Oops! Twins separated at birth marry each other.

[imagirliegirl]

Story. (http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080111/wl_uk_afp/britainchildrenadoptionmarriage)

LONDON (AFP) - Twins who were separated at birth and adopted by different sets of parents later married each other without realising they were brother and sister, a peer has told the House of Lords.

The identities of the twins and details of their relationship and marriage have been kept secret, but it was known they were separated soon after birth and never told they were twins.

They only discovered they were blood relatives after the wedding.

Can you imagine how weird/awful that would be? To know you'd been intimate with your brother? Yikes.

[Gatsby]

:eek:

[DansGirl]

Takes the phrase "we had a lot in common" to a whole new level. ;)

[MichelleRenee]

If they were conceived through IVF why the heck were they both adopted??

[msnicolea]

That sounds like something off of a soap opera--how awful for them!?!?!?!?

This is so weird, but I was just reading an article about how people have historically mated with/married people who resemble them physically--gues this situation reinforces that notion!

[MichelleRenee]

I think this is more than a case of marrying someone they resembled. They probably have that "twin bond" and not knowing they were twins they probably just thought they were soul mates or something.

[MrsBeckyLP]

If they were conceived through IVF why the heck were they both adopted??

I was just coming here to post a thread about this, and THAT was going to be my main point. :confused: Who goes through IVF, only to put the kids up for adoption???

[msnicolea]

Ummm, yeah--that sounds odd. Off to investigate.

[msnicolea]

Were they adopted by homosexual couples, maybe? I guess there are surrogates who undergo IVF?

Regardless, it;'s very sad for them.

[Dan's*Girl]

Gross:eek:

[Adaya]

Yowza! That's pretty wild.

[MrsBeckyLP]

I just found another story on ABCNews.com (http://abcnews.go.com/Health/wireStory?id=4120915), and it says this was not a result of IVF.

"This did not involve in vitro fertilization: It involved the normal birth of twins who were separated at birth and adopted by separate parents," said Alton, an independent member of the Lords. "They were never told that they were twins."

It sounds like the first reporter got it wrong. It seems the issue is about a bill introduced that would make it easier for lesbian and gay couples to have children through assisted reproduction. But the bill doesn't say anything about the identity of the donor being disclosed. The above noted Alton used the twins case as an example of what happens when donors aren't disclosed, and I think the reporter took that to mean they were conceived through IVF, considering that is really what the bill is all about.

Whomever wrote the first story was just a confused reporter!

[AHammer]

Ewwww!!!!

Seriously - what would you do if you found yourself in that situation? I have no idea..

[alliannie]

Wow. I feel awful for both twins. Who would want to find themselves in that situation? How humiliating to find out you are married to your brother/sister. Awful!

[laura]

It seems the issue is about a bill introduced that would make it easier for lesbian and gay couples to have children through assisted reproduction. But the bill doesn't say anything about the identity of the donor being disclosed. The above noted Alton used the twins case as an example of what happens when donors aren't disclosed, and I think the reporter took that to mean they were conceived through IVF, considering that is really what the bill is all about.

but that is no different from people who use donor eggs/sperm. donations of eggs/sperm result in multiple recipients who could have kids who later marry each other w/o knowing. it wouldn't be 100% blood relatives, but it still skeeves me the hell out and it seems more probable a scenario.

(not arguing with you - just saying that is not the only situation this could happen in)

[ginastorm]

Do they not require blood tests for marriage licenses in England?

[alisong]

Do they not require blood tests for marriage licenses in England?What would that find? Blood tests for marriage certainly don't test for the relatedness of the parties. (Also, they're not required in all states in the US.)

[Kate&Joey]

Do they not require blood tests for marriage licenses in England?

Blood tests are not required in the United States either...it depends on the city/county.

[ginastorm]

Thanks! The state I was married in required a blood test & I just assumed that all states did. Interesting.

[DallasLady]

As I am reading this, all sorts of questions pop into my head. I am imagining a conversation like this taking place somewhere in their relationship...

Twin A: I'm adopted
Twin B: So am I, what a coincidence!
Twin A: My birthday is January 1, 1980
Twin B: So is mine, what a coincidence!
Twin A: Wouldn't it be funny, if we were, like, separated at birth or something?

I just saw a special on Discovery Health about a couple who found out their moms had used the same sperm donor, so they were half brother & sister.

[carolinabride]

THAT'S HORRIBLE! That is what I was thinking too, DallasLady. Wouldn't they notice similarities like birthdate, adoption, physical features, etc???

[rachrich]

how weird. Seriously, what are the odds for such a thing to happen??!!!

[Ummm]

i wonder how they found out?!

[phoenics]

Wow - how awful for them. Wow - that's just ... awful!

