Is it a sin to marry you second cousin ( the son of you fathers 1st cousin)? is it allowed by the catholic church? is it incest?

-- Ariadna (fallen4luv@hotmail.com), April 28, 2003

Answers

Response to A secon cousin

first... yes, it is incest. you are related by blood. however, as far as being a sin, it is not. throughout history families have inter married though. it has a tendency to strongly increase the chances of mental retardation in offspring, however. BTW, are you from the south, they do alot of that down there... or so i hear.

-- paul (dontSendMeMail@notAnAddress.com), April 28, 2003.

Response to A secon cousin

No, Ariadna.
It is not "a sin to marry your second cousin."

According to articles by two different canon lawyers (which I have read in the past few years), marrying a second cousin [or even a first cousin, once removed] is permitted by the Catholic Church's 1983 Code of Canon Law (for the Western/Latin church). In the previous Code (of 1917), marrying a second cousin was forbidden without the bishop's special permission (dispensation). Now it is even permissible to marry a first cousin with a dispensation -- though I recently read that this is forbidden by 30 of the 50 U.S. states. (I don't know if dispensation is granted only to sterile couples.)

It is not "incest" to marry any relative except those banned by the Church's laws -- e.g., parent/(step)child ... brother/(stepsister) ... aunt-uncle/nephew-niece ... and first cousin [without dispensation].

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), April 28, 2003.

Response to A secon cousin

Darn! That was supposed to say ... brother/(step)sister. In other words, a brother cannot marry his sister, step-sister, or half-sister.

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), April 28, 2003.

Response to A secon cousin

actually, john, incest is a secular thing, not a religious matter... and it is defined as marrying a member of ones family, so marrying a cousin or a second cousin would be incest, morally wrong or not, and it would still increase the risk of birth defects.

-- paul (dontSendMeMail@notAnAddress.com), April 29, 2003.

Response to A secon cousin

Ariadna,

John is quite right and Paul is quite wrong. It is neither a sin nor a crime to marry your father's first cousin. No Church law or any current legal jurisdiction that I know of forbids you from doing this. You do not even require episcopal dispensation in the instance you've described. However, rather than take our word on it, why don't you call on your pastor sometime soon for verification of what you have been told here? A simple phone call can help clear this matter up for you.

-- Ed (catholic4444@yahoo.ca), April 29, 2003.

Response to A secon cousin

so the dictionary and webster is wrong too? i never said it was a crime or a sin to marry your cousin, but the definition of incest is marrying someone related to you by blood... and i think a cousin fits that bill. now, if you happen to have more authority than websters dictionary, please, redefine the word for me so that i might know what it means

-- paul (dontSendMeMail@notAnAddress.com), April 29, 2003.

Response to A secon cousin

BTW ed, are you from the south, cus youre arguing pretty strongly for marrying someone in your own family. Alabama maybe?

-- paul (dontSendMeMail@notAnAddress.com), April 29, 2003.

Response to A secon cousin

paul(don't send e-mail)

Incest as defined in the Dictionary is:

1.'Sexual relations between persons who are so closely related that their marriage is illegal or forbidden by custom.

2. The statutory crime of sexual relations with such a near relative.'

In this country, and many other countries, first cousins can marry, it is perfectly legal.

The Church also allows marriage between First Cousins if the couple receive a Dispensation.

Paul,twice on this thread you've referred to the 'South'. You are perhaps not aware that statement could be construed as being very offensive to people who live in the 'South' (I presume you mean the Southern states of the US:

'BTW, are you from the south, they do alot of that down there... or so i hear.'

'BTW ed, are you from the south, cus youre arguing pretty strongly for marrying someone in your own family. Alabama maybe?'

Now, you may well not have intended to portray yourself as being bigoted and rude. I truly hope not. However, I think it would be wise if you were a bit more careful in how you worded your posts in future.

John G and Ed (Catholic4444) have both given correct answers. This isn't something that could be interpreted in different ways, or is open to debate. What they've said are indisputable facts. Ariadna asked for the Catholic Church's Law on this matter, and was given an accurate answer.

