Why is close-kin inbreeding so scorned today?

[SallyStar]

I can't find cites (maybe someone can help), but I remember seeing something on the History channel where the human race got its start primarily through close-kin inbreeding. When and why did this attitude change?

[astro]

I trace it to the first season of the Jerry Springer show.

[Colibri]

I can't find cites (maybe someone can help), but I remember seeing something on the History channel where the human race got its start primarily through close-kin inbreeding. When and why did this attitude change?

Sometime in the last 2 million years, I would guess.

[msmith537]

If you remember from high school biology, there are dominant and recessive genes. Two close relatives with similar DNA structures are much more likely to pass on recessive genes to their offspring resulting in fucked up kids.

That's why you need to mix things up a bit.

[Smeghead]

From a genetic standpoint, close inbreeding greatly increases the chance that any harmful recessive traits will be expressed. Most species naturally tend to avoid it.

[Ephemera]

I'll try to find a cite to back this up but I seem to remember that in-breeding is nowhere near as dangerous as you would be led to believe and that even if you had a child with your sibling, there would only be an 8% increase in the likelihood of a serious birth defect.

My guess as to when this viewpoint came to be so popular was in response to the Royal Families of Europe, which had a centuries long habit of marrying inside their bloodline only and, no so coincidentally, a history of mental instability and genetic defects. (an eight percent rise in the likelihood of a disease multiplied over several generations starts to approach a hundred pretty quckly.)

Also, I think it was not uncommon as late as the mid 1800s in the general population, at least in America. Didn't Poe marry his niece publicly?

[nocturnal_tick]

Who gets on with their siblings well enough? :p

[Ephemera]

http://us.cnn.com/2002/LAW/04/columns/fl.grossman.incest.04.09/

[Krokodil]

The incest taboo is pretty class-specific. The very rich and very poor have never felt particularly bound by it (Source: Alan Moore's copious notes to From Hell).

[ftg]

The recent glurge (as linked to above) that is pro-incest is stupid. First of all, they focus on absolute increases in defects rather than relative. I.e., doubling a small chance is really quite a big increase, not a small one. Secondly, they only mention one-time such marriages. But if there were no laws, the children of incest would marry each other, etc. and the odds really start to skyrocket.

The flaws in logic in such "let's change the laws" glurge is so glaring, that one has to wonder what's going on inside these people's brains.

[SallyStar]

... First of all, they focus on absolute increases in defects rather than relative. I.e., doubling a small chance is really quite a big increase, not a small one...
If we all came from one "tribe" with hundreds (?) of generations of close-kin inbreeding, why aren't we a bunch of mutants today?

[Smeghead]

It all depends on how many harmful recessive genes are in the population to begin with. Inbreeding won't create new harmful genes - it will simply increase the chance that they'll be expressed. If you had a population that was completely free of recessive defects (very highly unlikely in human populations) then inbreeding wouldn't be a problem at all.

[Richard Pearse]

If we all came from one "tribe" with hundreds (?) of generations of close-kin inbreeding, why aren't we a bunch of mutants today?

Maybe we are?

I think the real tabu is on having sex with a direct relation, ie brother, sister, mother, or father. The idea of incest with a cousin though, is much more open to speculation.

[Dr. Lao]

If we all came from one "tribe" with hundreds (?) of generations of close-kin inbreeding, why aren't we a bunch of mutants today?
Inbreeding can cut two ways. It creates more individuals who express deadly recessive genes. Which is bad for the people who get them, but not a terrible thing for the population, since it wipes out deadly recessive genes faster by stacking them two-by-two in individuals who won't survive to pass them on. Inbreeding will also help any benefial mutations that come along to stay, and potentially increase, in the population, rather than getting filtered out in the genetic noise of a more diverse breeding strategy.

[carterba]

If we all came from one "tribe" with hundreds (?) of generations of close-kin inbreeding, why aren't we a bunch of mutants today?Some might say we are a bunch of mutants. Back when all this in-breeding was going on, we probably looked a little like this (http://users.pandora.be/worldhistory/milestones_frame.html?pages/australopithecus_afarensis.htm).

[Master Wang-Ka]

Some might say we are a bunch of mutants.

George W. Bush is in office. Meanwhile, gas prices are the highest they've ever been, but people are still buying SUVs. On the other side of the planet, Muslims are killing Muslims because the Muslims were standing between the homicidal Muslims and some Americans.

Tell me we ain't just as dumb as a bach'sa rocks.

[Eleusis]

¯ We are family
I got all my sisters with me ¯

[jsleek]

Us regular-hairy-white guys were leaving a Korean museum which had displays of early man. A kid stared at us and asked if we were cave men.

