:eek: Weird
Identical?
So, we’ve got an unnamed couple in a secret court hearing with an anonymous judge, and an MP who just happens to be sponsoring a bill that relates to this very issue.
I smell a load of bullshit.
In all fairness, can you imagine the fallout if any of this information about these two people were leaked? I can completely understand why it would be couched in the utmost of secrecy. And it makes perfect sense that an MP might want to exploit a highly sensational case to further his own legislative ends.
Not saying you’re wrong, but it certainly doesn’t automaticaly defy credulity.
Yes, losing their twin was so traumatic for these babies that they didn’t even find out they had a twin until they reached adulthood!
If there was no genetic problem for the hypothetical children of these two people, why shouldn’t they have the choice to remain married, if they wanted to?
You know, it’s funny - I read a different article on this topic this afternoon and didn’t consider that possibility, but I did when I read the one in the OP. I’m all for greater access to adoption information, I don’t think it’s right to keep it from kids who want to know. But the idea that Britain needs to change its laws to prevent separated siblings from marrying each other? How often is THAT going to happen? It’s a silly reason for the law and since there are no supporting details, it makes me doubt that any of it happened.
If it is true, I’m sorry for the twins. Not just because their family reunions are going to be really awkward from now on.
Let’s think about this for a moment.
Wouldn’t it have rang a bell knowing that they were born on the same day? I would also assume that they both would have been aware that they had been adopted at birth.
This is strange if true. A real life Luke and Leia.
It’s quite a leap to go from (born on the same day) + (adopted) = we’re twins!, though. They probably just thought, “Cool, we have the same birthday and we’re both adopted. It must be destiny!”
I agree. And even if there were a genetic problem - that’s no bigger dilemma or deal than some unrelated couples face - for example, those who know they’re carrying some recessive defect.
They’re not brother and sister in any way meaningfully relevant to their relationship.
That said, it may have been their explicit choice to have the marriage annulled.
Whooooooosh.
You’re right, they never should have allowed same-sex marriage! :smack:
They should be able to, morally if not legally, regardless of genetic problems, just so long as they avoid having children ( no children, no genetic issues, obviously ). But if they do choose to have children, our technology simply isn’t good enough to tell them with any reliability that they are safe. And even more important, genetic therapy technology is still in it’s infancy, so we can’t correct any genetic defects that slip through any tests. And if we find out that the kid has a fatal defect at say 13, it’s rather too late for an abortion.
Siamese.
i’m a bit surprized they felt they needed to end the marriage. there have been cases of adopted separatly siblings marrying, who stayed married. every now and then it will hit the news. don’t remember twins though.
shades of star wars.
That’s nice. However, their evident lack of intelligence in not noticing that suggest to me that they shouldn’t procreate at all.
If you actually read the article:
The possible change in the law being debated is the wider issue of the rights of adopted children to know the identity their blood relatives. Not a specific one dealing with sibling marriages.
And as for there being ‘no supporting details’, why should there be? The MP was merely using this as one anecdotal example during a debate in the Lords and probably did not have any idea it would become a news story in its own right.
Instead of annullment of the marriage, couldn’t they just have moved to Norfolk?
Ahem:
I read that article, and said so in my post. And I also read another story on the same subject earlier today. The law should be changed so everyone can get the information on their bio parents if they choose to.
My point is that a story of two people marrying and find out that they are twins (assuming it’s true) is such a freak occurrence that it’s not a good argument for changing this law. Denying people this information has real consequences, but this consequence is vanishingly unlikely. It’s like saying we should have a space program because if we send a space shuttle into orbit, a gigantic meteor might hit it and bounce harmlessly away instead of destroying the world. The cause is good, the argument is silly. You’ve got Alton talking about this situation like it’s happening every day: