It doesn't matter if you do it seventy billion times, the issue with cosanguinity is the increased risk of passing on mutated alleles which would have significantly less risk of being passed on in a non consanguinous coupling. The more consanguinous the more risk of sharing a mutation, hence the greater risk. As soon as you have a mutation you have the risk. If you don't have a mutation you could go full Ptolemy without any problem. Theoretically at least. Of course everyone has minor mutations in their germline so consanguinity is always risky. In that sense inbreeding is both much, much, worse and much better than having kids in your late 30s.

But there is genuinely a problem with consanguinity in some immigrant communities. If they don't marry and reproduce outside a specific social structure, and there's only like 20 of them in the country, then by necessity you end up with consanguinity.

[–] SootySootySoot@hexbear.net 9 points 1 day ago (1 children)

You are effectively describing the same thing. Yes the % risks are indicative for a general population, but they represent exactly what you're saying.

[–] Keld@hexbear.net 7 points 23 hours ago* (last edited 23 hours ago)

In a sense yes, in a sense no. If you boil it down to "Cousin marriages have an X% of resulting in a genetic disorder" then you give a good overview of one of the many reasons consanguinity is problematic, but it is rhetoric that could also be applied to things which we don't otherwise find problematic (Like geriatric pregnancies), while also conceding legislating on grounds of eugenics.

We've long since realised that (Well in Scandinavia not that terrible long) banning people vy force of law from having children due to risk of genetic abnormalities is bad. But also these people aren't doing this to stop genetic disorders, they are doing it purely because they associate cousin marriages with minority groups that they wish to persecute. The genetic risk is a smoke screen.