Explanation: Koreans have much less body hair than white guys. We looked like huge monkeys to that kid.

this has nothing to do with the subject, but I thought it was funny.

[ftg]

If we all came from one "tribe" with hundreds (?) of generations of close-kin inbreeding, why aren't we a bunch of mutants today?

Various stats of population do show that we are healthier, smarter, etc. than people a couple hundred years ago.

Nutrition, medical care, etc. plays a role of course. But you have to figure that outbreeding plays a big role.

As a gardener, I am well aware of "hybrid vigor". I.e., the best plants tend to come from disimilar parents. (The exact opposite of racist bigotry thought, of course.)

We were more defective back then than we are now. This is not a bad thing.

[Blake]

I’d like to see some evidence that the human race ‘got it’s start’ from inbreeding. The History Channel does not cut it.

There have been several bottlenecks in human history that probably led to enforced inbreeding and this is reflected in the genetic homogeneity found in humans today. All humans currently on the planet are more closely related than two tribes of chimpanzees living side by side. But that is NOT the same as saying that we got our start from inbreeding. It just means that we managed to survive despite inbreeding. Humans were more abundant and more successful before these population crashes and enforced inbreeding than they were immediately afterwards. That incest was forced on people isn’t evidence that incest is a good thing or that it contributed to the success of our species.

Inbreeeding, except in special cases, is a near universal taboo. It did not become popularised in response to inbreeding in royal families. The most primitive HG societies have strict laws to guard against incest by determining who can marry whom so it’s a safe bet that incest has been a taboo since our species learned to talk and probably earlier.

In other great apes the standard practice is for all females to leave their own band as soon as possible after they reach sexual maturity and join another band. That process acts as a natural safeguard against incest by ensuring that daughters can never mate with their own siblings or fathers. Within the human population the same basic instinct for daughters to leave and join their husband’s family still exists, however the highly nomadic nature of our species and our immediate precursors makes this problematic. For most of our history humans existed as independent bands of 5-10 individuals that only made infrequent contact with other bands perhaps less than once every 6 months. A young woman could not very well be expected to walk off into the wilderness as soon as she began menstruating in the hopes that she would stumble across another unrelated group that could be anywhere. More importantly the woman needed to know that there was willing mate available in the other band. Those restrictions meant that humans ran a very real risk of incest if strict ties were not placed on intermarriage with relatives.

There’s no way of telling how far back the incest taboo goes, but 100, 000 years or more seems plausible.

[Sleel]

Depending on your society, some types of inbreeding are specifically encouraged. Cross cousin marriage (http://www.umanitoba.ca/anthropology/tutor/marriage/xcuz.html) is actually quite common. In some cases, your best, most encouraged match is a cross cousin.

With regard to Judeo-Christian beliefs, there are a couple of biblical passages in Genesis that positively portray cousin marriage and very few restrictions are put on what kin you are allowed to marry, if I remember correctly. That didn't stop the Catholic church from, at one point, banning marriage between any two people more closely related than 6th cousins.

Do you have any idea how hard it would be in a highly static agrarian society to find someone who is not related to you in some degree over five generations? I had to look up (http://home.triad.rr.com/zanetti/chart2.html) the definition of sixth cousin because I hadn't really thought about that degree of consanguinity before.

The US in general seems to be a lot more squeamish about this issue than most societies are. I really doubt that if people could marry anyone they wanted outside their immediate family, tons of cousin-lovers would be flocking to city hall for their certificates, just because of the "ick factor" as the linked article put it. Some of the existing laws provide for extra ways to prosecute abuses or protect against potential exploitation. The law against an adoptive parent marrying his/her ward is a good example.

Given that we seem to be re-examining a lot of our old laws, some of these, like the ones against cousin marriage, might go away in favor of personal choice. In no circumstances do I see the world ending over this issue, nor do I see a high likelihood of two-headed idiot children with cleft palates and extra toes appearing anytime in the near future if we get rid of all kinship marriage laws that do not prevent the exploitation of minors.

I think the scorn is a matter of tradition, the prejudice against it is not entirely based in fact, and it probably would make almost no difference to most of us if cousins could get married with no questions asked. Kibbutzim have provided pretty good emperical evidence that even if we took away laws prohibiting sibling marriage, we wouldn't have a lot of sister-brother matches either. However, mores often take a long time to change, so the bias against it will probably be around for generations even if we do decide to change the laws.

[Ellis Dee]

...they focus on absolute increases in defects rather than relative. I.e., doubling a small chance is really quite a big increase, not a small one.huh?

FTR, I am against inbreeding. But you're statement goes against everything I know about probability. Could you elaborate?

(Your argument strikes me as the same as the fallacy of buying two lottery tickets to "double" your chances. Anyone who feels that the second ticket gives them "really quite a big increase" in their chance of winning is sadly mistaken.)

[Ellis Dee]

But you're statementyour your your your your your your your

ARGH!!! :smack:

[Blake]

Depending on your society, some types of inbreeding are specifically encouraged. Cross cousin marriage is actually quite common. In some cases, your best, most encouraged match is a cross cousin.

That is quite correct, but as you say it’s a variant defintion of inbreeding since the USA is very anomalous in forbidding cousin marriages. IN most societies modewrn and ancient cousin marriages are not considered inbreeding.


With regard to Judeo-Christian beliefs, there … very few restrictions are put on what kin you are allowed to marry, if I remember correctly.

Leviticus 20
11 " 'If a man sleeps with his father's wife, he has dishonored his father. Both the man and the woman must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.
12 " 'If a man sleeps with his daughter-in-law, both of them must be put to death. What they have done is a perversion; their blood will be on their own heads.
…
14 " 'If a man marries both a woman and her mother, it is wicked. Both he and they must be burned in the fire, so that no wickedness will be among you.
…
" 17If a man marries his sister, the daughter of either his father or his mother, and they have sexual relations, it is a disgrace. They must be cut off before the eyes of their people. He has dishonored his sister and will be held responsible.
…
19 " 'Do not have sexual relations with the sister of either your mother or your father, for that would dishonor a close relative; both of you would be held responsible.
20 " 'If a man sleeps with his aunt, he has dishonored his uncle. They will be held responsible; they will die childless.
21 " 'If a man marries his brother's wife, it is an act of impurity; he has dishonored his brother. They will be childless


That’s only a partial list. The restrictions in Judeo-Christian beliefs are far more prohibitive than the legal restrictions in most countries today. The USA is an anomaly in outlawing first cousin marriages and even it doesn’t forbid marriage to in-laws.

[doreen]

huh?

FTR, I am against inbreeding. But you're statement goes against everything I know about probability. Could you elaborate?

(Your argument strikes me as the same as the fallacy of buying two lottery tickets to "double" your chances. Anyone who feels that the second ticket gives them "really quite a big increase" in their chance of winning is sadly mistaken.) Having a large increase in the chance of winning isn't the same thing as having a good chance of winning. Imagine a raffle where only one hundred tickets are sold. Each ticket has a 1% chance of winning. A person who buys two tickets has greatly increased his chances by buying the second ticket - he is twice as likely to win as a another person who buys only one ticket. That's a 100% increase. He still has only a 2% chance of winning.

[PetW]

huh?

FTR, I am against inbreeding. But you're statement goes against everything I know about probability. Could you elaborate?

(Your argument strikes me as the same as the fallacy of buying two lottery tickets to "double" your chances. Anyone who feels that the second ticket gives them "really quite a big increase" in their chance of winning is sadly mistaken.)

Alright, let's say that (and i'm pulling these numbers out of my ass), there's a 4% chance of a defect when you're having a kid normally, and with a cousin it increases to 8%. The site claims "it's only an 8% chance", whereas ftg is focusing on the fact that the incest doubles the chance.

[carterba]

I’d like to see some evidence that the human race ‘got it’s start’ from inbreeding. The History Channel does not cut it.I've got no evidence that that's how Homo sapiens evolved, but inbreeding within a small, isolated population certainly is one of the ways that speciation can occur. When the population is very small, all taboos are off. Survival is the most important thing.

[The Scrivener]

I don't have a cite, but I read a magazine article within the past three years that in Saudi Arabia, some 40% of all current marriages are between known relatives -- typically cousins, but sometimes between nieces and uncles. This rate is much lower in the more metropolitan, urban areas, but rises to around 60% of marriages in more traditional, rural areas.

It's true that a union of cousins increases the risk of mental or physical developmental problems by "only" 2-3%; however, when you're talking about hundreds of thousands or millions of such unions over a long period of time, repeatedly through the generations, then the results become manifest. In Saudi Arabia, congenital syndromes (such as thalassemia, a blood disorder) and developmental problems are becoming a very costly (not to mention tragic) problem for that government to contend with. The problem isn't limited to just the medical expenses and lost productivity in the unhealthy or abnormal, but social-welfare costs stemming from fathers divorcing or simply abandoning their wives and children (which often happens in such cases), as well.

The government of Saudi Arabia is now trying to discourage its more traditional-minded citizens from imposing these inline matches on their children.

[The Scrivener]

Here's a link (http://www.library.cornell.edu/colldev/mideast/saudmarr.htm), similar to what I remember reading, although not the same article (and probably not the same author). The stats for inbreeding in S.A. in this link are actually higher than what I recall.