You also stated that incest isn't a religious matter. Paul, that's simply untrue. It is a matter of morals. It is not only 'secular' as you said earlier.

God bless

-- Sara (sara_catholic_forum@yahoo.co.uk), April 29, 2003.

Response to A secon cousin

actually, in the state of california, it is illegal to marry your first cousin... actually, alot of states in the US forbid marraiges of family related by blood. the reason i pointed out the south is because most southern states dont have such laws. the point still stands that marrying anyone related to you by blood significantly increases the chances of birth defects

-- paul (dontSendMeMail@notAnEmail.com), April 29, 2003.

Response to A secon cousin

Dear "little paul,"

You stated that "it is incest [if] you are related by blood. ... it is defined as marrying a member of ones family".

Sara quoted a dictionary definition as follows: "Incest ... is ... Sexual relations between persons who are so closely related that their marriage is illegal or forbidden by custom."

Now if Sara's dictionary is wrong and you are right, then no one on the planet is permitted to have relations. Why do I say this? Because, as Catholics, we believe that God created two "first parents," and we are all descended from them. We are all -- to use your words -- "related by blood" and "member[s] of [the one big human] family".

I hope that you can see that it is not mere "relatedness," but closeness of relatedness, that matters. Law (including ecclesiastical law) and custom establish the closeness that must exist before relations can be called "incestuous."

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), April 30, 2003.

Response to A secon cousin

paul

I think love for a man's sister or first cousin would help prepare him to love his second or third or tenth cousin. I mean don't let an incest taboo make us not able to love at all. Adam and Eve's children must have been allowed incest until the population grew. That doesn't mean incest is good, it means don't fear a love for close relatives of the opposite sex. Maybe your concerns are rooted in a narcissistic tendency. I might have one of those. I never married. I might love myself too much. Who knows? Also I currently live in the south, been here almost three years, and the only first cousins who married, that I personally know, are in Michigan.

-- Mike H. (michael.hitzelberger@vscc.cc.tn.us), April 30, 2003.

Response to A secon cousin

i dont think everyone is understanding me quite right... im not saying that it would be morally wrong to marry ones first cousin, but in a majority of the United states the act of marrying ones cousin is indeed illegal, hence by very definition-- marrying someone related to you (by blood) in such a way that it is considered illegal-- the act is indeed considered incest. this does not mean that incest is morally wrong, but it is the case. AND YOU STILL HAVE NOT ADRESSED THE FACT THAT SUCH A RELATIONSHIP WOULD INCREASE THE CHANCE OF BIRTH DEFECT IN OFFSPRING...

-- paul (dontSendMeMail@notAnAddress.com), May 01, 2003.

Response to A secon cousin

paul

I suppose the closer one is related to the spouse the more chance for defects. That's a concern. One point of marriage is to go outside your own blood family to find a spouse resulting in expanding the family. A unification of families by marriage. You're not doing that very well if you only go with second cousins.

-- Mike H. (michael.hitzelberger@vscc.cc.tn.us), May 01, 2003.

http://www.cousincouples.com/info/facts.shtml

Paul - Check out the above link. Apparently second cousins have no discernibly increased risk of birth defects.

-- (abcde@fghijk.com), May 12, 2003.

abc look who is hosting that website.."cousin couples" I wouldnt trust any thing from that site. Now i am not uptight about these sort of matters but there is no need to pander to this sick behaviour. Id rather .

Id be interested in which Staes allow you to marry your FIRST cousin and whether they are predominately in the South does anyone know?

It doesnt matter whether the church or the govt forbids it we all know that marrying your cousins especially your first cousin is real twisted. I dont care what happened in the Bible, my conscience and sense of reason tells me its just plain wrong.

Heres the science behind the idea.

One reason that relationships between cousins are often discouraged is the concern that first cousins - who share 12.5% of their genes - will pass on recessive genes to their offspring. Recessive genes do not cause disease in every generation, but can cause disease when a person inherits a recessive gene from each parent. "The closer the biological relationship between parents, the greater is the probability that their offspring will inherit identical copies of one or more detrimental recessive genes," the report states. Children born to first cousins, the authors note, will have two identical copies of 6.25% of their genes.

