Wrong and freaky? Yes. Worth a criminal prosecution?

  • Thread starter Famine
  • 124 comments
  • 7,718 views
I heard on the news today that this couple fell in love, married and then found out they were twins that had been separated at birth and adopted. They were never told they had a twin and now they have had to have their marriage annulled.

Im sorry but how messed up is that! especially if you love each other (no wonder as they are twins!)... I don't really know how to react to that story!

Robin
 
Hundreds of people in the world, what are the odds they'd meet and fall in love?
Odds of meeting are smaller than you expect if you consider that separated at birth does not mean shipped to different cities. So it is just a matter of what are the odds of meeting anyone you ae compatible with. Being twins they were very likely to be alike and find each other compatible and, depending on how true these twin bonds are, noticing an immediate closeness.

Once they meet the falling in love part is easy without being aware of the social and genetic taboo ingrained into your subconcious. They probably mistook whatever twin bonds may exist for love at first sight.
 
Interesting point someone made elsewhere:

Surely the fact that they both had the same birthday would have started a small amount of suspicion?
 
Odds of meeting are smaller than you expect if you consider that separated at birth does not mean shipped to different cities. So it is just a matter of what are the odds of meeting anyone you ae compatible with. Being twins they were very likely to be alike and find each other compatible and, depending on how true these twin bonds are, noticing an immediate closeness.

Once they meet the falling in love part is easy without being aware of the social and genetic taboo ingrained into your subconcious. They probably mistook whatever twin bonds may exist for love at first sight.

Quite true indeed, its still most unussual but very plausable at the same time that such thing could happen.
 
Interesting point someone made elsewhere:
Interesting maybe but meaningless, when I was in school there was 2 other people in my year who both had the same birthday as me. There is a girl at work who's siter was also born on the same day as me, there's plent of examples of people meeting and knowing other people born on the same day as themselves. It's not something that happens every week, but it happens often enough not to arouse most peoples suspicions especially if they never knew hey had a twin in the first place.

To be honest I feel sorry for the couple, metting randomly, getting to know eachother, falling in love then getting married only to find this out. Ofcourse the right thing to do was to get the marriage anulled, but it won't make the experience nice, or easy to deal with.
 
Interesting maybe but meaningless, when I was in school there was 2 other people in my year who both had the same birthday as me. There is a girl at work who's siter was also born on the same day as me, there's plent of examples of people meeting and knowing other people born on the same day as themselves. It's not something that happens every week, but it happens often enough not to arouse most peoples suspicions especially if they never knew hey had a twin in the first place.

Here's the conversation:

Man: Wow! You've got the same birthday as me? Cool!
Woman: Yeah! Mind you, I was adopted.
M: Really? Me too! Ever tried to find your parents?
W: No. Hey - maybe we're related! (lols)
(time passes)
M: Wow, you're my sister!


A further thought arises - Registrars MUST check Birth Certificates before granting a wedding permit. Given that they have the same date of birth (contained on the Birth Certificate), place of birth (and again), date of registration (again), registrant (again), registrar (again) and, lastly, PARENTS (ibid.), wouldn't that have been somewhat of a major clue?
 
Yeah, I suppose that would of. I doubt the conversation went exactley like that but once they found out they were both adopted and both had the same birthday that might cause some to wonder. And then the birth certificates should have given it away before they were married. Didn't think of that one 👍.
 
As previously stated, incest is illegal. They commited a crime, therefore they deserve prosecution. The psychological effects on other family members will be damaging now, and if it's not yet mentally affected the mother and son, it most certainly will later on.
I'm sure both parties were aware of the illegality of it, and one could say that they took advantage of each other (if the panic attack story has any basis in truth).
I feel sorry for the other family members.👎

+1

The point of mental state, is that the mother was in a capacity of nurturing her son to calm him down. She took advantage of him while he was in a state of mental distress. His mental state could blur the lines of being in a state of mind capable of making a consensual decision.

Sounds like one of the many definitions of "rape" to me.

This is really the crux of the problem with the panic attack issue. One would have to argue that having sex with someone who has recently had a panic attack can be considered rape.

Kind of what I thought.

*bump*

They say that ignorance of the law is not an excuse...

With that in mind, really bizarre story.

That's awsome! And Jeremy Clarkson only thought this happends in America! OWNED!

So, incest in the UK is illegal correct? If it is then they do deserve some sort of mental evaluation and or punishment. But jailtime? If the mother had intent on seducing her son premeditatedly then SHE deserves some jailtime followed by intensive psycho therapy. He (the son) should be evaluated and subject to psycho therapy or probation of some sort followed by therapy.

Offtopic alert.

And how far down the line should you wait before dipping into the "cousin" pool? What is considered "acceptable" by society? 3rd cousin? "Distant" cousin? And do cousin's fall into the incest catagory? I know this is offtopic but I felt the need to ask. We were talking about this at work today and we couldn't come up with an answer.
 
Did you guys know that in some American Indian societies and incest relationship could be punished by burning both parties to death.

and President Rosevelte was married to his cousin.

i think that the minimum cousin you can marry is your third cousin. at least that's what they do in the south..... and in england.

i think that it is "illegal" to marry your cousin no matter how far related she is unless she is someone who wouldnt' even know you through the largest family gatherings.

that reminds me of a Jeff Foxworthy joke: You might be a Redneck if your family tree does not branch; and, You might be a Redneck if you go to family reunions looking for women.
 
JCE
Offtopic alert.

And how far down the line should you wait before dipping into the "cousin" pool? What is considered "acceptable" by society? 3rd cousin? "Distant" cousin? And do cousin's fall into the incest catagory? I know this is offtopic but I felt the need to ask. We were talking about this at work today and we couldn't come up with an answer.
I can't give you a solid answer, but I've always heard 2nd cousins are not considered incest, and I don't think they are of the "same" blood. A 2nd cousin will share your great grandparent, but that's it. I think anyone beyond that is not of same blood, thus "acceptable" considering on who you ask.

As for what falls into the incest category, the US law is pretty much varied. According to the wiki, 24 states deem it illegal, & 7 have certain exemptions.
 
JCE
Hmm, I wonder who the 7 exemptions are? :D
Wiki states Utah, North Carolina, & Maine. The states with no restriction are also listed as well as the states where it is illegal.
In most of the Western world, while incest generally describes forbidden sexual relations within the family, the applicable definitions of family vary. Within the United States, marriage between first cousins is illegal in some states, but not in others. In twenty-four states marriages between first cousins are prohibited, and another seven permit them only under special circumstances. Utah, for example, permits first cousins to marry only if both spouses are over age 65, or at least 55 with evidence of sterility; North Carolina permits first cousins to marry unless they are "double first cousins" (cousins through more than one line); Maine permits first cousins to marry only upon presentation of a certificate of genetic counselling. The other states with some, but not absolute, limits on first-cousin marriage are Arizona, Illinois, Indiana, and Wisconsin.

First-cousin marriage without restriction is permitted in nineteen states — Alabama, Alaska, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Vermont, and Virginia—and the District of Columbia.

First-cousin marriage is illegal in Arkansas, Delaware, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Texas (such marriages may not be performed after 1 September 2005, although previous marriages are still recognized), Washington, West Virginia, and Wyoming, although the United States Constitution has been interpreted as requiring these states to give "full faith and credit" to such marriages performed in other states.[citation needed] Yet, in the absence of a United States Supreme Court ruling, the scope of the Full Faith and Credit Clause is not clear in this context, especially as it would have implications on whether states were required to recognize marriages commenced in Massachusetts between same-sex couples. There are conflicts and courts have interpreted the clause differently. Some states, such as Wisconsin [2], have marriage abroad laws that make marriages by their residents in jurisdictions in order to circumvent their state's marriage restrictions null and void, and marriages contracted in that state to avoid restrictions in another jurisdiction likewise void.
I think then, you can be able to find out the remaining 4.
 
My ex-husband had an affair with his first cousin (which is why he is my ex) we live in Arkansas she in Oregon. Now they are getting married...most likely in VA. Not sure. They are moving to Arkansas with her two girls. I have custody of my daughter, she sees her dad about once a month (his doing not ours). What can I do to not have my daughter exposed to this insest? Will the state of Arkansas up hold the marriage if challenged?
 
My ex-husband had an affair with his first cousin (which is why he is my ex) we live in Arkansas she in Oregon. Now they are getting married...most likely in VA. Not sure. They are moving to Arkansas with her two girls. I have custody of my daughter, she sees her dad about once a month (his doing not ours). What can I do to not have my daughter exposed to this insest? Will the state of Arkansas up hold the marriage if challenged?

