Should siblings be allowed to marry?

[tammym1972]

A thread over on the current events board got me thinking. It is about a couple of twins that got married by accident. The marriage was annulled. Should the couple of been allowed to remain married if they wished?

 

[Solidlyhere]

The Old Testament says that close relatives should NEVER marry.

In the USA, first-level relatives (Bro and Sis, Mom and Son) are NOT allowed to marry.

The "health" reason for this is: When siblings intermarry, there is a LARGE chance that the baby will be born an imbecile.

Beyond that, if Bro knew that he could marry Sis, they may be fornicating early (living in the same house, after all).
I would think that many not-very-Willing girls would be all-but-Raped by their Bro.
Somehow, it sounds like a BAD idea.
Certainly, it would be a BOON for a guy who can't seem to land a girlfriend.

So, if the OP believes in the Old Testament, then she has her answer.
If not, then look to the Doctors who know the %-age of imbicilability of Bro and Sis unions.
If that doesn't do it, OP, then: Do you have a Brother that you've got the HOTS for?

 

[Ryal Kane]

Sibling attraction is rare primarily because they know and identify as such early on. It usually occurs when people who do not know that there were ever siblings meet later in life as with the couple mentioned above.

If I remember correctly, inbreeding usually takes several generations to become marked.

While I don't necessarily think it should be legal, I feel sorry for couples who have this misfortune.

 

[Eudaimonist]

A thread over on the current events board got me thinking. It is about a couple of twins that got married by accident. The marriage was annulled. Should the couple of been allowed to remain married if they wished?

If they had no idea that they were siblings, it seems cruel to prevent them from getting married.

And considering how rare that would be, I doubt that letting them marry would signficantly increase the rate of birth defects, since that takes inbreeding over several generations.

I think that the law should make a special exception for this couple.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[WatersMoon110]

Almost no biological siblings, once they know they are siblings, have a desire to marry. I think it might be somewhat instinctual (or maybe just societal?), since inbreeding over generations can cause birth defects.

However, I really don't feel it is necessary to make it illegal for such thing, it is only their potential grandchild or great-grandchild that really are at risk, and only if their children and grandchildren also marry one another (which is unlikely).

I mean, I wouldn't want to marry any of my siblings, but then I grew up with them as my siblings. When people don't know they are related, it seems a little stupid that they have to find out through blood tests that their union is illegal. I know a couple that married and found out they were fourth cousins (which isn't very closely related at all - you share almost all of your genes with your full siblings, but only about a half with first cousins, then a fourth with second cousins, an eighth with third cousins, and so a sixteenth with fourth cousins).

Personally, I find it gross. But I don't think that it actively harms anyone, so I don't see any reason for it to be illegal for siblings to marry. I think that they should be somewhat encouraged to not reproduce (and adopt instead), though.

 

[Wednesday]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't cousins or distant cousins are allowed to marry.

From what I know the incest thing would only be bad in the closed community. If it is as rare as this in the open community, I don't know how it would affect the family further down the line.

 

[TexasSky]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't cousins or distant cousins are allowed to marry.

From what I know the incest thing would only be bad in the closed community. If it is as rare as this in the open community, I don't know how it would affect the family further down the line.

I do not know of any place in the United States where first cousins are allowed to marry. There are places where 3rd cousins can marry.

The issue, from a purely wordly standpoint, is genetics, and the fact that marriage of individuals who are too closely related increases, substantially, the risk of birth defects in future generations. Hemophilia generally occurs only in families that have "inbred".

The bible does speak of it as being wrong as well, but I believe that most of the biblical laws were made to protect mankind.

 

[Wednesday]

May I speak technically here and, but if Eve (supposedly) came from Adam's rib, wouldn't he be her dad and spouse in the same time. (It is a myth, but nonetheless)

To the other point.
In closed communities, there is not a lot of genetic variations. If the community is not communicating with another, how it may be in small, remote villages. Eventually it might lead to incest. The species need genetic variations in order to adapt and survive. However it may not happen not in the first generation, but a few generations later.

However, since it is a rare case for a society like ours, the open society, I don't see a problem in this situation.

 

[TexasSky]

An interesting article on it all from a medical standpoint:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1765114?dopt=Abstract

Consanguineous unions range from cousin-cousin to more distant relatedness, and their prevalence varies by culture.

Inbreeding generally increases prereproductive mortality; crude mortality increases with inbreeding in proportion to the mortality rate.

