couples.

Bennett said doctors are confronted with new challenges about advising and treating related couples as more immigrants carry on such traditions in the United States.

"There have surely been lots of terminations of pregnancies because of misconceptions about the actual level of risk," she said.

Researchers stressed that it is impossible to calculate the risk with precision because so many factors are involved. Risks vary among ethnic groups, and the family history and closeness of the relation may also play a role, for example.

The researchers said couples should have a thorough medical family history taken before conception to see whether they have any similar recessive genes that could show up in a child as illness.

Relatives could both be carriers of the recessive gene that causes cystic fibrosis, for example, but not have any symptoms. A child who gets the recessive gene from both parents is more likely to get the disease.

"What surprised us is that you don't really need to be doing much more than you already are," Bennett said. "Many of these tests are routine now for everyone."

The analysis of six already published studies appears in the April issue of the Journal of Genetic Counseling. The six studies involved thousands of related couples.

The study's recommendations are the result of a two-year evaluation by genetic counselors, doctors and epidemiologists assembled by the National Society of Genetic Counselors, based in Wallingford, Pennsylvania.

Funding for the study came from the society and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

grbh · 04-04-2002, 12:51 PM

Marriage of first cousins is illegal in 30 states

Only 30 states have made this illegal? Does anyone know the 20 states wehere it is legal to wed your cousin?

Rod1975 · 04-04-2002, 01:08 PM

Tennessee is one...that's where I married my cousin....lol j/k

Dooby · 04-04-2002, 01:42 PM

From the jokes, one would assume Arkansas and Kentucky.

MFFL · 04-04-2002, 02:52 PM

A quick google search and here's the link

MFFL · 04-04-2002, 02:57 PM

From the same source.

-----------------------------------------------------------

First cousin marriages are legal in every country in the Western Civilization, including (but not limited to) Canada, Australia, Europe and South America, with the only exception being certain states within the U.S. Additionally, most Asian countries allow cousin marriages, although some cultural rules of exogamy/endogamy may apply. More detailed information on international marriage laws will be made available in the future.

grbh · 04-04-2002, 04:00 PM

Great website name cousincouples.com

Hoopsmeister · 04-04-2002, 05:17 PM

Marriage of first cousins was common in Anglo-American society at all socio-cultural levels down through the 19th century. It only became a taboo in this century--probably due to the perceived danger of inbreeding once the genetic mechanism for that was understood.

MFFL · 04-04-2002, 05:26 PM

Actually at one point the church forbid couples from marrying who were SIXTH cousins.

Here's the link

A recent book, Forbidden Relatives : The American Myth of Cousin Marriage, by anthropologist Martin Ottenheimer, addresses the subject of cousin marriage, especially in the context of laws in the USA. Another book, The Mountain of Names, by Alex Shoumatoff, also covers this topic. The following information is derived from both of these authors; part of it was published in a letter about 3 years ago. As to negative social implications of marriage: Queen Victoria married her first cousin, as did Charles Darwin, and many others. I have heard of a Web site devoted to current practice of this topic. My own interest is derived from encounters in genealogy.

--------------

For centuries the law of the Medieval Church prohibited first cousin marriage without prior dispensation. It is unclear why this law was started, but it gradually grew in scope, and it was not long before second cousin and third cousin marriages also were forbidden. In 1059, Pope Nicholas II allegedly issued a law forbidding marriage between relatives as closely related as sixth cousins (!!!!!). Some historians say that these prohibitions were motivated by a desire to prevent members of wealthy families from marrying close relatives solely as a means of keeping wealth in the family line, and there are, of course, better reasons for marrying. Since persons could seek and easily obtain dispensations from this law, the law seldom worked as intended. Other historians say that the Church was opposed to close kinship ties in general, and not just cousin marriage itself, since kinship represented a rival source of power, and individualism suited the Church better than the close kinship ties that cousin marriages would have produced. Since non-Medieval church splits have been known to follow family lines, there may be some truth to this. That the prohibition of marriage between sixth cousins is quite extreme can be seen from just one example: though I don't believe they ever acknowledged it, Presidents Nixon and Carter were sixth cousins, sharing common ancestors in a Quaker farming couple named Morris who lived near colonial Philadelphia. Under this extreme law, they, their siblings, and close relatives were considered too closely related for marriage!

After the Protestant Reformation in the 1500's, various Protestant churches naturally turned away from Catholic Church law on prohibited degrees of marriage, and turned to the Bible, particularly Leviticus, as a guide for marriage law. While Leviticus prohibits marriage between many affinal or "marriage" relationships (such as prohibiting a widower from marrying his dead wife's sister), and some consanguinal or "blood" relationships (such as prohibiting a man from marrying his niece), it does not include any prohibition against first cousin marriage. Leviticus became the guide for the canon law of many churches, and later it became the guide for the civil law of many countries as well. Before the 1850's, almost all European countries and most existing American states passed laws on marriage that closely reflected the very words of Leviticus. First cousin marriage in the 1800's was not uncommon: Queen Victoria married her first cousin, Charles Darwin married his first cousin, etc. There are many other examples of first cousin marriage from this time, including my great-great grandmother, who married her first cousin after her first husband, my great-great grandfather, had died.

Dooby · 04-04-2002, 05:43 PM

So I was looking at children's books the other day; did you know that Babar married his cousin?

Doc: That's an interesting name, Mr...?
Fletch: Babar.
Doc: Is that with one B or two?
Fletch: One. B-A-B-A-R.
Doc: That's two.
Fletch: Yeah, but not right next to each other, that's what I thought you meant.
Doc: Isn't there a children's book about an elephant named Babar.
Fletch: Ha, ha, ha. I wouldn't know. I don't have any.
Doc: No children?
Fletch: No elephant books.

David · 04-04-2002, 06:24 PM

Didn't Adam and Eve's children marry their brothers and sisters? Didn't Noah and his wife's children do the same? Stuff been happenin' for a long time.

Big Boy Laroux · 04-04-2002, 06:26 PM

ah, fletch. amazing. dooby, you are a quote machine.

Receptionist: Can I help you Dr. ...?
Fletch: Oh it's me, Dr. Rosenpenis. I'm just here to check out Alan Stanwyk's file.
Receptionist: Dr. who?
Fletch: Dr. Rosenrosen, i'm here to get into the records room.
Receptionist: What was that name again?
Fletch: It's Dr. Rosen, I want to check the records room.
Receptionist: Dr. who?
Fletch: Dr. Rosen! Where's the records room?

grbh · 04-04-2002, 07:05 PM

Obviously a lot has to do with availablity. Prior to the 20th century most people lived in rural areas, and transportation was not as easy as today. Can't remember the stat but it is something like prior to 1860 90% of people lived their entire lives within 10 miles of where they were born.

So does anyone have a hot cousin out there? [img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-smile.gif[/img]