[Shalmanese]

Matt Ridely notes that cousin marriages are not only not harmful but about the most benificial marriages you can get in evolutionary terms and this is borne out by most non-western societies. He postulates that cousin-incest taboos arose, not for genetic reasons, but to prevent the accumulation of wealth by the merchant class. He also notes that nearly every society before the 19th century has specifically allowed incest within the ruling class.

[Larry Mudd]

If a man sleeps with his aunt, he has dishonored his uncle. They will be held responsible; they will die childless.Does this mean I can score with my maiden aunt, and get hooked up with butter cookies, sugary tea, and sweet, sweet, biblical loophole lovin' for life?

[ltfire]

It helps to have ‘Dueling Banjos’ playing in the background, as you peruse this thread.
:cool:

[Really Not All That Bright]

If we all came from one "tribe" with hundreds (?) of generations of close-kin inbreeding, why aren't we a bunch of mutants today?
Because mutation and defects arising from combining recessive genes are two different things. A mutation is a spontaneous alteration in DNA creating either a weird freak which will fail to reproduce or be bred out in a few generations, or will prove beneficial to the species and gradually spread across the gene pool.

A birth defect resulting from inbreeding isn't a mutation. It occurs when a gene which is highly unlikely to occur in two unrelated individuals is recieved from both parents.

[ftg]

Matt Ridely notes that cousin marriages are not only not harmful but about the most benificial marriages you can get in evolutionary terms and this is borne out by most non-western societies. He postulates that cousin-incest taboos arose, not for genetic reasons, but to prevent the accumulation of wealth by the merchant class. He also notes that nearly every society before the 19th century has specifically allowed incest within the ruling class.

Huh? Excuse, let me rephrase that. Huuuuuhhhh?

This post and the earlier one with a link to a "benefits of cousin marriage" page only address social/political/economic issues. Not really relevant issues, IMHO. And hardly grounds for justifying doubling the chances of Something Bad happening to your kids. (And that, again, is the "one time" cost, not the multi-generational cost.)

Humans have developed a lot of social rules and such that in fact are of negative benefit in evolutionary terms. E.g., one can hardly argue that all of the forms of government that have existed have evolutionary benefit. (Which do and which don't is a matter for a different forum.) But most meglomaniac madman dictators can hardly be viewed as having done their DNA a big favor by their actions.

[rfgdxm]

That is quite correct, but as you say it’s a variant defintion of inbreeding since the USA is very anomalous in forbidding cousin marriages. IN most societies modewrn and ancient cousin marriages are not considered inbreeding.

That’s only a partial list. The restrictions in Judeo-Christian beliefs are far more prohibitive than the legal restrictions in most countries today. The USA is an anomaly in outlawing first cousin marriages and even it doesn’t forbid marriage to in-laws.

I used to be married to a first cousin (now divorced) in the US. At that time, and probably still today, first cousin marriages were legal in 12 states, and the US Virgin Islands. Which means any first cousins can marry by travelling to those states and getting married there.

You are correct about most of the world. Outside the US, it usually is incest is only if it is closer than a cousin. Take a look at the play Cyrano de Bergerac. I don't believe the play makes clear how close of cousins he and Roxanne were; however the play mentions they knew each other well in childhood. Cyrano is depicted as a man of the highest honor. That he would have romantic interest in a cousin of his was just considered normal by the French people who saw that play. Nothing incestuous to them about it.

[Sleel]

(Posted a list of restrictions from Leviticus 20:11-12, 14, 17, 19-21) That’s only a partial list. The restrictions in Judeo-Christian beliefs are far more prohibitive than the legal restrictions in most countries today. The USA is an anomaly in outlawing first cousin marriages and even it doesn’t forbid marriage to in-laws.

In-law prohibitions are covered under adultery, which is not illegal in modern society, as far as I know, but does carry a weight of social disapproval, which is mostly what the OP was concerned with. I think you're focusing too much on law instead of social disapproval, which in some cases can be more powerful than a legal proscription.

You made me do a search instead of working from memory, congratulations. You imply that there are a lot more prohibitions against incest. A full list at Leviticus 18 can be found here (http://bible.gospelcom.net/bible?version=NIV&passage=Leviticus+18:6-18) and is not substantially different from what you posted. The main difference between Lev. 18 and Lev. 20 is that 20 adds the death penalty for some things and changes the grouping a bit. Lev. 18 is more concise.

