Traditional Family Values Indeed, or The "Sanctity" of Marriage

gibbz

macrumors 68030
Original poster
May 31, 2007
2,691
91
Glad the issue with disallowing same-sex marriage comes down to traditional family values :rolleyes:

 

Queso

Suspended
Mar 4, 2006
11,832
7
To be fair, marrying your first cousin isn't the same as marrying your sibling. Even here in the UK first cousins are allowed to marry. Not sure how popular it is though.
 

gibbz

macrumors 68030
Original poster
May 31, 2007
2,691
91
To be fair, marrying your first cousin isn't the same as marrying your sibling. Even here in the UK first cousins are allowed to marry. Not sure how popular it is though.
Ha ha certainly, but it is still playing genetic roulette
 

Rt&Dzine

macrumors 6502a
Oct 8, 2008
736
5
Can't get more traditional than kissing (and procreating) cousins.

Maryland, New Jersey, Connecticut, Massachusetts, and Vermont appear to be the Libertarian states as far as marriage is concerned.
 

skunk

macrumors G4
Jun 29, 2002
11,745
3,992
Republic of Ukistan
To be fair, marrying your first cousin isn't the same as marrying your sibling. Even here in the UK first cousins are allowed to marry. Not sure how popular it is though.
Remember this?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7237663.stm
A minister who warned about birth defects among children of first cousin marriages in Britain's Asian community has sparked anger among critics.
Phil Woolas said health workers were aware such marriages were creating increased risk of genetic problems.

The claims infuriated the Muslim Public Affairs Committee (MPAC) which called on the prime minister to "sack him".

MPAC spokesman Asghar Bukhari said Mr Woolas' comments "verged on Islamophobia".

Mr Woolas, an environment minister who represents ethnically-diverse Oldham East and Saddleworth, risked sparking a major row after warning the issue was "the elephant in the room", Mr Bukhari said.

Expert analysis

Mr Woolas said cultural sensitivities made the issue of birth defects difficult to address.

The former race relations minister told the Sunday Times: "If you have a child with your cousin the likelihood is there'll be a genetic problem.


Awareness does need to be raised but we are very aware of the sensitivities
Phil Woolas
"The issue we need to debate is first cousin marriages, whereby a lot of arranged marriages are with first cousins, and that produces lots of genetic problems in terms of disability [in children]."

Mr Woolas stressed the marriages, which are legal in the UK, were a cultural, not a religious, issue and confined mainly to families originating in rural Pakistan.

But he also told the paper: "If you talk to any primary care worker they will tell you that levels of disability among the... Pakistani population are higher than the general population. And everybody knows it's caused by first cousin marriage."

"Awareness does need to be raised but we are very aware of the sensitivities," he added, pointing out that many of the people involved were the products of such marriages.​
 

Queso

Suspended
Mar 4, 2006
11,832
7
Ha ha certainly, but it is still playing genetic roulette
True, especially amongst some of our immigrant communities where arranged marriages are common. For instance, although Pakistani parents are responsible for only 3% of births in the UK over 30% of children born with genetic illnesses are born to Pakistani parents. It appears that when you get too many first cousin marriages within the same family, it doesn't take too many generations before problems arise.

Something the Royal Houses of Europe knew only too well in the last century.

Funnily enough it was through that story that I knew about the genetic issues I mention above, although the statistic quoted came from one of the broadsheets.
 

Tomorrow

macrumors 604
Mar 2, 2008
7,115
1,246
Always a day away
So all states which allow same-sex marriage, save Iowa and New Hampshire, also allow first cousins to wed. Is there an underlying meaning to it all? :confused:
 

bobber205

macrumors 68020
Nov 15, 2005
2,182
0
Oregon
So all states which allow same-sex marriage, save Iowa and New Hampshire, also allow first cousins to wed. Is there an underlying meaning to it all? :confused:
What about the states that do not fall into that category. Allow first cousins but NOT same sex?

And what about the fact there are MANY more states that allow first cousin but not same sex? Not allowing first cousin marriage can be argued as a fact of genetic problems that occur when that happens. Same sex marriage does nothing to society as a whole.
 

Ugg

macrumors 68000
Apr 7, 2003
1,985
15
Penryn
The Hutterites of North America, an Anabaptist sect similar to the Amish have very high rates of disability due to intermarriage. Since it's mostly a closed sect, very few women would willingly join, they're having big, big problems.

Genetic isolation is never a good thing.
 

Tomorrow

macrumors 604
Mar 2, 2008
7,115
1,246
Always a day away
What about the states that do not fall into that category. Allow first cousins but NOT same sex?
Looks like there are some - what's the point, though?

And what about the fact there are MANY more states that allow first cousin but not same sex?
Exactly - what about it?

Is the graphic celebrating something, or pointing out something funny, or what?
 

gibbz

macrumors 68030
Original poster
May 31, 2007
2,691
91
Is the graphic celebrating something, or pointing out something funny, or what?
The graphic is pointing out the irony contained within the arguments against same-sex marriage (a lot of "traditional and moral" arguments as well as the "sanctity" of marriage) when a larger portion of states allow first cousin marriages.
 

bobber205

macrumors 68020
Nov 15, 2005
2,182
0
Oregon
Looks like there are some - what's the point, though?



Exactly - what about it?

Is the graphic celebrating something, or pointing out something funny, or what?
It's pointing out the hypocrisy of our country. We're more for first cousins having sex and getting married than non related same sex people getting married.
 

dukebound85

macrumors P6
Jul 17, 2005
18,050
1,180
5045 feet above sea level
The graphic is pointing out the irony contained within the arguments against same-sex marriage (a lot of "traditional and moral" arguments as well as the "sanctity" of marriage) when a larger portion of states allow first cousin marriages.
where is the moral argument against first cousins? please cite

the only issue is "potential" increase in birth defects and this is more or less exxageerated

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

But where is this moral argument? more importantly, the moral argument used by those who are against same sex marriages?

i fail to see any irony
if anything, its a interesting fact but no irony
 

gibbz

macrumors 68030
Original poster
May 31, 2007
2,691
91
where is the moral argument against first cousins? please cite

i fail to see any irony
Sorry if this is confusing you. I'll try to explain better.

The arguments made against same-sex marriage often include the sanctity of marriage and traditional moral values. There is a huge movement against same-sex marriage on a national scale.

Alternatively, as the graphic shows, there are lots of states allowing first cousin marriage. This union [can be] genetically dangerous and certainly wouldn't fit the same-sex opponents' definition of sanctity. However, there isn't the same push to ban these people from forming unions as there is for homosexuals.

It is simply meant to highlight hypocrisy in our country. Especially with those who wish to selectively define what is or isn't moral for the rest of the country.
 

Queso

Suspended
Mar 4, 2006
11,832
7
This union is genetically dangerous...
According to research it's not dangerous providing the bloodlines don't keep crossing. There is an increased risk of infant mortality in babies born to first-cousin parents, but this is slightly less than the risk presented when the mother is over 40.

It's also quite obvious from your graphic that a slight majority of states ban first-cousin marriages, so it doesn't really stand as an example of hypocrisy either. Sorry.
 

gibbz

macrumors 68030
Original poster
May 31, 2007
2,691
91
where is the moral argument against first cousins? please cite
Well the Catholic Church for one discourages such marriages.

Not Too Closely Related -

Legal prohibitions on marriage between cousins (and other close blood relationships, such as uncle and niece) stem from the Church's ban on such marriages. Before 1983, marriages between second cousins were prohibited—indeed, former New York mayor Rudy Giuliani received an annulment of his first marriage after determining that his wife was his second cousin. Today, second-cousin marriages are allowed, and, under some circumstances, a dispensation can be obtained to allow a first-cousin marriage. The Church still discourages such marriages, however.
According to research it's not dangerous providing the bloodlines don't keep crossing. There is an increased risk of infant mortality in babies born to first-cousin parents, but this is slightly less than the risk presented when the mother is over 40.

It's also quite obvious from your graphic that a slight majority of states ban first-cousin marriages, so it doesn't really stand as an example of hypocrisy either. Sorry.
I edited the post to reflect the genetic issue.

It is also evident from the graphic that 25 states allow first cousin marriage. That is NOT a slight majority against, it is 50/50. Also, based on the graphic, 7 allow same sex marriage. That is almost 4 to 1. That is hypocritical. Sorry.
 

Tomorrow

macrumors 604
Mar 2, 2008
7,115
1,246
Always a day away
The arguments made against same-sex marriage often include the sanctity of marriage and traditional moral values. There is a huge movement against same-sex marriage on a national scale.

Alternatively, as the graphic shows, there are lots of states allowing first cousin marriage. This union [can be] genetically dangerous and certainly wouldn't fit the same-sex opponents' definition of sanctity. However, there isn't the same push to ban these people from forming unions as there is for homosexuals.

It is simply meant to highlight hypocrisy in our country. Especially with those who wish to selectively define what is or isn't moral for the rest of the country.
But how are these two issues even related (pun not intended)? If, as you postulate, people in a majority of states have voted or otherwise chosen not to allow same-sex marriage, how does that in any way correlate to the legality of marriage between first cousins?

I don't see any hypocrisy here; I see two completely unrelated issues being pointed out, and a feeble attempt to show some sort of relationship between them.
 

dukebound85

macrumors P6
Jul 17, 2005
18,050
1,180
5045 feet above sea level
I don't see any hypocrisy here; I see two completely unrelated issues being pointed out, and a feeble attempt to show some sort of relationship between them.
Exactly

Its just an interesting observation with ZERO links between the two

I mean you could only make the argument sort of if all the states that allowed same sex, also allowed first cousins but they don't. Same with the vice versa case. Alot also don't allow either case

There is no relationship. There is no irony
 

gibbz

macrumors 68030
Original poster
May 31, 2007
2,691
91
But how are these two issues even related (pun not intended)?
You made me smile :)

If, as you postulate, people in a majority of states have voted or otherwise chosen not to allow same-sex marriage, how does that in any way correlate to the legality of marriage between first cousins?

I don't see any hypocrisy here; I see two completely unrelated issues being pointed out, and a feeble attempt to show some sort of relationship between them.
This wasn't meant to be so serious. The point is that many reasons against same sex marriage revolve around personal morality rather than legal issues. I merely thought I would shine some humor on the subject by showing that 25 states allows first cousin marriage as opposed to 7 for same sex. Meanwhile, I would venture to guess that if you were to ask, a majority of those opposing same sex marriage would also say that first cousin marriage is weird or immoral, and might be shocked to find their state allows it. Yet, there has been no equal push against it.

I will concede that perhaps hypocrisy doesn't fit the bill, but I would argue it is ironic at the least.

Either way, it was just meant as a funny, interesting image to ponder.

Also, I am not necessarily against first cousin marriage. I couldn't care less who people want to spend their lives with. I think people should be able to love whomever they want.
 

gibbz

macrumors 68030
Original poster
May 31, 2007
2,691
91
There you go. By me editing that, I pretend that I know you well enough to fix your quotes and at the same time display my own political views on the matter in a childish manner.
Since we are correcting each other.