15 Celebrities Who Married A Cousin

December 10, 2014  |  
1 of 15

WENN

Today, only six states allow marriage between first cousins, but bans on marrying one’s cousin only just started popping up in the last century. And in some countries it’s still allowed! Here are 15 celebrities who married a cousin.

Flickr.com

 

Rudy Giuliani

The former governor of New York famous for being unmerciful on criminals married his second cousin, unbeknownst to him. Giuliani thought Regina Peruggi was a third cousin, but he later discovered she was his second.

WENN

Queen Elizabeth II

The current Queen of England and her husband Prince Phillip are second cousins, once removed, through King Christian IX of Denmark and third cousins through Queen Victoria.

Wikipedia.org

Edgar Allan Poe

The author of such twisted tales as “The Fall of the House of Usher,” married his first cousin, Virginia Clemm, when she was just 13 years old.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Wikimedia.org

Jesse James

The famous outlaw Jesse James broke more laws than we know (well, at least it would have been illegal today)—James married his first cousin, Zerelda Mimms, with whom he had two children. Zerelda was even named after James’ own mother.

Wikimedia.org

 

Albert Einstein

Einstein held a lot of knowledge, but no knowledge of the dangers of procreating with a close relative. Einstein married Elsa Lowenthal (she had her last name from a previous marriage) who was Einstein’s first cousin on his mother’s side and second cousin on his father’s side.

WENN

Kevin Bacon

The star of “The Following” and his wife of over 20 years, Kyra Sedgwick, recently discovered they are very distant relatives—9th cousins, once removed.

 

WENN

Jerry Lee Lewis

The rock and roll singer of “Whole Lotta Shakin’ Going On” shook things up in a bad way with his career when he married his 13-year-old cousin when he was 22. He lost many fans over this move.

Wikipedia.org

 

Johann Sebastian Bach

The famous German composer married his second cousin on his father’s side, a Maria Barbara Bach. The two had seven children together but only four survived childhood.

Wikimedia.org

Thomas Jefferson

One of our Founding Fathers married his third cousin, a Martha Wayles Skelton. Skelton was a widow when the two married, and after giving him six children, she would leave Jefferson a widower.

 

Wikipedia.org

Franklin D. Roosevelt

Our 32nd president married his fifth cousin, once removed, Eleanor Roosevelt. The two met as children but become close at a party at the White House hosted by the president at the time, and shared relative, Teddy Roosevelt. FDR’s own parents were sixth cousins.

Wikipedia.org

 

H.G. Wells

The author of the eerie “The Island of Dr Moreau”—a science fiction novel about a doctor who creates human-like beings out of animals—did some dangerous mixing of genes in his own life and married his first cousin, Isabel Mary Wells.

Wikipedia.org

Charles Darwin

Darwin studied evolution extensively in animals but apparently not in humans. Darwin married his first cousin Emma Wedgwood, with whom he had 10 children.

 

 

Wikipedia.org

 

The star of “Winnie the Pooh”

The inspiration for the “Winnie the Pooh” character Christopher Robin is the author’s real son, Christopher Robin Milne. Milne married his first cousin Lesley de Selincourt, but has said the two never met in childhood.

Wikipedia.org

John F. Fitzgerald

Member of the United States House of Representatives and grandfather of John F. Kennedy, Fitzgerald married his second cousin, Mary Josephine Hannon.

Trending on MadameNoire

View Comments
Comment Disclaimer: Comments that contain profane or derogatory language, video links or exceed 200 words will require approval by a moderator before appearing in the comment section. XOXO-MN
  • Aspen Rau

    Um you realize that 20 states allow cousin marriage, right?

  • Ezrollin

    Hell, you may be married to one of your cousins if you dig back far enough, other than my first I don’t even know any of my cousins.

  • Ezrollin

    I thought that was reserved for Royal families .

  • Ezrollin

    Other than a first cousin what’s the problem…how far do you take it ?

  • Ezrollin

    All in the family !

  • Willam Nat

    this article is a year old. Why is it on your main page?

  • Terry LeRoy Payne

    What a joke!!!
    There is no problem in marrying a first cousin as recently studies have shown no increase genetic risk. Some cultures that commonly marry first cousins do have problems, i.e. grandparents married first cousins also.
    When is the last time that a person was charged with marrying a cousin?!!

  • Caydence James

    Anybody notice a trend with these people? *Smirk*
    #stereotypeswhitesdontknowabout

  • Keva

    These two should not even be mentioned they are cousins so far removed.

  • Keva

    So, Royals have always done this. Cleopatra and Aknatan (of Egypt) both married their siblings. A lot of Egyptian royals did this. Royals often married first cousins.

  • Keva

    Nothing at all wrong–morally or legally–with marrying a second cousin.

  • shanedr

    It is a fallacy that marrying a cousin is risky. In fact if you and your intended don’t have any genetic diseases marrying a cousin, especially a first cousin, is less risky than marrying a total stranger. Legislatures need to take a course in genetics.

  • Michael

    I’d only tap my hot cousins.

  • Cappy Walls

    Incest generally is considered parent to child, or sibling to sibling. 1st cousin marriage may be a bit iffy for the Gene pool, but anything beyond that, a first once removed, 2nd, 3rd, etc. is just no problem and not even worth mentioning. Often a person may not even know who their third cousins are unless they are into Genealogy. Look at it this way, first cousins share the Genes of 4 people, 2nd cousins share 8 people, and 3rd share 16 people (16 sets of genes) Putting the “Bible” aside, it just is not wise to limit the Gene pool by procreating with a First Cousin, hence the laws in some states that forbid it.. Only 6 of these people married 1st cousins, so no big deal!

    • Joshua Ward

      First cousin is still very much considered incest, it is just not as heavily frowned upon as immediate family. You will still have genetic defects, just not as near a high percentage.

  • William Burke Jr

    That is completely false that only 6 states okay first cousin marriage. Actually, 20 states allow first
    cousin marriage: California, Colorado, Massachusetts , Connecticut, Vermont, New York, New Jersey,
    Tennessee, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Florida, Hawaii, Wisconsin,
    New Mexico, Alaska, MIssissippi, and Rhode Island.

  • Joanne Ortiz Rodriguez

    RUDY GIULIANI was NYC’s Mayor not GOVERNOR.

  • JonSEAZ

    Queen Elizabeth II and her husband Prince Phillip are
    second cousins, once removed, through King Christian IX of Denmark and
    third cousins through Queen Victoria–and Prince Charles is the stand-out product of that genetic concentration.

  • BobTrent

    “Today, only six states allow marriage between first cousins”

    Incorrect. The following states, and DC, do not prevent first cousin marriages:

    Cousin marriage legal:

    Alabama, Alaska, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina*, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Vermont, Virginia and District of Columbia. — National Council of State Legislatures

    N.Carolina prohibits double cousin marriages: Children of two brothers who marry two sisters may not marry.

    The US is one of the few countries in the world that has any restriction on cousin marriage, which is a major class of marriage in the world today and throughout the ages. No European country has civil laws that inhibit cousin marriages.
    Anthropologist Martin Ottenheimer shows that, based on the findings of modern genetics, the belief that children of first and even second cousin marriages are more likely to be defective is false; children of cousins are at no special risk.
    The states that have bans on cousin marriages have no scientific or cultural reasons for the bans; therefore, they are committing a violation of the right to marry, which is protected by the federal and state constitutions. To impede constitutionally protected rights the state (government) must show a compelling state interest in the restraint.

    • Joshua Ward

      Given the current state of genetics being dumbed down by various toxins in the body and medications for two or three generations, there is still a genetic risk between cousins.

  • jane

    kevin bacon and her aren’t cousins! He was just on the view talking about how they met.

  • Joshua Ward

    Couldn’t resist replying, could you? Your only “proof” is a theory that takes more faith to believe than religion. I”m supposed to believe all life developed from primordial ooze under conditions that are mathematically and scientifically impossible and would be laughed out of the room is presented by any other group. No animal or human being has been seen in a transition phase from one species to another, in fact, humans are rather regressing than evolving. I don’t see Americans adapting to obesity, or our immune systems becoming stronger. In fact, it is far weaker than ever in history, and let’s not talk about mental development. We are de-evolving compared to other nations because of our lazy and Hedonistic lifestyles, that I would believe.

    Wow, James Ussher is the only guy to ever verify something life that since the 1600s >_> I’m quite sure others have come after him and looked into his method of dating. So if we can’t observe it, it does not exist (out of sight, out of mind)? Others have added evidence to his conclusions, which you would call incorrect because they disagree with your assertions.
    I could say the same of a theory that says something took place billions of years ago over millions for me to exist, and there is no evidence of such things having happened in human existence. That is why millions of years comes into play, it puts the observable evidence past our lifetime and can never be verified. We must believe it because they say so based on THEIR evidence. There is no observable evidence of a transition in any species. Thank you for your opinion, but I believe we have only been here for over 6,000.
    Because Brother’s Grimm is fantasy, and the Bible is not based on fantasy works rooted in folklore and paganism. However, I know many science-fiction stories that deal with a world that existed over billions of years and eventually, aliens come to reveal their plan for mankind. Kinda like many educated evolutionists believe 🙂 It just makes more sense, right?

    Let’s disprove a billion year old Earth:

    How can we observe galaxies which rotation speeds should be un-observable because of how fast they should be if truly millions or billions of years old? Not even evolutionists have the answer for this, but have presented theories with holes in them. “Density waves” has even been questioned by the Hubble’s visual evidence, contradiction that theory.
    Wind and water disintegrate 20 billion tons of dirt and rock each year. That turns into sediment depositing on lava formed rock on the ocean floor, but the sediment overall is only 400 meters. If plate tectonic (subduction) removes the buildup, with only 1 billion tons being removed. That means the present amount of sediment would be removed in about twelve million years…catch that? Doing the math, there should be kilometers worth of sediment buildup if the Earth is billions of years old. Doesn’t add up.
    The Kuiper Belt should not exist. Since comets are supposed to be debrief from the creation of universe, it is hard to explain the sun disintegrated them to the point they can’t last more than 100,000 years. Secular science says oort clouds far beyond Pluto’s orbit are where comets come from, along with stars and planetary gravitation veer the ones we see into our solar system. However, the Kuiper Belt exists just outside Pluto’s orbit, and without the Oort cloud, the collective should have been exhausted long ago.
    Supernovas occur every 25 years or so, from what we have observed in our solar system. Only 200 hundred remnant gas formations have been seen, which equates to 7,000 years worth of supernovas, not billions or millions of years worth.
    Did you even answer the question of the gravitational field fading too quick?
    The radiohalos in the Calorado Plateau show that Jurassic, Tirassic, and Eocene formations occurred within months of each other, not millions of years. Polonium-218 orphans don’t have their original elements left, showing that accelerated nuclear decay took place with rapid formation of minerals. This of course, supports the violent world flood theory.
    Where the heck are the fossils of the people that supposedly existed when man came to be?! There should be ten million of them, many of which were buried (or so we have discovered in oldest civilizations). Only several thousand have been discovered thus far and makes no sense considering how long the Stone Age supposedly existed. Bones should last longer than 1 or 200,000 years, but we have yet to find billions of remains that should exist. If we were hunters/gatherers for 185,000 years and agriculture was around since 100,000 years ago, how stupid were they if they?
    Also, if these rock smashers were able to build megalithic structures, paint and make record of the stars, it took nearly 2000,000 years for them to start a written record that began only 5,000 years ago???

    I know what you meant, but I could easily say for the possibilities of population growth, as I did, the numbers are quite possible. As you said, there is much to take into account from various periods in history.

    Thank you for telling me how a graph reads…? A graph is a system to take into account an estimated number, not what actually takes place with all accounts, but makes a decent visual. Saying that does not dismiss the fact that from one date to another, a huge population growth took place, with the best estimates given. I could pick another date to illustrate my point, with less or more supporting evidence.

    Again, you are going by a preconceived notion. You ASSUME the Earth has existed for X amount of years, so anything you calculate is fixed within that. I already explained that the dating system was created even before methods of measurement were created, but still you insist. What I am saying is that you are working only within a set boundary and cannot deviate outside of it, much like myself, EXCEPT that I have given evidence that supports my stance. You could do the same on each of those points, and we are still chasing each other’s tail.

