Separated Twins' Marriage Annulled

RedGlitter · Post by **RedGlitter** » Fri Jan 11, 2008 9:20 am

What would YOU do in this situation? Would you carry on a romantic relationship knowing who you were to each other or would you move an ocean apart?

Marriage Annulled After Separated Twins Marry

Friday , January 11, 2008

Twins separated at birth have married each other without realizing they were brother and sister, it has been revealed.

The British couple's marriage has now been annulled by the High Court after judges ruled the marriage had never validly existed.

The identities of the brother and sister and details of how they fell in love and married are being kept secret. Soon after they were born they were separated and adopted by different families.

Neither was told they had a twin and had no idea they were blood relatives until after their wedding.

Professor Lord Alton uncovered the case when a High Court judge told him of a hearing he had dealt with.

Mia · Post by **Mia** » Fri Jan 11, 2008 9:25 am

A very difficult question to answer,I don't think I could unless It had happened to me.How heartbreaking for them.

Chezzie · Post by **Chezzie** » Fri Jan 11, 2008 9:31 am

I couldnt say, dunno how you would react to hearing that. Poor people must be so sad and feeling screwed up. Major crappy to find out your "in love" with your twin:-5

mikeinie · Post by **mikeinie** » Fri Jan 11, 2008 9:33 am

Although some stories make it into the news, they are hard to believe that they are sometimes true. I would seriously question the validity of this report, even if it is on Sky.

Patsy Warnick · Post by **Patsy Warnick** » Fri Jan 11, 2008 10:07 am

This isn't a isolated incident.

If the 2 individuals are really in Love with eachother, they would/will find a means to see eachother. I'm interested in the age of the 2 and who persued this marriage into court. Why we'ren't they told before the wedding or did they elope? Noone in the Family knew of the other until after they married?

Staying together - I don't know - they didn't know eachother & probably don't look at the related aspect and this would be very awkward since being related, you'd want to have a repor - keep in touch type thing..

Patsy

weeder · Post by **weeder** » Fri Jan 11, 2008 10:14 am

It has been predicted that in light of alternative means to giving birth. Egg and sperm donors etc... Along with children being split up to go into foster care, this situation will occur, and the parties involved may never know that they are related. This will be a tough decision for the couple to make. I would hope that if they decide to stay together, they will opt for voluntary sterilization, to prevent a birth that has a high risk of genetic abnormalities.

I think if I were in love with my partner, I would be willing to give up having children with them. However, the revelation might be too uncomfortable fo them to live with. If they really are brother and sister, it is incest.

Post by **spot** » Fri Jan 11, 2008 10:22 am

mikeinie;756787 wrote: Although some stories make it into the news, they are hard to believe that they are sometimes true. I would seriously question the validity of this report, even if it is on Sky.

How about the BBC version instead? Which bit of the reports are you challenging as far as credibility goes? The marriage? The circumstances of them meeting?

I haven't a clue why society's still critical of adult consensual sibling incest, I can't think of a single reason to condemn it.

grh · Post by **grh** » Fri Jan 11, 2008 10:33 am

spot;756818 wrote: How about the BBC version instead? Which bit of the reports are you challenging as far as credibility goes? The marriage? The circumstances of them meeting?

I haven't a clue why society's still critical of adult consensual sibling incest, I can't think of a single reason to condemn it.

What part of this story reads as consensual sibling incest?

Post by **spot** » Fri Jan 11, 2008 10:52 am

grh;756823 wrote: What part of this story reads as consensual sibling incest?

Well... they were adults, right? And they were siblings - brother and sister? And it was consensual - they agreed to it? And incest, like in bonking merrily? Which word did I get wrong?

sunny104 · Post by **sunny104** » Fri Jan 11, 2008 10:54 am

spot;756828 wrote: Well... they were adults, right? And they were siblings - brother and sister? And it was consensual - they agreed to it? And incest, like in bonking merrily? Which word did I get wrong?

none but I especially like the bonking merrily part!

Patsy Warnick · Post by **Patsy Warnick** » Fri Jan 11, 2008 10:57 am

Spot

thats why I asked how old the 2 individuals were?