Paul people could argure that plenty of other risk factors like genetic diseases are not legislated against. That is people with genetic diseases with very high risks of passing on those genes are allowed to marry.

Well you cant legislate against everything, but again our sense of morality in each of us tells this is not in the same vile group of immoral behaviour as marrying your cousin.

Just my 2 cents of course.

-- Kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), May 13, 2003.

Kiwi, thank you for your support. im glad im not the only one who sees something a little strange about marrying a family member. as to your questions, yes a significant number of the states that allow interfamilial marraiges are in the south, but many states dont allow them.

i was going to note that the 'facts' on that website are a little skewed as well. the idea that the risk of genetic defect is only 6.5 percent, or close to that as the site claimed is rather heinous, but they say that 3.4 or something is the average in normal couples... the thing is, that that itself is a significant increase in genetic defect. look at lung cancer for example, smokers suffer a 0.5% increase chance in lung cancer, but that is a HUGE difference. now, 3.1% increase would be incredible as an increase, accept for one thing... that is that the defect rate for first cousins is actually ALOT higher than that. its really more like 10% making a 6.6 percent difference.

Furthermore, the percentages given are quite wrong as well. you said that europeans ascribe to marrying close relations first... let me guess, havent been to europe lately? i live in germany, and i can tell you that cousins getting married is a bit of a rare occurance these days. your thinking back to the midevil times that that type of thing happened. and the worldwide percent of people married to a cousin is not 20%. if you take 4/1000 as japan has, then you end up with a .4 percent rate of interfamilial marraige... thats a LONG cry from 20%.

-- paul (dontsendmemail@notanaddress.com), May 13, 2003.

Kiwi, thank you for your support. im glad im not the only one who sees something a little strange about marrying a family member.

no problem Paul.

as to your questions, yes a significant number of the states that allow interfamilial marraiges are in the south, but many states dont allow them.

Ahh interesting, the next question would be ...is Texas one of them by any chance ;-). Actually Texas strikes me as the sort of place where men are men and cousins are not wives. I bet Alabama actually encourages it though...or have I been listening to too much Neil Young? I am so ignorant about America despite the cultural saturation!

i was going to note that the 'facts' on that website are a little skewed as well. the idea that the risk of genetic defect is only 6.5 percent, or close to that as the site claimed is rather heinous, but they say that 3.4 or something is the average in normal couples... the thing is, that that itself is a significant increase in genetic defect.

> i think you misread the quote it was reffering not to chances of a genetic defect occuring but the percentage of genes transferred. Have another closer read and see if you get what I mean. I agree with your stats they sound accurate to me from what Ive read(not alot I admit)

look at lung cancer for example, smokers suffer a 0.5% increase chance in lung cancer, but that is a HUGE difference. > do you work for a tabbacco firm?:-). SOunds a little low to me but I dont know

> now, 3.1% increase would be incredible as an increase, accept for one thing... that is that the defect rate for first cousins is actually ALOT higher than that. its really more like 10% making a 6.6 percent difference.

I agree

Furthermore, the percentages given are quite wrong as well. you said that europeans ascribe to marrying close relations first... did I I cant for the life of me remember me saying this. perhaps you have me coonfused for someone else.

let me guess, havent been to europe lately?unb i live in germany, and i can tell you that cousins getting married is a bit of a rare occurance these days. your thinking back to the midevil times that that type of thing happened. and the worldwide percent of people married to a cousin is not 20%. if you take 4/1000 as japan has, then you end up with a .4 percent rate of interfamilial marraige... thats a LONG cry from 20%.

>are I really think youve got me confused but nevertheless I did live in Europe 1999-2000 on a working holiday. Didt spend much time in Germany ..did manage to get to the Munich Octoberfest though. mmmm beer..... MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM GERMAN beer :-).

God Bless

-- kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), May 13, 2003.

