Facts, as I'm continually reminding everyone who will listen, are troublesome things. One such fact is that civilized societies, and indeed many barely civilized societies, have at least frowned upon the idea of consanguinity - marrying and having children with a close relative. Normally, the bar is set at first cousins; even millennia before anyone knew what genes were or how they worked, people knew, from observation, that inbreeding was bad.
Now, of course, we know why it isn't good. Inbreeding can result in, among other things, reinforcement of nasty recessive alleles, along with other problems. The ancient Romans knew that this happened, although they didn't know why. Ever since, most nations that had any laws at all had laws against marrying first cousins, or other, closer relatives - no need to make that point any further. But some societies, based not on a national structure but a tribal or clan structure, still practice cousin marriage. Maybe because brides are used as bartering commodities among clan or tribe members, maybe to keep relations in one area. But if someone's family tree looks like a telephone pole, you know there are going to be problems.
The United Kingdom has been importing these problems for some time. Now, the British National Health Service (NHS) is not only making excuses for it, but trying to sell it as a positive good. The Telegraph's Michael Deacon reports:
Last September the NHS caused something of a stir by publishing an article that extolled the supposed benefits of marrying your first cousin. According to the article, published by NHS England’s Genomics Education Programme, cousin marriage – which is particularly widespread in families of Pakistani Muslim heritage – can have “economic advantages”.
A fascinating claim. I wonder whether the authors would say that marrying your sister has “economic advantages”, too. After all, the wedding would be a lot cheaper. Because the bride’s family would also be the groom’s.
There's an old Jeff Foxworthy joke in there somewhere, but there are dangers here. Real, scientifically known dangers. As Mr. Deacon reminds us:
Anyway, less than six months later, the NHS is now embroiled in a second row over cousin marriage – because it’s emerged that even more eye-opening claims have been made in training guidance for midwives. Somewhat controversially, this guidance declares that the “increased risk of genetic conditions among the offspring of close relative couples” has “often been exaggerated”. It also tells midwives that “discouraging cousin marriage is inappropriate”, and that they must not “stigmatise” patients who have a baby with their first cousin – because, in some cultures, it’s “perfectly normal”.
Horse squeeze. There are very good reasons to discourage "cousin marriage."
Read More: £4.5 Trillion Net Zero Bombshell: Miliband's New Green Plan Dwarfs UK GDP
Liberal UK Parliament Member Slams Trial of Loathsome 'Hormone Treatments' on Kids by NHS
Most of those reasons are genetic.
The primary biological "side effect" of consanguineous marriage is an elevated risk of offspring inheriting autosomal recessive genetic disorders. These disorders manifest only when an individual inherits two copies of a specific defective gene (allele) – one from each parent. If both parents are carriers for the same rare recessive allele, there is a 25% chance with each pregnancy that their child will inherit two copies and be affected by the disorder.
In the general population, the chance of two unrelated individuals being carriers for the same rare recessive allele is relatively low. However, when parents are related, they share a more recent common ancestor. This common ancestor may have carried a specific recessive allele, which could then have been passed down to both parents.
These don't just result in birth defects, either; children of first cousins are less thrifty in general.
Cousin marriage rates are high in many countries today. While previous studies have documented increased risks of infant and child mortality, we provide the first estimate of the effect of such marriages on life expectancy throughout adulthood. By studying couples married over a century ago, we can observe their offspring across the entire lifespan. US genealogical data allow us to identify children whose parents were first cousins and compare their years of life to the offspring of their parents' siblings. Marrying a cousin leads to more than a two-year reduction in age-five life expectancy, compounding the documented early-life effects.
Those are the scientific reasons.
So, why is the United Kingdom doing this? Why is the National Health Service looking the other way as this practice, known to be harmful since ancient times, is making a resurgence? Because it's not the British people who are doing it. This practice, first-cousin marriage, is endemic to many low-trust, clan-based societies. And Britain has been importing these societies, often at the expense of the British taxpayer, for years. Immigration into Britain has spiked, and while the number one source of immigration into the UK is from India, the second and third are Nigeria and Pakistan, both countries where cousin marriage is practiced. In Pakistan, in fact, over 60 percent of all marriages are between first cousins. In Nigeria, it's 20 percent - perhaps that's just a calamity as compared to an utter disaster. Even in India, the number is 7.5 percent. And yes, let's say it out loud: This is a problem of the Islamic world.
Britain has imported this problem. Now they're making excuses for it. If there is any more stark condemnation of the societal sickness of multiculturalism, I don't know what it might be.