If of age to marry - who took them to court?

Patsy

sunny104 · Post by **sunny104** » Fri Jan 11, 2008 10:59 am

I'm going to assume that for me it would change things...I wouldn't be able to get the fact that he was my brother out of my head. But to each his own....:-6

Post by **spot** » Fri Jan 11, 2008 11:00 am

Patsy Warnick;756831 wrote: If of age to marry - who took them to court?Presumably the Director of Public Prosecutions at the request of the police. It's a criminal offence.

There's a couple in Germany who have been fighting for years for the law to be changed there, and spent far too long in jail in the process.

abbey · Post by **abbey** » Fri Jan 11, 2008 11:40 am

spot;756818 wrote: How about the BBC version instead? Which bit of the reports are you challenging as far as credibility goes? The marriage? The circumstances of them meeting?

I haven't a clue why society's still critical of adult consensual sibling incest, I can't think of a single reason to condemn it.You are kidding....... right?

Post by **spot** » Fri Jan 11, 2008 12:01 pm

Let's pretend I'm not, abbey. What can you say against it?

abbey · Post by **abbey** » Fri Jan 11, 2008 12:07 pm

It's not right on any level spot.

What of genetics?

Surely future generations would suffer?

Chezzie · Post by **Chezzie** » Fri Jan 11, 2008 12:21 pm

spot;756848 wrote: Let's pretend I'm not, abbey. What can you say against it?

Are you saying that if you found your own son and daughter where having a sexual relationship and they were say in their 20's, you would have no problem with it Spot?

I think I must be missing your point cos im sure no one would condone that.

Post by **spot** » Fri Jan 11, 2008 12:29 pm

Where does genetics come into it?

Why would no one condone it?

I'd have no problem at all with it but I'd be moderately surprised. They all grew up together, there are psychological effects of growing up together which tend to preclude incest:Reverse sexual imprinting is also seen: when two people live in close domestic proximity during the first few years in the life of either one, both are desensitized to later close sexual attraction. This phenomenon, known as the Westermarck effect, was first formally described by anthropologist Edvard Westermarck. The Westermarck effect has since been observed in many places and cultures, including in the Israeli kibbutz system, and the Chinese Shim-pua marriage customs, as well as in biological-related families.

Chezzie · Post by **Chezzie** » Fri Jan 11, 2008 12:38 pm

well we all see things differently and I will say sibling incest isnt AS bad as the thought of adult/child incest, however in my eyes children born of the same sperm/womb should refrain from a relationship.

I can understand a brother and sister who have never ever lived together to fall in love, especially if they didnt even know one another but brought up in the same home or known siblings has to be a no no.

grh · Post by **grh** » Fri Jan 11, 2008 12:59 pm

spot;756828 wrote: Well... they were adults, right? And they were siblings - brother and sister? And it was consensual - they agreed to it? And incest, like in bonking merrily? Which word did I get wrong?

They were not aware that they were siblings.

And I just deleted the rest of my response, because once again I just can't be bothered. :-6

suzycreamcheese · Post by **suzycreamcheese** » Fri Jan 11, 2008 1:02 pm

Id pretend that I hadnt ever found out and do everything I could to keep the relationship.

I guess it would be a weird thought, but not enough to make me stop loving my man, and vice versa - ive just asked him.

abbey · Post by **abbey** » Fri Jan 11, 2008 1:25 pm

spot;756855 wrote: Where does genetics come into it?

Why would no one condone it?

I'd have no problem at all with it but I'd be moderately surprised. They all grew up together, there are psychological effects of growing up together which tend to preclude incest:I've tried to post the link but failed, so I'll copy and paste the answer to your first question.