Marrying cousins is not regarded as incestuous and, as such, not illegal. Though I can't speak for US Federal or Arkansas/Virginia state law.
 
there's your point.

depending on where this takes place is how the law works, and also the morals.

The US considers 21 adult, and anything under that damn near still in diapers :P
yes, it DOES have to do with america's "puritanical" reputation. I think over here, the mother would be in Jail for statutory Rape, and the son locked away in a mental institution.

i wonder, sometimes, if this is not what they want to do with the GLTB Americans :P
 
Well the obvious first... An 18 yr old isn't an adult and can't be consenting. Second of all... and I say this with the greatest sincere... who would want to "do it" (because it's the only term I can use without hurling) with their mom especially if they look like that?!

Seriously, these two need to get their heads checked... I'd say if there's any criminal prosecution it should be child abuse. That's all I got.

An 18 year old isn't an adult? :confused:

They're both adults, but i think they're both probably guilty.

EDIT: Oops i didn't check the date i just saw it on the first page, sorry :guilty:
 
What can I do to not have my daughter exposed to this insest? Will the state of Arkansas up hold the marriage if challenged?

You can try not exposing your daughter to said incest. 💡 Don't expect someone or something (Arkansas) to do it for you.
 
there's your point.

depending on where this takes place is how the law works, and also the morals.

The US considers 21 adult, and anything under that damn near still in diapers :P
yes, it DOES have to do with america's "puritanical" reputation. I think over here, the mother would be in Jail for statutory Rape, and the son locked away in a mental institution.

i wonder, sometimes, if this is not what they want to do with the GLTB Americans :P

Okay, i don't know where that was but here 18 is considered to be an adult.
 
I'm sorry I don't have time to read the whole thread, but this should definitely be a criminal offence. What if contraceptives failed, and God forbid, he got his Mum pregnant?:yuck: It's an offence to that child, because inbred children really are domb, it's no joke.
 
Who do we protect when we spend taxpayer's money prosecuting and imprisoning an adult for an act upon another adult to which both have agreed? What is so dangerous to the rest of us that requires this?
 
Perhaps the damage to humanity when an inbred child is introduced to the gene pool?
 
The child certainly did not choose to enter the world that way. On top of that, given the mother's age, the rates for trisome-21 and other genetic diseases rise as well as the consequences of inbreeding. Yes, I think the potential child is what is going to be protected here, and he/she will be the real victim. Being born out of such a bizarre scenario cannot help it at all.
 
The 18 year old son shouldn't be prosecuted. He should be made to go to Specsavers.
 
The child certainly did not choose to enter the world that way. On top of that, given the mother's age, the rates for trisome-21 and other genetic diseases rise as well as the consequences of inbreeding. Yes, I think the potential child is what is going to be protected here, and he/she will be the real victim. Being born out of such a bizarre scenario canot help it at all.
So does this mean that we have to require pregnant mothers to avoid all potentially risky behavior as well if it has a high potential to affect the fetus?
 
Perhaps the damage to humanity when an inbred child is introduced to the gene pool?

I don't feel particularly at risk from an inbred child. If I did, I'd go insane every time I heard mention of the Royal Family.

The child certainly did not choose to enter the world that way. On top of that, given the mother's age, the rates for trisome-21 and other genetic diseases rise as well as the consequences of inbreeding. Yes, I think the potential child is what is going to be protected here, and he/she will be the real victim. Being born out of such a bizarre scenario canot help it at all.

What child?

As I said, it's certainly wrong and freaky. But I can't see any merit to throwing taxpayer's money away on a criminal prosecution or gaol term for an act between two adults who agreed to it with absolutely no danger to any other person.
 
So does this mean that we have to require pregnant mothers to avoid all potentially risky behavior as well if it has a high potential to affect the fetus?

I meant that the victim of this case is neither the mother nor the boy; if it is so difficult to discern, the child is still at risk. The foetus has no power over wnything that coours.

Risky behaviour, I believe, is the responsibility of the mother... I suppose I overlooked that detail.

Edit: This is an ill-thought out post; from reading, I was under the impression that the mother was impregnated.
 
The 18 year old son shouldn't be prosecuted. He should be made to go to Specsavers.

Where you live in Scotland the adult age is 16(proof). In the US it is 18 but when you are 16 in the US you can be brought to court.
 
Back