Jmj

Hello, Kiwi.
Here is a list of U.S. states that allow first cousins to marry (without exceptions). You'll find that, along with some of the Southern states, a bunch of the looniest liberal Northeast and Western states are included -- e.g., New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, Maine, Rhode Island, the Peoples Republic of Taxachusetts (Massachusetts), Hawaii, and California (the Land of Fruit and Nuts). {_8^D)

My point is that, in your distant land, you need to avoid falling for stereotypes that are perpetuated by Hollywood movies! There are only a few places in the nation that allegedly have the kind of incestuous hillbilly relationships that you are picturing. Most of that kind of talk is just hyperbole, used by people of one state to poke fun at another. Ironically, such allegedly "hick" states as Arkansas and West Virginia, which have a reputation for incest, actually forbid the marriage of first cousins.

States that allow all "cousin marriages"
Alabama
Alaska
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
Rhode Island
South Carolina
Tennessee
Texas
Vermont
Virginia

The following states permit marriages between first cousins that are unable to have offspring:
Arizona
Illinois
Indiana
Utah
Wisconsin

The information above is taken from http://www.cousincouples.com/info/states.shtml, which has a color-coded map and additional notes about special exceptions.

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), May 13, 2003.

john, i can tell you for a fact that California does not allow interfamilial marraiges... which makes me doubt the credibility of the website even more.

Kiwi, sorry for the misunderstanding, i thought you live in england. i meant to say that the person who anonymously posted the web site hasnt been to europe lately, which was who most of my reply was to.

-- paul (dontsendmemail@notanaddress.com), May 13, 2003.

What if your second cousin is related to you but my grandmother had my father with one man and my aunt with another man. are we half second cousins? is it ok to have sexual relations? is that still considered incest since there is a break in the blood line?

-- Tim Malane (tldat4lbbr@aol.com), May 14, 2003.

tim, i would think of it as being so, but not every body would necessarily. that would certainly be better than marrying a full on blood relation.

-- paul (dontsendmemail@notanaddress.com), May 14, 2003.

I am inlove with my first cousin. I am arabian though it is pretty normal for us. Should i be scaredif we have kids or what other people do or think>?

-- Anonymous (tiff31482@hotmail.com), May 21, 2003.

Im invovled with my first cousin and we had a son together who came out fine. I do believe that most of america will find it "morally,religously, or generally" wrong, but I wasnt raised with her and I got to know her as a friend over family. BTW it is legal in Ca to marry a first cousin, I spoke with many lawyers regarding this matter, as this is where we reside.

-- See.K (seek_T_S@yahoo.com), May 26, 2003.

What are you talking about-- ''I am involved''-? You have a nerve; coming here to brag. Involved for life? Or passing by long enough to see if your baby is born normal? Your cousin is not what I would call blessed, See. Canada is not blessed to have you for a guest, I think.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), May 26, 2003.

anonymous,

no, you shouldnt be scared stiff, but you should be aware of the inherent increase in risk by having children with a family relation. the increase becomes more significant if either of you is a decendent from a familial couple, so you might want to research your family history too. just be aware of the risk. and last time i checked with MY lawyer in california, it is illegal to marry your first cousin.

-- paul (dontsendmemail@notanaddress.com), May 26, 2003.

It is not a sin nor incest to marry a cousin. The Bible has passages that marry cousins. I date my first cousin once removed now for 2 years. I also know of 3 other couples who are married to their 2nd cousin and have fine children. I called a canon lawyer in the Catholic church and they said it was fine- I figure if the Catholic church says it is ok than how can anyone dispute that- they don't ok too much. People agaisnt this relationship are ignorant. I never thought it was ok and weird to be involved with a cousin until it happened to me and then I researched it and got knowledge. Maybe one day we will be a group that no longer will discriminated agaisnt.

-- Jackie Smith (jackiesmith154@hotmail.com), May 26, 2003.

no offense jackie,

have you bothered to read this thread? nobody has said incest is morally wrong!!!

if you would bother to read what ive actually stated you'll see that i merely state that marrying a cousin would be incest, is illegal in some areas, and leads to increase in genetic deficiencies among offspring.

if youre dating your cousin, thats fine... have fun. but dont put words in my mouth.

-- paul (dontsendmemail@notanaddress.com), May 27, 2003.

