ForumGarden

I'm dead serious here.

Genetics aside, how far removed must you be before people stop looking at you funny? Second? Second, twice removed? When is it ethically ok? Never?

RedGlitter;636304 wrote: I'm dead serious here.

Genetics aside, how far removed must you be before people stop looking at you funny? Second? Second, twice removed? When is it ethically ok? Never?


gosh I would say never unless it's a cousin by marriage and shares not lineage with you. Just my honest opinion here.

My grandmother used to say by the fourth cousin, it doesn't really matter.

But, eewwww, it's still a cousin! :wah:

In the past, as recently as the mid to late 1800s, it was not uncommon for cousin to marry because they were often the only available matches because of distances. Families traveled west together, settled in the same area, and were convenient when it was time to get married.

New studies have confirmed that the genetics are not that important, UNLESS there is a familial disease or disorder that should be apparent before the cousins get together, anyway. I'm not sure of the state laws these days, but it is possible to marry your first cousin in come states.

That said...who'd want to if you had been raised together like brother and sister, BUT what if for some reason you didn't really know each other, and met one day on the bus??? Strange things have happened.

By second or third cousin ties, the genetics don't make any difference and it is leagl in all states.

libertine;636366 wrote: In the past, as recently as the mid to late 1800s, it was not uncommon for cousin to marry because they were often the only available matches because of distances. Families traveled west together, settled in the same area, and were convenient when it was time to get married.

New studies have confirmed that the genetics are not that important, UNLESS there is a familial disease or disorder that should be apparent before the cousins get together, anyway. I'm not sure of the state laws these days, but it is possible to marry your first cousin in come states.

That said...who'd want to if you had been raised together like brother and sister, BUT what if for some reason you didn't really know each other, and met one day on the bus??? Strange things have happened.

By second or third cousin ties, the genetics don't make any difference and it is leagl in all states.


Oh no, you didn't just say that, did you? That's nasty! :yh_rotfl :yh_rotfl

Sorry:wah: My typing leaves a LOT to be desired as you can see. And sometimes it is even FUNNY:-3

It gets hot and sticky here in my state, but I think it's the humidity :wah:

You Americans are so strange sometimes. Marrying cousins is a cultural taboo, it has (as was said above) very little to do with the expression of genetic abnormality above what would be found with random coupling. Something like one in ten people worldwide have blood-related parents. Marrying first cousins is both legal and unexceptional in England.

libertine;636366 wrote: I

That said...who'd want to if you had been raised together like brother and sister


Yes, that would make it seem a little freaky if you grew up together. Most of my cousins and I grew up separate, so it doesn't seem that bizarre to me... but the ones I was raised around, that's a resounding "EWW!"

But it's historically not that uncommon: Poe married his (first I believe) cousin...Abraham Lincoln and Mary Todd (wasn't that her name?) were also cousins. Somebody from the UK can tell me if I'm wrong here but I think Victoria and Albert were cousins, were they not?

911;636373 wrote: It gets hot and sticky here in my state, but I think it's the humidity :wah:


911!! :wah:

spot;636378 wrote: You Americans are so strange sometimes. Marrying cousins is a cultural taboo, it has (as was said above) very little to do with the expression of genetic abnormality above what would be found with random coupling. Something like one in ten people worldwide have blood-related parents. Marrying first cousins is both legal and unexceptional in England.


I knew you'd shed some light on this, Spot!

RedGlitter;636379 wrote: Somebody from the UK can tell me if I'm wrong here but I think Victoria and Albert were cousins, were they not? The British Royal family has gone in for marrying first cousins now and then but not very frequently - William III, George I, George IV and Queen Victoria all did it.

RedGlitter;636380 wrote: I knew you'd shed some light on this, Spot!


I just read what I wrote... "Something like one in ten people worldwide have blood-related parents" is rather stupid, don't you think.

Something like one in ten couples worldwide have a blood-related parent.

eta: ignore me, it was fine as it stood. I'm just not awake yet. Both are ways of saying the same thing.

No problem, Spot.

Thank you for the clarification on Victoria and the others.

In remote communities i dont suppose they have much choice