Unknowing twins marry each other

[Varaj]

LONDON, England -- A set of British twins who were separated at birth went on to marry each other without realizing they were related, the UK Press Association reported Friday.

The brother and sister, who were adopted by separate parents, were given an annulment after a High Court judge ruled that the marriage had never been valid.

Their identities and details of their relationship have been kept secret, but the Press Association reported that the duo did not find out that they were blood relatives until after they were married.

David Alton, a member of the House of Lords, revealed their situation as a way of highlighting perceived shortcomings in the Human Embryology and Tissues Bill which is now going through Britain's Parliament.

He first heard of the twins' marriage in a conversation with a High Court judge, and initially raised the case in a House of Lords debate on December 10.

Alton said: "(The brother and sister) met later in life and felt an inevitable attraction, and the judge had to deal with the consequences of the marriage that they entered into and all the issues of their separation.

"I suspect that it will be a matter of litigation in the future if we do not make information of this kind available to children who have been donor-conceived."

Alton is concerned that the new bill would allow the biological identity of one parent to be removed from the birth certificate, PA reported, and that there would be no way for the child to know if they had been donor-conceived.

He told PA on Friday: "The state is colluding in a deception. We are opening the door to more cases like this one. One of the most fundamental things of all is to know who you are. The issue here is about human rights.

"A birth certificate that omits any mention of your true origin falsifies your history in a very significant way."
http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/europe/01/11/twins.married/index.html

Oops :o

[Limper]

Thats actully pretty depressing. It would really suck to be in their shoes.

[Varaj]

Thats actully pretty depressing. It would really suck to be in their shoes.

I'm not bothered by the concept of adult incest so my response would be "we loved each other before we knew, it changes nothing".

[Limper]

I'm not bothered by the concept of adult incest so my response would be "we loved each other before we knew, it changes nothing".

Same here... kids would be a bad idea but other than that no change.

[Varaj]

Same here... kids would be a bad idea but other than that no change.

In general, kids wouldn't be a bad idea. You have to do a lot of inbreeding to cause problems. Sure you might both have some sort of genetic flaw but your chances aren't that much greater breeding with somebody at random.

[Limper]

In general, kids wouldn't be a bad idea. You have to do a lot of inbreeding to cause problems. Sure you might both have some sort of genetic flaw but your chances aren't that much greater breeding with somebody at random.

In a technical sense you are correct. Hell in a tecchnical sense it would be a good idea for the species to have more inbreeding acccording to something I read a a few years back. Something about we don't have enough genetic diversity anymore as a species and hardposting some genetic differences may actualy strengthen the species.

[Scarbonac]

Hmmm...I wonder how many times they had sex before they found out they were twins...

[Janos]

Wow that'd suck. Whether or not it's okay and they continue, that's going to cause some psychological trauma to the average person. Incest is one hell of a strong cultural taboo.

[Ancalagon]

Thats actully pretty depressing. It would really suck to be in their shoes.

I totally agree.

When I was a kid, I had a "secret cousin" - she was adopted by a local family, but was actually my uncle's daughter. When I was 13, my parents told the big secret to my sisters and I, just to be sure that I didn't accidentally start dating my cousin.

They didn't have to worry about something like that happening :grey:

[Martin]

post pix pls k thx

[Space Cadet B^3]

I wonder how the twins found out?

[Vermicious Knid]

I'm not bothered by the concept of adult incest so my response would be "we loved each other before we knew, it changes nothing".


I wouldn't be bothered in this case. It wasn't creepy when they started fucking, doesn't suddenly become creepy due to an accident of birth.

[Bagpuss]

In general, kids wouldn't be a bad idea. You have to do a lot of inbreeding to cause problems. Sure you might both have some sort of genetic flaw but your chances aren't that much greater breeding with somebody at random.

Really? There are a German Bother and Sister that have four kids and I think three are disabled.

[Bagpuss]

I'm not bothered by the concept of adult incest so my response would be "we loved each other before we knew, it changes nothing".

Well other than you would be knowingly breaking the law. The UK has laws against incest between siblings, in fact they recently expanded the law to cover step-siblings as well.

[Bagpuss]

I wonder how the twins found out?

Were they identical? :lol:

[Varaj]

Really? There are a German Bother and Sister that have four kids and I think three are disabled.

Yes really.

[Ancalagon]

actually..

The normal chance of having a birth defect is about 2%. This rate increases to about 4% if the two parents are first cousins. It's still pretty low, so it's ok. However, if the parents are sibling, the rate is much higher - I don't remember the exact number, I want to say 8% but I could be wrong.

aha, found something:

In April 2002, the Journal of Genetic Counseling released a report authored by a team of scientists led by Robin L. Bennett, a genetic counselor at the University of Washington and the president of the National Society of Genetic Counselors, which showed that the potential risk of birth defects in a child born of first cousins was slightly higher than the risk associated with a non-cousin couple. The report estimated the increased risk for first cousins at 1.7 - 2.8 % over the base risk of about 3%, or about the same as that of any woman over age 40, or of a still younger man (see paternal age). Put differently, first-cousin marriages entail roughly the same increased risk of birth defects as a woman faces when she gives birth at age 41 (roughly 6%) rather than at 30 (roughly 3%). Critics argue that banning first-cousin marriages would make as much sense as trying to ban childbearing by older women. These numbers were reported only for first instances of cousin mating; repeated generations of cousin coupling are thought to increase the risk substantially.[citation needed]

A BBC report[2], however, found that Pakistanis in Britain, 55% of whom marry a first cousin, are 13 times more likely than the general population to produce children with genetic disorders, and that one in ten children of cousin marriages either dies in infancy or develops a serious disability. Thus Pakistani-Britons, who account for some 3% of all births in the UK, produce "just under a third" of all British children with genetic illnesses.