So, if your parents and your aunt and uncle are identical twins, why can't you marry your sister? It is the same as marrying your cousin? Isn't it?

Karl

-- Karl (Parkerkajwen@hotmail.com), May 27, 2003.

Eugene,

Sorry I didnt come here to brag, simply to state that I have experience with the matter at hand. Its not for "fun" to see if my son is fine. He is fine and we are happy. I think you show the ignorance so many people have talked about on this thread.

-- See.K (seek_T_S@yahoo.com), May 28, 2003.

Paul, Sorry, I guess I did put words into your mouth- I guess I was more just stating things than trying to put words into your mouth. Sorry about that. I also know two couples that are married with children and all their children are fine- and their children's children are fine.

-- Jakie (jackiesmtih154@hotmail.com), June 16, 2003.

no jackie, the odds arent increased incredibly at first, but there is a cumulative effect.

this means that with each generation that is inbred, there is a minor increase, such that families with a history of such pairings has an increased chance.

best wishes,

-- paul (dontsendmemail@notanaddress.com), June 18, 2003.

In some states, marrying a blood related family member is forbidden, but in some states it is legal, like in Alabama. Here is a little message for that paul guy that kept saying that a lot of that went on in the south....no it does not. The only southern state that that is allowed in is Alabama. So, there. And as far as it being allowed by the catholic, I don't know. Maybe youshould contact a local Catholic Priest that doesn't know you and ask him. I am married, but in my opinion, if you love someone, then it shouldn't matter who they are, as long as you're in love and happy is all that matters.

-- Ree (syc52903@yahoo.com), July 17, 2003.

Thank you Ree. As for my two-cents, here goes: I live in Alabama and am engaged to my First Cousin. We are both Roman Catholic and understand the flawed reasoning behind the catholic churches` take on first cousing marriage. No matter, because love is stronger than any religion.

I won't comment on whether or not it is a "Sin" to marry your second cousin, but will tell you it is Legal in Alabama to marry your first cousin. (grr, i keep spelling cousin wrong) If you don't like the notion of cousin marriage, then start reading this months Discover magazine. For all those people ill-informed on cousin-marriage and law/sin; I say this: You are ignorant (www.m-w.com :lacking knowledge or comprehension of the thing specified). Now, I didn't say stupid, just ignorant.

Judge not, less ye be judged

-- steve (mirathi@yahoo.com), July 21, 2003.

paul, you should really do a bit of research before you go spewing off your opinions as "fact".

california does allow first cousins to marry, always has, and always will. whether you think you KNOW for a fact or not, you're wrong. all you have to do is look up their marriage statutes.

it's also not incest. there are 26 states (including california) that allow cousin marriage, and 24 that do not. of those 24 states, only 13 of them define sexual relations between cousins as incest.

most of the rest of your erroneous statements have been countered with factual information by other individuals. god bless those who have a brain in their head.

-- christie smith (c.smith@cuddleinternational.org), July 22, 2003.

by the way, for those interested in the TRUTH about genetic risks, i would recommend you visit http://www.cuddleinternational.org. there are five pages of genetic information, all of which has been read and approved by robin bennet, the president of the NSGC (national society of genetic counselors) and other genetics experts prior to being published on the site.

-- christie smith (c.smith@cuddleinternational.org), July 22, 2003.

Oh yes, I'm sure that "CUDDLE" (Cousins United to Defeat Discriminating Laws through Education) offers the most reliable information on the genetic dangers associated with inbreeding. Just like NAMBLA offers the most reliable information on child abuse, TRADITIO the most reliable information on the authority of the Pope, and PETA the most reliable information on the benefits of animal research.

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), July 22, 2003.

Well just to let you know, I am engaged to Steve. It is not wrong according to the bible. Look at Genesis Jacob was directed to marry his cousins Rachel and Leah by God. Also look at Leviticus Ch 18 verses 6-18. It clearly states the morals of commitment between the two people, COUSINS are not one of them. To marry my cousin in the Catholic church I have done a lot of research and we can marry in the church with a dispensation. Learn the facts people. Women who are over 40 have the same risk for birth defects with their babies and there are NO laws against them having children or whom they marry. The bible and most other countries allow our union. The United States are behind in the times. Look at Europe nudity is not a nasty thing but here in America we frown on the natural human body and make is trashy. In the end the only one to judge me and my love is God himself. SO for all the people here that are sooooo called true christians than you know GOD is the only JUDGE not you or me. Jaime

-- Jaime (soppianti@hotmail.com), July 23, 2003.