    Your theory of how we came to be does not agree with mine, both using science to prove this. You say mine theory is bogus because it leans on the Bible and the founding Christian scientists, and I say the same of yours because your information comes from a government funded, political-based science, Though the identical blueprint in all living things DNA supports Creationism rather than the random-chance event Evolution says occurred, and thus why more logical evolutionists are turning against Darwiniasm in favour of explaining how this coding is able to exist within evolutionary realms. The answer thus far is alien seeding, once thought to be just as much fantasy as God parting an ocean.

    • Video Militia

      First of all stop saying “secular science.” It’s called SCIENCE. Whatever inbred backwoods Southern swamp you grew up in didn’t teach you what that word even means. Again with your “government funded” conspiracy theory crap. There’s not enough time in my day, wiping my arse with your inconsistent, uneducated dribble to go point by point logically only to have you come back with your paranoid and illogical weaving of “evidence” which is actually simply faith.

      If you REALLY wanted to expand your mind on the issue walk into the office of a major “secular” university and speak to the department head of astronomy, biology, anthropology… Take your pick. Maybe you can bounce your down syndromed ideas off of them. That’s what an intellect would do. They would challenge every single preconception you had with MOUNTAINS of observeble facts. Guess what they don’t necrssarily contradict the existence of God either. That’s your baggage. So instead of seeing science as filling in the blanks of your faith you see it as this giant conspiracy in opposition. That’s because you’re trapped in your own scared version of reality. It’s pathetic.

      Three things describe your condition: cognitive disconnect, logical fallacy and blissfully ignorant.

      Here I’ll throw you once last curveball to humor myself: DINOSAURS and HUMANS. Where are they now? Go.

  • GKM

    Giuliani was never governor of New York. So if they can’t get that simple fact right how can we believe on this site.

  • James de Christ

    Marrying a first cousin was not incest anywhere until the most recent hundred
    years and then only the first cousin and not even in all areas/nations.
    Second cousin or more is not incest in any area/nation as it poses no genetic risk. Less than half
    the states in the USA ban first cousin marriage contrary to this article
    and it is 100% legal in Canada and throughout Europe. The fact is, marrying a
    first cousin increases risk of a significant birth defect from 3 percent for non first cousins to 4 percent for first cousins, not considered a significant enough risk to justify outlawing banning marriage of first cousins or even requiring genetic testing of first cousin couples.

  • AUGUST

    YEARS AGO WHILE UP STATE N.Y. I HAD A CONVERSATION WITH A STATE TROOPER. SHE SAID THE MOST PREVILENT CRIME WAS INCEST. SO MOST OF THE OPINIONS I’VE READ HERE ARE ERRONIUS.
    SINCE UPSTATE N.Y. HAVE LONG WINTERS MANY FAMILIES ARE COOPED UP FOR LONG PERIODS OF TIME WITH NOT MUCH TO DO BUT !!!!!
    WOW YOU GUESSED IT

  • Diane Sampson

    You missed one. Richard Carpenter (of the Carpenters) married his first cousin, Mary Rudolph.

  • Jimmy

    Giuliani is worried about the validity of the president’s birth certificate when he should be worrying about the validity of his marriage certificate with his kissing cousin

  • Jim

    The queen of ENGLAND and not the UK. This comment must have come from America!

  • Danny D

    Most of these are 2nd, 3rd, 5th, 8th cousins? Title should be changed

  • The risk of birth defects is about 2-3% among people who are unrelated.
    For first cousins that rate doubles to 4-6%
    For second and third cousins the increase is little if any.

  • Robin Thomas

    Marrying your cousin isnt incestuous– get some education people. And it shouldnt even be scandalous–genetically it means nothing. It has been a taboo but even that is silly.

  • Nick

    “Einstein held a lot of knowledge, but no knowledge of the dangers of procreating with a close relative.”
    Apparently neither does Julia Austin. Procreating with immediate family has risks, but first cousins and onwards are relatively safe. Pun not intended.

  • rayzee

    I believe that 9th cousin qualifies this for the stupid article award.

  • VerityHeld

    Kevin Bacon and Kyra Sedgwick are cousins? At nine times once removed? Now, really, me and my aunt’s cat are more cousins than they are!

  • Karen

    9th cousins once removed? Seriously? Is that scandalous? I guess I forgot to check whether my husband and I had any Great Great Great Great Great Great Great Great Grandparents in common!

  • Daniel Bond

    The Closer and the Following

  • Ashley

    I’m sorry but if I found out my boyfriend was actually my cousin that would be an immediate turn-off and the end of our relationship.

  • John Dewar

    trouble with this post is kevin bacon changed his name to bacon bits..to make some goat humping Muslims happy last i heard…….lmao……..poor kevin…the brunt of every single joke.

  • shellyTheGreat

    i wouldn’t call most of these people “celebrities” per se, more like historical figures.

  • Ronald Doss

    Rudi Giuliani was the mayor of NYC, NOT the governor of New York State. Who checks this info?

  • Varia

    Anything closer than 3rd degree is incestuous and disgusting!!

  • Morgan O’Brien-Bledsoe

    You go far enough back and we’re all related. Second cousins don’t share enough DNA for their mating to be a problem. That’s why it’s legal. Marring a first cousin is only illegal, in some states, because of the birth defects it causes. Incest isn’t even illegal at all in New Jersey if both people are over 18.

  • Patti

    Who cares if they married their 6th cousin?.. you made this story sound totally scandalous….In most states you just can’t marry your first cousin. That’s it… most people will end up related back at some point in time. I just found out my husband and I are related about 10 generations ago back in Wales. Oh no……

  • divine_msn

    Big deal! Issues of consanguinity in law are based on the Old Testament directives as per Leviticus … Cousin marriage was not on the list of forbidden sexual (marriage) partners. The discovery of higher risk of genetic conditions being expressed in the offspring of 1st cousins is now the general reason for the practice to be frowned on if not legislated against. Of course the opposite also applies: If there is an absence of ‘unhealthy’ genes in the lineage, the risk may be less than the general population. Any relation further removed is largely insignificant … This is a pretty ordinary attempt at sensationalism. Pls do better!

  • Micky Ouse

    if any kind of genetic relationship is mentioned about how close a relative is to me regardless of being separated by whatever , that’s just a NO NO , no lame excuses either , there’s 7 billion ppl on the planet , SERIOUSLY ! , REALLY !

  • disqus_xOD1CLpWY9

    EWWWWW!!

  • Al Dente

    Joshua, reptiles live entirely by instinct. They have no memory of the past nor anticipation of the future. Everything reptiles do is by instinct. Animals with more brain development have fewer instinctive and more learned behaviors. Many animals learn to forage or to hunt from their parents. Higher primates with more substantial brains learn social order, to use tools, etc. Humans have lots of instincts; for example the instinct to survive and to procreate. We learn lots of other things like typing and using the internet. Our ratio of instinctive to learned behaviors is a matter of degree. Humans are not the only self-aware specie. We know chimps, elephants, dolphins and magpies are all self-aware. Elephants, chimps, gorillas, giraffes and lemurs have been observed mourning the dead and elephants even have death rituals. Humans are animals with a highly developed brain because it gave us a survival advantage compared to less intelligent species. Our brain is also rather expensive, our brain consumes about 1/3 of our nourishment. Should our intellect no longer be necessary we would over time evolve to a less intelligent primate with a less resource intensive brain.

    • Joshua Ward

      Emotions are not separated by instinct/awareness. They are chemical reactions in the body, so any animal can experience this, like pain, to whatever degree they are hardwired. Also, what we perceive those animals to be doing is based upon our own human understanding of what we do. They can realize that one of their own is dead, that does not mean they contemplate where they went, or where they will go when they “no longer move/breath”.

      Lol! I think we should have de-evolved quickly considering how little people use their intellect now. Since I don’t believe in Darwinian evolution, my understanding is that exercise or lack of exercise of the brain will result in weakening or strengthening, not entire reversal. I do believe that because of the state of decay we and our world exist in, we are becoming more base (or willingness towards it), more susceptible to disease, but most of that is impossible to determine as natural because of the man-made hand in it through chemicals continually pumped into our body and destruction of environment.

  • quentin

    Cue”Dueling Banjos”

  • Royyce

    White people Shit…..Gross

  • redbirds

    Who can help me? I’m German and I have no idea what is meant by ‘once removed’. What does it mean? If I translate it into German it does not make any sense…

  • knotfreak

    We ARE animals–it’s not an insult. You need to go to college, and take some anthropology courses while you’re there.

    Also, a child isn’t “designed” at all. S(he) is born and develops according to the culture s(he) is born into. Humans have known for a very long time that too much inbreeding causes problems. Since they didn’t know about genetics, they subscribed this to the gods and associated it with evil, so it became generally taboo. Most cultures until very recent times did not include cousin marriage in these taboos; the reason being that cousin marriage doesn’t usually cause serious problems–not ones that would be associated to the inbreeding in times when many children died young anyway. When cousin marriage is continued for generations, the problems are likely to become obvious as with many royal families.

    You make too many absurd and unsubstantiated claims for me to correct in this space, but please do get some higher education. If you already have, I despair.

    • Joshua Ward

      Madam, college has nothing to do with seeking knowledge. It is more a breeding ground for actual animals to get drunk and drugged up, have sexual hazing rituals and rape females. Also, you are encouraging many people to fall into the debt trap that our nation depends on; imagine that, college debt is necessary for our country to function. Still, not many have a choice if they want that bit of advantage for a higher position than a non-graduate or find a career opening by miracle.You leave out the reality of college.

      I realize we have hair like mammals, but I am not an animal. An animal acts on base instinct while the human is able to reason it’s actions and contemplate its existence. I have yet to meet and ape or monkey to ask me, “Why am I here?”

      If “designed” was a bad term, then I am sure when I said developed or learns later, that should have let you know what I meant. It was associated with being wrong also because of the inborn disdain for it that the majority of people are born with. A disruption in the proper rearing leads to inbreeding.

      Sometimes cousin inbreeding did not cause problems, for some it did.

      If I made any absurd claims, you best correct them or refrain from even saying so. I stand by my words, you refuted none, only supported what I already discussed and touched on. The real shame is that you believe college is the only way to educate oneself. Are you suggesting without them, mankind would have no desire to educate himself? No one is born with the desire? If someone does not want to learn, they will not. They will drop out of high-school or college/not attend.

      Colleges use the same text books available to the public. From what I am hearing, the educational system (primarily America and Europe) is pathetic. Too much indoctrination, telling people what to think instead of how to think. If I want to learn, I will pick up a book or take to the internet, learning from myself, peers and those that came before. I despair you indoctrinated mindset. La mediocrita non e la parola….

      • knotfreak

        Well, Josh, as I said earlier, there is too much cognitive ignorance displayed in your thinking for me to undo–which is why I suggested education; another thing you totally misunderstand. Let me ask you something, do you want your doctor to be self-educated? Do you want your car mechanic to have trained himself online with no supervision other than Prof. Google? I am all for reading and self-education–I do it all the time myself, but I also have a basic formal education. Your characterization of college (and that is what it is) is just another of your frequent stereotypes.

        You might start with a biology textbook to get a proper definition of “animal”–it has little to do with hair. The difficulty in communicating with you is that because you lack education, you lack accepted definitions. You just ramble on willy-nilly about your impressions. Education would teach you to organize your thoughts, and how to convey them in writinig, because, no, it is not possible for me to “know what I meant” from what you wrote. That is the point of writing–to make the reader understand your thought, not to assume he or she will just somehow figure it out.

        Ignorance is not the same as stupidity, Joshua. You are inantely bright, but you are being held back by ignorance.

        • Joshua Ward

          You are speaking towards seeking an occupation when you were talking about informing oneself properly. Pick which one to stick with. One will most certainly have to go through a group of peers and mentors to be certified for where it needs be required.The ancient world operated this way before guilds and the prototypes for colleges appeared. However, we were talking about being informed on particular matters, which needs no other verification other than the information being presented. Now, whether that information is something unheard of or widely accepted are a different matter because we see Galileo and Newton encountered this. What the majority deems as correct is not always correct.

          The formal education you speak of comes with strings attached. In order to be certified or deemed having received the “proper education”, one must adhere to the accepted majority view, regurgitate that information and receive a piece of paper that says they are in fact as knowledgeable as they taught themselves to be. That paper in fact means nothing when the education and training is what made the difference, and that is not necessarily only found in colleges. I did generalize college that way because these are those same people showing themselves to be receiving a proper education while acting like those people would ignore sprawled out in a gutter or behind bars. Colleges are not at all what they once used to be and stood for. They are there for revenue and teaching an indoctrinate mindset for society, despite the hedonistic culture it perpetuates.

