Cousin/boyfriend!?

Poco Loco

Hi,

Kind of a weird one maybe. I have started seeing this guy recently and we are getting on very well. We are from the same town and have known each other years so it is nice to have that as a basis, things have been going really well since day 1. Anyway.

We found out by pure fluke a few weeks ago that we may be related. In fact we definitely are. Not in the weird way I hope! But from what I have learned - his grandmother and my great grandmother were sisters. What I'm wondering is what does that make us? 4th cousins!? 1st cousins a few times removed?!

And more importantly, is it weird/wrong for us to continue this relationship if we are related in this way? We've put things sort of on hold since the revelation. I like him a lot and want to get this back on track...once it's not morally wrong!? Would be really keen to get people's opinions/advice on this.

Thanks.

LegacyUser

Poco Loco wrote: »

Hi,

Kind of a weird one maybe. I have started seeing this guy recently and we are getting on very well. We are from the same town and have known each other years so it is nice to have that as a basis, things have been going really well since day 1. Anyway.

We found out by pure fluke a few weeks ago that we may be related. In fact we definitely are. Not in the weird way I hope! But from what I have learned - his grandmother and my great grandmother were sisters. What I'm wondering is what does that make us? 4th cousins!? 1st cousins a few times removed?!

And more importantly, is it weird/wrong for us to continue this relationship if we are related in this way? We've put things sort of on hold since the revelation. I like him a lot and want to get this back on track...once it's not morally wrong!? Would be really keen to get people's opinions/advice on this.

Thanks.

Second cousins once removed.

Or another way... whichever one of your parents it is - is this guys second cousin.

A bit close for comfort IMO

High&Low

Your great grandparents were his great great grandparents which I am pretty sure makes you second cousins once removed.

This is the same as Queen Elizabeth II and her husband Prince Philip.

DemocAnarchis

Yep, second cousins first removed is what I come up with too. I wouldnt be too concerned with it to be honest, once you are further removed than first cousins, unless you know yourself to have recessive traits for a certain condition, whats the harm? Im pretty sure that even catholic canon on degrees of sanguinity allowed second cousins, nevermind once removed, to marry.

Lux23

DemocAnarchis wrote: »

Yep, second cousins first removed is what I come up with too. I wouldnt be too concerned with it to be honest, once you are further removed than first cousins, unless you know yourself to have recessive traits for a certain condition, whats the harm? Im pretty sure that even catholic canon on degrees of sanguinity allowed second cousins, nevermind once removed, to marry.

First cousins are allowed to marry in most of Europe including here although I wouldn't agree with that.

Your aren't that closely related so if that doesn't upset then go for it. If it were me I would end the realationship immediately but thats how I feel about the situation personally.

LadyJ

I've read that genetically it's more dangerous for second cousins to have a kid together than for first cousins to do so. Perhaps this is incorrect but I'm pretty sure it's true.

Dancor

High&Low wrote: »

.

This is the same as Queen Elizabeth II and her husband Prince Philip.

And this sort of In-breeding causes the likes of Prince Charles

My cousin is in the same sitution with our other cousin of mine, They have made it work for about five years so far, Nobody ever found it weird as far as I know.

Drift

LadyJ wrote: »

I've read that genetically it's more dangerous for second cousins to have a kid together than for first cousins to do so. Perhaps this is incorrect but I'm pretty sure it's true.

I find that extremely strange, do you have any link to where you read it LadyJ?

RubyXI

Drift wrote: »

I find that extremely strange, do you have any link to where you read it LadyJ?

Ya i always thought it was second cousins that were the genetic problem too But i have no evidence. But if the OP is second cousin once removed it may be different again.

Drift

I always understood that anything further away than/beyond first cousins was ok. (i.e. Second, third, fourth cousins were ok because genetically they weren't that close to you whereas first cousins were too similar.)

LadyJ

Drift wrote: »

I always understood that anything beyond first cousins was ok. (i.e. Second, third, fourth cousins were ok because genetically they weren't that close to you whereas first cousins were too similar.)

Can't remember where I read it but when I get a chance I'll do a search. I have also heard the same thing from other people so it must be published somewhere! Otherwise maybe I'm going mad!

Will dig it out though.

Poco Loco

Not planning on having babies with this guy any time soon so not worried on the genetics front yet! I guess I am more worried about the moral right/wrongness of it. And also what people think. I have a feeling that if we are related this way (have yet to confirm, need to check it out further) that he will want to call a halt to things anyway. I don't think it would be weird, because we are so completely distant relatives in my mind. But if people think it is strange/wrong I couldn't be happy with it. But I like him very much. Aaargh!