The ignorance does not surprise me at all, what surprises me is the horrible statistics that you claim to come from cousins having children. But what does upset me is the "inbreeding" thing. I am married to my first cousin, we have been together for 8 years. I have two children from my first marriage. My oldest has sever learning and behavioral disabilities, my second child is a border line slow learner. Now the son I have and concieved with my 1st cousin is awsome! He is so intelligent, nothing like his older siblings, and oh yeah my first husband and I were not related at all, yet is is those children by him that have the problems. hhmmm and yet you people are exerting that my child by my cousin will have problems. I know several cousin couples who have extremely intelligent children. As for cuddle international and cousin couple web sites they are exellent and very educational, that is for those who are still capable of learning, and goes there with an open mind. But I do want to thank all of you closed minded people since it was because of closed minded people that this great nation its start.

Melinda Mock

-- Melinda Mock (mockmelinda@aol.com), July 23, 2003.

"Inbreeding" is a biological term commonly used by biologists, and especially geneticists. It means "reproduction as a result of mating between closely related individuals". Isn't this your situation? The health and giftedness of your most recent child is certainly something to be thankful for; but it doesn't stand as proof of anything. That's like saying "John never smoked, but got lung cancer. Mary smoked heavily for fifteen years but didn't get lung cancer. Therefore lung cancer obviously has nothing to do with smoking". The fact is, regardless of the specifics of any individual case, the probability of contracting lung cancer is much higher for smokers. And the probability of children expressing genetic traits mediated by clandestine genes is much higher when their parents are closely related. That doesn't mean that children of first cousins are "expected" to have undesirable hereditary conditions. "Much higher probability" could mean one chance in a thousand vs one chance in a million. But that is still a thousand-fold increase in probability.

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), July 23, 2003.

the information at cuddle comes straight from the research done by two sources: the National Society for Genetic Counseling and the Centre for Human Genetics. All information there has been approved by the heads of dept. at those two organizations. I already said that.

Or maybe you'd trust the information published in the JGC (Journal of Genetic Counseling), or Discover Magazine, or Time Magazine, or the NY Times newspapers more.

Paul, you're a pure bigot. What a pity. There is a cure for ignorance, but there really is no cure at all for stupidity and bigotry.

-- christie smith (c.smith@cuddleinternational.org), July 24, 2003.

What about a second cousin who is on your mothers side? Is that wrong also?

-- David (Texas_Madman@operamail.com), July 26, 2003.

Paul, you're a pure bigot. What a pity. There is a cure for ignorance, but there really is no cure at all for stupidity and bigotry.

i dont know if you were aiming that at me, or if you were aiming that at the other Paul, who has been around for the last month while i have been away. let me ask you this...

why is it that whenever someone feels ashamed of what they have done they must do two things, personally attack their opposition (as in calling them small minded and bigoted) and claim the thou shalt not judge clause? is there something youre so ashamed of that you cannot rely on real proof?

here is proof for you if you so desire: i am a physics major, at a school which is widely recognized as being superior in the area of biology and bio chem. i have learned in my classes from proffessors who teach in duality between my school and Notre Dame, that the chances of birth defects are increased in couples that are mated with another related to them. furthermore, this rate of birth defect cumulatively increases with each successive inbred mating pair.

i have made no moral statement in this regard, so i take the claims of my bigotry as ignorant and obviously unaware of the previous discussion of this thread. but this is the same response as i have seen on threads discussing the validity of active homosexual lifestyle which leads me to believe that it is not me, but you yourself who has something to feel defensive and guilty about. you can call me a bigot all you want, but any decent psychologist will suggest that you examine your own concience and the defense mechanisms you are using before you put words into someone else's mouth.

