Consanguineous Relationships + Intermarriage
Jun 16th 2006, 1:24 am
#16
Jedi Princess
Joined: Jun 2006
Location: Melbourne,Australia
Posts: 2,089
Re: Consanguineous Relationships + Intermarriage
Originally Posted by nickyc
You can marry your first cousin, but that's about as close as you can get.
Jun 16th 2006, 1:24 am
#17
small steps long journey
Joined: Aug 2003
Location: A river somewhere
Posts: 3,451
Re: Consanguineous Relationships + Intermarriage
Originally Posted by nickyc
A few miles out of Forbes/Parkes in NSW there is a small -er- shanty town (can't call it a village) suposedly populated by one very large family reputed to be overly fond of each other. It was shown to us as a kind of tourist attraction but not even the locals would drive around there at night. :scared:
think I might know the place
Last edited by seang; Jun 16th 2006 at 1:27 am.
Jun 16th 2006, 1:26 am
#18
Jedi Princess
Joined: Jun 2006
Location: Melbourne,Australia
Posts: 2,089
Re: Consanguineous Relationships + Intermarriage
Originally Posted by cresta57
The question my dad used to ask the locals for a wind up was: "If you divorce your wife is she still your sister?" 
My brother will always be my brother 
Jun 16th 2006, 1:30 am
#19
BE Forum Addict
Joined: Jun 2003
Location: Sydney beachside
Posts: 3,506
Re: Consanguineous Relationships + Intermarriage
Originally Posted by seang
Was that on a hill / hill side?
The place was a messy collection of houses/sheds on this country road. Junk in the front and old cars, dogs around etc. Looked exactly like the sort of place you'd imagine you'd find an inbred tribe living in!
I've got some maps of that area - I'll try to work out roughly where it was.
Jun 16th 2006, 1:37 am
#20
BE Forum Addict
Joined: Jun 2003
Location: Sydney beachside
Posts: 3,506
Re: Consanguineous Relationships + Intermarriage
Originally Posted by kiwi_child
My understanding is that you CANNOT marry your first cousin. The law may have changed, but I am not aware of any such changes. Perhaps it does need further investigation.
an ancestor or descendant, or
their brother or sister (whether whole blood or half-blood siblings)
These restrictions also apply to adoptive relationships even if these have been annulled, cancelled, discharged or cease to be effective for any reason (for example, due to a subsequent adoption order being made).
This means, for example, that a person cannot marry their parent, grandparent, child, grandchild, brother or sister. However, (depending of course on the sex of the party) a person may marry their aunt or uncle, niece or nephew, "first" cousin or step-sibling.
Jun 16th 2006, 1:37 am
#21
Forum Regular
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 269
Re: Consanguineous Relationships + Intermarriage
Originally Posted by kiwi_child
My understanding is that you CANNOT marry your first cousin. The law may have changed, but I am not aware of any such changes. Perhaps it does need further investigation.
Jun 16th 2006, 1:39 am
#22
Take it easy
Thread Starter
Joined: Apr 2006
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 10,182
Re: Consanguineous Relationships + Intermarriage
Originally Posted by kiwi_child
You cannot marry your first cousin. I have heard of some brothers and sisters who while not being able to marry, live in a defacto relationship. The scientific evidence is that children born to such a union are unlikely to suffer genetic problems anymore than anyone else.
The detrimental health effects associated with consanguinity are caused by the expression of rare, recessive genes inherited from a common ancestor(s). In populations where inbred unions are common, increased levels of morbidity and mortality caused by the action of detrimental recessive genes can be predicted. Generally, inbreeding is associated with loss of biological fitness. It is however appropriate to note that, even in the absence of preferential consanguinity, alleles which are rare in large populations can rapidly increase to high frequency in a breeding pool of restricted size, because of factors such as founder effect and random genetic drift.
Empirical studies on the progeny of first cousins indicate morbidity levels to be some 1% to 4% higher than in the offspring of unrelated couples (reviewed in Bittles and Makov 1988). The less common a disorder, the greater the influence of consanguinity on its prevalence, a generalization that applies to recessive multigene disorders as well as to single gene conditions.
The whole article is on http://www.consang.net/summary/01AHBWeb3.pdf
Consanguineous relationships are no laughing matter and information about the levels in first world countries is sketchy, but public policy may be shifting against these types of relationships.
Jun 16th 2006, 1:40 am
#23
Take it easy
Thread Starter
Joined: Apr 2006
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 10,182
Re: Consanguineous Relationships + Intermarriage
Originally Posted by YoSemite
Marriage Act 1961 says only void marriages are those between ancestors and descendent (someone marrying a child/grandchild or parent/grandparent etc.) or between brothers and sisters (including anyone adopted)
no mention of marriages between cousins, 1st second or otherwise!
will investigate further...
no mention of marriages between cousins, 1st second or otherwise!
will investigate further...
Jun 16th 2006, 1:41 am
#24
Take it easy
Thread Starter
Joined: Apr 2006
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 10,182
Re: Consanguineous Relationships + Intermarriage
Originally Posted by spalen
For show & tell
"tell the kids to go in and say they're special because they're the only kids in their class who's parents weren't related before they were married."
"tell the kids to go in and say they're special because they're the only kids in their class who's parents weren't related before they were married."
