{"title":"禁止表兄妹结婚的理由","authors":"Patrick S Nash","doi":"10.1093/ojlr/rwae014","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This article presents the universal case for banning cousin marriage regardless of jurisdiction or culture. It is intended both as a resource—the relevant facts and opposing arguments will be set out plainly for reference purposes—and a legal argument which seeks to demonstrate that the weight of evidence concerning this poorly understood practice supports outright prohibition. Accordingly, the article is divided into five parts. The introduction briefly outlines the key controversies within the field of comparative consanguinity law and signposts the way forward. There follows an examination of the modern definition and distribution of cousin marriage to establish its current prevalence and key trends, before an explanation of the consequences resulting from its practice and factors contributing to consanguineous preferences. The article then takes an analytical turn to assess five common arguments against banning cousin marriage proceeding from, respectively, (i) human rights, (ii) prejudice, (iii) custom, (iv) choice, and (v) proportionality. Having factored in the relevant medical, social, historical, and geopolitical evidence throughout, it concludes by arguing the case in favour of a ban with specific proposals as to its justification and recommended scope, substance, and implementation.","PeriodicalId":44058,"journal":{"name":"Oxford Journal of Law and Religion","volume":"92 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Case for Banning Cousin Marriage\",\"authors\":\"Patrick S Nash\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/ojlr/rwae014\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This article presents the universal case for banning cousin marriage regardless of jurisdiction or culture. It is intended both as a resource—the relevant facts and opposing arguments will be set out plainly for reference purposes—and a legal argument which seeks to demonstrate that the weight of evidence concerning this poorly understood practice supports outright prohibition. Accordingly, the article is divided into five parts. The introduction briefly outlines the key controversies within the field of comparative consanguinity law and signposts the way forward. There follows an examination of the modern definition and distribution of cousin marriage to establish its current prevalence and key trends, before an explanation of the consequences resulting from its practice and factors contributing to consanguineous preferences. The article then takes an analytical turn to assess five common arguments against banning cousin marriage proceeding from, respectively, (i) human rights, (ii) prejudice, (iii) custom, (iv) choice, and (v) proportionality. Having factored in the relevant medical, social, historical, and geopolitical evidence throughout, it concludes by arguing the case in favour of a ban with specific proposals as to its justification and recommended scope, substance, and implementation.\",\"PeriodicalId\":44058,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Oxford Journal of Law and Religion\",\"volume\":\"92 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-05-31\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Oxford Journal of Law and Religion\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/ojlr/rwae014\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"LAW\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Oxford Journal of Law and Religion","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/ojlr/rwae014","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
This article presents the universal case for banning cousin marriage regardless of jurisdiction or culture. It is intended both as a resource—the relevant facts and opposing arguments will be set out plainly for reference purposes—and a legal argument which seeks to demonstrate that the weight of evidence concerning this poorly understood practice supports outright prohibition. Accordingly, the article is divided into five parts. The introduction briefly outlines the key controversies within the field of comparative consanguinity law and signposts the way forward. There follows an examination of the modern definition and distribution of cousin marriage to establish its current prevalence and key trends, before an explanation of the consequences resulting from its practice and factors contributing to consanguineous preferences. The article then takes an analytical turn to assess five common arguments against banning cousin marriage proceeding from, respectively, (i) human rights, (ii) prejudice, (iii) custom, (iv) choice, and (v) proportionality. Having factored in the relevant medical, social, historical, and geopolitical evidence throughout, it concludes by arguing the case in favour of a ban with specific proposals as to its justification and recommended scope, substance, and implementation.
期刊介绍:
Recent years have witnessed a resurgence of religion in public life and a concomitant array of legal responses. This has led in turn to the proliferation of research and writing on the interaction of law and religion cutting across many disciplines. The Oxford Journal of Law and Religion (OJLR) will have a range of articles drawn from various sectors of the law and religion field, including: social, legal and political issues involving the relationship between law and religion in society; comparative law perspectives on the relationship between religion and state institutions; developments regarding human and constitutional rights to freedom of religion or belief; considerations of the relationship between religious and secular legal systems; and other salient areas where law and religion interact (e.g., theology, legal and political theory, legal history, philosophy, etc.). The OJLR reflects the widening scope of study concerning law and religion not only by publishing leading pieces of legal scholarship but also by complementing them with the work of historians, theologians and social scientists that is germane to a better understanding of the issues of central concern. We aim to redefine the interdependence of law, humanities, and social sciences within the widening parameters of the study of law and religion, whilst seeking to make the distinctive area of law and religion more comprehensible from both a legal and a religious perspective. We plan to capture systematically and consistently the complex dynamics of law and religion from different legal as well as religious research perspectives worldwide. The OJLR seeks leading contributions from various subdomains in the field and plans to become a world-leading journal that will help shape, build and strengthen the field as a whole.