With regard to the first/second cousin thing I'm sure I heard before that 1st cousins are allowed to marry no problem in the Catholic church but 2nd cousins need to get special permission? It makes no sense.

How did you work out that we are 2nd cousins once removed? I thought it would be a lot more distant...

(Sorry I think I am grasping at straws here)

Drift

http://books.google.com/books?id=chieefSNpwEC&pg=PA53&lpg=PA53&dq=genetic+risk+second+cousin&source=web&ots=ULfN56Vtvv&sig=ZC8EMSPHL1DFogcYF9ll4NdprDA#PPA53,M1http://books.google.com/books?id=chieefSNpwEC&pg=PA53&lpg=PA53&dq=genetic+risk+second+cousin&source=web&ots=ULfN56Vtvv&sig=ZC8EMSPHL1DFogcYF9ll4NdprDA#PPA53,M1

Bit of googling came up with this link from a book called Clinical Genetics in Nursing Practice. It seems to state that (in the abscence of positive family history and in good economic conditions) the chances of having a baby with a genetic disease in first cousins is 3-4% above the normal population risk and in second cousins it's 1-1.5% above the normal population risk.

Page 53, book was published in 2005.

Drift

Poco Loco wrote: »

With regard to the first/second cousin thing I'm sure I heard before that 1st cousins are allowed to marry no problem in the Catholic church but 2nd cousins need to get special permission? It makes no sense.

No you have that backways. The church allows 2nd cousing marriages with no issues, dispensation is required for first cousins. I think prior to a changing of the rules 1983 first cousins were completely banned and dispensation was required for second cousins. Maybe that's where the confusion came about.

A friend of mine has 2 first cousins that are now married. I was shocked to hear that . They Met at a family reunion :eek:

microgirl

Poco Loco wrote: »

Hi,

Kind of a weird one maybe. I have started seeing this guy recently and we are getting on very well. We are from the same town and have known each other years so it is nice to have that as a basis, things have been going really well since day 1. Anyway.

We found out by pure fluke a few weeks ago that we may be related. In fact we definitely are. Not in the weird way I hope! But from what I have learned - his grandmother and my great grandmother were sisters. What I'm wondering is what does that make us? 4th cousins!? 1st cousins a few times removed?!

And more importantly, is it weird/wrong for us to continue this relationship if we are related in this way? We've put things sort of on hold since the revelation. I like him a lot and want to get this back on track...once it's not morally wrong!? Would be really keen to get people's opinions/advice on this.

Thanks.

2nd cousins once removed. Too close for Consanguinity Laws (meaning if you are Catholic, and wanted to get married [let's say - I know this is purely theoretical ] in the Roman Catholic church then you can't. Marriage between cousins up to 3rd cousins is forbidden.

Genetically, I don't think there'd be a huge problem, but it's years since I did genetics.

Morally and ethically, the choice really has to be up to you I think. IMO it'd be too close, but then I have a very traditional Irish family in that all the vastly removed cousins are all well known and very much "family", and I'm also not the one potentially falling for my cousin

littlebug

Poco Loco wrote: »

How did you work out that we are 2nd cousins once removed? I thought it would be a lot more distant...

Poco Loco wrote: »

Hi,
But from what I have learned - his grandmother and my great grandmother were sisters. What I'm wondering is what does that make us? 4th cousins!? 1st cousins a few times removed?!


Thanks.

His grandmother and your great grandmother were sisters.
His parent and your grandparent were first cousins.
Himself and your parent are second cousins....therefore you and he are second cousins once removed i.e a generation apart.
If he had a child with someone else then you and that child would be third cousins.

I have to say I'd find it very strange as, I think, would my family. but then I don't have very many first cousins and so my second cousins seem like very close family.

old boy

1st cousins are allowed to marry, if you are of the R.C. religion then you will require a dispensation to marry, IMO you are more that that away, enjoy life, do not but opsticals in your way that may not exist

EamonnKeane

LadyJ wrote: »

I've read that genetically it's more dangerous for second cousins to have a kid together than for first cousins to do so. Perhaps this is incorrect but I'm pretty sure it's true.

No. One shares about 12.5% of one's DNA with a first cousin, compared to 7%with a second cousin.

Bottle_of_Smoke

LadyJ wrote: »

I've read that genetically it's more dangerous for second cousins to have a kid together than for first cousins to do so. Perhaps this is incorrect but I'm pretty sure it's true.

I've heard this before but I can't see how it could be true. You have twice as many genes in common with a first cousin than a second.

Op, 12.5% of your genes are shared with your great grandmother & your BF shares 25% of his genes with his grandmother.