          If you wanted me to repeat a textbook definition to prove I know what a “mammal” is, that is ridiculously specific if you did no understand. Aside from that, a definition helps us understand what we observe around us so we can better grasp it. Those same definitions can be changed, just as they have been over time. One’s perception will have to change to, despite the whatever is being defined has not changed itself. Do you see that problem with that? It is all about the accepted perception of reality versus reality itself.

          How we look at things now is not how things were always viewed. An animal was considered just that, with similarities to humans. Now, we say we ourselves are animals, just far more evolved; how we perceived things is what changed because science shifted from being science under primarily Christian scientists to evolutionary science by Darwinian scientists. Now, before that goes into another subject, both views lack sufficient evidence to be considered fact. Even within evolution, scientists have long been questioning and accusing Darwinianism of holding back progress. So that is as it stands a house divided.

          Madam, I received a formal education, but I am not one to be a Pez machine of it. I took in what I learned, applied where it need be, but decided what was and was not true based on what I learned once outside institutionalized education. It is very limited, very biased to an alarming degree and poorly implemented. Especially America, as I said. Even a friend in Europe said the same for theirs. Education is a tool, not the bread and butter; it is up to us how to apply and use it, not perpetuate it and it only.

          I could say that same for you, but I will instead say that you should look at it from another perspective instead of thinking formal education as the final necessity where it is actually crippling young minds instead of allowing them to grow (properly) and think for themselves. Any institution that will flunk someone because of a different view without exploring, because it is not of the established majority, is no longer education; it is conditioning. We saw it plain as day with Nazi Germany and China, but not with ourselves.

        • Hadenuf_SA

          I’m interested to know which course he should choose to understand the subject matter being discussed as it’s rather varied? Should he become a Doctor, Archaeologist, Minister and so on? I’m a retired engineer, so I’ve been around the block a few times, and always interested in how people are reasoning, and why? My grown up daughter with children, has for many years said, “I’m like a three year old, never stops asking questions”. So please go lightly on me.

          • Video Militia

            I think he first and foremost needs an objective course on the history of the Bible. I don’t think he really understands it as a historical document. That would do him WONDERS in realizing the rational, objective world of science isn’t some paranoid plot by Satan to trick him. Then maybe he can move on to Logic 101, to learn the pitfalls of logical fallacies. Followed up with Biology 101, Anthropology 101 and Astronomy 101. And not from Liberty University or crackpot evangelical college. I know these kind of rants because I grew up in Missouri and people are literally hiding their heads under a rock because they can’t let go of their literal interpretations of the Bible. The Bible and Science don’t have to be in constant conflict if you learn to see the Bible for what it is. I always tell people like him that I come across that even Jesus himself told PARABLES! They weren’t meant to be taken literally but spoke to a larger “truth” and the takeaway is that the Bible in its entirety is not meant to be taken LITERALLY!

            • Hadenuf_SA

              Nicely written reply, yes the Bible needs to be understood and not be taken literally where illustrations are being used, but then to know what is literal. Thanks for replying.

            • Joshua Ward

              You can speak from a secular perspective all you wish, but that does not change what I believe. I won’t bother with your negative talk, but will focus on what you said of Jesus parables. Jesus always explained his parables to the apostles afterward because not even they understood them. Parables were clear in meaning, except all their hearts were closed to their meaning, because no one understood Scripture. That was the point. They looked for a Messiah conqueror, when he was the Messiah sacrifice. I think anyone can tell you they were not mean to be literal, not just because they were explained later.

              The only thing the Bible says should not be taken literally is prophecy. It is symbolic and meant to be the only thing needing interpretation; that interpretation is given throughout the Bible from Daniel to Revelation. They are the same vision, but in reverse. Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel’s vision are obviously written in a form meant for understanding of Scripture and the history it either looks back on or predicts for the future.

              You are a person that has sided with a secular theology, if not the Catholic one, that Scripture is not mean to be taken literally. It is, just not the prophecies. It says it itself, which many Christians and secularists ignore. People such as yourself are very common because your beliefs are dictated by others and for the favour of whom are deemed intellectual; your failing to understanding plain language to what the Bible actually says is your own failing, no another’s misunderstanding.

              If you need Scriptural proof the Bible is literal and prophecy alone is meant for interpretation, then I will be happy to educate you.

              • Video Militia

                It’s absoultely amazing to me that you are incapable of objective thought when it comes to the Bible because someone has taught you, let me rephrase INDOCTRINATED you, to believe that way. And you’re really missing out on a much, much larger understanding of the world because of it.

                FIRST OF ALL.. The Bible was compiled by MEN, it was not handed to us by God. That fact alone makes it vulnerable to human influence and fallibility. Need I point out it was largely compiled by the Catholic Church, an obvious boogeyman of whichever extremist interpretation you subscribe to. I’m guessing Southern Baptist, 7th Day Adventist or Pentacostal. Whichever it is they have really cheated you and it’s a shame.

                I would challenge you to try and examine the Bible as a historic document and think, “MAYBE I should take some of this to be a metaphor instead of trying to spin these convoluted arguments that contradict all observable facts and science.”

                The Earth is much, much older than 6,000 years old. Start with reading Genesis as if this was a metaphorical story and see what that could open your eyes to. This has no effect on the “truth” of the document it simply may show you a level of understanding that doesn’t put the entire rational and scientific world in conflict with your very limited narrative.

                If you need any “proof” that Genesis is a metaphor, or very ancient creation story, it’s really as simple as this: It’s simply not mathematically possible to go from two people to the world’s current population, 7 BILLION (not counting all the dead people who have ever lived) in a span of 6,000 – 2,000 years!! Factor in diversity of genetics and it’s not possible. Genesis is a beautiful story but it’s meant as an ILLUSTRATION. You don’t have to be told that to know it, you have common sense.

                Jesus probably was dealing with equally simple-minded people when he has to say, “Guys I’m just telling you this parable to make a larger point!” It’s like having to explain the punchline to a joke! It should be obvious but still people miss the point!

                • Joshua Ward

                  No one taught me, I was guided towards things and I learned for myself. Sorry,can’t use that one. Nothing about what you say is objective, it rejects the Bible in very instance simply because it speaks of things beyond your conception. You are told you are foolish to believe in the miracles that occurred, so you try and dismiss or explain in “logical” terms what it could have meant instead, so you are not ostracized.

                  Indoctrination comes from a widely accepted system or a exclusive, secretive one; neither of which I belong to. All my beliefs are supported by Scripture because that is what I learned from. I can’t say you understand anything of what the Bible actually taught, which was the literal second coming of Christ and mankind preparing itself for it.

                  Of course it was compiled by men, who else lived on this planet? Who else what the Bible meant for? You wanted God to write it all like the commandments, sign it? What makes you think we would believe words on stone? We would simply say a caveman or scribe did it. Do you see your logic?
                  Those men were inspired by God, thus why all they say is in harmony; they all lived in different time periods and of different backgrounds, but all speak towards the coming of Christ the first time and second time. The prophecies are told by men that not all knew one another, yet are in harmony.

                  If God exists, then why would He allow the one thing in this world that would guide us to Him to be tampered with? He wouldn’t or we would all be lost. That is why the Torah and a good deal of the New Testament writings survived. They are the original texts and we can see they are unaltered because what remains of the Jewish oral tradition confirms it as well. Our modern Bibles are wrong because of translation errors and flat out altering of Scripture, but the reference point is still available.

                  Need I point out that the Orthodox Church complied their books first then the Roman Church. Both added doctrines of their own creation if you look back in history, most coming from pagan religions (another sources of unbiblical doctrines). Why do you think pagans accuse Catholicism of stealing their religion? Constantine was into the religion of mithraism, which was another adaption of the mystery school teachings passed down from Babylon. Sol Invictus and the Goddess of Creation are what the Catholic Mary and baby Jesus represent.

                  Don’t worry about what I associate with because all churches are included in the daughters of Babylon; only remnant from all the churches will stand for Christ against the apostalic system. We see the churches siding with the secular world now, abandoning their beliefs for favour with the world. That is prophecy in motion, and clearly written of. All that remains is the great falling away and the man of perdition to appear, followed by the close of probation. Then the end comes.

                  Why? Secular history deliberately altered so that biblical history seems in error, The world’s dating follows that of Egypt’s calendars, which puts the biblical dates off by a good measure. The Bible followed the Hebrew nation as it became Israel, all they encountered and where they went. The largest oil deposit in the world was discovered by a man that traced the Garden of Eden’s location from where the Bible described it to be or near.
                  Any of that history is verifiable, especially of that during Jesus’ time. What cannot be verified are the miracles and true identity of Jesus, but prophecies have been fulfilled and verified to have occurred using the Bible. That research is up to you if you even care that much for the issue.

                  I’m not going to repeat myself if you haven’t followed by previous posts. I have commented that the earth was created mature like Adam, appearing older than what it is, but only existed for 6,000 years. However, it is a lie that it is billions of years old, that is a man-made concoction. Most of our methods of dating cannot even go that far back, so estimations are made (which is the same as guessing). Also, any dates that come up that do not match the preconceived notion of a billion year old earth, are dismissed because of the preconceived notion; that is a fallacy if there ever was one.

                  Genesis is a literal story. Where is the symbolism and metaphors? There are none. It meant what it said, regardless of whether you can accept or understand it. God is supposed to be beyond your reckoning or He would not be God, yes?

                  Your very ignorant to say that Jesus meant something else, when He told them exactly what He meant a few verses after He said the parable. There is no mistaking what He meant, because Paul was the last disciple that was directly chosen by Jesus and He did not teach contrary to the other apostles if they misunderstood Jesus. It is you that is missing the picture Jesus illustrated: That he came to sacrifice Himself for the world for the forgiving of sins, so that we might have everlasting life. He gave us prophecy and referenced the prophets, telling of how he should return and warning against Satan’s counterfeits and deceptions.
                  This is not mysticism, Jesus said His way was simple that all men should understand, even the simple. You are following a mindset that has long been opposed to the Bible because the truth is not something you want to accept for whatever reason.

                  There is a blessing for those that read and understand Revelation, as it says in the beginning. It says the writings can be understood, but you say otherwise? You speak contrary. Prophecy can only be understood by examining the word of God in entirety, accepting the literal and investigating the prophecies from one to another. The blessing is understanding what the future holds for those that do will be ready when He comes.

                  • Video Militia

                    You need to learn a little basic science before you can stand there in your ignorance and discount it. There are literally thousands of methods for dating the age of the planet and the universe. Not just carbon dating. Conveniently you keep skirting the basic mathematical problem your 6,000 year old creation theory has. With two people procreating there is no feasible way to create the 108 BILLION people that have lived on this earth in a 6,000 year old timespan let alone the 7 BILLION on this planet now. That’s just one example.

                    What is more likely? All science, and the hundreds of thousands of scientists in agreement on pretty basic foundational facts, are part of some conspiracy? OR not everything in the Bible is meant to be taken literally because it was written by ancient sand nomads with limited knowledge of the world?

                    God would not have given us these vast mental capabilities to have us cling to convoluted explanations when the more likely causes are visible as observable facts. You need to expand your mind from your mental blinders. I’m not going to waste anymore time with this.

                    • Joshua Ward

                      Your best method of disproving the Earth’s age is that it is impossible to populate the earth to the point it has in a little over 6,000 years? That is the most ignorant thing I’ve heard. With as quickly as our numbers have grown in just 200 years, I think you best reconsider your basic math skills. There was a moral fiber that prevented huge population booms, such as marriage before sex. That diminished over time, and then there is the factor of cultures promoting large families. Me thinks you need reconsider.

                      You keep saying science when you mean evolution. Evolution and Creationism are methods to explain what science simply observes, science does not dismiss nor promote on its own, it simply is observation. Ever since science became government funded, a shift in scientific study took place, and anything going against the accepted “truth” lost funding and never allowed into universities. You explain that when that was never the case before.

                      It is also a fallacy to consider ancient civilizations limited in knowledge or less intelligent when they formed the basis of everything we were able to discover now. They were far more intelligent than us, we are merely following in their footsteps and science has done nothing significant in a very long time. Technology has only gone as far as amusing the masses with technology that serves no benefit besides global connection and monitoring.