First, close inbreeding damages offspring (especially incest among nucler family members). This is because we all have deleterious recessive genes arising from mutation, and inbreeding increases the probability that the offspring conceived will have two copies of the same defective genes. When this happens, the child is more likely to either die in utero or be born with congenital abnormalities. So imagine a design feature—a neural circuit—motivating one to have sex with close genetic relatives: it would find itself in fewer bodies, many of which were differentially handicapped. As a result, genes coding for designs motivating incestuous sex would, over time, cause their own disappearance—they would be eliminated from the population by natural selection. In contrast, imagine an alternative design feature—a different neural circuit—that creates a motivation to avoid sex with genetic relatives: it would find itself in more bodies, and these bodies would be healthier than those produced by incestuous sex. As a result, design features motivating one to avoid sex with close genetic relatives would promote their own reproduction--they would spread through the population by natural selection, until we all have them. In consequence, we should expect natural selection to produce motivational systems that make us want to avoid sex with close genetic relatives.
Why would no-one condone it?

Because it is morally, ethically wrong.

Chezzie · Post by **Chezzie** » Fri Jan 11, 2008 1:33 pm

Newborns with genetic disorders such as spina bifida or cystic fibrosis are more likely to be born of blood relatives because previously unexpressed recessive genes are more likely to appear. First cousins are two-times more likely to bear offspring with a birth defect than children born of couples who don't share a common grandparent. If cousin couples happen to be carrying known genetic diseases, the risks faced by their offspring can jump. Experts say 1 out of 4 such children will have some sort of disorder.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Fri Jan 11, 2008 1:37 pm

Patsy Warnick;756809 wrote: This isn't a isolated incident.

If the 2 individuals are really in Love with eachother, they would/will find a means to see eachother. I'm interested in the age of the 2 and who persued this marriage into court. Why we'ren't they told before the wedding or did they elope? Noone in the Family knew of the other until after they married?

Staying together - I don't know - they didn't know eachother & probably don't look at the related aspect and this would be very awkward since being related, you'd want to have a repor - keep in touch type thing..

Patsy

Actually it is very rare. They were twins adopted in to separate families and neither was told they had a sibling far less a twin. When they found out it was them that wanted it annulled. No one took them to court and they are not being prosecuted-the court case was to get the marraige annulled not for a criminal offence. I doubt very much any jury would find them guilty of a crime under the circumstances. If they'd known they wouldn't have got married.

It's topical just now as the UK is about is considering a change in the law such that a sperm donor is used the offspring have a right to know who the biological parents are. Was there not a case in the states where a doctor in a fertilisation clinic was using his own sperm that only came to light when two of the offspring found out?

posted by spot.

I haven't a clue why society's still critical of adult consensual sibling incest, I can't think of a single reason to condemn it.

Are you kidding? look at the royal family and they only married cousins.

RedGlitter · Post by **RedGlitter** » Fri Jan 11, 2008 1:41 pm

I am an only so maybe the ew factor is slightly lost on me, but i do have cousins and can compare that way. or maybe I've read "Flowers in the Attic" too many times.

I think it's weird, no doubt. And I'm not sure I'd be comfy around a couple like that personally, but...as long as they practice birth control whose business is it really? I'd say it's between them and their God. Weird yes.

I would say that as long as they don't reproduce, there shouldn't be a problem, but what if an accident happens? And what if they don't believe in abortion? What then?

Post by **spot** » Fri Jan 11, 2008 1:44 pm

Genetic testing before marriage is available these days. If there's a greater risk in general there's ways of checking if the risk is real for any given couple.

As for "morally, ethically wrong", isn't that culturally conditional? Aren't there cultures in which it was the norm? There's five hundred years of Ptolemaic rule over Egypt which springs to mind immediately, it was neither morally nor ethically wrong there.

First cousins marrying seems to be morally and ethically wrong in half the states of the USA and morally and ethically acceptable in the other half. Presumably both sides are right.

There are no anti-incest laws in France, Belgium, the Netherlands, Portugal, Turkey, Japan and Argentina. Presumably their moral and ethical sensibilities differ from those in the UK.

suzycreamcheese · Post by **suzycreamcheese** » Fri Jan 11, 2008 1:47 pm

Other people at risk of having genetic problems/defects arent all banned from breeding.