I'm not sure but I'd imagine you & the BF share between 6.25%(same as second cousins) & 12.5%(same as first cousins)

Don't think I'd be comfortable with this.

Victor McDade

She said she's not worried about the genetic side of things at the moment, just the "idea" of it all. Personally, it wouldn't bother me

microgirl

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

I've heard this before but I can't see how it could be true. You have twice as many genes in common with a first cousin than a second.

Op, 12.5% of your genes are shared with your great grandmother & your BF shares 25% of his genes with his grandmother.

I'm not sure but I'd imagine you & the BF share between 6.25%(same as second cousins) & 12.5%(same as first cousins)

Don't think I'd be comfortable with this.

It's an old wives tale based on the pre-understanding-genetics observation that problems often skipped a generation. Or so we were taught in Genetics class.

minidazzler

Your GGM                           His GM
                         |                                  |
                         |                                  |       
                         |                                  |
                      Your GParent                      His Parent
                         |                                  |
                         |                                  |
                      Your Parent                          Him
                         |
                         |
                        You

Its 7 degrees of Separation so you should be fine

The G Child

People will always have moral problems with this, but that doesn't really count for anything. It's the genetics that would be more of a worry personally.

Poco Loco

microgirl wrote: »

2nd cousins once removed. Too close for Consanguinity Laws (meaning if you are Catholic, and wanted to get married [let's say - I know this is purely theoretical ] in the Roman Catholic church then you can't. Marriage between cousins up to 3rd cousins is forbidden.

Genetically, I don't think there'd be a huge problem, but it's years since I did genetics.

Morally and ethically, the choice really has to be up to you I think. IMO it'd be too close, but then I have a very traditional Irish family in that all the vastly removed cousins are all well known and very much "family", and I'm also not the one potentially falling for my cousin

Would the Catholic Church consider cousins and cousins once removed the same thing? I know and am friendly with a lot of my far removed cousins, and so is he, but in all our time knowing each other it has only come to light now? It makes me think that we can't be THAT close. Like there's never been a celebration/wedding/funeral we've both attended so how close can it be!? That is the way I am looking at it so I don't think it is 'wrong'. However, I think he does so the decision might be made for me.

Poco Loco

minidazzler wrote: »

Your GGM                           His GM
                         |                                  |
                         |                                  |       
                         |                                  |
                      Your GParent                      His Parent
                         |                                  |
                         |                                  |
                      Your Parent                          Him
                         |
                         |
                        You

Its 7 degrees of Separation so you should be fine

Thanks, that is the way I see it too....can you come explain that to him for me!

AckwelFoley

LadyJ wrote: »

I've read that genetically it's more dangerous for second cousins to have a kid together than for first cousins to do so. Perhaps this is incorrect but I'm pretty sure it's true.

I was told that too.

I know a few sets of first cousins that have married. Oddly enough they are all in Roscommon, but thats beside the point. Anyhow, they have perfectly healthy children, i dont know about second cousins though.

Its a tough dilema.

maceocc2

Mis read the orignal post My mistake

greenkittie

My mummys best friend married her cousin and they turned out 4 althletic oxford graduates

Aran61

Morally, it's probably wrong. It'd be a bit like sleeping with your Uncle or something. Genetically, I'm not sure. I had a friend who's brother married their cousin. One of their kids came out ok but the other one talks real slow. He's not really retarded just a bit slow. And he walks funny but that could be just his diet or something. He's not a mutant or anthing.

Zillah

Aran61 wrote: »

Morally, it's probably wrong.

Why?


Morality is a system by which we judge the fairness of our actions towards other people.

The very notion that morality should play a part in deciding if two consenting adults should have a relationship is preposterous.

This has nothing to do with morality.

Aran61

Zillah wrote: »

Why?


Morality is a system by which we judge the fairness of our actions towards other people.

The very notion that morality should play a part in deciding if two consenting adults should have a relationship is preposterous.

This has nothing to do with morality.

You left out the fact that morality is a system by which we subjectively judge the fairness of our actions towards other people.

All I'm saying, subjectively, is that I think it would probably be wrong. Especially if they reproduce and have a slow child. That's not very fair to the child.

Marksie

be carafeul Aran61 about dragging off topic. If you wish to talk about morality take it to humanities. Also unless you are a geneticist you do not have the qualifications to determine if the "slow" child was due to cosanguinity.

This is the second thread you have been warned in.

Read the charter

Aran61

Marksie wrote: »

be carafeul Aran61 about dragging off topic. If you wish to talk about morality take it to humanities. Also unless you are a geneticist you do not have the qualifications to determine if the "slow" child was due to cosanguinity.