                      You need to look beyond what you can explain through limited means, for the human capacity and inventions are limited to a great degree. God granted us much more than a brain to analyze his fingerprint, which many believe has nothing to do with Him.

                    • Video Militia

                      No, it is you that needs to learn some basic math and reasoning. I took up to Calculus 2 in University. Pretty sure I’m way more educated in that department than you. 108 BILLION people in 6,000 years is not possible. But 108 BILLION people in 200,000 years is possible because guess what… THAT’S THE SCIENCE. Look at a simple graph of population cycles and it’s clear that to achieve this number you need a longer timeframe than 6,000 years. It’s not about MORAL FIBER. You conveniently hide behind these conspiracy falsehoods when faced with fact.

                      Furthermore, we know the atomic half-life of elements and we can date the planet that way. Oh but you’ll say the planet came to us in 7 days already at the astronomical age that we date it at. Convenient child’s tale.

                      Lastly evolution IS the accepted science. There’s thousands of examples, even modern day examples, to support natural selection, backed by genetic sequencing that can plot the interrelation between species.

                      It’s impossible to have an intelligent conversation with someone who says, “They were far more intelligent than us, we are merely following in their footsteps and science has done nothing significant in a very long time.”

                      ARE YOU F@#$^% kidding me? Heard of space travel? Genetic engineering? THE AUTOMOBILE? You really are delusional and hopeless to make a statement like that. I’m done feeding the crackpot. God gave people science to better understand his hand at work. But you’re a scared boy living in an “earth is flat” mindset.

                    • Joshua Ward

                      Did you just claim that taking Calculus makes you intellectually sound? You are the one that asserted that our population could never reach the billions in 6,000 years. Against mathematical understanding, you passed calculus by a miracle or hoping that no one would call you out for such a ridiculous claim.

                      Why do you keep mentioning conspiracies? Are you obsessed with them? The world population jumped from 1 billion in the 1800 to 7 billion by 2012. Against those numbers, are you REALLY trying to say that 6,000 years is not enough time to reach 7 billion? No idea where 108 billion came from, but current world population is 7,300,000,000 and counting. Consider the past plagues, anything that stunted population growth significantly and compare that to the population booms. Better living conditions, better resources. Your math is shite off.

                      Just because the answer does not please you, does not mean that it is not the answer. Prove that the earth was no created mature before presenting your theory as fact. My proof is in Scripture and what archeology outside government science shows, even evidence presented by former secular scientists.

                      [A half-life usually describes the decay of discrete entities, such as radioactive atoms. In that case, it does not work to use the definition “half-life is the time required for exactly half of the entities to decay”. For example, if there are 3 radioactive atoms with a half-life of one second, there will not be “1.5 atoms” left after one second.

                      Instead, the half-life is defined in terms of probability: “Half-life is the time required for exactly half of the entities to decay on average”. In other words, the probability of a radioactive atom decaying within its half-life is 50%.]

                      Also, the assumption that the rate of decay has remained the same, without changes in the environment playing a part, which we know it does, over billions of years on 80-90 years of study that they say has remained consistent is the hugest and most incomprehensible lie if it were to be presented in any other field of study, such as math.
                      Let’s not forget that the rock strada dates were assigned before 1911, when any system of dating had actually been created.

                      Evolution is the explanation of how we got here, science is the study of the world around us. For you to call them the same thing is an elementary students mistake and you are hardly qualified to continue this debate.
                      Evolution is the accepted theory, according to those that fund mainstream science. If you are calling that a conspiracy, apparently you are overlooking very visible evidence that government funds universities and science institutes. Not my fault you are in the dark on basic information.

                      If they had never laid the groundwork, how would would know half of what we do know? History is how we got here and where our knowledge comes from that allows us to progress. We have only orbited our planet, we can barely do that without a shuttle exploding (problem for over the last 60 years?) There is evidence that some ancient civilizations like Egypt had methods of genetic manipulation, through cross-breeding and others methods. Are you truly suggesting we are the first to think of it?

                      The automobile? You realize that the concept of such a thing derived from other modes of transportation, yes?

                      Ignoring your hateful bantering, I will say that Galileo found out the earth was round from the Bible. It was the mainstream scientists in his day that insisted it was flat 🙂

  • waynelaboy

    let me get this straight, darwin says blacks decended from apes? did he look in the mirror even once?

  • Al Dente

    There are a number of inaccuracies in this article. 1st cousin marriage is legal in all countries except the United States. In the US 1st cousin marriage is completely legal in 19 states and the District of Columbia. 1st cousin marriage is legal in in 6 more states under certain circumstances. Note that because of the “full faith and credit” clause of the constitution, states that prohibit 1st cousin marriage still recognize 1st cousin marriages from other states. Worst case, cousins who wish to marry but are unlucky enough to live in a state that prohibits their union can simply get married in a state where it is legal. Historically cousin marriage was common. In some societies it was a way to keep wealth in the family. By some estimates as much as 80% of all human unions were between cousins. The scientific consensus at one time was that cousin marriage weakened our genetic stock but there is only a slight (~5%) increase in rate of genetic defects in children of cousins and this may be offset by lower risks in other areas. Moreover, cousin marriage is not considered incest nor is it otherwise prohibited in the Bible.

  • bobwhite11

    Darwin’s wife evolved from a chimpanzee, who was Darwin’s first cousin on his father’s side….

  • bobwhite11

    9th cousins? Puh–lease. Whoever wrote this stupid article is probably more closely related to his dog than Kevin is to Kyra….

  • robertsgt40

    You forgot to mention George HW BUSH. He married his cousin. Explains a lot about Jr

  • Theodora

    The cheek of Charles Darwin!!

  • robert

    Hybrid and inbreed have some common characteristics. It’s a matter of science which way things go!

  • Adheeb

    If you go back far enough everyone is related. It is said that 80% of Muslims are descendants of Mohammed. What a surprise. So what? If Bob can marry his boyfriend, why can’t I marry my cousin. What bothers me is when Bob’s boyfriend is a poodle.

  • Once you get beyond first cousin, it really doesn’t matter (and isn’t illegal). So this is a lot of fuss about 4 people.

  • 100% white people inbreeding like that. I am NOT suprised!

  • lovelygamour

    a feel bad for the bacon’s. he married a jewess and still married a cousin. I know she was thinking the same thing.

  • Tyne

    Not surprised that ALL these people are white. They condone this sick kind of behavior or relationship.

  • shining.genji

    Jerry Lee Lewis married his 1st cousin once removed — his first cousin’s daughter — not his first cousin.

    so often the info on these kinds of lists are mistaken.

  • ghettotrashracistnegro

    ain’t nuthin’ wrong with ‘kissin’ cousins’…

  • Catharay

    Here’s an easy way to remember the cousin thing. First cousins share a grandparent; second a great-grandparent; third a great-great; and so on. A first cousin once removed is the child of your first cousin; their children are then second cousins to your children. The “removed” stuff gets complicated but they are off shoots between one generation and the next. But Kevin Bacon and his wife 9th cousins? I would say that many of us in the world are that or closer.

  • HurricaneCJ

    His 10 kids were probably as weird as he was to begin with !!!!!!

  • Ashley Bell

    9th cousins kinda doesn’t count really. We’re all pretty much at LEAST 9th cousins with a majority of the population. if 1st cousins share a grandparent. Then 9th cousins share a great great great great great great great great grandparent…That’s 11 generations back. roughly 300 years….

  • Sea Dog

    It’s okay so long as they don’t procreate, there are enough Michael Moores in this world.

  • PhilK

    “And in some countries it’s still allowed! ” That’s right, Madame N – ‘some countries’ being all of Europe, all of Africa, most of Asia, all of the Americas bar some states of the US… etc, etc. In other world, pretty much the whole world except for the good old parochial USA….

  • Richard A McKinley

    It isn’t incest or remarkable to have cousin marriage. And the article is incorrect. Actually… at least 21 states allow first cousin marriage… a few with restrictions. For example, in NC first cousin marriage is allowed unless the couple are “double” first cousins… the children of the parents who are 2 siblings who married 2 siblings… [sisters marrying brothers, etc] And Illinois disallows first cousin marriage except when the parties or over 50 or one is infertile. As many as 80% of marriages throughout history have been amongst 1st and 2nd cousins. Further… the US is the only nation in the Western World that has bans on cousin marriage.

  • J. Wong

    I think everyone on earth is at least 8th cousins so everyone is guilty of this.

  • shafawn

    They are pushing this ‘cousin’ marriage thing because recent studies show 55-70% of Muslims marry 1st cousins and have higher genetic birth defects than the general population.
    These celebrities married cousins but not FIRST cousins which compounds risk of birth defects.

  • Mistress

    many people chose to marry into their own family in the olden days because they believed it kept the line true. great kings in asia married their own sisters because of this, even cleopatra was married briefly to a younger brother though it was said they never consummated the marriage and she had it annulled when coming into power.

  • FP

    Kevin Bacon?

    • Shannon

      No. Read the disclaimer: they’re ninth cousins, once removed. In other words, nine generations ago, someone from her family married someone in his family. If you have to go that far back in the family tree to find a relationship, you’re doing better than most people. They’re not related by blood.

  • khantot

    White people………

  • 46RayCharles2

    The blue bloods….

  • Swingtime

    Einstein did not procreate with his second wife. In fact, it’s possible that their marriage was sexless. She was more of a mother figure to him. No big deal..

  • Eric Lencher

    Mentioning that Kevin Bacon and Kyra Sedgwick are 9th cousins is completely irrelevant. That is the exact relation that President Barrack Obama is to former VP Cheney, and there is no danger of people that distantly related getting married. That is several generations removed.

  • Eric Lencher

    Mentioning that Kevin Bacon and Kyra Sedgwick are 9th cousins is completely irrelevant. That is the exact relation that President Barrack Obama is to former VP Cheney, and there is no danger of people that distantly related getting married. That is several generations removed.

  • Eric Lencher

    Mentioning that Kevin Bacon and Kyra Sedgwick are 9th cousins is completely irrelevant. That is the exact relation that President Barrack Obama is to former VP Cheney, and there is no danger of people that distantly related getting married. That is several generations removed.

  • Jello

    We are all related so if our DNA were checked husband and wives all over will be told that they are 4th or 20th cousins. I think it is disgusting to marry a cousin if you know about it. first and second cousins genes are too close. The only ones on the list that were recent celebs was Kevin Bacon and they are 9th cousins.

  • rkb555

    Kevin Bacon 9th cousins ? That’s so distant that doesn’t even counts as relatives. If that’s the case, we’re all related.

  • Cheri Finkbiner

    inter marriage has been a too common practice within the royal family.

  • Cuzzin

    Marrying/having sex with a first cousin is like doing it with your sibling! However, these days, more than in the past, one never really knows who they are related to! I wouldn’t be surprised how common it is for if people to end up being married to their cousins (especially second cousins and beyond…) just by coincidence and not knowing their relatives. A DNA test can be quite shocking!!

  • Pointsofvision

    Rudy Giuliani thought his wife was a third cousin but it turned out she was a second cousin.
    Now that is really creepy. He mean to tell us that with 7 billion plus people on this planet, marrying his own family is an option?

    I know that man was a creep, I just couldn’t put a finger on it, now I know why.

  • Pingback: 15 CELEBRITIES WHO MARRIED A COUSIN! - PleaseKillMe®()

  • Guest

    unless your family has some very undesirable recessive genes – go ahead and marry a cousin! or sib, for that matter.

    • Simba711

      lol

  • Jesus

    there is nothing wrong with marrying your first cousin or sister. What is dangerous is to do it several generations in a row. Hawaiian royals mated siblings for several generations before problems began. They believed it was the only way to keep the genes clean.

  • SuYu

    I bet all the racists thought the list would include only White Southerners…..LOL

  • S + M SUXXX

    Out in BFE some families choose the mates for their children. Some such families even pair siblings together to go to HS dances. Absolutely sick and disgusting.

    • Tom Tucker

      Says who?

  • rar113

    Einstein didn’t have any children by Elsa. His two children were by Mileva Maric, his first wife. Edouard died in a mental institution, while Hans Albert became a well-respected physicist and engineer in his own right. Google for details.

    • Swingtime

      He also had a daughter, Liesl, who either died or was adopted when she was very young. Still a lot of mystery about this child.

      • Corinne

        Albert Einstein’s illegitimate daughter was named Lieserl.

        • Swingtime

          You are correct. Thank you!

  • Gr8tScot

    Um. That weasel Giuliani was never a Governor, he was the Mayor of New York City.

  • Ryan Lytle

    Some of these are way too distant to even have any similar blood. In a way, everyone is related to all others one way or another. First cousins, siblings, parent-child, aunt/uncle-nephew/niece is generally irresponsible, wrong, and dangerous to the parents and offspring.

  • Vick

    Most of those on the list aren’t “celebrities” so much as historical figures and Kevin Bacon? Married a 9th cousin? Oh puhleassse. That ain’t a first or second cousin. Doesn’t count.

    • Jane domes

      Ninth cousin,yeah we all know who our ninth cousins are.haha.

  • Ian Roshinaya

    keep it in the blood, yeehaah inbread lol

  • HAL 9000

    Also Greta Scacchi & Werner von Braun

  • bored

    who cares if famous people from 100 years ago married their own cousins………current is interesting…..been there done that is been there done that

  • Despot

    Why the hell are there so many snidey, derogatory comments accompanying the pictures of the different people, by whoever the journalist is….??
    The Presidents, Einstein, Darwin et al, have achieved far more than the scribe, trying far too hard, to be clever!!

  • Taryn Bryant

    Inbred!

  • Ford Truck

    In most traditional cultures, cousin marriage is the PREFERRED.marriage option. It keeps wealth within the extended family, and creates stronger family alliances. And for all you idiots out there, its NOT a black/white issue. Take some time to read a little history or anthropology before talking about something you know nothing about!!

    • J. Wong

      Although cousin marriage is preferred not all cousins. Most cultures have a preference cousin marriage but only one of cross versus parallel, which still is within the extended genetic family, but of course, depends on what is the cultural definition of family or clan. Note keeping wealth and stronger family alliances are at cross-purposes!

  • Devilrider

    In the ante-bellum South, it was a common practice to breed black youngsters (if they were big and strong) back to their mothers in order to produce big, strong field hands.

    • Emmylyn

      Where is the proof of this? I know they would force people to have sex to produce the biggest stock but never read of them doing what you wrote as this as this would create possible mental retardation and birth defects…Also the white man was busy raping and selling his own children he produced with the black women.

      • fredsook

        It was part of the work that an owner had to do back then. He would not have enjoyed it!

        • yoyoboy

          Your response is exactly the kind if excuse these men used to justify the hellish behavior. This is also the kind of excuse that even rapist of today are apparently to smart to parrot.

        • 1stNameLast

          Incorrect Sir! It was the Owner’s wife that didn’t enjoy it.

      • Tom Tucker

        And what might I ask is wrong with that?

    • Joshua Ward

      Never even heard of this. Ever. Please present evidence.

    • Quentin

      You’re not John Madden are you? He said the same thing, pretty much, and lost his job in the NFL booth

      • Corinne

        John Madden never said that. It was Jimmy the Greek and he was in a bar drinking when he made the statement.

  • Devilrider

    In some countries it is almost a requirement that you not marry outside the family – Saudi Arabia for example. The Royal Family routinely marry their half-sisters, first cousins, etc. In fact, a second cousin would be a too far distant relative to marry.

    • SuYu

      Very ‘redneck’ of them,….huh?

  • simhedges

    Nothing wrong with marrying a cousin. Just don’t do it too often in the same family.

    • Taryn Bryant

      Ewwwwww…!

    • Jane domes

      The DuPonts

    • Joshua Ward

      ….what? How many people on the planet and you choose a relative? o_O

    • Hello86

      Who upvoted that?

    • BigR2

      Exactly. If your cousin was pretty, sure I would marry her. Nothin wrong with marrying cousins, just not your own.

  • TrillProphecies93

    Of course this is white people. Tons of inbreeds.

    • BigDeal

      And they say its people who are raciest. Marrying cousins was a common practice among all races until the 19th century and in many cases is still practiced today. Do your research if your gonna post please.

      • Name

        white people*

      • Ford Truck

        Cousin marriage is still preferred in the majority of traditional cultures!

        • ikallicrates

          Marriage between cousins is a common way for the rich to keep money in the family. It’s the reason why banker Jakob Mayer Rothschild married his niece Betty, the daughter of his brother Solomon, in 1824.

    • #AllLivesMatterNotJustBlacks

      As many black girls who don’t know who their baby daddy is and the kids not knowing their daddy or his family, there of course is inbreeding in blacks as well. Half brothers and sisters messing around, cousins, nieces and nephews and dnt even know it. Then older guys who wna date young girls hve no idea if they are messing with their daughters or nieces! Tell me it aint so!! cuz we both already know! Tons of inbreeds!

      • Emmylyn

        Thank God for Maury Povich, Jerry Springer, Here comes Honey Boo Boo, Judge Judy, etc. and the Palin Family (uh huh them) and loads of other shows which constantly highlight the many white girls who don’t know who their baby daddies are, the kids not knowing their daddy or his family, and under-age sex, hillbilly rape, and promiscious white folk . The older white guys who fck their cousins like Jerry Lee Lewis, – tell me it ain’t so…. Of course we do know all about the white slob perverts that want to mix up the gene pool by buying mail order brides in third world countries…Your INSULTING name says it ALL.. All lives matter but your white privilege will allow you to live in peace instead of pieces…..You act as if WHITE PEOPLE ARE PURE AND INNOCENT…and we know that is NOT TRUE … fck you, you white, ignorant troll…don’t come here and finger point…

    • Jane domes

      I feel this is the way most marriages worked.120 yrs ago how much did people travel?So who did you know,who would you meet?I feel the most obvious way this was avoided was if you were separated from family for some reason.
      It still happens today,though the relations are not as close,and in many cases do not even know they are related.As in they did not grow up together aware that up the tree a bit they are connected.Strangely I see this all the time as I have nieces and nephews in young adulthood.I also several yrs ago started getting involved in my ancestry.Parts of my family have been here for locally for 130 yrs or so.I had no idea how many relatives I have had all around me my whole life.

  • WhyNot?

    Explains a lot. Whites have the shallowest gene pool on the planet. Translation: inbreds. Do it too much and it leads to dullness and mental illness and retardation. Like I said: explains a lot.

    • Louise

      Racist

      • Lana

        Says the racist lol. You are the firsts ones nowadays to point that out.As if to deflect attention off of your own bigotry, but I see you! And so do others…

        • 1stNameLast

          “…I see you! ”

          Let me guess. You’re blue?

          • Louise

            racism is racism whatever the colour, and spitting out vile comments about white people without any reason, not even to argue a point is simply bigotry. This is a simple piece on celeb marriages, nothing political and yet the hate that’s spewing out is disgusting.I pity folk like yourselves Lana/ why not that are so filled with contempt for your fellow man, all that venom ultimately poisons one soul and that’s yours.

            • 1stNameLast

              Thanks for the quick reply; even though my original post was directed at Lana.

              I didn’t realize referencing a fictional movie about a mythical blue person, on a mythical planet qualifies as a – vile,disgusting, contemptuous, hate filled – screed about my fellow man.

              Sorry…I don’t get off the planet much anymore. How are things out there?

              • Louise

                Hello 1st nameLast,we seem to be at cross purposes ,I was not replying to you but the original post from Why not and Lana,hence Lana/why not, of course had I used capitals on the 2nd name that would have been more evident. Apologies if you have mistakenly taken offence due to my grammatical error.Not a very timely reply (take it you were being funny) but I often miss replies to these forums and to be honest sometimes you just cannot be bothered to respond to some of the tripe people write, indeed you are quite rightly left wondering what planet folk are on. Please be assured I don’t have issues with blue folk, sadly I cannot tell you what life is like off the planet, my home planet is ginger uk. Greetings from there, fellow earthling.

                • 1stNameLast

                  Louise: All good here

                  I guess it’s just that when I saw Kevin Bacon had married his 9th cousin – once removed – it was like a punch in the old American gut. It had me feeling strangely exposed and vulnerable.

                  Here’s to all the off-worlders who don’t worry about such things 🙂

                  • Louise

                    yep, live long and prosper. Nanoo nanoo,Louise out.

    • Tom Tucker

      I’m more than certain has it backwards.

    • SuYu

      Everything you own was invented by Whites….haha!

      • WhyNot?

        It is a well known saying that the ONLY thing the white man created was the patent office. He stole everything else.

    • Joshua Ward

      That was pretty racist, even if it is a perpetuated by them more than African Americans. Still, people in other countries do it, India is becoming known for it, and lets not forget cases of sexual abuse. You can’t label everyone for the actions of others, just because they belong to the same ethnicity. We all come from the same origins, so there is no pointing out ‘race’. That word never existed in ancient times.

    • The only one that notices…

      I find it amusing that this list goes on about evolution and the ‘dangers of gene mixing’, yet they probably love them some Obama.

      • whycantwejustloveeverybody

        What does one have to do with the other?

        • Sheppard1

          You’re wasting your time asking for logic or intelligence from ‘the only’…

    • niggaholla1

      no it just explains the racist ni99ers on this rag just does not choose to talk about the 1000’s of imbred ni88ers in the world.

      • WhyNot?

        You are inbreds. YOUR scientists report you have the shallowest gene pool in the world. From inbreeding. And hence why you have such low fertility rates. Inbreeding leads to infertility, amongst other things. Just stating facts. Blacks on the other hand, have the most diverse gene pool on the planet. Don’t take my word for it Jethro, look it up. I don’t know why I’m speaking to you as if you have enough sense to be able to comprehend something that simple, but hell, I’m feeling benevolent today. lol..

    • Sheppard1

      Hmmm… After reading this comment, according to your twisted ‘logic’, we can be pretty sure You come from a long line inbreeds… I don’t care what color you are.

    • lovelygamour

      I guess that another reason why I see a lot of whites and Asians. while there are many, many Asian countries that show an African influence its easier to find some that she cromes with Europeans.

    • Corinne

      WhyNot? is a bigot who is obviously filled with hate or else he wouldn’t reach idiotic conclusions like whites have “the shallowest gene pool on the planet. Translation: inbreds.” Inbred is a synonym for incest and the gene pool for all the main races is so large that inbreeding isn’t possible unless done between immediate relatives. DNA profiling would be very restricted if any group was actually inbred. Instead, we commonly hear in court cases that the chance for it to be someone other than the defendant’s DNA is one in four trillion or some similar, astronomically high figure

  • Trisha_B

    Dumb question, but What does it mean when a cousin is once removed? Lol

    But I think more people marry/sleep with a relative than we know. W/ all these secret babies, spèrm donation, adoption happening, you just never really know lol.

    • Fumetti666

      A second cousin in your kid’s generation.

    • Chris Bell

      ‘Once removed’ means the relation is through a marriage and NOT a direct relative.
      ‘Twice removed’ would be through two marriages and so forth.

      • ikallicrates

        Wrong.

    • Ray Vandermonde

      A cousin once removed is the child of your first cousin. Your own child will become a second cousin to this child and a first cousin once removed to the relevant parent of that child. Half cousins exist when their respective parents only shared one common parent as in a half brother and sister who had the same mother but different fathers meaning that their own offspring would only be half cousins.

      • rkb555

        Wouldn’t a child of your 1st cousin be a 2nd cousin to anyone that is a 1st cousin to the child’s mother ?

        • Paulie

          No. A child of your first cousin is your first cousin once (i.e., one generation) removed. A grandchild of your first cousin is your first cousin twice (two generations) removed. Your child and your first cousin’s child are second cousins.

          • NOYB

            Correct. The DNA bears it out as well. You share DNA with a 1st Cousin 1x removed that is as similar as a first cousin.

          • gjgjgg

            Wrong.

          • knotfreak

            Thank you! I always get hat muddled up, but your explanation is very clear and will hopefully help me to retain it for once!

    • Kandra L. Pitcher

      Once removed would be for example my father’s cousin. Then my father’s cousin’s kids are my 2nd cousins.

    • ikallicrates

      You and your first cousin belong to the same generation. In other words, one of your parents and one of your first cousin’s parents are siblings (either brother or sister). You and your second cousin also belong to the same generation. In other words, one of your grandparents and one of your second cousin’s grandparents are siblings (either brother or sister). You and your first cousin once removed do not belong to the same generation. Your first cousin once removed is the child of your first cousin. Your first cousin twice removed is the grandchild of your first cousin, and so on.

