-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Can you acknowledge that you were wrong and Islam was right on cousin marriages?
- Thread starter Piculet
- Start date
Rational Agnostic
Well-Known Member
I think a brother and sister SHOULD be allowed to marry. Very few people actually want to marry their siblings and if they do, it's their problem. It would not affect the gene pool in any significant way and if it did, natural selection would correct the problems. Prohibiting sibling marriage is a form of eugenics and I oppose eugenics.
I don't know if women 35+ should be discouraged from having children or not. My mom was almost 40 when she had me. Is that why I'm so crazy?
Do you know what marriages don't bring about congenital disease? Gay marriage. Guess Islam was wrong about that one.
whirlingmerc
Well-Known Member
Over simplification
I think everyone should weigh the risks of having children but I think trying to put hard legislation on reproductive rights will just lead to bad places. 'Biology' is nuanced and sophisticated and very rarely do people trying to use it like a club appreciate that sophistication. Especially considering the assumption that reduction of every kind of disorder makes our society a better one is incredibly ableist. If people who carried the gene for lou gehrig disease were prevented from breeding we would have never had Stephen Hawkings, for example.
Rational Agnostic
Well-Known Member
Obviously you're right. Gay marriage is a no-brainer--should've been legalized a long time ago. But I also support sibling and cousin marriages for reasons stated above--(1) I oppose all forms of eugenics, (2) The people who want to marry close relatives are such a small subset of the population that it's unlikely that they significantly affect the gene pool, and (3) Even in the unlikely event that they do succeed in affecting the gene pool, natural selection will eventually correct the problems.
I don't know if you could tell but my tongue was firmly in my cheek for that post.
I am against eugenics of all kinds as well. (Including AKC and other enforcers of domestic animal breeds.)
I do have a problem with incestuous relationships where there is a power dynamic issue though. Because they are so often coercive and power abuses. Same reason I'm generally against student teacher or boss employee relationships, though there's obviously room for nuance there too.
ecco
Veteran Member
From your linked article:
In addition to those countries mentioned above, the “overwhelming majority of cross-cousin marriages appear among the Islamic cultures of North Africa, and those of West and Central Asia.”
What's your point? The title of your thread is:
Can you acknowledge that you were wrong and Islam was right on cousin marriages?
Are you saying Islam is right about cousin marriages by being a world leader in the practice of cousin marriages?
Don't marry cousins
Terrywoodenpic
Oldest Heretic
In past times cousin marriages were quite common in the UK.
Since 1700 there have been two first cousin marriages in my extended family tree.
One of them in direct line to me. This is out of perhaps nearly 1000 marriages.
Such marriages are not especially dangerous at that frequency.
It seems Second and distant cousin marriages are rather more frequent but are rather hard to identify. As only the male line retains the family name.
First cousin marriages remain legal in the UK, but are not very common, among the native population
However it also seems some Muslim countries regard cousin marriages as the preferred option. That is with out any doubt far more dangerous. This would not seem to be so much a religious practice, as a traditional and social one.
Since 1700 there have been two first cousin marriages in my extended family tree.
One of them in direct line to me. This is out of perhaps nearly 1000 marriages.
Such marriages are not especially dangerous at that frequency.
It seems Second and distant cousin marriages are rather more frequent but are rather hard to identify. As only the male line retains the family name.
First cousin marriages remain legal in the UK, but are not very common, among the native population
However it also seems some Muslim countries regard cousin marriages as the preferred option. That is with out any doubt far more dangerous. This would not seem to be so much a religious practice, as a traditional and social one.
I believe the incest laws are different in England and Scotland.
Would you dare to admit that it was borrowed from Jewish scripture?
Leviticus 18:6 New Living Translation (NLT)
6 “You must never have sexual relations with a close relative, for I am the Lord.
Terrywoodenpic
Oldest Heretic
Laws can be different in Scotland. But in this case cousin marriage is legal through out the UK.
Darwin married his first Cousin they had Ten children.
Queen Victoria Married her 3rd cousin, many of her children married cousins. It was difficult for European royalty not to, if they were to marry equals.
So there was no chance that the laws would ban it.
In Holland it is possible for siblings to marry, with royal dispensation.
Last edited:
Terrywoodenpic
Oldest Heretic
Define close relative?
It defines them afterwards and cousins aren't on the list iirc.
Terrywoodenpic
Oldest Heretic
Exactly
cousin
Augustus
…
As the Habsburgs so clearly demonstrate, centuries of inbreeding never harmed anyone...
The Distinctive ‘Habsburg Jaw’ Was Likely the Result of the Royal Family’s Inbreeding
New research finds correlation between how inbred rulers of a notoriously intermarrying dynasty were and the prominence of their jutting jaw
The Distinctive ‘Habsburg Jaw’ Was Likely the Result of the Royal Family’s Inbreeding | Smart News | Smithsonian Magazine
...The Habsburgs’ ungainly facial features weren’t the only negative side effect of inbreeding: University of Santiago de Compostela geneticists previously found that inbreeding diminished Habsburg offspring’s chances of survival by as much as 18 percent. They pinned the “extinction of the dynasty” on two rare, recessive, probably-the-consequence-of-inbreeding disorders Charles II may have had. While marrying relatives may helped the Habsburgs' rise to power, the resulting mucked-up family tree eventually led, full circle, to their fall from the throne.
The Distinctive ‘Habsburg Jaw’ Was Likely the Result of the Royal Family’s Inbreeding
New research finds correlation between how inbred rulers of a notoriously intermarrying dynasty were and the prominence of their jutting jaw
The Distinctive ‘Habsburg Jaw’ Was Likely the Result of the Royal Family’s Inbreeding | Smart News | Smithsonian Magazine
...The Habsburgs’ ungainly facial features weren’t the only negative side effect of inbreeding: University of Santiago de Compostela geneticists previously found that inbreeding diminished Habsburg offspring’s chances of survival by as much as 18 percent. They pinned the “extinction of the dynasty” on two rare, recessive, probably-the-consequence-of-inbreeding disorders Charles II may have had. While marrying relatives may helped the Habsburgs' rise to power, the resulting mucked-up family tree eventually led, full circle, to their fall from the throne.
To determine that Islam was correct about cousin marriages we would first need to know specifically and in full what Islam says about cousin marriages, preferably with citations.
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
Partnering up and having kids with someone that isn't part of your immediate family....