-- paul (dontsendmemail@notanaddress.com), July 26, 2003.

First David~Yes you can marry a second cousin. Second Paul~I have learned that what your teacher is teaching is not what actual genetists are documenting. A person who studies nothing other than genetics is telling us that cousins have no higher rate at defects than a woman over 40, and women over 40 aren't banned in marriage or having children so why should I be? I have had the chance to meet quite a few people who have children with their cousins prior to the current findings and their children are fine. The children range in ages of babies to teens. I just feel its not right to discriminate against one group of people but not another. Jaime

-- Jaime (cousinsolutions@arilion.com), July 27, 2003.

Jaime,

I have learned that what your teacher is teaching is not what actual genetists are documenting.

oh, thats right, ACTUALLY geneticists, who are eeking out a living by working for an organization with an agenda have ALOT more credibility than a genetics professor at NOTRE DAME. i have a winning lottery ticket i'll sell you for a hundred bucks, i'll... uh... mail it to you when i get the money...

A person who studies nothing other than genetics is telling us that cousins have no higher rate at defects than a woman over 40,

some facts you might want to know first, the rate of birth defect increases largely after the age of forty, and especially so around the age of forty five as a woman reaches menopause. please note that this is considered a SIGNIFICANT INCREASE. if the rate of birth defect among an inbred couple is the same as a woman over forty, then that clearly shows that there is a SIGNIFICANT INCREASE in the rate of birth defect from that of non related pairs. and women over 40 aren't banned in marriage or having children so why should I be?

see, this is EXACTLY what i was talking about with the defense mechanism deal. i NEVER said that a related couple should be banned from marraige, only that they should be aware of the possible risks and of the views on the subject out there. i have REPEATEDLY stated that i dont think it would be morally wrong to engage in such a relationship providing it was under proper terms. what are you so ashamed of that you have to keep putting words in my mouth as some sort of straw man defense? perhaps it is YOU and not I who is creating the issue here?

I have had the chance to meet quite a few people who have children with their cousins prior to the current findings and their children are fine. The children range in ages of babies to teens.

oh, yes, sociology and genetics can all be thrown out the window because youve met a few people who were on the other side of the odds. well, since i know a few smokers who dont have lung cancer i guess that whole anti smoking campaign can be thrown out too then right? NO!!!!!!!!!!! we're not talking an increase in birth defect from .1% (normal) to 50% (inbred) we're more talking an increase from .1% to 3%. a trend which is NOT OBSERVABLE on a small scale and can only be taken in by researchers who have large sums of money (see private university professors studying the effects of inbreeding mating pairs).

I just feel its not right to discriminate against one group of people but not another.

again you set up a straw man attack for something i never said. alright, get some real proof. why dont you fill me in on this NON CUDDLE affiliated source of yours?

Jaime

on a final note, i get your name right, please make sure to get mine right as well. if you are addressing the moderator Paul then capitalize the p. if you are addressing me then leave the p lower case, or you may address me by my nickname here, "little" paul

-- paul (dontsendmemail@notanaddress.com), July 27, 2003.

paul, i haven't even read all of your latest response to jaime, but i read the first part, and i did read the response to mine.

let me say this for the record. i am not ashamed, and i do not attack opposition for disagreeing with me by calling them bigots.

bigotry has a definition paul. and your responses thus far have fit that description to a tee. so when i say you are a bigot, it has nothing to do with the fact that you don't agree with me, it has everything to do with you completely disregarding scientific fact, and going so far as to say that genetics experts who study nothing else have an agenda, to further your own belief that it is dangerous.

on to what i did read of your response to jaime. as i understand it, you take the word of a professor to be gospel fact, while implying that the president of the national society of genetic counselors, and the head of the centre for human genetics, are lying to the masses.

has it occurred to you that your professor has simply not done any recent studies on the issue himself? because it WAS taught for decades that cousin marriages were dangerous. the scientific research that has been done in the last two decades specifically on this subject have only published the results in the last two years.

but to say that a professor is more intelligent than the scientific community is quite ludicrous. and why, oh why, would the head of the NSGC and the head of the centre for human genetics have an agenda? THEY didn't marry cousins!

oh, and one last question... i suppose your professor is god, and any professor who disagrees with yours is... what? because there are an awful lot of professors out there who teach something different.