This is the second thread you have been warned in.

Read the charter

I didn't go off topic. Zillah's the one who wants to talk about morality. I only brought it up becasue The OP said "I like him a lot and want to get this back on track...once it's not morally wrong!?". Then Zillah had a go at my definition of morals. Also, I also don't profess to be a geneticist. I specifically said that I wasn't ascribing my friend's brother's kid's slowness to mutant genes. I said it could be his diet or anything.

Beruthiel

*boggle*

Aran banned for a week.
B

Baudelaire

I don't think it's morally wrong at all OP, you're both pretty far apart in relative terms, tbh I'd say it happens more often than you'd think and people never even find out. The best thing to do is find out for sure and then both of you sit down and have a mature discussion about it and let him know you don't have a problem with it and maybe tell him how you feel about him.

JuliusCaesar

In the days before travel was easy, families tended to live close together and there was a hell of a lot of intermarriage. Second cousins once removed?! No problem. No problem, genetically, morally, politically, emotionally ........... unless you make it one.

(Especially if the family genetics are ok! - but that's just of concern to breeders...)

chris_oc

itd be to close for comfort IMO!
only thing is i wouldnt be wonderin if it was morally correct only that everybody might start talkin about it!!
depends on if your strong enough to cope with knowin that people will talk..

Racing Flat

Similar thread to this a few weeks ago - this was my reply (from a very recent Genetics book)...

The average marriage in Europe is between 6th cousins, ie two people who share a great, great, great, great, great grandparent. Only learnt this recently - will have to check myself and the wife's family trees!!!

Unrelated parents have a 2% risk of having a child with a genetic problem. First cousins who marry have a 5% risk. So not as big an increased risk as you might think because we are esentially all descended from so few people. Imagine your typical small rural area/village in Ireland with a population of only a few hundred where people married people local enough, before we had much transport etc. They must have been very closely related. 1million of the 3million whites living in South Africa in 1972 were descended form 40 original settlers and their wives....

You have probably been with someone much more closely related to you previously, particularly in a place as small as Ireland, you just didn't realise it.

Racing Flat

EamonnKeane wrote: »

No. One shares about 12.5% of one's DNA with a first cousin, compared to 7%with a second cousin.

I think it's more like we share more than 95% DNA with every other human on the planet.

Talliesin

While people tend to underestimate how much travelling happened in historical times (and how much non-North European blood flows through the veins of even the palest white person, and vice versa) most people picked their lovers and spouses from a relatively small stock of people whose ancestors had been doing the same.

As such pretty much all of us have some cousins etc. in our ancestry. Generally we're pretty ignorant of any ancestry beyond a couple of generations, unless we can trace our ancestry to link up with a well-known (aristocratic and/or royal) lineage in which case we will soon find some weirdness in the line in this regard. Even then it doesn't take long until the lineage hits claims to have been descended from mythical heros, gods, fairies, selkie-women etc.) or doubtful claims to historical figures of mythical import (of the half-dozen people I know that are supposed to be descended from William Wallace I'm only inclined to believe the single one that can find someone with that surname within three generations).

In practice it's only when cousins marry cousins who are the offspring of cousins who are the offspring of cousins who are the offspring of cousins that you hit problems. Small villages with particular difficulty moving in and out (there's a few like that in mountainous areas) and the House of Holstein-Gottorp-Romanov and even in that case you hit a few peculiarities rather than serious defects (even the haemophilia that ran through the House of Holstein-Gottorp-Romanov is hardly an indicator of rampant genetic crisis, haemophilia is still a pretty common genetic condition, and since it travels on one of the sex chromosones it was going to continue down that lineage in any case).

In all then, don't worry about your grandmother and his great-grandmother being sisters, unless perhaps they were also cousins, each others neices, and one was also the others mother. Genomes are more resiliant than that.

LegacyUser

Just saw this thread and thought this article might be helpful.



Marrying a distant relative could mean a larger family, according to Icelandic researchers who studied their nation's genetic record.
The Science journal study found third and fourth cousin couples had more children than those more distantly related.

These cousins may be biologically more compatible, the specialist genetics firm deCODE concluded.

However, there was no advantage in partnerships involving first cousins.

Full story
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7233590.stm

davyjose

greenkittie wrote: »

My mummys best friend married her cousin and they turned out 4 althletic oxford graduates

Yeah the way it works afaik is that with family reproducing with each other, anything genetically abnormal with one person is much more likely to be in the children and much more prominent, whereas with unrelated people, the abnormalities are kind of filtered out.
The thing is, this might be a bad thing (like a deformity), but it can be a good thing too - such as the example above.