(mortality rate = death rate)

Morbidity increases significantly with inbreeding in many diseases studies in many countries.

(it weakens the immune system)

Here is another article:

http://www.lvpei.org/resources/blindnessdue.html

Consanguinity or kinship is characterized by the sharing of common ancestors. The word is derived from the Latin consanguineus, meaning 'of common blood'. Consanguineous persons have at least one common ancestor in the preceding few generations. A consanguineous marriage is one in which two individuals related by blood, such as cousins, get married and have children.

What should consanguineous couples look out for?

• The most common defects are of the sense organs and the nervous system.
• The skin colour may be pink and the hair white.
• The eyes lack pigmentation - this is known as ocular Albinism.
• Squint in children
• Night blindness leading to Retinitis Pigmentosa
• Photophobia, decreased visual acuity, moving eye and refractive errors

Retinitis Pigmentosa is a hereditary degeneration and atrophy of the retina. It is usually progressive and leads to reduced peripheral vision that causes tunnel vision, night blindness and loss of vision. This disease affects children and young adults.

In Albinism there are defects in the pigmentation of the hair, skin and eyes. In ocular albinism, only the eyes are affected. This may be associated with photophobia (aversion to light), decreased visual acuity, nystagmus (constant jerky movement of the eyes) and refractive errors.

Anridia is a congenital condition where the iris is absent.

Coloboma of iris/choroid is the absence of either of these structures, due to developmental abnormalities.

And another:

http://www.publichealth.pitt.edu/supercourse/SupercoursePPT/17011-18001/17801.ppt#19

"Conclusion: There is a n urgent need to inform the public properly about the anticipated deleterious effects of inbreeding in societies where intermarriage widely practiced. "

(Basically, babies of inbred couples are often born premature, and end up dieing because they cannot breath.)

Epileps, high blood pressure, cancer, mental illness, heart disease, hearing deficits, and diabetes are all higher in these unions. ALL diseases were reported higher in children born of consanguineous marriages.

 

[TexasSky]

May I speak technically here and, but if Eve (supposedly) came from Adam's rib, wouldn't he be her dad and spouse in the same time. (It is a myth, but nonetheless)

To the other point.
In closed communities, there is not a lot of genetic variations. If the community is not communicating with another, how it may be in small, remote villages. Eventually it might lead to incest. The species need genetic variations in order to adapt and survive. However it may not happen not in the first generation, but a few generations later.

However, since it is a rare case for a society like ours, the open society, I don't see a problem in this situation.

Actually, no, regarding Adam and Eve.

The issue is that "recessive genes become more and more dominant" when you "breed with your own."

The "longer the line" of the inbreeding, the higher the risk of that "recessive gene" becoming "prominent."

 

[WatersMoon110]

I do not know of any place in the United States where first cousins are allowed to marry. There are places where 3rd cousins can marry.

Then you haven't look. *wink*
http://www.cousincouples.com/info/states.shtml

 

[Soul Searcher]

Regaurding the bibles take on inbreeding. If we are to believe either the story of Adam and Eve or the one of Noah there was most certianly a lot of inbreeding going on and it was not condemned.

 

[Washington]

I do not know of any place in the United States where first cousins are allowed to marry. There are places where 3rd cousins can marry.

"26 states allow first cousin marriages; Most people can marry their cousin in the US.​

No European country prohibits marriage between first cousins. It is also legal throughout Canada and Mexico to marry your cousin. The USA is the only western country with cousin marriage restrictions."​

source​

The issue, from a purely wordly standpoint, is genetics, and the fact that marriage of individuals who are too closely related increases, substantially, the risk of birth defects in future generations. Hemophilia generally occurs only in families that have "inbred".

"Children of non-related couples have a 2-3% risk of birth defects, as opposed to first cousins having a 4-6% risk. Genetic counseling is available for those couples that may be at a special risk for birth defects (e.g. You have a defect that runs in your family) In plain terms first cousins have at a 94 percent + chance of having healthy children. Check the links section for more information on genetic counselors. The National Society of Genetic Counselors estimated the increased risk for first cousins is between 1.7 to 2.8 percent, or about the same a any woman over 40 years of age."​

(same source)​

 

[tammym1972]

The Old Testament says that close relatives should NEVER marry.

In the USA, first-level relatives (Bro and Sis, Mom and Son) are NOT allowed to marry.

The "health" reason for this is: When siblings intermarry, there is a LARGE chance that the baby will be born an imbecile.

