Something is wrong with this picture. Just sayin'.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 08, 2011 9:59 PM GMT
    nyt.jpg
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 08, 2011 10:32 PM GMT
    yeah, there's no 'states that allow same-sex first cousins to marry'
    icon_lol.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 08, 2011 10:52 PM GMT
    When did first-cousin marriages become taboo? People all over the world do it still. Americans still used to do it until the last century.
    Why did it become unlawful?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 08, 2011 11:36 PM GMT
    Much of the world turned away from marrying first cousins as they moved away from monarchy being an acceptable form of government. If you're a king or queen looking to marry, your options are very slim. Chances are the person with royal lineage is an enemy of your state or a cousin.

    The major reason that marrying first cousins became unlawful is because man developed a better understanding of genetics. Inbreeding is bad, m'kay. Chances for passing on an undesirable trait or extra chromosomes are much higher if the parents are first cousins, or siblings, or parent and child.

    And the reason there is little overlap between the two maps is that in map 2 the inbred brother-husbands and sister-wives are allowed to vote.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 09, 2011 1:58 AM GMT
    My degrees are in chemical and biological sciences, so I understand the genetic aspect. I was merely curious as to what you guys thought. And if everybody thought so for the same reason-genetics, which is what most people cite as the primary reason. The thing is that 6.25% chance is incredibly small. Overweight and especially obese women have a much higher rate of producing children with birth defects-they may not have dominant genes for it, but the result is about the same. Yes, for repeated marriages among cousins, the chance becomes higher and sometimes you can even see these defects. But many of the laws were made in the late 1800s and early 1900s, before things likes DNA and chromosomes were known.
    "While some consanguineous couples are at high risk of conceiving a child with a genetic disorder, they are a small minority. Thus a multi-population meta-analysis has indicated an excess infant death rate of 1.1% in the progeny of first cousins, and even this figure may be compromised by inadequate control for non-genetic variables." This is from a reputable journal-Early Human Development (2010)
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20832202
    But I was just wondering why the impetus behind it was so strong that the marriages had to be outlawed when so many other risky things for babies are not.

    Regardless, this is not the point behind the original post. Sorry it got sidetracked.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 09, 2011 2:14 AM GMT
    Damn Shelbyville