Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Your post and the UK link prove my point -- legislation is a response to the perceived need to legislate, but it is by no means an indicator of the knowledge that cousin marriage is wrong.
What you mean by wrong? If legislation against something is created, it means that thing is considered harmful.
Quote:
By the way, since you brought up the IQ card, I am sure you are aware of the strong link between economic wealth and measured IQ, so picking some economically backwards countries to prove the point that inbreeding creates dumb people is rather flawed.
High IQ follows economic strenght, because good economic situation offers people better education and so on. Not the other way around.
And ofcourse inbreeding over and over causes a higher percentage of mentally retarded people and quite probably is responsible, at least in part, for lower average iq in a population. Japan is an exception, for the reason I mentioned: better education and life conditions reduced the effects.
Quote:
Of course, all else equal, 0% consanguinity is better, but I will choose education and economic development over "preserving our gene pool" every single time.
If you say 0% consanguinity is better, you admit it has some negative effect but you don't mention what kind of bad effect, genetic or perhaps moral? And how can be the economic or educational parameters more important than the physical or moral health? I'd say I would always prefer physical and moral health over the temporary economic situations.
What you mean by wrong? If legislation against something is created, it means that thing is considered harmful.
Please re-read what I posted, I get the feeling there might be a language barrier here. My point is that the fact that other countries did not legislate on consanguinity is NOT evidence that they do not know or care about its negative effects.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CARPATHIAN
High IQ follows economic strenght, because good economic situation offers people better education and so on. Not the other way around.
Exactly, which is why it makes no sense to bring up the average IQ level of Muslim countries to illustrate the negative effects of consanguinity.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CARPATHIAN
If you say 0% consanguinity is better, you admit it has some negative effect but you don't mention what kind of bad effect, genetic or perhaps moral? And how can be the economic or educational parameters more important than the physical or moral health? I'd say I would always prefer physical and moral health over the temporary economic situations.
I must admit that I have no clue what you are trying to say here. There is no evidence that legislation against cousin marriage improves physical and moral health (what do you mean by moral health anyway?). All I am saying is that if you want a successful nation full of smart people, whatever your metrics for "successful" and "smart", economics, education and perhaps health care in general will be important, but cousin marriage legislation is going to be a drop in the bucket.
In Europe, more than 90 percent of all weddings during the middle ages, and until quite recently, were arranged among family members. Such habit remained in little towns. I do remember it.
So most Europeans, I don't know Romania, are inbreds.
Take for example the bubonic plague that wasted 70 percent of European population during the 14th and 15th centuries...European population went from 30 million to 6 million, so without inbreeding Europe would not exist.
Plus, it's no secret that in towns everybody are cousins.
About Romania, I don't believe that such a law is abided in those destitute towns and gypsy towns. I see them on everyday basis removing garbage containers and being on the watch of metal items, and asking for money in every corner, and it's quite clear that they are wandering towns in that they are all inbreds.
Plus, Gypsys marry their cousins and they have their own law, and not even commies changed them, plus, Ceasescu supported Gypsys as a counterpower.
In Europe, more than 90 percent of all weddings during the middle ages, and until quite recently, were arranged among family members. Such habit remained in little towns. I do remember it.
So most Europeans, I don't know Romania, are inbreds.
Take for example the bubonic plague that wasted 70 percent of European population during the 14th and 15th centuries...European population went from 30 million to 6 million, so without inbreeding Europe would not exist.
Plus, it's no secret that in towns everybody are cousins.
About Romania, I don't believe that such a law is abided in those destitute towns and gypsy towns. I see them on everyday basis removing garbage containers and being on the watch of metal items, and asking for money in every corner, and it's quite clear that they are wandering towns in that they are all inbreds.
Plus, Gypsys marry their cousins and they have their own law, and not even commies changed them, plus, Ceasescu supported Gypsys as a conterpower.
Just because you are a product of inbreeding doesn't mean that the whole Europe is.
In Europe, more than 90 percent of all weddings during the middle ages, and until quite recently, were arranged among family members. Such habit remained in little towns. I do remember it.
I think your assertions are inaccurate because both Catholic and Orthodox churches forbade cousin marriage and from what I've read, in most of Europe the civil law forbade cousin marriage until 19th century.
Here is a history of the evolution of the Catholic and Orthodox church regulations regarding cousin marriage: CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Consanguinity
Quote:
Take for example the bubonic plague that wasted 70 percent of European population during the 14th and 15th centuries...European population went from 30 million to 6 million, so without inbreeding Europe would not exist.
Guess what, history is not established based on assumptions but on historical data.
Quote:
About Romania, I don't believe that such a law is abided in those destitute towns and gypsy towns.
There is not such thing as Roma towns, only some neighborhoods and are not so many or big as you seems to imagine.
Quote:
I see them on everyday basis removing garbage containers and being on the watch of metal items, and asking for money in every corner, and it's quite clear that they are wandering towns in that they are all inbreds.
From what I know, inbreeding is traditional in India and their genes might have been already deteriorated in the period before they migrated into Europe. Following your message I made a little documentation and found out that trully even to these days, marriage between first cousins are frequent at them:
This is possible because many don't have identity cards and are practically out of state's evidence.
But at the non-Roma population of Romania the law can't be broken. When wedding, Romanians make two ceremonies and sign two sets of papers, one at the state office for marriages and one at the Church and neither the civil law or the the Church law allow them to marry if they're cousins.
In past too, not only in Romania but in all Orthodox countries cousin marriage was strictly forbidden and I doubt in could be ignored (we don't speak about those living in concubinage), they couldn't be officially married as as the state and church were inseparable. And today, as I said in the first post, some Balkan countries (Romania, Bulgaria, Serbia and Croatia) still forbid it.
