Is marriage bad for the gene pool?

Question

Would prefer answer from someone who is familiar with genetics.

Answer 1

It acctuallty is bad in some respects. when women have more male sexual partners they tend to conceve children who are genetically better because the best sperm wins. That is why I think women should keep harums of beautiful sexy intelligent man that we can ride like ponies all night long.

That is what I am going to do when I decide to have a kid. I am going to make freinds with at least five smoking hot intelliegent men who are willing to take blood tests and have lots of sex with me to try and have the best baby I can get.

Ignore my spelling. It sucks but you get the point. <<

Answer 2

Marriage is a limitation in the sharing of genetic data since, ideally, it binds partners from having sex and children with people who aren't their spouse. However, sperm and egg donations are still possible under marriage, and it is not viewed as infidelity. Marriage's benefits are that STDs aren't spread as quickly and that the offspring are raised by committed parents. If a parent had multiple offspring, it might be good for the gene pool, but the overall result would be too many children and not enough caretakers. Even the children with the best genes are doomed if they don't have someone to care for them. Genetic diversity can mean a higher quality offspring, but not a higher quality human. The point of a diverse gene pool is to allow the fittest genes to survive, so that people can be the best that they can be. But people must also have an environment that allows them to be the best that can be. What is the use of having, say, a gene that helps you survive AIDS if you can't live long enough to spread it on?

Answer 3

Honestly I am not certain. If you take the assumption that we have already chosen who we feel is the best mate for our future children..then it is good for the gene pool...but if stronger men keep trying impregnate more women then that's also good for the gene pool...also if a married woman has conceived a child that is not her husbands and her husband does not know this...does that not indicate that a father will end up protecting a progeny that is not his(and thus effectively destroy his gene pool ). Sorry it's all too confusing for me..

Answer 4

No, monogamous marriage, so long as it is not between close relatives, is good for the gene pool because it keeps close relatives from having babies that might have defects associated with incest.
When people reject monogamy, they put themselves at risk of AIDS and this removes many of them from the gene pool along with their diverse genes.

Answer 5

Only if the population size were very small, such as 100-500. Very small isolated towns tend to suffer from genetic problems over hundreds of years even though no incest is going on.

With several billion people on the planet, you don't have to worry about it.

Answer 6

No. Not really. Take the "Jewish" example.

For them, your a Jew if your mother is a Jew (most people KNOW who their mother is, however, as in my own case the father may be dubious). So, I prefer their method best.

Because of out of wedlock children, children of married parents that have affairs, and others in polyamorous arrangements, I think we're pretty safe with our gene pool.

We have wide diversity and safety in numbers.

Answer 7

I study genetics as a hobby, but consider this. With as many children being born outside wedlock and not knowing who their father is, the chances increase that they may one day have a child with a sibling, or even a girl with her father.

Answer 8

Only bad if you intend on marrying a relative and having kids. I know 2 first cousins who had kids and the first one was really retarded, the second kind of off and the rest I believe were ok.

Answer 9

marriage should be good for the gene pool

Answer 10

I think the internet is bad for logic.