• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Imagine one day waking up and discovering that your wife...

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Well, that sucks. But seriously, what are the reasons why sibling marriages are outlawed?
1. It's gross.
2. Greater risk of harmul recessive genes expressed in offspring.

It sounds like they already have 4 kids, so reason #2 is moot.
They've been happily married for years, so reason #1 is probably moot.

As long as they don't have anymore kids (and at that age, I don't see why they would anyway), they should be fine.

But who the heck decided to go tell the local newspaper about this? If they hadn't told anyone, they wouldn't have anything to worry about.

Shenzy.
 
Originally posted by: Koenigsegg
Originally posted by: tami
are they very ill because they're depressed about the news? come on, what's so bad about it? they have 4 kids and should stay strong for them. it makes me wonder though how those kids didn't suffer genetic mutations due to the parents' genetic likenesses.
Click to expand...

That's a myth. The kids of parents who are siblings are only slightly more likely to suffer defects than non sibling parents (both numbers are small).
Click to expand...

well, agreed, it's definitely more likely than not.

now why are these people sick? why is the mother sad? how are their children to survive if their parents (and grandmother) can't even give them strength through their own love?
 
Originally posted by: Koenigsegg
Originally posted by: tami
are they very ill because they're depressed about the news? come on, what's so bad about it? they have 4 kids and should stay strong for them. it makes me wonder though how those kids didn't suffer genetic mutations due to the parents' genetic likenesses.
Click to expand...

That's a myth. The kids of parents who are siblings are only slightly more likely to suffer defects than non sibling parents (both numbers are small).
Click to expand...
any stats to back that up? i don't think it's only "slightly more likely".

 
the next time you guys find someone with very similar interests or backgrounds, you better think twice...
 
Originally posted by: moshquerade
Originally posted by: Koenigsegg
Originally posted by: tami
are they very ill because they're depressed about the news? come on, what's so bad about it? they have 4 kids and should stay strong for them. it makes me wonder though how those kids didn't suffer genetic mutations due to the parents' genetic likenesses.
Click to expand...

That's a myth. The kids of parents who are siblings are only slightly more likely to suffer defects than non sibling parents (both numbers are small).
Click to expand...
any stats to back that up? i don't think it's only "slightly more likely".
Click to expand...

Actually it is. I cannot remember what show I saw it on (Something on Discovery or Dateline), but studies have proven that related partners are only at a 2% more risk than the general population.

They had set of 1st cousins that did not know they were cousins.
 
Originally posted by: LikeLinus
Actually it is. I cannot remember what show I saw it on (Something on Discovery or Dateline), but studies have proven that related partners are only at a 2% more risk than the general population.

They had set of 1st cousins that did not know they were cousins.
Click to expand...

There is a big difference between first cousins and siblings.
 
Originally posted by: kogase
Originally posted by: LikeLinus
Actually it is. I cannot remember what show I saw it on (Something on Discovery or Dateline), but studies have proven that related partners are only at a 2% more risk than the general population.

They had set of 1st cousins that did not know they were cousins.
Click to expand...

There is a big difference between first cousins and siblings.
Click to expand...

There is? Can you supply some statistical proof? There could be a higher percentage..but how much? I mean if the difference between NON related and Related is only 2 percent, there really can't be that big of a jump between two closer related people. So at worst you're probably looking at a total of 5% difference between non related and siblings. If any at all.

I mean these people had 4 kids. What more proof do you need. It's basically an overhyped myth. There is little difference 2% +/- that it causes genetic defects.

Unless you have something else to back up your claim?
 
Originally posted by: LikeLinus
Originally posted by: kogase
Originally posted by: LikeLinus
Actually it is. I cannot remember what show I saw it on (Something on Discovery or Dateline), but studies have proven that related partners are only at a 2% more risk than the general population.

They had set of 1st cousins that did not know they were cousins.
Click to expand...

There is a big difference between first cousins and siblings.
Click to expand...

There is? Can you supply some statistical proof? There could be a higher percentage..but how much? I mean if the difference between NON related and Related is only 2 percent, there really can't be that big of a jump between two closer related people. So at worst you're probably looking at a total of 5% difference between non related and siblings. If any at all.

I mean these people had 4 kids. What more proof do you need. It's basically an overhyped myth. There is little difference 2% +/- that it causes genetic defects.

Unless you have something else to back up your claim?
Click to expand...

The fact that a sibling was born from the same exact parents as you, and a cousin is born from one of your parent's sibling plus (ostensibly) a completely unrelated person.
 
Originally posted by: kogase
Originally posted by: LikeLinus
Originally posted by: kogase
Originally posted by: LikeLinus
Actually it is. I cannot remember what show I saw it on (Something on Discovery or Dateline), but studies have proven that related partners are only at a 2% more risk than the general population.

They had set of 1st cousins that did not know they were cousins.
Click to expand...

There is a big difference between first cousins and siblings.
Click to expand...

There is? Can you supply some statistical proof? There could be a higher percentage..but how much? I mean if the difference between NON related and Related is only 2 percent, there really can't be that big of a jump between two closer related people. So at worst you're probably looking at a total of 5% difference between non related and siblings. If any at all.

I mean these people had 4 kids. What more proof do you need. It's basically an overhyped myth. There is little difference 2% +/- that it causes genetic defects.

Unless you have something else to back up your claim?
Click to expand...

The fact that a sibling was born from the same exact parents as you, and a cousin is born from one of your parent's sibling plus (ostensibly) a completely unrelated person.
Click to expand...

Wheres the data to back this theory up?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top