I think most of my problems with the idea of incest, is less to do with the genetic aspect, and much much more to do with the fact that when it usually happens, it involves abuse. If they werent even brought up together - hell they didnt even know each other existed in terms of their genetic relationship, then I dont actually see it as morally wrong for them to be together or even reproduce, although id suggest they had genetic counselling if they were considering that.

abbey · Post by **abbey** » Fri Jan 11, 2008 1:53 pm

gmc;756877 wrote:

Are you kidding? look at the royal family and they only married cousins.:yh_rotfl

Post by **spot** » Fri Jan 11, 2008 5:22 pm

fuzzy butt;756954 wrote: I thought of that commune in the south (of the US i think Utah ) where all the boys are being born with shrunken heads. And girls are forced to marry uncles and so forth .Which communes are these? I really really want to read up on them, I need more clues.

Patsy Warnick · Post by **Patsy Warnick** » Fri Jan 11, 2008 5:34 pm

GMC

this is not a isolated incident - the twin aspect yes - but siblings being adopted out & relationships blossom later is not rare.

So the 2 individual found they were related & terminated their marriage on their own?

The world / and most laws may have to adjust when all the Test Tube siblings or

sperm donations siblings everywhere meet up later and a relationship blossoms.

Chezz is right - many of the birth defects are due to the parents being related

Patsy

Galbally · Post by **Galbally** » Fri Jan 11, 2008 5:52 pm

I think its a sad, but strange story. Well, I hope they can both move on.

Aside from these people's case I think in terms of the incest thing, that normally healthy mammals would not try to procreate with each other, though in cases of social disfunction or isolation it does occur, also in humans there can be the experimentation side of it, but thats pretty rare past first cousins. Of course in cases where siblings are unaware they are siblings this normal barrier is not there. But in normal breeding populations any close relation incest is of course genetic suicide and the huge human taboo is simply a reflection of this ingrained biological fact.

Incest is not a life-style choice, and its not a genetic pre-disposition, it usually represents an extreme social disfunction or pathology, certainly in human societies anyway. Therefore it would not be wise to legislate to allow it. Then of course there would be case where a father or older brother was abusing his sisters, and then used the idea that incest was perfectly normal to compound his control (as an example). The law's against this type of behaviour are simply a reflection of the instinctive taboo at the concept, and unlike homosexuality or bisexuality I don't think that the attitudes will or should change, as its a perfectly natural and healthy attitude to regard incest as out of bounds.

Even if someone of an extreme broad mind rewrote the law to allow it, natural law would dictate a general disgust at the behaviour, because it represents a completely disfunctional family relationship. Again unlike discriminating against homosexuality in which you deny the individual the legal right to their sexuality, in incest you are simply putting a moratorium on an individual have certain specific sexual relationships with a parent, granparent, sibling, child or grandchild. I don't see why that should be changed as such relationships are definetly unhealthy for the individuals involved, and could also involve abuse of familial power structures etc.

Post by **spot** » Fri Jan 11, 2008 6:04 pm

Galbally;756984 wrote: Aside from these people's case I think in terms of the incest thing, that normally healthy mammals would not try to procreate with each other, though in cases of social disfunction or isolation it does occurI may be mistaken but I thought the rule broke down in the entire cat family at least. I'd be interested - I'll go and look to see what I can find - whether there are studies of kinship breeding ratios in the wild for a broad range of mammals. I'd not be surprised to find that the assumption of a strong tendency to avoid incest except when a population is under strain is an illusory cultural assumption which doesn't stand scrutiny.

Galbally · Post by **Galbally** » Fri Jan 11, 2008 6:20 pm

spot;756989 wrote: I may be mistaken but I thought the rule broke down in the entire cat family at least. I'd be interested - I'll go and look to see what I can find - whether there are studies of kinship breeding ratios in the wild for a broad range of mammals. I'd not be surprised to find that the assumption of a strong tendency to avoid incest except when a population is under strain is an illusory cultural assumption which doesn't stand scrutiny.

I don't know spot, I am not a geneticist or biologist, but I would say as a general rule that there would have to be some sort of genetic pre-disposition not to have close relation procreation in mammals, as its such a universal behavioural trait, and of course it has a very good genetic reason. Though I know what you mean about the cats alright.

