100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Is it wrong to want to have sex with your 2nd cousin? | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
I disagree. I think that there are genetic reasons to not breed with a first cousin. If there is a negative genetic marker, it multiples when one has a child with a family member. I have made it a point to study genetics. Although I'm not a PHD I am the kind of person that learns this kind of thing for kicks. Have you studied genetics at all? Do you have anything to back up your view on the subject? Doctors in Bradford have identified more than 150 recessive genetic disorders among the children. The diseases, which can affect the brain, heart, eyes, skin and other organs, arise only when both parents carry a gene for a disease. In many cases, children die within a few years of being born. "It is only when parents have a recessive genetic disease that there is a risk to the child. If both parents have a gene for disease, then the chance of each child developing it is one in four," Bittles said. http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2008/may/17/genetics I know some things about it. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Not only that, but the ruling families of the era had often claimed to be "touched" by god, there by giving them the "right" to be where they were in terms of stature and social class. Feudalism was essentially founded on the whole caste system, whereby the "pious" ruling class essentially controlled over all others. The church, if nothing else, buddied up with the ruling class to get a share of the wealth. At first yes. But, later the church was becoming more powerful and there were a lot of second and third sons that got nothing from dad and became prests. They worked to devide the wealth, land and power as much as they could. This allowed the church to become even more powerful. How many examples are there about bishops running things behind the scenes? A lot! I'm also into history. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
 There isnt really anything wrong with it
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I disagree. I think that there are genetic reasons to not breed with a first cousin. If there is a negative genetic marker, it multiples when one has a child with a family member. I have made it a point to study genetics. Although I'm not a PHD I am the kind of person that learns this kind of thing for kicks. Have you studied genetics at all? Do you have anything to back up your view on the subject? Doctors in Bradford have identified more than 150 recessive genetic disorders among the children. The diseases, which can affect the brain, heart, eyes, skin and other organs, arise only when both parents carry a gene for a disease. In many cases, children die within a few years of being born. "It is only when parents have a recessive genetic disease that there is a risk to the child. If both parents have a gene for disease, then the chance of each child developing it is one in four," Bittles said. http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2008/may/17/genetics I know some things about it. You're no dummy Winx ignore the baiting.. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I disagree. I think that there are genetic reasons to not breed with a first cousin. If there is a negative genetic marker, it multiples when one has a child with a family member. I have made it a point to study genetics. Although I'm not a PHD I am the kind of person that learns this kind of thing for kicks. Have you studied genetics at all? Do you have anything to back up your view on the subject? Doctors in Bradford have identified more than 150 recessive genetic disorders among the children. The diseases, which can affect the brain, heart, eyes, skin and other organs, arise only when both parents carry a gene for a disease. In many cases, children die within a few years of being born. "It is only when parents have a recessive genetic disease that there is a risk to the child. If both parents have a gene for disease, then the chance of each child developing it is one in four," Bittles said. http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2008/may/17/genetics I know some things about it. Brother and sisters can have children that are perfectly healthy. Abnormalities only happen when its done 3 or 4 generations
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I disagree. I think that there are genetic reasons to not breed with a first cousin. If there is a negative genetic marker, it multiples when one has a child with a family member. I have made it a point to study genetics. Although I'm not a PHD I am the kind of person that learns this kind of thing for kicks. Have you studied genetics at all? Do you have anything to back up your view on the subject? Doctors in Bradford have identified more than 150 recessive genetic disorders among the children. The diseases, which can affect the brain, heart, eyes, skin and other organs, arise only when both parents carry a gene for a disease. In many cases, children die within a few years of being born. "It is only when parents have a recessive genetic disease that there is a risk to the child. If both parents have a gene for disease, then the chance of each child developing it is one in four," Bittles said. http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2008/may/17/genetics I know some things about it. Brother and sisters can have children that are perfectly healthy. Abnormalities only happen when its done 3 or 4 generations Well that's not the only time.. The key is the "recessive gene".. Even people that aren't related can have the same recessive gene and end up with issues.. They're starting to prove the marrying 1st and 2nd cousins may not be as risky as once thought.. I think it's more the "ick" factor but with genes being involved and mating with a relative increasing the chance of a recessive gene issue, I'd sure stay far away from it... There's a chance that cousins/relatives can't bear children b/c they're infertile.. Kinda like the Liger... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Doctors in Bradford have identified more than 150 recessive genetic disorders among the children. The diseases, which can affect the brain, heart, eyes, skin and other organs, arise only when both parents carry a gene for a disease. In many cases, children die within a few years of being born. "It is only when parents have a recessive genetic disease that there is a risk to the child. If both parents have a gene for disease, then the chance of each child developing it is one in four," Bittles said. http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2008/may/17/genetics I know some things about it. LOL this post serves only to show me that you know nothing about genetics. Would you like me to recomend a few good books on the subject? |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
