I found this New York Times map on Queerty this moring and it made me want to puke. I followed it up to find the original New York Times article. I can't believe that this situation stands.
I don't begrudge anyone the ability to love who they chose as long as they are consenting adults. Having a whole world stand against you really drives that lesson home. But this map comparison points out the fact that, while America is not o.k. with Same-sex marriage, they are quite o.k. with letting these laws remain on the books. does anyone else see a disconnect here?...or is this just a further indication of our place in the societal pecking order? In addition, I wonder how many of these coupled cousins would support same-sex marriage where it to come to their state? Lets talk this out because I am thouroughly flummoxed by this little news tidbit.
Marrying cousins is actually a very "traditional" thing. It is still very very very common throughout the world....even quite desirable in many places such as the Middle East and South Asia. It keeps money and trust within a small family circle. The downside is that it has also resulted in a spread of genetic disorders among tight-knit and intermarrying groups. To upper middle class Americans, it seems weird and on the fringe....even disgusting maybe. But it is traditionally quite acceptable. So, I don't think you can really equate it to same-sex marriage in that regard.
ReplyDeleteI don't mean any offense to the above anonymous poster but, while marriage between first cousins and same-sex marriage may not exaclty equate, they do show what people are willing to accept. We are quite o.k. with marrying other family members...just as long as they are not two men or two women...that to me is hypocritical. especially since its always gays that are accused of being perpetrators of pedophilia and incest.
ReplyDeleteI know it doesn't seem fair but if you look at the majority of the rest of the world all these things are accepted, gay marriage, 1st cousin marriage and even commonly gay 1st cousin marriage. It saddens me that America is so against these ideas, seeing as how they are the norm most everywhere else. I am in Canada and have seen the under-goings of a mind shift to the acceptance of gay marriage. In Canada now, especially in larger cities, it is common for gays to be accepted without judgement as well as marriage between gays all over Canada. I'm sure America will eventually get to this point too, it's just a matter of time hopefully. I find America can be very divided on such issues and doesn't really function as a whole. It will be something that will have to seek approval state-by-state.
Deleteand just because something is "traditional" does not mean that it is beyond question.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you Bry. Is just... Hypocrital.
ReplyDeleteAnd isn´t those type of marriages that cause mental and genetic diseases?
It can but is less likely in first cousins than in closer bloodlines. If its sex with a brother/sister then there is a greater chance of genetic disorder but even then, there is a good probability of a healthy child. Most disorders happen after a close bloodline accumulation in which brothers marry sisters for multiple generations. This can then be an issue. If you read my other post I explain the 1st cousin marriage situation in much more detail (sorry I'm listed as anonymous though... could be harder to find). Just realize that 80% of marriages to date are between first cousins. It's just frowned upon in North America and a few other countries. Most of the world is all about 1st cousin marriage. It's fun to research how us in North America are actually a minority in many many more ways than the res of the worlds activity. Many countries support gay marriage and always have. Take India for instance, it is looked highly upon if you are gay/transgender as it represents you as a greater being than an average person, this takes part in many of their rituals that gay/transgender lead of take major role in. Also if you consider the American Indians before we settled in America, the Indians though highly of gays and called them "the two-spirit people," then when settlers showed up this all changed and ideas like this diminished. Now is our time though, there are enough supporters to move the world forward in to a healthier environment!
DeleteDear Anonymous!
ReplyDeleteThank you for pointing out the real reason why it people preferred to marry first cousins: it's not so much about tradition, it's more about property. People who uphold this tradition for this reason and at the same time say something about sanctity of marriage as a union between a man and a woman sanctioned in heaven by God, are hypocrites — marriage is either nothing but the property exchange legally binding contract, or it's a sacred institute based with all the religious mumbo jumbo. It can't be both in this kind of sense. If marriage in fact evolved from being just a property deal into something more, into a widely recognized sexual union between two loving people, then we shouldn't condone consanguineous unions due to the new knowledge about genetics, but forbidding them is not something I would do.
I think if cousins love each other, they should be allowed to have a relationship or even marriage, but in this case they should be held fully liable for any genetically induced health problems their kids might have. They should be informed that they may have children with such problems, so they are advised not to have children biologically descending from both of them. Same goes to siblings. Yeah, I know it sounds weird for most of us, even disgusting maybe, but love is love, if two people really love each other and want to be married, the only real obstacle is that their kinship may cause the production of children with genetically induced health problems. If we deal with this the way I mentioned above, the rest is none of our business.