    • DrRisk

      It means one generation removed. My father’s first cousin would be my first cousin, once removed. His son is my second cousin, i.e., our grandfathers were brothers..

    • J. Wong

      “Removed” means not direct but through their parent or child. So my 1st cousin’s children are my 1st cousins once removed. Twice removed would be through grandparents. nth cousin means your (the cousin and yours) parents are n-1th cousins.

    • awenger

      The offspring of 2 first cousins ( who share a pair of grandparents) are second cousins. a first cousin once removed is the way I would view my Dad or Mom’s first cousin (and they would view me likewise). ‘Removed’ is basically a way to describe generations removed.

  • Bible

    Incest has been around since Caine and Abel and after the flood started again with Noah’s family. Praise Jesus! ….lol.

    • Ford Truck

      Well, you’ve mentioned 2 of the many totally false myths in the bible. Maybe pick up something in the science section of you library. PRAISE SCIENCE!!!

      • Lorn

        Why do you have a photo of a deplorable serial killer as your avatar?

        • Tom Tucker

          Why not, it is better than yours.

        • Hadenuf_SA

          Because he’s not taking his meds anymore!

      • Joshua Ward

        Actually, incest was used to procreate. Who else was there? The difference was that since Adam and Even carried the genetics for the whole world, inbreeding of genetic deformities never occurred. However, it was forbidden after the world had been populated, only then allowed between cousins. Some generations after that, none of that was necessary, but people still did it out of carnal lust. You talk about science then don’t use common sense.

        • andrewsbest

          “Adam and Even carried the genetics for the whole world, inbreeding of genetic deformities never occurred. However, it was forbidden after the world had been populated, only then allowed between cousins. Some generations after that, none of that was necessary, but people still did it out of carnal lust.”

          And then you say, “You [Ford Truck] talk about science then don’t use common sense”?

          Where, pray tell, is the common sense in your little tale about the way the world was populated?

          • Joshua Ward

            Within the context of the story, andrewsbest. Whether one believes it true is another matter.

            Using simple logic if those are the origins of the world, Adam and Eve had Cain, Abel, and Seth with daughters. People try and avoid incest partially by using the Book of Enoch (disproven various ways) and Lilith sleeping with Adam or even with Satan as a serpent. If they had pure genetics since they were the first of mankind, the gene pool would have remained far apart enough to allow propagation to take place that way. I’m sure no one was thinking the way we do know when lusting after a sibling.

            I think perhaps the idea of how we (possibly) came to be is offensive, not how I’m explaining it. You could have explained why it did not make sense to you.

            • kathy Lellis

              So if Adam & Eve had the original DNA, and according to The Bible Eve came from Adam, there would only be one set of DNA, and all those that followed would have the same DNA, and by the 3rd or 4th generation you’d see some serious flaws with people’s bodies, minds, etc… They mention QE2 marrying her second cousin once removed (another way of saying 3rd cousin), but that has been common amongst the royalty for centuries! It’s a way to keep property and money in the bloodline. During part of Egypt’s Ancient History they married siblings! That’s how they kept the family in the role of Pharaoh.

              • Joshua Ward

                Eve was formed from Adam’s rib, that does not mean she had the exact DNA as him, but similar enough to be human also. Adam did not have the genetic makeup of dirt, so I think God made Eve unique in the same way. Imagine all the different peoples we have today and all that was within them. It would not have been diluted that quickly because it was required at that point to reproduce in such a way.
                I never thought of the keeping property and such as one reason why for inbreeding among royalty, so good point. However, Egypt had a little more than that as a reason for what they did. Not only did siblings marry, mother and child did, or father and daughter (not sure if that actually happened). I do know that to become experienced in sex, the Pharaoh and Queen did sleep with their children for “practice” in not to disappoint their spouse. The one Pharaoh (can’t remember his name) showed clear signs of being too heavily inbred from how he was described and his mental state.

                • Melissa V

                  you must be thinking of Ahkinaten who married his mother and father King Tutankhamen

                  • Joshua Ward

                    It might have been. I watched the documentary years ago. It was around the time I realized Epypt practiced inbreeding, to my dismay, haha! What is clear is that he was a poor leader and they destroyed most of his monuments, but I think one remained that they were able to identify him. That is going by memory, so don’t take it for salt.

                    • Morgan O’Brien-Bledsoe

                      Dude you can not equate ANYTHING in the bible to sciance. One is fiction one is nonfiction. One is a fucked up stories told by old men 2000 years ago the other is reality. You want to combine them then Eve was Adam’s twin, Eve had sex with her son and we all started with only one set of DNA. Otherwise you cannot combine them.

                    • Joshua Ward

                      Thank you for an opinion supported by just that. Many things in the Bible have attributed to science in some way, if you cared to research the matter instead of spouting your very clear discontent for it. Every scientist up until the 20th century were known Christians, so for you to say that makes no sense.Only because it has become popular to be atheist are people saying what you are (almost always verbatim), instead of saying what truth is there, and what is harder to believe. Your Adam and Even theory made no sense, especially when you could have simply said people existed and not formed from dust.
                      It does not even make sense in context, because siblings have parents and for him to be her son, there has to be a father; otherwise, that means they were not the first. @_@ Seriously.

                    • Ronald Doss

                      No scientist in America would say that Genesis, in the Bible, is in any way scientific. And the planet we live on is 4.5 billion years old, not 6,000. Morgan was rude and impolite, and I would have said it differently, but there’s nothing in Genesis or anywhere in the OT that contributes to science. One may believe what one wants, but the OT is a collection of Hebrew myths propagated by anonymous authors to promote a sense of unity among a small Stone Age desert tribe. Not even the Pope or any liberal Christians maintain that the Bible is God’s Word and inerrantly true. As for the New Testament, no one is sure who wrote the Gospels, since they appeared after the named apostles were dead. The only thing that can be proven is that Paul wrote his epistles.

                    • Joshua Ward

                      What are you talking about? The whole story or particular parts? What is scientifically verifiable is that the earth was once covered with water, is spherical, we are composed of earth elements, and that the area in Iran where the garden was believed to be has the hugest oil deposit in the world.

                      The Earth was likely created in a mature state, it did not “grow”. Just as Adam and Eve came forth adult, so too would the animals and land, plants therein. Other words, there is no way to tell without actually being there. There is also no way to truly say the Earth is 4.5 billion years old when we have trouble dating things that are 100 to 1,000 years old. It is just a hunch, or fabrication to push back our existence far from any creation theory. We still have reports of dinosaurs from various places around the world, from Marco Polo and other historical writings,yet they try to discredit it because Darwinian evolution depends on the “accepted” system.

                      I already pointed out scientific evidence in the Bible as you have read, but yes, not all is testable nor provable (nor was it meant to be). God does not operate by our standards of proof; we operate by his, whether we choose to or not.
                      As I also said, not all authors of OT were Hebrew. Job was not, he was of the Arab descent line. Also, it has been proven that the authors could never have known one another well enough to propagate such a myth for thousands of years, and be implemented in one man’s life. That in itself is a near impossibility. All that is left is to deny or glance the fact over.

                      Umm, they were far from primitive, no way near our concept of Stone Age. Most inventions we use today came from their innovations. They were very intelligent people, so what credit can we truly take? Our science and technology today is not free to exercise at liberty, not when it’s funds come from government.

                      Actually, we do know who wrote the Gospels. That has been examined to have either been in the author’s lifetime (written by them) or written a little after their death by another Christian. There were also examinations by the church fathers in Antioch, and continued through history, so it is understood. Not all appeared after they died, but some where recorded shortly after. None were written long after they had passed. And John did write his own book, Mathew wrote another and Peter his, Mark and Luke wrote others, and Jude wrote his. It is plain to see that the authors all lived within the same time-frame since they knew one another.

                      The Roman Church has never favored Scripture obviously with it’s history. Why turn to them for an explanation of the Bible they continually violate and create their own dogma that cannot be found in the original text? Prophecy is the only thing that is said to need interpretation as it is written symbolically, but we see the error many churches follow when it comes to making excuses in how it wants one foot in the secular world. Justifying sin should be plain for even an unbeliever to see.
                      As for anyone mainstream, compromise has always been the hugest downfall of the church. When you go against what is written, why would you uphold the basis of that belief? You would look like a hypocrite, so therefor you would likely dismiss it and rely on New Age spiritualism entering the churches.

                    • ⇨★♔DRAMA★SENSEI♔★⇦

                      I agree with all your points. Well said~! *thumbs up*

                    • Joshua Ward

                      Thank you for letting me know I’m not the only one, haha

                    • Hadenuf_SA

                      Quite right, the carbon dating so called human remains after the creation doesn’t function properly. Doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out why. I always enjoy new archaeological findings as they confirm what’s written in the Bible. Another point for the Bible! Soon it’ll be a unanimous decision. Keep up the positive mind set.

                    • Joshua Ward

                      The most amazing and terrifying thing about mankind (and anyone that studies sociology and psychology), we are capable of justifying anything. As they say, someone crazy does not know they are crazy; nor does a society that has been manipulated through social engineering.
                      Very few people disconnect themselves from social media long enough for things to start becoming clear, mostly because they are afraid of living without ignorance and seeing the truth of the world.

                    • Video Militia

                      ^^ Fundamentalism. Otherwise known as the downfall of human civilization.

                    • Joshua Ward

                      So the term changed under the Bush Administration. The term was originally created at a Christians conference, describing those that believed that what the Bible says is true and can be trusted. It know is attached to extremism and terrorists, and not by mistake. Most Christians are traditionalists and into eastern spiritualism that has entered the church, so that leaves those that stand by the Gospel. The picture should be clear as to what I am getting at.

                    • ckf

                      Well said

                    • Hadenuf_SA

                      I think you should look deeper into the ACCURACY of carbon dating, AFTER the said time of creation. It becomes very erratic when working on SO CALLED human remains. Makes you think!

                    • Garrick Little

                      I am a scientist and I do believe the.. account in Genesis is literally true. The issue is not one of science but of faith.

                    • ckf

                      Please do a little research. The planets spin rate is decreasing and the electromagnetic field is degenerating (both exponentially). we have the mathematics capability to extrapolate the end and we can also use it to go back into history. If we were indeed 4.5B years old the heat generated from the electromagnetic field would make the entire globe molten and the spin rate so fast that every drop would fly out into space making it unable to form and, of course, once and object is moving in space it requires another force to affect it. Let alone the other evidence that a 4.5B year old earth is mathematically impossible. Science uses the ever increasing age of the earth in the belief that time will somehow prove the evolution theory. It can’t and never will.

                    • lolalooloo

                      Head scratcher trying to figure out Y there’s pissing contest over who kknows more about – WHY ITS OK TO MARRY YOUR COUSIN ??!! Time to lay off the family reunions people !

                    • Joshua Ward

                      I think you missed the entire conversation if that is the conclusion you came to, lolalooloo. Sounds like you skimmed.

                    • Hadenuf_SA

                      Every time there’s a new archaeological discovery, it reinforces what’s written in the Bible EVERYTIME. So as the years go on, the Bible gains more credibility, and science is effectively is losing credibility shares. Why? Because it never proves anything, in fact, it tends disprove itself time and again, and shooting itself in the foot, further advancing the accuracy of the Bible.

                    • betterfredthandead

                      Pure unadulterated psycho-Babel…

                      yer “Bible” was compiled & paid for by a converted pagan WARRIOR…an anethma to the teachings of Christ. It REEKS of paganism.

                    • Hadenuf_SA

                      Phew, you really do have ‘major serious issues’. Each to his own, and happy Armageddon, whatever that entails, and whether you and I live to see it.
                      As Noah said to his neighbor, “How long can you tread water, ha, ha, ha?”

                    • James de Christ

                      The vast majority of scientists believe in God and also believe that their scientific research shows that there must be a hyper intelligent creator. Atheism is the most ridiculous religion of all requiring its’ adherents to believe that all of the complex magnificence of creation and of existence are all the product of purely random events with no intelligence involved. It is not at all unreasonable upon in depth study of science to conclude that we must have a God and that by extension this Creator would want to send a Messiah to his most beloved creation in effort to help them survive and ultimately thrive is not a fantasy at all but an extremely likely reality. Physicists set out to prove that existence could operate independent of a hyper intelligent being only to conclude that their research shows just such a being is required.