It only we had Richard Dawkins online with us he could probably provide a more authoritative opinion.

Post by **spot** » Fri Jan 11, 2008 6:29 pm

Richard! Get in here, we need information!

AussiePam · Post by **AussiePam** » Fri Jan 11, 2008 8:58 pm

When God made Adam and Eve, they were the only people, and presumably from them came all of humanity. This is what I understand a large proportion of Christians, particularly in the United States, believe. Adam and Eve must have had daughters as well as the two sons mentioned or humanity would have died out, especially when one son killed the other. The next generation, and all that followed, down to the present day, might therefore be the products of incest.

I am very sorry for the two people in the OP. They are innocent victims of what has now become shameful.

nvalleyvee · Post by **nvalleyvee** » Fri Jan 11, 2008 9:06 pm

How can you decide between bad and worse? Do you decide to stay together because it is good ......or do you decide to separate and accept the consequences.

Patsy Warnick · Post by **Patsy Warnick** » Fri Jan 11, 2008 10:12 pm

Nalley

There are consequences with either decision.

If they completely split - no communication, they'd go into a depression, mourning period and life will go on.

If they continue to have a relationship - 1st theres the familys to contend with.

scrutiny with both choices.

I don't know - I see more of this situation in the future.

Patsy

RedGlitter · Post by **RedGlitter** » Fri Jan 11, 2008 11:27 pm

Interesting. I'll have to read up on this. Polygamy is not legal in Utah but you could say there's a "don't ask don't tell" thing going on. As is true with the Arizona Strip (also known as Colorado City which is a strip of land on the Utah-Arizona border) where polygamy still resides.

When I got to the uncle-niece relation, I got a little nauseous. That's way too much like parent-child to me. Yucck. I could excuse a brother and sister who didn't know each other or didn't grow up together but that uncle-niece thing is...no.

These two are going to be miserable either way, so they may as well stay together and try and find some happiness. My opinion.

suzycreamcheese · Post by **suzycreamcheese** » Sat Jan 12, 2008 2:32 am

fuzzy butt;757066 wrote: Kingston family in Utah ...............I'm sure we already have spoken about this religious sect on this board before.............anyway here's a link and a bit of insight

http://www.rickross.com/reference/polyg ... amy25.html

It's interesting that in Utah (which under the law is not allowed to indulge in polygamy) that this still goes on, then you have that Jeffs bloke who was on trial and so on.

But pre-eclampsia is soooo sooo common and it doesnt mean the parents are related.

theia · Post by **theia** » Sat Jan 12, 2008 3:22 am

AussiePam;757041 wrote: When God made Adam and Eve, they were the only people, and presumably from them came all of humanity. This is what I understand a large proportion of Christians, particularly in the United States, believe. Adam and Eve must have had daughters as well as the two sons mentioned or humanity would have died out, especially when one son killed the other. The next generation, and all that followed, down to the present day, might therefore be the products of incest.

I am very sorry for the two people in the OP. They are innocent victims of what has now become shameful.

So am I. Imagine falling in love, planning a life together and then discovering that your relationship is forbidden.

And whilst I'm not saying that the genetic argument is misplaced, since I know nothing about genetics, I do wonder how much of the taboo is down to our cultural conditioning?

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Sat Jan 12, 2008 9:16 am

theia;757085 wrote: So am I. Imagine falling in love, planning a life together and then discovering that your relationship is forbidden.

And whilst I'm not saying that the genetic argument is misplaced, since I know nothing about genetics, I do wonder how much of the taboo is down to our cultural conditioning?

Very little of it IMO. To me it's basic common sense. The urge to pro-create and diversify the gene pool is a natural one. There are no mammals in the wild state that in normal conditions will breed with siblings. Hybrids are often more intelligent and robust than same type breeding. Those who advocate racial purity may just hasten their own demise as they stay on he same place on the evolutionary ladder. Course I'm not a scientist so I may be talking a load of nonsense.