Liabilities: if you had a child from your close relative and this child has genetically induced problems, your medical insurance won't cover any medical help your child may need due to these specific problems, you will be billed and you'll have to pay from your pocket; if you give up your parental rights you will still have to pay for those expenses you imposed on your government; you'll have to pay those bills for the rest of your child's life, not till they turn 18. These harsh measures would make people think twice if they really want to have a kid who's parents are closely related. I think it's only fair to condemn inbreeding in this way. If I were a child of two siblings or first cousins who has serious health problems, and if I knew my government is OK with this, I would say "Fuck you" to this government who let this happen to me, knowing for sure (there is a compelling scientific knowledge) that inbreeding often leads to that. In this case we must be on the side of those who will suffer — children of these closely related people.
But this is not what we discuss here. Sorry for going away from the topic.
That's okay. I agree. Marriage should be permitted in all cases as long as it is not detrimentally affecting others. Thus others can judge all they want but since they are not directly affected by the union then it should be allowed.
DeleteAs for 1st cousin marriage, the consequences should always be acknowledged. It is not too common for genetic defect to happen within one generation of 1st cousin marriage though if 1st cousins marry for generation after generation after generation then some major problems can arise.
An interesting fact: As humans we produce pheromones which are like a smell that our noses cannot detect. When we engage with other people we can become attracted to them based on their pheromone scent. In closely related relatives we will often get a unwelcome pheromone scent which will make us less likely to want to be with that person intimately than an other non-related person. (This is the very reason I don't condone the usage of scented body sprays, as it masks our natural desirable smell. This can cause us to get in relationships that won't work out as well since we are with the wrong person and should have known from the beginning.)
According to the source article, recent studies suggest that the chance of defects are mush smaller than previously believed. However, what happens if this happens through succesive generations?
ReplyDeleteThat is correct, we'd be looking at 3 or more generations for major birth/genetic defects to be noticed. Even more than that in many cases. The problems usually pop up in closed communities where there is a lot of indirect family breeding for many generations.
Delete@Bryan
ReplyDeleteI don't think this issue will be before legislature in the nearest future: we really don't know a lot about genetics to make some real conclusions. Maybe decades later, but I think still in the 21st century, this issue would be considered and some decision would be made. But the idea of introducing obligatory measures would still make sense as a fair resolution.
Anyone should be able to marry who they want unless that in some way involves a partner that cannot fathom the repercussions of their decision or if it will cause forseeable harm. I get concerned when I hear the word "genetics" and "measures" in the same sentence...i'm a little jittery around the idea of eugenics.
ReplyDeleteNot that I think that was your point Lexxi.
That map is appalling. There are no words to describe it really but am I surprised by it? Not really. But I wonder if marriage between cousins isn't still allowed in those states because the only ones that know are the two people involved. Anyone walking down the street wouldn't know if 2 married people were cousins...and who would care either? But people sure seem to care about 2 married people of the same sex.
ReplyDeleteI am still surprised that same sex marriage is STILL an issue for so many people. Your marriage (meaning straight marriage) means nothing to me so why should my marriage (meaning a same sex marriage) mean anything to you? This country is full of hypocritical people and institutions and unfortunately, we ARE at the bottom of the pecking order.
Its been how long since Stonewall? And where have we gotten? There just seems to be SOMEthing about being gay that people fear SO much that they are willing to fight against it for so long. Just doesn't make sense to me.
as far as i know, having a child with a first cousin doesn't cause birth defects. the problem occurs (as you stated) when this happens generation after generation.
ReplyDelete@Bryan
ReplyDeleteOf course, I didn't mean anything even close to eugenics. My point is simple: children should not suffer because of something that could've been prevented. And, mind you, the measures I talk about are not those that forbid: people have a right to do whatever they want to their bodies, we can't and shouldn't make them do abortions, or sterilize them, or whatever a sick mind may come up with. I'm all for being liberal and give people total freedom. But if they produced a child with a disease that became a direct result of inbreeding, the government should hold these people responsible, if they knew they are related and they knew their kids may have this kind of problems.
I also understand the concern that this may lead to something more serious, like holding women liable for giving birth after 40, if a child had Down syndrome. It's a tough area, we're not ready to swim there yet. Maybe it's a void conversation because some day someone will find a way to block those problematic genes by gene therapy, and people would be normal, with no diseases whatsoever caused by inbreeding.
@Jason
I believe, it's been exactly 40 years since Stonewall.
The thing is though at least cousins still have certain benefits to each other without having to get married, I'm pretty sure they can still visit each other in the hospital and stuff, as opposed to two unmarried gay people who are considered legal strangers.
ReplyDeleteThe anonymous poster at the top of this comments list is right about this being traditional in some backwards parts of the world.
ReplyDeleteThese inter familial marriages are never for the good of the children though. They are usually arranged without the child's consent to cement some gain for the father.
Tradition is often an excuse used while suppressing your own family in a lot of the world.
(I'm a different anonymous commenter):
DeleteI think your looking at this in reverse. We in America, Canada, and some of Europe are the backwards parts of the world. The mass majority of the world across many cultures, borders and oceans believes in both 1st cousin marriage as well as gay marriage. We are the ones that are for some reason against both of these natural ideas.
Your right about many inter-family marriage being about wealth/greed of the family but in current times these ideas are heading for a decline. Put more clearly, 1st cousin marriage happens very often in most countries without being forced upon children by their family.
Marriage between first cousins was very common among royal families in Europe. Queen Victoria and prince Albert were first cousin. Also, it was common in the South. There is no prohibition in the Bible against marriage between first cousins.
ReplyDeleteAlso, the likelihood a marriage between first cousins producing children with birth defects is small.
Now, the attitude towards marriage between first cousins has changed and the majority of Americans are disgusted by it.
We as gays need to show straights that attitudes towards marriage change over time and therefore, there is no one "definition of marriage." Also, since we know how straights (and gays) are disturbed by it, we could raise the question that how come you are still allowing first cousin marriage in more than half of the states, something that you are so disturbed by, and not allowing us to marry.
When I was studying genetics last year my lecturer really clarified the situation with regards to these inter-family marriages.
ReplyDelete1) Only a small proportion of consangineous marriages will result in children with a genetic disorder
BUT
2) The majority of children with genetic disorders have family histories of inter-family marriages (In the UK, most of these kids are of Indian subcontinent origin, because those are the populations in which counsin marriages are still common).
I think it's clear that cousin marriages are not directly related to same-sex marriage, but I definitely see your point - many people would object to these relationships but they are still afforded legal recognition.
@SaudiMike
ReplyDeleteTo quote Mike "Marriage between cousins was very common among the royal families of Europe".
I can't think of a better example of why not to allow it! Lost of royal houses died out because they were so genetically patetic. The current lot are pretty freaky you have to admin.
And to underline my point these were arranged marriages created to gain somthing for the parents/family.
I agree that arranged inter-family marriage is detrimental over time and is a bad thing. Though most of the world accepts and performs 1st cousin marriage by choice, not by arrangement or force of family.
DeleteLook i´ve studied Spanish princes and king, you just have too look at the pictures, they were really mentally disable. That and the history of how they failed at ruling
ReplyDeleteI visited your blog for the first time and just been your fan. Keep posting as I am gonna come to read it everyday.
ReplyDeleteI completely agree how this would be upsetting to see in comparison but don't be hating on marriage of 1st cousins. Most of the worlds countries not only allow 1st cousin marriage but often encourage it and in some cases perform arranged marriage to 1st cousins. It seems that in the last 3 decades or so, North America and many parts of Europe have shifted beliefs against this. Did you know that in order to keep the royal bloodline going aunts married nieces, married nephews, married cousins? Just imagine today if there were no Queen of England... Even the previous mayor of New York was married to his first cousin!
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand I'm all for same-sex marriage and it's a shame to see it being compared like this. Of course we must be patient for the times to change. Here in Canada I've noticed a major shift in gay pride, gay acceptance, etc... It's almost to the point where I could ask anyone in the street, school, or work if they condone same-sex marriage and they would say yes. Most would even be more than happy to have a gay son or daughter. America is a very critical country I have found. Come to Canada, everyones either gay or accepting here. It's a peaceful environment!