"annaliese39;c-17038602" wrote:"JoAnne65;c-17038535" wrote:"annaliese39;c-17038178" wrote:"king_of_simcity7;c-17038036" wrote:
Queen Victoria married her cousin Albert and they have a lot of surviving children.
A good example of why a lack of genetic diversity can become problematic - in this case the spread of hemophilia amongst royals.
Hemophilia was passed through because both parents (cousins in this case) had it. That fact increased the odds. It’s estimated that 4 to 7 percent of children born to first cousins are likely to have birth defects, compared to 3 to 4 percent for children whose parents are more distantly related. That’s not nothing, but it’s also not the end of the world—or the family tree. Victoria and Albert had more children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren who had no hemophilia than those who did. The real issue would arise if the next generation of kids also married their first cousins. Their offspring will have even more DNA in common—and an even greater chance for birth defects. (source).
Apart from the fact a couple can also decide not to have children if they don’t want to take the extra risk. In any case, I seriously object against ‘ew’, because having a higher chance to have children with birth defects is not ew. It’s sad at most, for the persons who it concerns. Like a colleague of mine who is seriously epileptic and has to take heavy medicines that will guarantee (100%) birth defects, if she’d ever get children. She is married and not ew.
Oh no, of course! I don't think 'ew' when cousins marry (and certainly not when people with genetic defects or disabilities do either). I only meant to point out that in some cases there may be risks/difficulties for future generations over time if there is a lack of genetic diversity, such as when royal families insisted on maintaining the royal bloodline.
"alexjoanroww;c-17039549" wrote:
@JoAnne65 If you're reffering to me for putting the "ew" remark on the poll,I only did so to see if that's what people think. It doesn't reflect my personal view.
"ClarionOfJoy;c-17039999" wrote:"JoAnne65;c-17039957" wrote:
Objecting to something is not the same thing as shaming someone off it, please don’t put words in my mouth. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion and will have their own arguments. It does make me sad when people in real life are told they can’t love each other for some reason, won’t deny it, but this topic is about pixel characters, nobody gets hurt ;)
I know it's just a game, but oftentimes, one's own philosophy and way of life will reflect in their gameplay. I think though that it is natural for some people to feel repulsed by a relationship that they see as taboo and they shouldn't have to deny that for fear of coming off as heartless or not with the times. I see with the alternate lifestyles that people who push for acceptance of it have worked hard to reverse public opinion of it. I think it's good to some extent because I hated that people would use their revulsion of it to give themselves an excuse to hurt or kill other people with that lifestyle. But now it's getting to be too much! People who find it repulsive are being shamed into silence and I don't think that's good either. There should be balance, where both sides can express themselves without shaming each other.
PS - I hope you don't think I'm mad at you or hating on you. I always "like" or "awesome" your posts. I just tend to be centrist though and like balancing out the direction of a thread (if I have the time and inclination). I actually don't have a problem with alternate lifestyles, but 2nd cousins procreating increases the chance of defective traits getting passed on. I'm an RN so I'm thinking of all the risks for that and I've seen some really sad situations at the hospital, so it's a matter of practicality and not denial of a romance.