Look at what has happened with pedigree dogs and all the inbreeding to preserve what seem desirable traits. Too many have congenital defects that shorten their lives or leave them crippled and there are some breeds that can't give birth without human help.

CARLA · Post by **CARLA** » Sat Jan 12, 2008 9:48 am

I need more details about this sad story. How long were they married before this was found out? Were they planning on having Children? I just feel for the both of them.

Who am I to judge anyone. This has been going on since the dawn of MAN. No law will stop it as well. They are innocent victims as I see it for something they had no knowledge of. :-5

theia · Post by **theia** » Sat Jan 12, 2008 9:54 am

gmc;757166 wrote: Very little of it IMO. To me it's basic common sense. The urge to pro-create and diversify the gene pool is a natural one. There are no mammals in the wild state that in normal conditions will breed with siblings. Hybrids are often more intelligent and robust than same type breeding. Those who advocate racial purity may just hasten their own demise as they stay on he same place on the evolutionary ladder. Course I'm not a scientist so I may be talking a load of nonsense.

Look at what has happened with pedigree dogs and all the inbreeding to preserve what seem desirable traits. Too many have congenital defects that shorten their lives or leave them crippled and there are some breeds that can't give birth without human help.

It must succeed more than it fails though, or the practice would discontinue...wouldn't it? Or maybe it has? I wouldn't know.

Post by **spot** » Sat Jan 12, 2008 10:32 am

This ("The evolution of human incest avoidance mechanisms: an evolutionary psychological approach" by Debra Lieberman, John Tooby, and Leda Cosmides) wasn't exactly what I went looking for but it told me more than I ever wanted to know about consanguinity, affinity, mammals and the biological foundations of the incest taboo. It's great down to page 25 - anyone this far into the thread would find it useful to read, I think - then it goes wobbly for a couple of pages and finally carries a neat discussion of societal disapproval rather than individual choice:Although Freud’s beliefs about incest are clearly wrong, he was able to use one argument very effectively to disarm the proponents of Westermarck’s views (Freud, 1918), not to mention common sense. Freud asked an incisive question: Why prohibit activities that no one wants to engage in? For Freud, the existence of moral rules and social sanctions against incest demonstrated that people really wanted to engage in incest. Why else forbid them? This argument is seductive, but is weaker than it first appears: For example, most scholars would agree that most people do not want to commit suicide, and (if they thought about it) that the reluctance to engage in suicide is somehow rooted in a psychological attachment to survival selected for over evolutionary time. Yet, despite the fact that living is overwhelmingly popular, suicide is morally condemned and legally prohibited in many social groups. Nonetheless, Freud’s argument retains some force. There are few laws or taboos against holding your breath too long, or chewing bricks. But it does raise a real question: What is the relationship between disgust by individuals at the prospect of having sex with certain other specific individuals (who, it turns out, are their family members), and the complex and culturally variable networks of moral prohibitions regulating sex among relatives?

[...] The jump from individual preference to moral rule is by no means straightforward. Robin Fox successfully attacked the idea that that “taboo against incest is universal: In some places people find the notion ridiculous, and have no moral rules. In other places, the moral rules are severe (Fox, 1980). He accepted the Westermarck hypothesis, but inverted its application: Where children of both sexes are brought up together, there was a natural disinterest, and so there was no need for a prohibition. Where the sexes were segregated, the Westermarck mechanism had less opportunity to operate, and so siblings might have a real sexual interest in each other. It was in those societies that prohibitions were needed, and the culture provided them.

Post by **spot** » Sat Jan 12, 2008 4:56 pm

theia;757085 wrote: Imagine falling in love, planning a life together and then discovering that your relationship is forbidden.

Yes he loved his mother like no other.

His daughter was his sister and his son was his brother.

One thing on which you can depend is,

He sure knew who a boy's best friend is!

spot crawls back under cover and pretends he didn't post that

abbey · Post by **abbey** » Sat Jan 12, 2008 5:51 pm

Yes I feel sorry for this couple, it's very sad indeed.

But incestuous relations is WRONG no matter which way you look at it.