                    • betterfredthandead

                      In all this vast universe of billions & billions of stars…yer “god” requires the worship from a pack of ignorant bi-ped savages living on the outer edge of their galaxy…”RIDICULOUS” “fantasy”, sho’nuff!

                      BTW: pilgrim…atheism is NOT a religion

                  • Hatshepsut

                    Akhenaten married Queen Nefertiti, his sister. She was not his mother. Tutankhamon is Akhenaten’s son. Queen Nefertiti is not King Tut’s mother, however. Tut’s mother is one of Akhenaten’s concubine.

              • STACY

                ugh, that’s so gross, I think I’m gonna hurl! Out of all the people in the world to choose from why your freaking relatives? incest is disgusting.

                • Joshua Ward

                  Usually because of a twisted fetish, a home with no boundaries which constitutes molestation and experimentation taken too far. It is disgusting, but more prevalent than we think.

                  • jgreen

                    Not all cases of cousin marrying cousins mean molestation and abuse

                    • Joshua Ward

                      Never said that. Some people are just raised without proper boundaries and have fetishes for sex with relatives.

              • awenger

                Actually marrying second thirds, fourths and so on were very common in many small village and small town societies. Basically, everyone was related somehow. For that matter, in most societies in most times, it was not considered incest to marry first cousins. The reason that laws were passed again cousins marrying in some places in the last 100 years or so is that it became apparent that repeated intermarriage of close cousins became known to be a factor which genetics (first studied in the middle 1800’s by Mendel) later explained. Even to this day many societies have no prohibition again first cousins marrying and it only seems to be an issue if there is repeated inbreeding among first cousins. As far as second, thirds and more distant cousins, many don’t even know if they are somehow related to some those more distant cousins as so few maintain ties to the communities and families in which they’re raised. I have studied my geneology which is pretty well developed among a number of family historians, and my family always had interest in extended family. Nevertheless, I only personally know a few of my third and fourth cousins and can’t even say I know all my second cousins. Most have far less clue about their genetic backgrounds than I do.

                • knotfreak

                  Ahhh, a sensible entry at last! There is little risk of most first cousins having children, although genetic testing/counseling might be a good idea. As you note, the problem comes with repeated inbreeding–or even in the first go round if you start with bad material. Idiots beget idiots as the saying goes. Of course this is mostly true of unrelated idots as well 🙂

                  • anthropologist_dan

                    Good observations as far as they go. If the parties are from a population that carries a deleterious recessive gene, which is most populations, there is an increased risk of that gene becoming expressed through inbreeding. But that risk is only very slightly greater for first cousins, who cannot legally marry in most states, than for second cousins (meaning children of parents’ first cousins). The risk increases, but again very slightly, if siblings marry, and that is banned almost universally, with exceptions such as ancient Egyptian royals and the parents of the first troll who tries to turn this story political.

              • hlritter

                Actually, 2nd cousin once removed is NOT the same as 3rd cousin. Simple cousins have the same number of generations between themselves and their common ancestor. For example, you and your 1st have each have one generation, your respective parents, between yourselves and the grandparents you have in common. “Removed” denotes a person descended from the cousin at the same level as you. Your 2nd once removed is the child of your 2nd. Your child and your 2nd’s child are 3rds. The child of your 2nd once removed, the grandchild of your 2nd, is your 2nd twice removed. And so on.

                So in the example of FDR, he and TR were 5th cousins, meaning that both had 5 generations between themselves and their common ancestor (i.e., 5 generations not including either themselves or their common ancestor, a great-great-great-great grandfather) six generations back (their fathers, their GFs, their GGFs, their 2GGFs, 3GGFs, and 4GGFs). Eleanor was the daughter of TR’s brother, who of course was also FDR’s 5th. So Eleanor and FDR were 5th cousins once removed. Since a person receives an equal part of his DNA from each ancestor at a given level, and 5th cousins share one of their respective 64 4-greats grandparents, FDR had 1/64 of the DNA that his common ancestor with Eleanor did, and she, being one generation further down, had 1/128. Since the DNA is distributed randomly, they therefore had 1 part in 64 x 128 of their respective genomes in common, or 1 part in 2^13, approximately 1 part in 8000. For all practical purposes, this means that they were as good as unrelated biologically.

              • James de Christ

                It’s common for all people. Once removed means one generation away but in this case still second cousin.

              • Amber

                A second cousin once removed is not the same as a 3rd cousin.

        • jeffaa

          Why lust? Why not love? Are you just hung up on lust for some reason? After all, if homosexuals can be attracted to each other and allegedly “fall in love,” why not close relatives? Ick factor? Why, that’s just becoming something of the past, just like former views of the LGBT community, right?!

          • Joshua Ward

            Contrary to popular belief, love has a definition, it is not whatever we say it is. We scarcely even see unconditional love, but primarily we see people who want something out of a relationship or they will go elsewhere, not people that will love regardless.

            People don’t really fall in love these days, it is primarily lust. Marriage lost meaning so relationships hardly last like they did decades ago. People want immediate gratification and that is applied to even couples. Just like in straight relationships, gay ones suffer from rampant cheating because people rush into things as if time is running out.

            Incest begins these 3 ways: 1) Lack of boundaries in the househould in which children graft towards one another unnaturally, taking on a sexually acts to compensate for the emotional gap they are trying to fill 2) Manipulation and coercion by a parent(s) and sibling towards their child or sibling. 3) Any of that can be included in this last one, but often it can just be outright sexual abuse.
            There is the other relationships, such as uncles, aunts and grandparents and those fit in as well.

            There is no love in incest. When those relatives stick by one another, it is out of dependency, not affection. I’ve been on enough help mental health and help sites to know that they all have negative outcomes. Drugs or alcohol are a factor because something needs to dull the conscious, especially of the initial victim that becomes a participant.

            I’ve seen a growing number of gay incest appear online in the last few years, so it is within the community as well, usually twins. It goes beyond “ick” factor. Having sex with another of the same sex is one thing, but incest begins with coercion and abuse ALWAYS. No matter how close the relatives, someone has to initiate.
            It will be awhile before incest is looked at in the same like, if ever, because it is still illegal in many states, for many of the outlined reasons above and the genetic impact if pregnancy becomes a factor.

            Incest happens more than people would like to think it does and may be accepted on a social level among certain people. The family unit is destroyed in America pretty much so it is a perfect atmosphere for it to happen sadly. Many lives are ruined because of this and should not be compared to homosexuality.

            If anything, it is the ultimate sign, along with beastiality, of a completely immoral and fallen society.

            • odie11

              You’re certainly welcome to your beliefs, and I would not challenge them, but you aren’t welcome to your own facts.

              First of all, as you should know for all the words you typed, all organisms on earth have the need to reproduce.

              But because you are a metrosexual, you really have little understanding as to what that means in the real world.

              Primitive peoples used close family ties to survive. The first tribes were based on the family and those related. In addition to being a natural fact, it is also supported by the Bible in the Twelve Tribes of Israel.

              But incest is not as much the result of what you mentioned, but the biological need to breed. And, if you are in an isolated area, and subject to war, it is highly possible that you may succumb to breeding within your family.

              This has always happened, and societies have initiated creative ways in order to prevent this from happening.

              For example, pretty much EVERY indigenous society has formalized rules known as “Rights of Passage,” which require a formal way for the children of the tribe to find prospective mates for breeding purposes as adults.

              When these formalized rules are broken, we have dysfunction in said society.

              In Black America today, we are seeing that dysfunction in the high preponderance of Black American women that have children out of wedlock whereas in the early 1900s, we see 85% of Black American babies born to intact two family households. Today, only 28% of Black American Babies are born to a Black American husband and wife.

              In addition, the latest number published on abortion shows that there were 483 ABORTIONS for every 1,000 conceptions. Mind numbing societal dysfunction. That is just shy of one half.

              The comments on the ways that incest manifests itself is stunningly ignorant and completely devoid of any science.

              You’ve been watching to much of the Oxygen Channel.

              It is perfectly natural for siblings that are of close age to experiment sexually. Little children do this all the time. We don’t consider them “perverts:” when they play “Show and Tell.”

              When children go into adolescence and the biological juices start to flow, that is a dangerous time for children, their families and their respective society.

              In general, societies go to extreme to prevent this natural process from occurring, and usually it is the forced separation of the genders to mitigate any possibility of this happening.

              It is ONLY American and Western Societies that are completely clueless and debasing. The truth is that the dysfunctionality is not in the incest, because given any circumstances, it is part of the normal process, but the FACT that Western societies are so pathological clueless and dysfunctional.

              The fact that you make such bizarre claims indicates a tendency to hysteria.

              Get a clue.

          • Pickme

            Why stop there?! Why not have sex with your animals and call it love? I hope you’re just a troll that I’m feeding.

            • Joshua Ward

              I thought he was being sarcastic at one point, but you can never be sure.

        • Tyne

          Ewww…so you condone incest? You’re sick.

          • Joshua Ward

            What?! How in the world did you get that out of what I said? o_O

        • Adam and Eve is a myth. Please put the Fairy take book down and study science.

          • Joshua Ward

            Thanks for the opinion. Unless you can prove they did not exist, I would refrain from speaking matter-of-fact. Also, you mean “tale” not “take”. The Bible is against fairy-tales as they stem from pagan roots, namely mythology or witchcraft if you follow them back enough, so that is contradictory. Sorry.

            I enjoy science, it helps us understand the natural world through objective methods. Why would I not want to study how God created the world and all in it? Can science prove God exists? No. It fails to be able to observe a spiritual being nor is it able to measure Him. Science cannot prove all that evolution says, because we cannot and have not observed any animal transitioning from one species to another, as it suggests.
            Both require an extent of faith to believe because one left enough evidence through nature and archaeology, while the other requires us to believe something that needs to be observed over millions of years. No talking monkey or cat-to-dog.

            In short, we both believe in things that can’t be prove entirely by the scientific method. The early scientists that pave the way for what we have today, had no problem with their faith and implementing science at the same time. Galileo tried to prove he Earth was round because the Bible said it was, mainstream science objected him until proven and many other discoveries thanks to the Bible, especially astronomy. There was no such thing as atheism to say science and God could not go hand in hand for it very well did. You speak only for the times you live, not for history itself. Leave out the regurgitated statements and pick up a history and science book. It would do you well 😉

            • knotfreak

              Wrong, wrong, wrong–you know nothing about science. It makes my head ache. Try a little Richard Dawkins. Skip the God Delusion, it would offend you; but try The Greatest Show on Earth. It explains evolution and the evidence for it in a very readable way, even for the non-scientist.

              • observer

                I noticed how you readily try to discredit whatever Joshua says here. The irony is you call him an illiterate. Fact is he sounds more educated than you. Knotfreak hun? How many large male dogs do you have?

                • knotfreak

                  Where did I ever call Joshua “illiterate”? I simply said he might benefit from further education as I see multiple errors in logic in his thinking. Critical thinkingn is a skill that is learned and certainly does not come naturally to the human brain. As to my screen name, I don’t know what gutter your mind is in, but it refers to my past time of knitting (making knots basically).

                • Not if he believes in fairy tales like the Bible. Man wrote the Bible. It is not holier than any other book and anyone who believes the earth is only 3000 years old and was created in 6 days is an idiot, no matter what they think is right. Sorry.

                  • Hadenuf_SA

                    It is quite clear that you’re totally ignorant of what the Bible says, and time you looked up the facts, Pixie Ears.

                • knotfreak

                  You need your hearing checked if you think Joshie sounds literate. As to my screen name, I am a gradma of six who KNITS hats and sweaters for my family, hence the “knots” so get your pathetic head out of whatever sewer it sits in.

              • Hadenuf_SA

                OK, so you believe in evolution, which is your right. But have you ever delved into the workings of ‘Carbon Dating’, and it’s accuracy? Because you’ll find out pretty quickly that beyond the creation time of around 6000, it goes haywire, totally unreliable on so called human remains. I don’t know what profession you’re in or from, but you’re obviously a smart lass, so check it out. By the way, I had a good laugh at the origin of your name. Mine is rooted in the corruption and theft by the incumbent president(Jacob Zuma) and his cadre’s in South Africa. He’s another Bob Mugabe dictator in the making. Have a good week.