Beyond that, if Bro knew that he could marry Sis, they may be fornicating early (living in the same house, after all).
I would think that many not-very-Willing girls would be all-but-Raped by their Bro.
Somehow, it sounds like a BAD idea.
Certainly, it would be a BOON for a guy who can't seem to land a girlfriend.

So, if the OP believes in the Old Testament, then she has her answer.
If not, then look to the Doctors who know the %-age of imbicilability of Bro and Sis unions.
If that doesn't do it, OP, then: Do you have a Brother that you've got the HOTS for?

Lol. No I don't have hots for my brother. I am an only child.

I just thought it was an interesting topic. I personally think it is gross but if it between two consenting adults I don't see whatt he problem is.

 

[Solidlyhere]

Washington came up with a stat that I have seen before: "Children of non-related couples have a 2-3% risk of birth defects, as opposed to first cousins having a 4-6% risk."

And, the way I remember it, when Bro and Sis produce offspring, their risk of Birth Defects (mostly imbicility) is 14 - 16% in the first generation, and up to 24% in the second.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

A thread over on the current events board got me thinking. It is about a couple of twins that got married by accident. The marriage was annulled. Should the couple of been allowed to remain married if they wished?

yes.

IF you can show that all parties to the marriage give their complete, informed adult consent, without any form of duress.

Such conditions among close relatives who want to marry would be exceedingly rare to the point of non-existence... but IF... then sure

 

[The Bellman]

There's no reason to prohibit sibling marriage outside the religious (ie., because some holy book says it's wrong).

 

[NPH]

Almost no biological siblings, once they know they are siblings, have a desire to marry. I think it might be somewhat instinctual (or maybe just societal?), since inbreeding over generations can cause birth defects.

What you're thinking of is reverse sexual imprinting, also known as the Westermarck effect. Living in domestic sort of setting with someone during the first six years of their lives desensitizes both individuals from being sexually attracted to each other. It doesn't even matter if they are biologically related or not.

For those closely biologically related who do not receive this imprinting there is a marked chance that if they meet later in life they will experience genetic sexual attraction, which causes them to be highly sexually attracted to each other.

If you ever get the opportunity to read the stories of people who have had this happen to them, you will find that most all describe the feeling as so intensely overpowering that many will leave otherwise happy lives with their families even to pursue the attraction. The only viable solution for such individuals is to cut off all contact permanently with the recently discovered sibling and even that may not work.

As for inbreeding, it takes a good number of successive generations of inbreeding for genetic abnormalities to become an issue. I.E. it is really only a medical problem if, for example, siblings produce children who then produce children together who then produce children together etc ... As this would never be the norm due to the Westermarck effect there is no reason to expect this to ever become an issue except in very specific cases which already occur despite laws against it (such as families that are nearly completely cut off from society where there is no other option).

The idea put forth earlier that brothers would do this willingly or frequently simply because it might be an easier opportunity for sex is fairly ludicrous. The Westermarck effect prevents such incidents from ever being anything more than a rare occurence such as it is now.

 

[Diavolos]

I agree with previous posters that there is no real reason to restrict sibling or cousin marriages, given that the chance of defect is significantly low in the first place, but I'm surprised nobody pointed out that married couples are not necessarily going to have children, so this is only a potential issue if the couple wish to have children together.

Furthermore, I don't know of any laws against people with known genetic defects having children together - for instance, cystic fibrosis. If we are going to make cousin marriage illegal, why isn't it likewise illegal for people with conditions like sickle cell anemia etc. to have children? Especially when both parents are known to carry the gene and the child is likely to have the condition? Furthermore, in the future, genetic screening will make it quite possible for parents to "screen out" defects in sperm/egg combos to eliminate the chance of defects.

I find this byproduct of "Genetic sexual attraction" mentioned by CaptainYesterday very intriguing. So if I am brought up seperately from a sibling, I'll be much more likely to find them attractive than I would an average non-sibling? Hmm.

 

[WatersMoon110]

Washington came up with a stat that I have seen before: "Children of non-related couples have a 2-3% risk of birth defects, as opposed to first cousins having a 4-6% risk."

And, the way I remember it, when Bro and Sis produce offspring, their risk of Birth Defects (mostly imbicility) is 14 - 16% in the first generation, and up to 24% in the second.

I think that might be a bit high, but I can't find any statistics.

However, people who have known genetic birth defects are allowed to marry, and often have a very high risk of passing on those defects. Should they be banned from marrying?