Jun 16th 2006, 1:43 am
#25
Take it easy
Thread Starter
Joined: Apr 2006
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 10,182
Re: Consanguineous Relationships + Intermarriage
Originally Posted by nickyc
You can marry your first cousin, but that's about as close as you can get.
There was an interesting article in the SMH a couple of weeks ago about the number of disabled children born to a specific branch or sect of Lebanese migrants. They were basically all related and had been marrying their cousins for generations.
A few miles out of Forbes/Parkes in NSW there is a small -er- shanty town (can't call it a village) suposedly populated by one very large family reputed to be overly fond of each other. It was shown to us as a kind of tourist attraction but not even the locals would drive around there at night. :scared:
There was an interesting article in the SMH a couple of weeks ago about the number of disabled children born to a specific branch or sect of Lebanese migrants. They were basically all related and had been marrying their cousins for generations.
A few miles out of Forbes/Parkes in NSW there is a small -er- shanty town (can't call it a village) suposedly populated by one very large family reputed to be overly fond of each other. It was shown to us as a kind of tourist attraction but not even the locals would drive around there at night. :scared:
Jun 16th 2006, 1:44 am
#26
Take it easy
Thread Starter
Joined: Apr 2006
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 10,182
Re: Consanguineous Relationships + Intermarriage
Originally Posted by kiwi_child
My understanding is that you CANNOT marry your first cousin. The law may have changed, but I am not aware of any such changes. Perhaps it does need further investigation.
Jun 16th 2006, 1:48 am
#27
Jedi Princess
Joined: Jun 2006
Location: Melbourne,Australia
Posts: 2,089
Re: Consanguineous Relationships + Intermarriage
Originally Posted by Shakmaty
One of the foremost Genetic researchers A H Bittles disagrees with you:
The detrimental health effects associated with consanguinity are caused by the expression of rare, recessive genes inherited from a common ancestor(s). In populations where inbred unions are common, increased levels of morbidity and mortality caused by the action of detrimental recessive genes can be predicted. Generally, inbreeding is associated with loss of biological fitness. It is however appropriate to note that, even in the absence of preferential consanguinity, alleles which are rare in large populations can rapidly increase to high frequency in a breeding pool of restricted size, because of factors such as founder effect and random genetic drift.
Empirical studies on the progeny of first cousins indicate morbidity levels to be some 1% to 4% higher than in the offspring of unrelated couples (reviewed in Bittles and Makov 1988). The less common a disorder, the greater the influence of consanguinity on its prevalence, a generalization that applies to recessive multigene disorders as well as to single gene conditions.
The whole article is on http://www.consang.net/summary/01AHBWeb3.pdf
Consanguineous relationships are no laughing matter and information about the levels in first world countries is sketchy, but public policy may be shifting against these types of relationships.
The detrimental health effects associated with consanguinity are caused by the expression of rare, recessive genes inherited from a common ancestor(s). In populations where inbred unions are common, increased levels of morbidity and mortality caused by the action of detrimental recessive genes can be predicted. Generally, inbreeding is associated with loss of biological fitness. It is however appropriate to note that, even in the absence of preferential consanguinity, alleles which are rare in large populations can rapidly increase to high frequency in a breeding pool of restricted size, because of factors such as founder effect and random genetic drift.
Empirical studies on the progeny of first cousins indicate morbidity levels to be some 1% to 4% higher than in the offspring of unrelated couples (reviewed in Bittles and Makov 1988). The less common a disorder, the greater the influence of consanguinity on its prevalence, a generalization that applies to recessive multigene disorders as well as to single gene conditions.
The whole article is on http://www.consang.net/summary/01AHBWeb3.pdf
Consanguineous relationships are no laughing matter and information about the levels in first world countries is sketchy, but public policy may be shifting against these types of relationships.
Jun 16th 2006, 1:50 am
#28
small steps long journey
Joined: Aug 2003
Location: A river somewhere
Posts: 3,451
Re: Consanguineous Relationships + Intermarriage
Originally Posted by kiwi_child
Many emminently qualified people have absolutely stated without qualification that marrying anyone is of no importance for the majority of us.
Jun 16th 2006, 1:53 am
#29
Account Closed
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 4,235
Re: Consanguineous Relationships + Intermarriage
Originally Posted by seang
I WILL figure this out
Better up the language course hours!!!!
Jun 16th 2006, 1:53 am
#30
Take it easy
Thread Starter
Joined: Apr 2006
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 10,182
Re: Consanguineous Relationships + Intermarriage
Originally Posted by kiwi_child
I would debate this idea that breeding children from very close familial relationships is in anyway a problem. Many emminently qualified people have absolutely stated without qualification that marrying anyone is of no importance for the majority of us. If a predisposition to a particular medical problem exists within a particular gene pool then that's different, but that is hardly the case for the vast majority.
Many emminently qualified people....errrr?????
Genetic problems identified with consanguineous relationships include:
death of infants before, during or immediately after birth, increased incidence of birth defects, genetic diseases including blinding disorders, blood cancer (acute lymphocytic leukemia), breathing problems for children at birth (apnea), increased susceptibility to disease:
source http://www.hinduonnet.com/seta/2004/...2900161600.htm
