Talk:Exogamy

message: I've read studies from the National Society of Genetic Counselors as well as others, that say marrying your cousin will produce little more risk of birth defects than marrying someone outside your race.  Even a quick google search on the subject shows plenty of sources and articles.  I'm not a geneticist nor have I really studied the subject to great degree, but the facts of history refute this sections assertions.  While there maybe certain genetic mutations that certain racial groups are more prone to, this doesn't prove that endogamy is the causal factor.
:It's well known that marrying a cousin increases the chance of a recessive gene to appear, which in turn increases the risk of a birth defect.  If a person has a rare recessive gene that causes birth defects and has two children with a person who does not have that recessive gene, there is a 1 in 4 chance that both those children will have the gene.  If they outbreed, there is a 1 in 64 chance that cousins will have the recessive gene.  If those cousins inbreed, there is a 1 in 256 chance that their child will have the birth defects.  That may sound pretty good, but if they marry someone outside their family, there is essentially 0% chance that the child will have the birth defect. 49giantsharks 17:59, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Blonde hair and Blue eyes are recessive genes.  I'd hardly call them birth defects.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.74.48.25 (talk) 16:12, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Not the point.  I explicitly said RARE genes that DO cause defects.  More clear example - if grandpa had the cystic fibrosis gene, and you breed with your cousin, there is a 0.39% chance that the kids have CF.  That percentage drops to 0.25% chance if you breed with a random white person (and even lower if with someone non-white).  49giantsharks (talk) 03:02, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Exogamy in humans section is extremely one sided

message: Do prohibitions on incest have anything to do with this article? Endogamy does not equal incest, as this article in its present state seems to suggest Stettlerj 20:06, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I have the same comment and I was going to discuss it before editing it.  Link9er 20:30, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm afraid that Endogamy is essentially incestuous, the only question is the degree. Don't forget that the likelyhood of a child being born with a genetic condition is much higher even where there is no immediate blood relationship. For example cystic fibrosis when two europeans have children or sickle cell anaemia where two people of african ethnicity have children.--Hontogaichiban 01:29, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I think that was not what the author meant; rather that this "horror of incest" is - according to one theory - an important factor in the decision of choosing one's mating partner either group-externally or -internally. I think the article should only be changed in order to make that clearer; that should suffice. Please don't drop the point altogether. -- Kavaiyan   <°)))o>< 15:02, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I think we can keep the human perspective: the term exogamy was created by social anthropologists (i.e. scholars of human cultural variation) to refer to particular marriage patterns (naked mole rats mate, they don't marry :) ).  --Ngio 09:16, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

text: This is about scientific fact. Though the intention of this article is not to offend, whether people are offended is irrelevant. There is no call to take into account any religious aspects. It is well acknowledged that the Yazidi do face problems related to inbreeding. Inbreeding is by it's nature incestous in the scientific sense. It should be noted that in all of our ancestories we will have many ancesters born from incestuous relationships of one kind or another, luckily a return to healthy offspring can occur in a single generation through exogamy.--Hontogaichiban 00:29, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Endogamy and incest?

message: * I agree, Exogamy is an anthropologically useful—and neutral—notion, Intermarriage is mixed up with culture-specific value judgements. Ngio 05:35, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Intermarriage is a confusing term, it should be removed.--Hontogaichiban 00:30, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed Merger with [[Exogamy]]

message: Most of the people who have theories discussed on this page have no first name associated with them. I think that takes away from the article. BioTube 06:12, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lack of names 

message: "Frazer says [the introduction of exogamy to prevent incestuous marriage] is the true solution, that it really introduced group marriage, which is an advance to monogamy,"
I'm not quite sure how to parse this. It sounds like it could be rephrased as "Frazer agrees that [the goal of preventing incestuous marriage] is the origin of exogamy, which introduced group marriage (which is an evolutionary step towards monogamy)," but is that in any way correct? In particular, I'd like to know what the article is referring to as "group marriage." Is this "promiscuity within the tribe," which IIRC is more a hypothetical than an attested social custom, or is it "polygamy," which is common, but more common among more sophisticated peoples?
And do we really need to cite Frazer at all? He's still the reference point for anthropological study of magic, but -- although I'm not an anthropologist -- I've heard that he's no longer considered very reliable on other subjects... ExOttoyuhr (talk) 17:19, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Very ambiguous clause. 