Note that most of these have to do with having sexual relations with someone who is already married to someone else (adultery) or is extremely close kin, such as a daughter or granddaughter. The phrase "he has dishonored ___" comes up a lot. These laws are mostly pointed toward males and their social obligations toward other men. They are still prohibitions, but the reasoning behind them is substantially different from our current point of view on the subject.

A few of the restrictions are more stringent than modern law, like not being able to have sex with both a woman and her daughter (Lev. 18:17) or having sex with a woman during her period (Lev. 18:19), both of which are not exactly encouraged in modern times, but are not really prohibited either. On the other hand, it permits behavior that is condemned in most parts of the West, as seen below.

An interesting aspect of the Tanakh's (Old Testament's) prohibition of incest is that, according to the interpretation given it by some anthropologists, it prohibits sexual relations between aunts and nephews but not between uncles and nieces.
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incest)

Some places in the bible where incest is explicitly condoned (I may be missing a few)are these:
1) Abraham and Sarah were half-brother and sister (Genesis 20:12).
2) Jacob married the daughters of Laban, his mother’s brother (Genesis 24:43), which means that both of them were his first cousins.
3) Lot's daughters become pregnant by having sex with him and their children become the patriarchs of two of the tribes of Israel. (Genesis 19:30-38)

There are other places in Genesis where incest is implied and presumably supported. Adam's other wives were probably his descendents, Cain's wife would also have to be kin of some kind, Noah and his family would have had to interbreed to repopulate the earth. I'm probably also missing a few here, but these examples are the big ones.

So, we've got examples both for and against incest in the bible. The laws in Leviticus are generally held to supercede the earlier practices in Genesis, and by that logic, the new covenant made by Jesus supersedes Mosaic law. But, that's getting into biblical debate that probably should not be pursued further.

The modern prohibitions on cousin marriage in the US seem to be only tenuously connected to the bible. The bible prohibitions also cover slightly different ground than the current ones in most of the Western world. In some cases the bible is more extensive in prohibition than modern practice, in others it is more permissive.

[Blake]

Sleel, those are prohibitions for a polygamous society. The restrictions have nothing whatsoever to do with adultery which is already a specific crime under Jewish law. Those are restrictions on what would otherwise be legitimate marriages and completely and utterly unrelated to adultery.

None of them have anything to do with sexual relations with someone who is already married to someone else. Adultery is a separate crime under Jewish law. These are restirctions against marriage, not adultery. A man can have multiple wives but he can not marry the daughter of his wife even if she is not his daughter. A man can not marry his brother’s wife even if his brother is divorced or dead.

Stop and think for a moment Sleel. Whatever makes you think that Jewish society accepts adulterous unions of any kind? And if they blanket forbade adultery why did they need to codify the kinds of adultery that are illegal? Are you implying that a Jewish man can marry an already married woman so long as she is not married to his brother? If you aren’t implying that then why do you think they would write laws that forbid marrying his brother’s wife specifically?

What does adultery have to do with this at all? We are talking about incest, not adultery.

You made me do a search instead of working from memory, congratulations. You imply that there are a lot more prohibitions against incest. A full list at Leviticus 18 can be found here and is not substantially different from what you posted.

Now try looking outside Leviticus. There are laws in other books you know.

Some places in the bible where incest is explicitly condoned (I may be missing a few)are these:
1) Abraham and Sarah were half-brother and sister (Genesis 20:12).
2) Jacob married the daughters of Laban, his mother’s brother (Genesis 24:43), which means that both of them were his first cousins.
3) Lot's daughters become pregnant by having sex with him and their children become the patriarchs of two of the tribes of Israel. (Genesis 19:30-38)


We don’t know whether Sara and Abram were truly half-siblings. Read the passage in context. First Abram claims Sara is his full-sister, then when caught out he claims he was telling a half-truth about her being his sister. In the circumstances it’s an understandable lie so that he can keep his wife and still not enrage the local king into killing him for telling lies. The passage you quote is itself a quotation from Abram and not a statement of fact. Three paragraphs earlier he said she was his sister. The exact truth of the matter is never confirmed but there is no mention elsewhere of this fact AFIAK so it’s almost certainly yet another in a string of lies told by Abram at that point. You may wish to argue it is evidence of incest but it’s a debatable interpretation at best. Moreover the union is never condoned. It is described but God also made Sara barren for 60 odd years for some reason so you could hardly argue that the union was ever blessed or condoned.

As I and several others have said Jacob marrying his cousin is not incest except in some parts of the US. It’s still perfectly legal in the rest of the world AFAIK. Hardly an example of incest.

Lot’s daughters raping him is never condoned in the Bible and you are completely wrong to suggest it is condoned. It is described in the Bible along with many other events but it is never condoned any more than the beheading of John the Baptist can be considered to be condoned simply because it is described. A description of an event is not condonment of that event Sleel.

So really you have one dubious example of incest being condoned.

The modern prohibitions on cousin marriage in the US seem to be only tenuously connected to the bible.

I couldn’t agre more. I posted those versus in response to the claim that the bIble had few restictions on kin-marriage. Nothing could be further form the truth.

In some cases the bible is more extensive in prohibition than modern practice, in others it is more permissive.

Arguably it might allow Uncle-Niece unions and that is the only way it is more permissive. And because it is arguable it’s just as likely that it prohibited even that. That is one dubious example and yet you use ‘others’ in plural. In what other ways is it more permisive?

[Sleel]

Gahh! If I ignore this, I am letting your challenge stand. If I answer, I risk pulling this thread way off topic. This is a lose-lose situation for me. I should never have mentioned the bible at all. So much for preemptive argument.

Sleel, those are prohibitions for a polygamous society. The restrictions have nothing whatsoever to do with adultery which is already a specific crime under Jewish law. Those are restrictions on what would otherwise be legitimate marriages and completely and utterly unrelated to adultery.

None of them have anything to do with sexual relations with someone who is already married to someone else. Adultery is a separate crime under Jewish law. These are restirctions against marriage, not adultery. A man can have multiple wives but he can not marry the daughter of his wife even if she is not his daughter. A man can not marry his brother’s wife even if his brother is divorced or dead.

If adultery already covers it, why does this list mention "neighbor's wife" at Lev. 18:20? The text repeatedly uses the phrase "uncover the nakedness" which is a euphemism for sex. Marriage is mentioned only in 18:18 where it says you should not marry the sister of your current wife. Most of the rules listed have to do with sex, not marriage.

Maybe I am missing something in translation, but the word used in English here is "wife," not "widow," not "divorced wife." If she is your son's wife, that means she's married to your son. Is the word used translatable as "former wife," or does it mean basically the same thing in the original as it does in English?

I am aware that the bible describes a polygamous society, but unless there is a translation barrier, some of these restrictions have to do with people who are already married to someone else. Anyone have a good concordance or knowledge of the original language? I'm willing to admit that I'm wrong if I have made an error in taking this translation at face value.

What does adultery have to do with this at all? We are talking about incest, not adultery.

You were attempting to show that these laws applied to incest, and I noted that some of them do not in fact apply to incest at all but to adultery. Basically, you are asking me the same thing I was asking you: what does adultery have to do with incest?

Now try looking outside Leviticus. There are laws in other books you know.

Where? If I knew the other places, I would have mentioned them. Do you know any others?

You may wish to argue it is evidence of incest but it’s a debatable interpretation at best. Moreover the union is never condoned. It is described but God also made Sara barren for 60 odd years for some reason so you could hardly argue that the union was ever blessed or condoned.

Abraham says that Sarah is his sister twice, and he says it with emphasis. There is no reason for him to lie when Abimelech was looking for confirmation as to whether Sarah was married to Abraham or not. The issue at hand was Sarah's marital status, not her kinship to Abraham, yet Abraham still insists that they are married and that they are brother and sister. He even points out how they are related: they share a father, but not a mother.

Abraham and his family are described as being among god's favorites. I doubt Abraham would be that much of a favorite if god didn't like Abraham marrying his half-sister Sarah. In that society, the man was the one who chose a mate. Why would god punish Sarah for Abraham's wrongdoing in choosing her? Why didn't god punish Sarah's father for allowing his daughter to marry her half-brother?

If she wasn't his half-sister, why would the match not be condoned? You can't have it both ways. Either Sarah was Abraham's half-sister and they were punished by god for an unacceptable marriage, or Sarah was not related to Abraham and there was no miraculous reason for Sarah's barrenness.

As I and several others have said Jacob marrying his cousin is not incest except in some parts of the US. It’s still perfectly legal in the rest of the world AFAIK. Hardly an example of incest.

I admit it wasn't a very strong example of acceptable incest, but it does show a significantly different attitude toward kin marriages. He marries two sisters and they're both his cousins. You're getting hung up on legality again, which sometimes has little to do with social disapproval. Most Americans and Europeans would at the very least snicker at someone who married a cousin. Biblically, there is absolutely no disapproval that I can see.

Lot’s daughters raping him is never condoned in the Bible and you are completely wrong to suggest it is condoned. It is described in the Bible along with many other events but it is never condoned any more than the beheading of John the Baptist can be considered to be condoned simply because it is described. A description of an event is not condonment of that event Sleel.

Okay, you got me here. I didn't check the reference to the Ammonites and the Moabites. That one whooshed me. The Ammonites and Moabites reputation of being wicked could be seen as indirect disapproval of the incestuous relationship. I note, however, that the same god who just torched Sodom for being wicked didn't do anything to Lot, his daughters, the sons produced, or the clans Moab and Ben–am'mi became the patriarchs of.

I couldn’t agre more. I posted those versus in response to the claim that the bIble had few restictions on kin-marriage. Nothing could be further form the truth.

Compared to many other societies, the bible does not have a lot of restrictions. Certainly not as many as later Christian society under the Catholic church. It does, in some cases, have more codified laws than modern society, but the social prejudice of modern society is sometimes more extensive than the biblical rules.

Arguably it might allow Uncle-Niece unions and that is the only way it is more permissive. And because it is arguable it’s just as likely that it prohibited even that. That is one dubious example and yet you use ‘others’ in plural. In what other ways is it more permisive?

It was slightly more permissive than our society regarding cousin marriages as it makes no mention at all of any prohibition or disapproval against it. I don't think the argument for the permissibility of uncle-niece relationships is all that dubious. If you've got some evidence to the contrary, please share it. The society also allowed polygamy, as you pointed out earlier.

[nocturnal_tick]

I’d like to see some evidence that the human race ‘got it’s start’ from inbreeding. The History Channel does not cut it.

Cecil (http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a2_083b.html) covered something along those lines.
These simple facts have given rise to some remarkable displays of statistical pyrotechnics. Demographer Kenneth Wachtel estimates that the typical English child born in 1947 would have had around 60,000 theoretical ancestors at the time of the discovery of America. Of this number, 95 percent would have been different individuals and 5 percent duplicates. (Sounds like Invasion of the Body Snatchers, but you know what I mean.) Twenty generations back the kid would have 600,000 ancestors, one-third of which would be duplicates. At the time of the Black Death, he'd have had 3.5 million--30 percent real, 70 percent duplicates. The maximum number of "real" ancestors occurs around 1200 AD--2 million, some 80 percent of the population of England.

[Blake]

If adultery already covers it, why does this list mention "neighbor's wife" at Lev. 18:20?

Having sex with your neighbour’s wife IS adultery.

Is the word used translatable as "former wife," or does it mean basically the same thing in the original as it does in English?

Obviosuly it doesn’t mean the same thing. I will ask again: If you believe it could poissibly have the same meaning as it does in English are you implying that a Jewish man can marry an already married woman so long as she is not married to his brother?

Perhaps you should try looking at the passages that command a man to father children with his decesased brother’s wife. Clearly the woman is a idow in that context but wife is still used.

Anyone have a good concordance or knowledge of the original language?

This is as goodas it gets: http://unbound.biola.edu/

Knock yourself out.


Where? If I knew the other places, I would have mentioned them. Do you know any others?

There are several, as I have already stated. You could probably start at Deuteronomy 27. I have no interest in looking for every reference. I was merely attempting to correct your apparent belief that marriage laws are found only in Leviticus.

There is no reason for him to lie when Abimelech was looking for confirmation as to whether Sarah was married to Abraham or not…. The issue at hand was Sarah's marital status, not her kinship to Abraham …

There is every reason. Abimelech held a lot of power and could readily have Abram killed for decieving him and putting him in a position where he almost commited a mortal sin and having God come down personally and warn him against having sex with Sara. Abimelech had every reason to be seriously pissed off with Abram for the deception. Abram had everty reason for softening the blow by suggetsing it was a half-truth and not a blatantly disprespectful deception.

I repeat Sleel, read the passage in context. Abram said himself that Abimlech and his people were likely to murder him just so they could ravish Sara. These were not nice people, they were openly and obviously murderous. Abram had just decieved and humiliated their chieftan. Do you think that might be a possible reason to lie to minimise the damage done? The issue at hand in that entire chapter was how Abram could possibly live amongst these people without having his throat cut He was prepared to tell any lies necessary to achieve that.

Why would god punish Sarah for Abraham's wrongdoing in choosing her?

FFS you can not be that….
I will NOT get into a debate here on God’s motivations for doing so, I will simply prove that this is PRECISELY what God did. I’ll just quote the relevant passage again.

“If a man marries his brother's wife, it is an act of impurity; he has dishonored his brother. They will be childless”

Clear enough Sleel? God punishes wives for their husband choosing them by making the wife barren. I repeat, I will NOT engage in a debate here about why God does this. Take that issue to GD.

If she wasn't his half-sister, why would the match not be condoned? You can't have it both ways.

I am not having it both ways. I am pointing at that it is highly dubious if Abram and Sara were half siblings but even if we accept that dubious interpretation the mere description of that state of affairs is not condoning it. There is no suggestion that God blessed, approved of, or otherwise condoned the union of Abram and Sara. The only evidence we have suggests that God did not bless the union but in fact struck Sara barren for half a century or more.

Understand? Even if we accept your interpretation that is simply a description of incest, not a passage condoning incest. HUUUUUGE difference. The Bible contains passages describing the beheading of holy men. That doesn't mean that beheading saints is condoned. Itjust means that it happened and was recorded in the book.

Most Americans and Europeans would at the very least snicker at someone who married a cousin.

Since this is GQ I would like a reference for that claim.

It was slightly more permissive than our society regarding cousin marriages as it makes no mention at all of any prohibition or disapproval against it.

If we are talking about our society we are incorporating more than some US states. As such our society does not prohibit or disaprove of cousin mariages any more than the Bible. If you wish to make a statement to the contrary in GQ then you will need to produce evidence.

I don't think the argument for the permissibility of uncle-niece relationships is all that dubious. If you've got some evidence to the contrary, please share it.

Oh FFS you yourself said “according to the interpretation given it by some anthropologists”. IOW not all anthropologists. In fact it’s not even most anthropologists or most Talmudic scholars. Just some. That’s how bleedin’ dubious it is. Even you don’t consider it a fact, just something suggested by some scholars.

Am I allowed to quote you as a reference to a point that you yourself now seem to dispute?

And I fail to see how the hell polygamy constitutes incest.

Cecil covered something along those lines.

No he doesn’t. He points out that humans are largely interrelated, very different to the human race starting due to inbreeding.

[Sleel]

To Blake: Obviously you have a large emotional stake in the bible issue, so I will not comment further. You have not substantially addressed my points, merely reiterating that you are right, I am wrong, and that no other interpretation than yours is correct. There is no point in continuing this debate.

[rfgdxm]

Most Americans and Europeans would at the very least snicker at someone who married a cousin.

I too would like a reference for that claim. Particularly WRT Europe. Consider the play Cyrano de Bergerac. Cyrano has a deep romantic interest in his cousin, and Cyrano is characterized as a man of the highest honor. Frenchmen now would consider Cyrano to be worthy of snickering about?

[633squadron]

Inbreeding will also help any benefial mutations that come along to stay, and potentially increase, in the population, rather than getting filtered out in the genetic noise of a more diverse breeding strategy.

I seem to remember that the native Hawaiians practiced inbreeding within "royal" families in order to create "superior" individuals. Anyone know if this has a factual basis? While trying, unsuccessfully, to verify this in Wikipedia (http://www.wikipedia.org) I found reference to incestual marriages in the royal dynasties of ancient Egypt.

On a gene-by-gene basis, the probability is 1 in 4 that an offspring will exhibit the recessive trait if both parents exhibit the dominant trait. Remember that in real life the situation is more complex; more than one gene may be involved in a phenotypic trait.

[Blake]

To Blake: Obviously you have a large emotional stake in the bible issue, so I will not comment further. You have not substantially addressed my points, merely reiterating that you are right, I am wrong, and that no other interpretation than yours is correct. There is no point in continuing this debate.

Oh what a load of rubbish. I addressed evey point you made fully and with references. You on the other hand have refused to answer my questions even when I asked them several times.

I have no emotional stake in the Bible since I am neither Christian nor Jew. My frustration, Sleel, comes form your blinding ignorance of all the matters you insist on posting about. For example:

Your belief that all Jewish marriage laws are found in one book.
Your inability to accept that god strikes women barren for incest even though a passage had already been presented that says exactly that.
Your inability to understand the difference between describing an event and condining it.
Your baseless claims that most Europeans snicker at cousin marriages.
Your inability to comprehend the references you yourself presented.

I agree on one point though. It is futile to continue this. You are being wilfully ignorant on the issue. We can cure people of ignorance but when people are wilfully ignorant as you are there is nothing that can be done.


On a gene-by-gene basis, the probability is 1 in 4 that an offspring will exhibit the recessive trait if both parents exhibit the dominant trait.


No, the probability is much lower than that.

If both parents exhibit a dominant trait they may be either homozygous or heterozygous. In high school genteics terms the parents could be either Xx or XX. If either parent is homozygous then the probability of the offspring exhibiting a recessive trait is zero. Only for heterozygous pairings is there any chance at all of the offspring exhibiting a recessive trait. Assuming that all genes are randomly distributed heterozygous pairings will only occur one in every four marriages and only one in ever four offspring of such pairings will exhibit a recessive tarit.

IOW On a gene-by-gene basis, the probability is 1 in 16 that an offspring will exhibit the recessive trait if both parents exhibit the dominant trait