A second-cousin mating entails an additional risk of birth defects that many authorities assess at about 1 in 100 — the same risk as that of a woman producing offspring at age 35 or, again, that of an even younger man.

So first cousins the first time is ok. I don't think brother and sisters would carry an acceptable risk however, and repeated first cousin marriages would have negative consequences.

Ancalagon

[Harry]

That's sad. I'll bet they had a lot in common.

[Varaj]

actually..

The normal chance of having a birth defect is about 2%. This rate increases to about 4% if the two parents are first cousins. It's still pretty low, so it's ok. However, if the parents are sibling, the rate is much higher - I don't remember the exact number, I want to say 8% but I could be wrong.

aha, found something:



So first cousins the first time is ok. I don't think brother and sisters would carry an acceptable risk however, and repeated first cousin marriages would have negative consequences.

Ancalagon

That matches what I said. Not much of a difference unless done over generations. 5% difference is pretty small and the Pakistani shows the long term.

Ancalagon are you suggesting that people with known chromosome defects shouldn't be able to reproduce at all?

[Ancalagon]

that's for cousins. It spikes up for brothers-sister pairs. You have 50% of the same gene as your brother or sister, but only 12.5% of genetic similarity with a cousin. That's a four-fold increase. if cousin pairing has double the chance of genetic defect, it's reasonable to predict that brother-sister pairs will have an 8 fold increase of birth defects over the general population. I don't think that's negligible.

[Varaj]

that's for cousins. It spikes up for brothers-sister pairs. You have 50% of the same gene as your brother or sister, but only 12.5% of genetic similarity with a cousin. That's a four-fold increase. if cousin pairing has double the chance of genetic defect, it's reasonable to predict that brother-sister pairs will have an 8 fold increase of birth defects over the general population. I don't think that's negligible.

Consanguinity issues
The case brought to light several issues many people would rather not discuss, especially issues related to consanguinity.
Robin Bennett, manager of the Genetic Medicine Clinic at the University of Washington Medical Center, with Arno Motulsky, professor emeritus of medicine and genome sciences at the University of Washington, presented a paper on consanguinity in the 2002 April issue of the Journal of Genetic Counseling.
In a summary of the paper, the authors conclude that the genetic risks to offspring of consanguineous relationships have been overstated.
Bennett, in a telephone interview with The Register Herald, said first cousins are third-degree relatives, uncle/niece are second-degree, and sibling/sibling or parent/child are first-degree.
"Uncle/niece risk is somewhat higher than first-cousin risk, which is between 1.7% to 2.8% above the background risk," said Bennett.
"Risk in first-degree relations is 7% to 31% - based on limited studies," she said.
Following Bennett's reasoning, the genetic risk of morbidity (the relative incidence of disease) in uncle/niece relationships is somewhere between 2.8% and 7% above the risk of unrelated couples.

http://www.zwire.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=13686645&BRD=1706&PAG=461&dept_id=72001&rfi=6

That 7% to 31% is based on defects existing to begin with. Are you going to limit non-incest relations that have a high chance for defect?
Why is an increased risk from incest so much worse than any other known increase?

[Dr. Paragon]

From Garth Ennis' "Preacher":
"Son of God or son of man, Marseille: You can't fuck your sister and expect much good to come of it."

"After 2,000 years of keeping them breeding inside the one bloodline, we're lucky the bastard doesn't have antennae." -Starr
:cool:

[doc]

I would assume it was the blood test that clued them in,

[Space Cadet B^3]

I would assume it was the blood test that clued them in,
Most of the time that's not what they test for.

[Hatter]

"The princess went on to marry a smuggler instead."

[Sobek]

I'm thinking that'd fuck up all downstream relationships, too.

"So, what ruined your first marriage?"
"I found out he was my fucking brother."
"Right. Have a nice life."

Also, if you found out you had a "long lost twin" wouldn't that be motivation for keeping in touch at the holidays, etc.? That'd add a serious level of discomfort, too. Everyone there would be strongly reminded that you fucked your sibling.

[Sobek]

Geek out: I wonder if they were named Luke and Leia.

[Pigs in Space]

post pix pls k thx

Dude, they weren't lesbian twins.

[Bagpuss]

I wonder how the twins found out?

Doctor: "Well the good news is the DNA test show your husband is a compatible kidney donor."

[Hastur T. Fannon]

From Garth Ennis' "Preacher":

"I've seen their latest candidate. We'd be lucky to get water into urine."

I love that comic

[The Wanderer]

one would think that if a couple was both adopted and born on the same day it would raise some flags

[Pigs in Space]

one would think that if a couple was both adopted and born on the same day it would raise some flags

I know when I adopt children that I ususally change all that stuff around, because it makes for hillarious hijinks!

I also like to suddenly tell my children that they are one of the other children in the house randomly, I ususally switch them around every few months or so to keep them on their toes.

Also, you can try cool ideas with gender roles and also maybe trying to convince them that they are an inanimate object, like a saucepan or a bottle opener. Actually the last one is far more useful, but wait at least until they have teeth. Really, they don't hold enough when they are saucepans.