-- christie smith (c.smith@cuddleinternational.org), July 28, 2003.

oh, and the NON CUDDLE resources are available on cuddle. clearly you've had no interest in even going there. i made it clear in an earlier post that the sources of information at cuddle were listed, but you weren't interested. so, i'll list here the sources used, just for you. of course, i'm sure in your mind, the sources lack credibility because they don't come from the great Notre Dame.

Sources:

Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine Journal of the American Medical Association American Academy of Family Physicians National Institute on Drug Abuse Forbidden Relatives (textbook) March Of Dimes

and personal correspondence with:

Martin Ottenheimer (professor of anthropology) Jacquelyn Krogh (genetic counselor with NY OMHR "office of mental health and retardation" Ann Stembridge Genetic (counselor with Kaiser) Alan Bittles (Centre for Human Genetics, founder of www.consang.net)

furthermore, the president of the NSGC (Robin Bennett) reviews all genetic information on the site prior to it being published, so that if there are errors, she can point them out. You'll see Robin listed as one of the Consultants for the site in the about pages of cuddle.

for more information on Alan Bittles, i'm copying his bio, and even his contact information, right here for you.

Position: Foundation Professor of Human Biology (since 1993) Director, Centre for Human Genetics Location: Joondalup 8.214 Phone: +61 8 6304 5623 Facsimilie: +61 8 6304 5851 E-mail: a.bittles@ecu.edu.au Synopsis: Alan Bittles received his Ph.D. from the Faculty of Medicine in the Queen’s University Belfast. His initial academic career was spent as Lecturer and then Senior Lecturer in the Basic Medical Sciences Group of Chelsea College, University of London. In 1988 Dr. Bittles transferred to King’s College, University of London and in 1990 was appointed Reader in Human Biology by the University of London and from 1991 to 1993 served as Chair of the University Board of Studies in Genetics. He was appointed to the Foundation Chair of Human Biology in Edith Cowan University, Australia in 1993. The University Centre for Human Genetics was formally established in 1996, with Prof. Bittles as Co-Director. During 1989/1990 Professor Bittles was Fulbright Senior Research Fellow in the Population Research Center of the University of Michigan, and in 1990 he received the title of Lauréat Erasmus from the European Union. In 1994 he was awarded a Sc.D. by Trinity College, University of Dublin for published research, and in 1996 was elected a Fellow of the Royal College of Pathologists. In 1998 he was elected a By-Fellow of Churchill College, University of Cambridge and appointed as Visiting Senior Research Associate in the Morrison Institute for Population and Resource Studies, Stanford University. In April 1999 he was appointed as Walker-Ames Professor in the School of International Studies of the University of Washington. Currently, Professor Bittles is co-editor of Annals of Human Biology. To date, Professor Bittles has been awarded 42 research project grants in the U.K. and Australia, and he has published over 100 monographs, journal articles and book chapters

-- christie smith (c.smith@cuddleinternational.org), July 28, 2003.

oh, and before anyone complains, my responses seem to be equally appropriate for paul AND Paul. and don't EVER compare cuddle to NAMBLA. for god sake, that was the most eroneous statement of all. cuddle doesn't promote sexually abusing little boys, we educate polititians.

-- christie (c.smith@cuddleinternational.org), July 28, 2003.

No-one suggested that CUDDLE and NAMBLA promote similar values (or lack of values). NAMBLA was simply mentioned as an example of a special interest group which exists to promote a personal agenda, and who therefore are not a reliable objective source of information. In that respect, and that respect alone, CUDDLE seems similar.

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), July 28, 2003.

What we now delete any post that offends someone with the truth? Why are Steve's posts deleted? I know maybe it was a lil green guy that did it. By the way, I am not ashamed of my love for my first cousin. I will shout it to the world, make it known and be glad that the only judge is God Almighty himself. Jaime

-- Jaime (cousinsolutions@arilio.com), July 28, 2003.