message: This article is remarkably cruel towards endogamous peoples -- the medieval Jews, the modern Arabs, the Chinese through the whole of their history, do not deserve the kind of pillorying-by-inference that they currently get in this article -- and it treats American views on incest as a human universal. Which such views are not: see all strata of ancient Egyptian society, or the Polynesian and (IIRC) Inca aristocracies.
It also has an advanced case of Just-So Story-itis, but perhaps that's a different issue. Still, I'd like it to be a little less certain about where the concept of totems comes from, and what their implications are on a cross-civilizational level. Didn't the Iroquois marry within their totem group? ExOttoyuhr (talk) 17:18, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Civilizational POV issue. 

message: First of all, quite insultingly, it seems to be insinuating that not race mixing (the way that it's been done 99.9% of the time for thousands of years in European, Western societies and has worked mostly fine!) is somehow comparable to incest. True, small villages in which transport is difficult may have been somewhat inbred historically, but whites as a whole as a racial group are not very inbred at all, unlike what they'd like you to believe, and especially now when transport means that people don't live in a small area for their entire lives. All racial groups have their inherited diseases, and racial mixing will not make those go away either as genes can recombine at a later point. Furthermore, it says that there is a "drive to reproduce with individuals genetically different from oneself". There must be something wrong with me, then, as a white heterosexual male who is attracted to white females and not women of other races, be they black, Indian or Chinese. This pseudoscientific trash about the benefits of race mixing is nothing more than mind bending propaganda, the majority of which in the mass media in present day western societies is targeted at white females to encourage them to mix with black males, in order to increase white male resentment and destroy the gene pool.--Phit Sit Trout (talk) 11:32, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, there are merely populations with different genetic characteristics that have developed due to isolation over time rather than absolute, outright races. The concept of race works in practice a lot of the time for this reason, but it is not absolute. If you were to start in Ireland and move through the UK, Netherlands, Germany, Austria, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, Turkey, Iran, Pakistan, India and Sri Lanka and took the DNA of the indigenous population, at what point could you say race X ('brown' people) begins and race Y ('white' people) ends? At the border of Bulgaria and Turkey since Bulgaria is European and Turkey is Asian? That wouldn't quite make sense in strictly genetic terms.--Phit Sit Trout (talk) 11:42, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article reads like race-mixing propaganda 

message: To improve this article I want to address the issues that arise from the Talk page. I will try to edit the neutrality of the human aspect of exogamy as well as add citations where needed. I don't plan on changing much else of the article but simply improve on what is already there. [[Mkbertram (talk) 13:31, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The changes I have made include adding citations where asked for. I also attempted to address the neutrality in the human exogamy section, however I'm not sure it is needed. Instead i tried to account for it not being an entirely genetic consideration and add that there are other factors that play into how exogamy is performed.[[Mkbertram (talk) 14:46, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Planned Changes for Article 

message: I really like your initial definition. I think the explanation is brief enough to provide info to someone who wants a quick response, and the article continues in depth to provide more info to those curious about the topic. I also really like how you provided examples of exogamy and the antonym for it as well, excellent idea. Your list of references is phenomenal, and very thorough. My only suggestion wwould be to add the different types of exogamy to the see also list, so that they may be linked to already existing wiki pages/ future existing wiki pages. (BMPog (talk) 19:25, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for your suggestions, and comments! I tried to add some more links for further inquiry, however I found that many pages I wanted to link it too do not exist. Mkbertram (talk) 18:21, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer Review 

message: This page can be improved quite a bit. There are/were spelling mistakes, very non-encyclopedia wording, claims that are are missing sources, and claims that are unsubstantiated by the listed sources. I suggest that we make it a priority to add high quality (preferably peer-reviewed) sources to this page, and amend information to better match the consensus of those high-quality sources.--Prunepeck (talk) 20:02, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources