Badmovies.org Forum

Hey, stop those presses! We may just have to re-evaluate some of that stuff we've heard about rednecks:

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/JohnStossel/2006/07/19/think_your_cousins_cute_relax

You know, maybe Dar and Kiri from Beastmaster had the right idea about where to find the one who's right for you after all. Maybe Jeff Foxworthy's people know something we don't about where to meet women. (Try your next family reunion.) Maybe we ought to look to West Virginia for tips on how to build a lasting marriage. Then too, maybe Superman ought to give his pretty cousin a second glance. She could certainly help him with all of those problems mentioned in that Nivens essay Man of Steel, Woman of Kleenex, and contrary to what Nivens thought, you wouldn't be a cad for suggesting it.

Really. John Stossel's saying 20% of the world's marriages are between cousins, and their children include some very bright and very famous people. He also points out that the vast majority of supposed disadvantages of marrying cousins are myths. Apparently it hasn't done them much damage. (Hemophilia did run in Queen Victoria's line, though, I think.)

Another thing: check the Old Testament carefully, and you'll notice that his interpretation is right and there are no prohibitions anywhere in there against cousins marrying. There aren't any in the New Testament either. If God should strike you with lightning for some reason, it won't be for thinking your cousin is cute.

Uhmm... Let him explain this, then:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_II_of_Spain

While I'm not authorized to speak for Stossel on this, I imagine he would defend his position against that Wikipedia article from two angles:

1. One horrific anecdote does not speak for the whole demographic.

2. People already demonstrated to have birth defects are, of course, more likely to have children with birth defects whether they're closely related to the person they marry or not.

I would tend to question more the degree to which his broad libertarian statement about love and marriage applies: maybe the dangers of cousins or older women marrying aren't great enough to justify forbidding marriage, but suppose the two lovebirds in question are both known to have genetic defects that are highly likely to be passed on to the next generation with terrible results? Wouldn't that justify some restrictions against marriage, or at least against bearing any children in such a marriage? At what point do we admit that love doesn't conquer all?

There are many other disfigured monarchs and noblety out there, I just picked Charles II of Spain because the inherited defects are specially visible in him.

You're excluding one factor.  The degree of inbreeding needs to be considered.  A single pairing of cousins isn't dangerous whereas generations of inbreeding is a game of genetic Russian roulette.  He sited a 2-3 % increase in birth defects from a first pairing of cousins.  That % would rise with each new related pair.

And for the record, yes, I have a cousin that I think is hot.  She's 1000 miles away and a die hard Christian.  The religious consideration is a greater deterent than the genetic one.  I'm fixed anyway....

I agree, the degree of inbreeding has a huge effect.  The Hapsburg line (Victoria's folks) were generations of cousins marrying cousins, THEN marrying cousins again.   Once just ups the ante a bit.  
My personal take is that its not a heinous thing.  I have read that only in America is there a huge taboo against it.  But I don't have the source, so we'll discount that.  Its not NORMAL, but there are worse things out there.  Hell if you are capabble of putting up with the sheer ridicule of being hitched to kinfolk, now THATS true love.  
Keep counting the toes, folks.
-Ed

Actually, Stossel's statistic concerned the chance that any given pairing would produce birth defects, not the amount of genetic defect they would produce. The chance is 2-3% greater that a pair of cousins will produce children with birth defects than just any couple, but that doesn't mean any kid they have has a 4-6% greater chance of producing birth defects in his children if he marries his cousin. The chance is still only 2-3% greater for him.

When a kid already has genetic birth defects, the chance of the next generation getting birth defects immediately goes way up no matter who he marries. That's why I pointed out the presence of known defects in the Hapsburg line: the article mentions a crazy great-grandmother factored in from the start, and I think it's safe to assume some of the other founding members of the dynasty weren't all in the best of conditions either. The danger of continued interbreeding isn't so much that it produces more birth defects as that it keeps reproducing the ones already present.