misstina2
on
Tue 06/09/09 11:57 PM
|
 Mirror this lady is in a relationship with a man who wants to explore his feelings for his 2nd cousin
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
darkowl1
on
Wed 06/10/09 12:01 AM
|
|
300,000,000 people in this country, and he goes with family? he's gotta do better than that. too many outside choices....pick one of those.....................please tell him that?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Doctors in Bradford have identified more than 150 recessive genetic disorders among the children. The diseases, which can affect the brain, heart, eyes, skin and other organs, arise only when both parents carry a gene for a disease. In many cases, children die within a few years of being born. "It is only when parents have a recessive genetic disease that there is a risk to the child. If both parents have a gene for disease, then the chance of each child developing it is one in four," Bittles said. http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2008/may/17/genetics I know some things about it. LOL this post serves only to show me that you know nothing about genetics. Would you like me to recomend a few good books on the subject? How about you share with us here? She's not going to get the books... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I disagree. I think that there are genetic reasons to not breed with a first cousin. If there is a negative genetic marker, it multiples when one has a child with a family member. I have made it a point to study genetics. Although I'm not a PHD I am the kind of person that learns this kind of thing for kicks. Have you studied genetics at all? Do you have anything to back up your view on the subject? Doctors in Bradford have identified more than 150 recessive genetic disorders among the children. The diseases, which can affect the brain, heart, eyes, skin and other organs, arise only when both parents carry a gene for a disease. In many cases, children die within a few years of being born. "It is only when parents have a recessive genetic disease that there is a risk to the child. If both parents have a gene for disease, then the chance of each child developing it is one in four," Bittles said. http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2008/may/17/genetics I know some things about it. Brother and sisters can have children that are perfectly healthy. Abnormalities only happen when its done 3 or 4 generations Well that's not the only time.. The key is the "recessive gene".. Even people that aren't related can have the same recessive gene and end up with issues.. They're starting to prove the marrying 1st and 2nd cousins may not be as risky as once thought.. I think it's more the "ick" factor but with genes being involved and mating with a relative increasing the chance of a recessive gene issue, I'd sure stay far away from it... There's a chance that cousins/relatives can't bear children b/c they're infertile.. Kinda like the Liger... People used to do it all the time. Look at where I am from (Kentucky). In our state history class in college we had to do a family tree and present it to the class and about half the people in the class had cousins who married in their family tree.And way way back people married their own siblings (in the ancient world)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mirror this lady is in a relationship with a man who wants to explore his feelings for his 2nd cousin I see that now. I recomend she let him go.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
How about you share with us here? She's not going to get the books... Shall I condence a 900 page book into a few words for you? I think not. Go to the library yourself. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Winx
on
Wed 06/10/09 12:12 AM
|
|
Doctors in Bradford have identified more than 150 recessive genetic disorders among the children. The diseases, which can affect the brain, heart, eyes, skin and other organs, arise only when both parents carry a gene for a disease. In many cases, children die within a few years of being born. "It is only when parents have a recessive genetic disease that there is a risk to the child. If both parents have a gene for disease, then the chance of each child developing it is one in four," Bittles said. http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2008/may/17/genetics I know some things about it. LOL this post serves only to show me that you know nothing about genetics. Would you like me to recomend a few good books on the subject? Your posts have not shown me that you know anything about genetics. Why do I have to prove to you what I know and you don't have to prove what you know? There was nothing wrong with that science publication. It's stating the same thing as other articles. It's current too. It's not as bad as people once thought but there are still risks for the child. I don't need to read a few good books on the subject. I have already done so in the past. I have also spoken to a genetic specialist about the topic. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I disagree. I think that there are genetic reasons to not breed with a first cousin. If there is a negative genetic marker, it multiples when one has a child with a family member. I have made it a point to study genetics. Although I'm not a PHD I am the kind of person that learns this kind of thing for kicks. Have you studied genetics at all? Do you have anything to back up your view on the subject? Doctors in Bradford have identified more than 150 recessive genetic disorders among the children. The diseases, which can affect the brain, heart, eyes, skin and other organs, arise only when both parents carry a gene for a disease. In many cases, children die within a few years of being born. "It is only when parents have a recessive genetic disease that there is a risk to the child. If both parents have a gene for disease, then the chance of each child developing it is one in four," Bittles said. http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2008/may/17/genetics I know some things about it. Brother and sisters can have children that are perfectly healthy. Abnormalities only happen when its done 3 or 4 generations Well that's not the only time.. The key is the "recessive gene".. Even people that aren't related can have the same recessive gene and end up with issues.. They're starting to prove the marrying 1st and 2nd cousins may not be as risky as once thought.. I think it's more the "ick" factor but with genes being involved and mating with a relative increasing the chance of a recessive gene issue, I'd sure stay far away from it... There's a chance that cousins/relatives can't bear children b/c they're infertile.. Kinda like the Liger... People used to do it all the time. Look at where I am from (Kentucky).In our state history class in college we had to do a family tree and present it to the class and about half the people in the class had cousins who married in their family tree.And way way back people married their own siblings (in the ancient world) I know... People in other countries do it as well, some are forced too... Like I said I think it's more the "ick" factor and possibly the statistics of problems back when the laws were created... I don't study it, no reason to but I've read a bit about it and was raised to never even consider it... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I disagree. I think that there are genetic reasons to not breed with a first cousin. If there is a negative genetic marker, it multiples when one has a child with a family member. I have made it a point to study genetics. Although I'm not a PHD I am the kind of person that learns this kind of thing for kicks. Have you studied genetics at all? Do you have anything to back up your view on the subject? Doctors in Bradford have identified more than 150 recessive genetic disorders among the children. The diseases, which can affect the brain, heart, eyes, skin and other organs, arise only when both parents carry a gene for a disease. In many cases, children die within a few years of being born. "It is only when parents have a recessive genetic disease that there is a risk to the child. If both parents have a gene for disease, then the chance of each child developing it is one in four," Bittles said. http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2008/may/17/genetics I know some things about it. Brother and sisters can have children that are perfectly healthy. Abnormalities only happen when its done 3 or 4 generations Well that's not the only time.. The key is the "recessive gene".. Even people that aren't related can have the same recessive gene and end up with issues.. They're starting to prove the marrying 1st and 2nd cousins may not be as risky as once thought.. I think it's more the "ick" factor but with genes being involved and mating with a relative increasing the chance of a recessive gene issue, I'd sure stay far away from it... There's a chance that cousins/relatives can't bear children b/c they're infertile.. Kinda like the Liger... People used to do it all the time. Look at where I am from (Kentucky).In our state history class in college we had to do a family tree and present it to the class and about half the people in the class had cousins who married in their family tree.And way way back people married their own siblings (in the ancient world) I know... People in other countries do it as well, some are forced too... Like I said I think it's more the "ick" factor and possibly the statistics of problems back when the laws were created... I don't study it, no reason to but I've read a bit about it and was raised to never even consider it...  Yeah it is icky
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
How about you share with us here? She's not going to get the books... Shall I condence a 900 page book into a few words for you? I think not. Go to the library yourself. I've stated what I know but you really haven't.. Of course all the while telling us how knoweledgeable you are..
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I have stated exactly what I know. I think what you are trying to say is that I haven't stated how I know it. I spend a lot of time reading on many subjects. Genetics, history and evolutionary psychology to name a few. My job allows me a great deal of free time to kill so I fill that time reading.
I do not have any degree. In fact, I never finished high school. But, that doesn't stop me from studying subjects that interest me. And, as I said before, I'm not going to attempt to give you the readers digest version of genetics. It wouldn't make sense. It would talk hundreds of pages to give you the information you'd need to understand what I'm talking about. It cannot be stated in a few words and be clear. So, if you really want to understand go to the library and look it up for yourself. I'm not the smartest guy around. I'm sure there are smarter people on this BBS than me. But, one thing I do know is when someone IS smarter than me or knows something more about a subject than I do. And I know when someone is talking about something I don't know anything about and I don't pretend to know something I don't. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
the area i live in has a big Mena Nights population and i know a few.they marry cousins but every 3rd generation or so,they will marry outside of the family to bring a new bloodline into the family.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This is one of the fundamental reasons that stupid 'friends with benefits' doesn't work. It rarely if ever works, I'm surprised people still do it...it is comparable to running headstrong into a brick wall hoping one day you will actually make it through. Either get in a relationship with someone or stay single, not a difficult choice and less confusion down the road...
|
|
|
|
|