            • Prove to me that Santa Claus does NOT exist. Prove to me that leprechauns, fairies and invisible playmates are not real, and I will concede.

              • Joshua Ward

                He did exist, but not by that name. His name was St. Nicholas. As for the rest, you are referring to mythology and lore that stemmed from witchcraft and pagan religions, not the child-like characters you find in picture books. It’s how you introduce that kind of thing to children with it seeming harmless, though I doubt that was the intention of its originators. Do research before you try and sound clever with a retort.
                You never made it clear what you would concede on, other than possibly the existence of God or Jesus the Christ. I will say not to concern yourself with it if your are not being sincere, because the requirement of proof in faith is not the same requirement for insecure man trying to justify his existence without a creator. The scientific method cannot apply to a sentient being in another dimension. We look at the physical, the spiritual cannot be observed the same way. Live as you wish.

                • Faith gave us the Yeti, Santa Claus, The Tooth Fairy, Invisible Playmates, the Loch Ness Monster, etc. Faith is merely a belief, and is not based in fact. I dismiss faith based arguments when it comes to scientific fact which CAN be verified and repeated by others. Educated/intelligent people do not believe in faith based claims because none of that can withstand scientific scrutiny. There is far more FACT that reveals the Bible to be exactly what it is: a book written by Man (actually several men) for the purpose of controlling the perceptions and behaviors of a population. It was proto-government. With it, laws could be enacted, sentences could be carried out, and fear of hellfire and denial into “Heaven” served those who were in control of the content of the Bible (mainly priests). Entry into the preisthood was strictly controlled for a reason.

                  You are speaking from the perspective of the sheep who are herded. You follow the words of the Bible because you have been made to believe those words are more important than those in say…a cookbook or a novel. You cannot even prove that a Jesus Christ ever EXISTED. Historians of the time did not mention him. For anyone to believe that a man could be God is a sad denial of common sense and a travesty of the intellect.

                  But the programming you have received is complete. You will not be convinced until you are much older (like me). Children continue to believe in Santa Claus and flying reindeer until their intellect develops enough for them to figure it out. You sound like a young person to me. Probably a teen. If so, I am old enough to be your grandfather.

                  • Joshua Ward

                    I’m not sure if you are actually trying to be ignorant, but you succeeded. Already explained Santa Claus. The story of St. Nicholas became a children’s story that became fantasized when it was very simple in its beginnings. Those changes had nothing to do with faith. The Yeti stemmed from folklore and mythology. The Tooth Fairy stemmed from a tradition of Norse and Northern European origins, had no idea you good play with invisible angels or Jesus, the Loch Ness Monster definitely has nothing to do with faith. You make absolutely no sense.

                    Faith is not for everyone, because most people like to be sure about the choices they make, despite if the source of that information is untrustworthy. It is simply a choice, but faith and science have gone hand-in-hand and still does. If not, the Christian scientists that laid the groundwork that we have today would not have been. It is an atheist delusion that faith and science are incompatible. You mean that evolution and faith are not compatible. Science is the unbiased observation of the world, nothing more. That is why two explanations of what science shows us exists; however, science is no longer science, because when the objective becomes exclusive to one theory, something is wrong.
                    Science has been hijacked and become a money machine like everything else. If the government is paying for the research, the research is going to lean towards that political influence; that is not science.

                    There are many intelligent people that have a faith; you just made a huge generalization that is completely ignorant and false. Research how many “intelligent” people, however you define it, that have a faith-based belief. Not all believe in that which cannot be proven, but they do believe in the provable aspects (the world said to be round, air having weight (gravity), space, rotation of the earth, gravitational properties of constellations, Pangaea, orbit of the sun, 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics, air currents, measurement of water, the path of the seas, Dinosaurs, mathematics, man having properties of earth, life in blood, medical and hygienic practices, dietary practices, ) All of that is found in Scripture, but you would not know because you have not studied it to find what actually is contained within.

                    The Bible was written by men inspired by God. That is even said in Scripture. The difference between that and anyone writing anything is the fact that these men from different time periods and places (Job was Arabic, most writers Jewish, others Greek). The fact that all they say is in harmony shows there is a common author, because no one can create a plot that spans over thousands of years and remain accurate. The dating of the scrolls from all periods are verified that they weren’t written at the same time, so that rules out that scenario. The Scriptures would never have made it through the centuries with all our knowledge and not be able to be proven false. It just means that those that despise or don’t believe in it don’t want to accept it.

                    I was not born a Christian and I have been skeptical of many things (even much so of people that place ego above actual evidence). The Bible itself never controlled anyone; it says we have a CHOICE to believe what is written or not. You are referring to Roman Catholicism forcing their version of Christianity on Europe, Christians and non-Christians alike. It does not take a genius to look back and see that corrupt men exploited a faith for personal gain, and the kings of those days used religion only if it served to benefit them (and if they did not want to be punished by the pope). Try not to be ignorant of actual history when you claim to be “smart”.

                    The laws in Old Testament were under the Old Covenant. That means they were acting judges on earth because they were trying to achieve their own salvation. Israel failed and that is why Jesus created the Second Covenant. It removed Israel’s ability to judge one another and others, leaving it to Jesus since He alone fulfilled what they could not.
                    The moral laws, judicial laws are actually the model America’s laws and other laws around the world are based off of.

                    Uuh…do you read at all? Jesus did exist. Historical accounts by Josephus ( a Jew against Jesus) wrote about him. Several Romans wrote about him. You made a false statement that you cannot back up, but I very well can if you want to go that route. Jesus the man is historically verifiable; Jesus the Messiah is what requires faith, because we were not alive to see what he did. The same goes for evolution’s macroevolution. We have never seen animals change from one species to another, but people choose to believe it is fact in a faith-based manner.

                    You may be older, but apparently your age did not grant you wisdom. Whatever experience in your life made you biased towards Christianity or religion altogether, caused you to observe only that which agreed with your opinions. You did not research every facet possible, or some of your most simplest errors would never have been written as they were.
                    From 17 years old I had my time without a God, and the world was pointless. It serves no purpose and we serve no purpose other than existing and dying. Evolution-based science only gave so many answers, not answering the most essential to humanity.

                    I looked into Buddhism for a time, avoided the rest because their teachings were centered on how we can save ourselves. No human has yet to do this and aside from what research showed, they were inherently wrong. Christianity posed many obstacles, mainly when looking at Roman Catholicism. In the end, it proved to be an offshoot of Christianity, no tangible history to the church in Jerusalem and too many ties to paganism, mainly the Mithraism. Sifting through the “inconsistencies” and “contradictions” that proved simple translation errors or distortions, the truth became very clear (and as always, the truth is never popular, and a lie is easier to accept).

                    You are entitled you believe what you wish, we all have that right. You may criticize me because of your own insecurities, but I simply say to you that it is your decision, whether reward or consequence are in your future. That is all anyone can truly say.

                    • Blah blah blah blah. Lots of words that are saying absolutely nothing. God is the Universe and the Universe does not need religion, it does not need followers or faith and it does not need Man. The Universe is everything that was, everything that is and everything that will be. Your religion has nothing to do with God.

                      You are entitled to believe what you wish, even fantasy beings you cannot prove exist scientifically. But history shows us how religions play out and how their followers are controlled.

                      You are a textbook case.

                    • Joshua Ward

                      Thank you for showing your maturity in your response. What evidence is there that the universe always was? How did it come to be or has it just always been? We think in terms of beginning and end because we are limited by finite thinking. Thus your perception. You have no explanation of how it came to be, but my answer is that it was created by an infinite Godhead. You’re right though, religion is not required. I have a faith-based belief, Christianity is not a religion because of this. There are no rituals or ceremonies, thus why Romanism and Orthodoxy are an offshoot religion. My beliefs have everything to do with God of the Bible.

                      Thank you for an opinion that cannot be supported. History shows us that mankind can manipulate and abuse anything, whether religion, politics, science, whatever. That does not change the actual religion, science or ideals. You choose to ignore those that opposed such abuse in favour of your biased view, even those that lost their lives for a pure faith, uncorrupted.

                      I think we all fit some definition to a degree, but our limited discourse cannot account for all our experiences.

          • Hadenuf_SA

            Star wars is! But you follow it like a religion! The Bible has far reality than your made up religion.

        • Susan Brunkhorst

          Given that you mention Adam and Eve who were born into a perfect world..you may realize that generations later it is more significant to marry a cousin as such behavior promotes the onset of the weaker genes, if both parents have the same genetic structure…so basically it is more dangerous today than in the past..Let alone strange. I liked my cousins, but most of them were 15 years older than me since my parents were the youngest in their families and I was their youngest child. We do know now that genetic or inherited deficits exist…so it is not recommended that people inbreed…It is also bad for pets.

          • Joshua Ward

            First, they only had children after they had fallen and the world fell into sin as well. Everything was no longer perfect, but under the curse of sin, a slow decay (eventual death). And yes, they had to in their time until it was no longer necessary (but still did because they stayed within their tribes).

            I’m not promoting marriage between cousins in any way, I hope that is not what you read. I am against any of that. It is very much worse for us now and why we usually see deformities or genetic faults between cousins immediately where it was not always guaranteed. There is no feasible reason for inbreeding to perpetuate in the world unless a group of people are confined in small numbers by choice.

            Animals is another good point. I have had litters that were inbred, not all thankfully. They were….interesting, to say the least. Some believe it keeps breeds pure, but that is ignorant considering they can breed with another NOT of their litter.

          • All of those words do not change the fact that “faith” is nothing but a belief you cannot prove. If I claim that there is an invisible elf in my room, you cannot prove that there isnt one. This is your religion. This is how tricks work.

            Wisdom has shown me that religions are psychological constructs created to control those with weak intellect (most everyone). References you hear about “the masses” are talking about people like you, who readily accept programming put upon you by others with stronger intellectual understandings. The men who wrote the Bible wrote it to control the masses (the less intelligent). All they had to do is claim it was “inspired by God” (who they also invented for you).

            To me, you are an intellectual midget. Even if I explained why you are misguided, you would not understand because you lact the intellect to understand.

        • Video Militia

          You can’t account mathematically for all the world’s CURRENT genetic diversity, LET ALONE that of all the people who have lived on the earth and died since the beginning of humankind, with a literalists interpretation of the Bible (i.e. 2000 year timeline). It’s something like 108 BILLION people that have lived on this planet at one point by current estimates. But you don’t even have to start there. It’s simply not mathematically possible to go from two people to the world’s current population, 7 BILLION (not counting all the dead people) in a span of 2,000 years!! Factor in diversity of genetics and it’s even more laughable. People that can’t comprehend this are missing a chromosome.

    • khantot

      “I pack more animals than Noah!” SBC Packers, aka Rex Navarrete

      • Joshua Ward

        Lol! What?

    • Gecks

      For the first people, the DNA stock was at it’s best. There was no genetic degradation into mutation for the first offspring. About 2,500 years after the flood is when God institutes a ban on close siblings marrying.

      • God instituted a ban? Really? How did God do this and who got the memo? This thread is for dummies. I think I will just leave this fantasyland to you religious folks.

        • Gecks

          He told His people, the Jews by way of Moses as recorded in His Word.

    • Joe Bolander

      You mean Cain and Abel had a sister(s)?

  • At A Crossroads

    ??? Why is this on Madame Noire? None of the people are noire nor madams???

    • Because it sounds scandalous, so people will click on it and they’ll make money from ads.

      • Shannon

        I agree. Very misleading to use Kyra Sedgwick and Kevin Bacon to hook people into this. I feel duped, and stupid for even clicking into this story.

        • Steven Richards

          Poor baby!

          • Hadenuf_SA

            I’ve notice TROLLS always seem to ‘Guests’.
            IT’S TIME, to prevent guests from commenting!

        • lolalooloo

          Kevin Bacon married his. Cousin ! So wheres the duped ? I don’t get it

          • Shannon

            He didn’t. Read the disclaimer: ninth cousin, once removed. It means nine generations ago someone in his family married someone in her family. They’re hardly related by blood. If you have to go back nine generations, and then it’s through marriage, it’s hardly a scandal. I’m just saying: be up front with headlines and photos. But then, half the magazines, newspapers and websites would fold up and disappear if they only reported facts, wouldn’t they? Nothing sells better than half-truth and celebrity photos.