In fact, up to Queen Victoria's time, I seem to recall no hemophilia was present in the dynasty; Victoria may actually have been a mutant. (When you mutate in real life, instead of getting cool powers and being shunned by a society that hates and fears you, you become a carrier for a gene that does dreadful things to your children, especially the boys.)

As for the religious concern, again, check the Bible carefully; there's no fine print in Leviticus and no prohibition on cousins marrying. One should be considerate of the feelings of others, though, and remember to "speak the truth in love" if it's necessary to point this out to others.

Down here in the South where I live, by the way, I can't say I've noticed any extraordinary number of first cousins marrying, but I do notice that the same six or seven family names keep turning up in all the bloodlines and on all the gravestones in the cemetaries. Except for newcomers like my family, practically everyone here is probably at least a third or fourth cousin to nearly everybody else.

Inyarear Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

>
> In fact, up to Queen Victoria's time, I seem to
> recall no hemophilia was present in the dynasty;
> Victoria may actually have been a mutant. (When
> you mutate in real life, instead of getting cool
> powers and being shunned by a society that hates
> and fears you, you become a carrier for a gene
> that does dreadful things to your children,
> especially the boys.)

God save the Queen
And her Fascist regime
God save the Queen
She ain't no human being

Sorry, couldn't resist xDDD

There was also a theory that Victoria's hemophiliac gene was related to the age of her father when she was born.  It was postulated that the old boy's genetics were beginning to break down due to his age.  If this is the case it was her father who mutated or rather his sperm that mutated, since he himself did not demonstrate the hemophiliac state. I mean if the chance of defect goes up with the woman's age, why would the father's age not also be a factor?  It isn't likely but it is possible that Victoria was a rare case of inheriting the hemophilia gene from her father.

Women carry hemophilia recessively and therefore normally do not express it.  Men express it in the recessive form because we have no gene to combat it.  The only way to get a female hemophiliac  is to have a carrier mother and a hemophiliac father, which doesn't happen often. (homozygous recessive for you biology types)

The same situation exists with (of all things) baldness.

Gotta love the genetic hand that guys are dealt.

Shadowphile Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> There was also a theory that Victoria's
> hemophiliac gene was related to the age of her
> father when she was born.  It was postulated that
> the old boy's genetics were beginning to break
> down due to his age.  If this is the case it was
> her father who mutated or rather his sperm that
> mutated, since he himself did not demonstrate the
> hemophiliac state. I mean if the chance of defect
> goes up with the woman's age, why would the
> father's age not also be a factor?  It isn't
> likely but it is possible that Victoria was a rare
> case of inheriting the hemophilia gene from her
> father.
>
> Women carry hemophilia recessively and therefore
> normally do not express it.  Men express it in the
> recessive form because we have no gene to combat
> it.  The only way to get a female hemophiliac  is
> to have a carrier mother and a hemophiliac father,
> which doesn't happen often. (homozygous recessive
> for you biology types)
>
> The same situation exists with (of all things)
> baldness.
>
> Gotta love the genetic hand that guys are dealt.


Men pretty much get the short end of the stick on damn near everything. Hair, nipples, family diseases, genetics...not to mention society's atttitude towards us in general... and women wonder why we are so agressive?

As Tyrell of Blade Runner points out, "The candle that burns twice as bright burns half as long, and you, my son, have burned so very, very brightly." We men get a fair number of physical and psychological advantages over the women, but at the price of greater threats to our health, less longevity, and heavier social responsibilities.

Again, though, with Victoria and company, cousin marriage was not so much giving them new problems as keeping them the problems they already had.

Hey,I live in the backwoods of Lawton ,Mich. (pop.106 meth heads, 245 farmers, and more inbreds than you can shake a booze bottle at.)Now, most folks are ok, but I have met my share of TRUE inbreds. And there is something SERIOUSLY wrong there. And if somebody is such a loser that the have to do the hibbity jibbity with their cousin,well...more power to ,em.I'll take my pill now...