But in early middle age, when church didn't control the population as later and before that, in antiquity, the ancestors of Romanians (who ever have they been, as is not very clear) could have been marrying with relatives, or not, if some customs against this existed.
The civil law never messed into those affairs, not even 500 years ago. It there were a clause, it was ignored.
Yes, the Catholic Church "officially" did not allow cousin marriage...but...if you paid an "indulgency" to the church there was no problem. I know that because my grandparents paid such indulgence. Until 1822 all marriages and births were registered at the church..so everything could be solved...more so in the countryside were there were a very high rate of "natural" offsprings, cuckholding, bastards, etc.
I know history because my mother is from a town in the mountains in which they have been living during at least 1500 years, probably more, and they are all closely related... as in all European regions in which people never travelled 5 miles from their home and that arranged weddings within the same family (all Europe).
The church? The church was only interested in money, indulgencies, if you paid you could do anything short of gay marriage (at that time they were cremated).
Just because you are a product of inbreeding doesn't mean that the whole Europe is.
All Europeans are inbreds and bastards, sorry. Bastard is not an insult in Spanish, there are many royal bastards.
All western Europeans, I don't know about Estonians, are descendants of bastards, many of their ancestors were born after their mothers were raped by the lord, mercenaries and their lineage is not what they think, there was no DNA.
And I won't get into the offsprings of priests, suffice to say that it was common to hear in towns that X person was the "son of the priest", usually living with another family and in many cases enjoying the privileges granted by his natural father.
Ever heard of "dret de pernada" or "prima nocte"? The Lord had the right to lay with the newlywed wife during the first night. The Lord or the rich could knock down maids, creating a very large string of bastards. The town located 5 miles south from were I live is called "Vilanova" (New Town) and it was founded by people fleeing from the protection of the Lord of la Geltrú, a sex maniac that claimed "prima nocte" over all his subjects.
It all comes down to math, the subsequent generations after the bubonic plague of 14th and 15th century were all inbreds...because in many cases, a city of 1000 inhabitants was reduced to 80 inhabitants.
A natural refuge of bastards, that were sometimes stygmatized, was America.
So yes, inbreds and bastards..as the entire humanity.
[quote=mikopaka;36898395]The civil law never messed into those affairs, not even 500 years ago. It there were a clause, it was ignored.
Quote:
Yes, the Catholic Church "officially" did not allow cousin marriage...but...if you paid an "indulgency" to the church there was no problem. I know that because my grandparents paid such indulgence. Until 1822 all marriages and births were registered at the church..so everything could be solved...more so in the countryside were there were a very high rate of "natural" offsprings, cuckholding, bastards, etc.
I doubt the civil or church laws regarding marriage were ignored in such a general manner you affirm, like those laws were there for nothing. I think they were observed similar to other categories of laws and had an effect of drastically reducing the phenomenon.
Quote:
I know history because my mother is from a town in the mountains in which they have been living during at least 1500 years, probably more, and they are all closely related... as in all European regions in which people never travelled 5 miles from their home and that arranged weddings within the same family (all Europe).
Situation must have varied much between regions and everything you say is based only on assumptions.
Quote:
The church? The church was only interested in money, indulgencies, if you paid you could do anything short of gay marriage (at that time they were cremated).
Like it wasn't Inquisition and other systems of church thoroughly involving itself in the lives of people.
You have a tendency to make simplifications, exagerations, generalisations. I don't deny the phenomenon of cousin marriage to have existed before 19th century, but not at the level you speak. It was rather isolated (in Europe) and exceptional, though in some localities had a higher frequency, up to that most people there were inbred.
All Europeans are inbreds and bastards, sorry. Bastard is not an insult in Spanish, there are many royal bastards.
All western Europeans, I don't know about Estonians, are descendants of bastards, many of their ancestors were born after their mothers were raped by the lord, mercenaries and their lineage is not what they think, there was no DNA.
And I won't get into the offsprings of priests, suffice to say that it was common to hear in towns that X person was the "son of the priest", usually living with another family and in many cases enjoying the privileges granted by his natural father.
Ever heard of "dret de pernada" or "prima nocte"? The Lord had the right to lay with the newlywed wife during the first night. The Lord or the rich could knock down maids, creating a very large string of bastards. The town located 5 miles south from were I live is called "Vilanova" (New Town) and it was founded by people fleeing from the protection of the Lord of la Geltrú, a sex maniac that claimed "prima nocte" over all his subjects.
It all comes down to math, the subsequent generations after the bubonic plague of 14th and 15th century were all inbreds...because in many cases, a city of 1000 inhabitants was reduced to 80 inhabitants.
A natural refuge of bastards, that were sometimes stygmatized, was America.
So yes, inbreds and bastards..as the entire humanity.
Who are those Lords you are talking about? As if every Lord that ever existed was a rapist, this still wouldn't be enough to make all the offspring inbreds. Seriously, there's no point in talking utter crap like this. You take this Vilanova example and apply it to the whole of Europe.
And the same story with your Bubonic plague example. You say in many cases around 95% of cities population was lost to the plague. Guess what, in the majority of cases the plague didn't eliminate 95 but rather 30-60%. Again you take some extreme examples and apply it to the whole of Europe. And even if only 80 persons from 1000 survived the plague what makes you think they offspring would be all inbred? Ridiculous logic.
Again, if you are a product of inbreeding, don't try to comfort yourself with the idea "but...but everyone else is too!"
AFAIK, it's legal everywhere in the US IF the couple are second cousins. Franklin and Eleanore Roosevelt were cousins.
Franklin and Eleanore were 5th cousins once removed. If they hadn't had the same last name most people wouldn't have even known they were related (or considered them related).
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