[imagirliegirl]

Twin A: I'm adopted
Twin B: So am I, what a coincidence!
Twin A: My birthday is January 1, 1980
Twin B: So is mine, what a coincidence!
Twin A: Wouldn't it be funny, if we were, like, separated at birth or something?

LOL

But on a serious note, maybe one of them didn't know they were adopted?

[imagirliegirl]

but that is no different from people who use donor eggs/sperm. donations of eggs/sperm result in multiple recipients who could have kids who later marry each other w/o knowing. it wouldn't be 100% blood relatives, but it still skeeves me the hell out and it seems more probable a scenario.

I've thought about the same thing. Blech.

[jajacobsen]

Thanks! The state I was married in required a blood test & I just assumed that all states did. Interesting.

Yeah but I REALLY doubt that blood test included DNA relatedness.

Most jurisdictions are doing away with the blood test because it rarely tested for anything "relevant" to today. For example, most marital blood tests checked for syphyllis, gonnorhea, etc but do NOT test for HIV, herpes, hepatitus, etc, which are actually more harmful/harder to treat if transmitted

I am pretty certain that NONE test for DNA relatedness. You can tell just by the cost. A DNA test would be several hundred dollars whereas marital blood tests are usually $50 or less.

[AHammer]

For example, most marital blood tests checked for syphyllis, gonnorhea, etc but do NOT test for HIV, herpes, hepatitus, etc, which are actually more harmful/harder to treat if transmitted

That's really weird - does anyone know why that is?

[MichelleRenee]

OT: if one of those blood tests comes back positive are you not allowed to get married?

[keska]

I doubt it. I think the tests are about making sure both parties have notice of important communicable diseases of the other partner before committing to a marriage.

[jajacobsen]

That's really weird - does anyone know why that is?


Most blood test laws were enacted in the 40s and 50s and only specifically common sexually transmitted diseases - sort of protection to unsuspecting brides from GIs who may have unknowingly become infected during WWII and teh Korean Conflict. They did not address other well known diseases which wer egenetic in nature such as sicle cell anemia, hemophilia, etc. The focus was definitely upon the STDs.

However, the laws generally were never updated as some STDs became more treatable and others emerged. Most times, these laws were not changed because of political reasons.

Additionally, in most cases, if a blood test detected an STD, a marriage license would NOT be issued. Of course, for teh diseases in which tehy were testing, treatment was available and the party coudl be restested once cured.

However, this approach posed a problem with viral diseases like HIV, herpes, and hepatitus, as these diseases are never cured. Still many people believe the soon to be spouse to be should be informed of their presence and others felt that testing for such was unfair to certain groups of people. As you can imagine, this became quite a political issue and most jurisdictions refused to tiouch it for some time. Cost was also a legitimmate issue. A comprehensive test would be several hundred dollars per person, and this is considered by many to be unfair.

Recently, I have noticed that most jurisdictions have chosen to drop the blood test requirement, probably because most lawmakers realized that the laws on the books were arcane and irrellevant. What the laws were testing for was really not a big deal in today's world of anti-biotics and the laws probably would never be amended to include a more comprehensive battery of disease and genetic deficiencies.

[mrschica]

I've always wondered if stuff like this happens and now I know! Poor people, how awkward.

[hub1176]

This is so wrong, but my first thought was: Did they stay married:eek:

As for looking alike - I've read that you are more likely to be attracted to someone who has the same facial characteristics as you.

[bug]

I can't imagine how horrified they must have been to learn the truth. The situation makes my skin crawl, but I can't be anything but sorry for them both.

[SpelKen]

I have a friend who told me that this happened to a family member. I know it's not an urban legend either because of the context of her telling me.

Apparently there were some family secrets that allowed it to happen. The father had a little girl by another woman in the same small town along with several other children by his wife. His daughter was raised as the child of another man.....20 years laters one of his sons fell in love with his daughter. Several people (even his older siblings, parents) knew the truth but allowed them to date, I want to say for years...so they had been intimate at some point. I think when he wanted to get married people told them the truth. He was disgusted and never recovered from it. He began using drugs and died at some point.

(I don't remember all the details clearly but I know that it was his sister and he was disgusted. )

[phoenics]

I have a friend who told me that this happened to a family member. I know it's not an urban legend either because of the context of her telling me.

Apparently there were some family secrets that allowed it to happen. The father had a little girl by another woman in the same small town along with several other children by his wife. His daughter was raised as the child of another man.....20 years laters one of his sons fell in love with his daughter. Several people (even his older siblings, parents) knew the truth but allowed them to date, I want to say for years...so they had been intimate at some point. I think when he wanted to get married people told them the truth. He was disgusted and never recovered from it. He began using drugs and died at some point.

(I don't remember all the details clearly but I know that it was his sister and he was disgusted. )

OmGosh. How could the family let them DATE???? KNOWING the truth?

Oh I feel sick... what a sad, sad story.

[junkinmytrunk]

Do they not require blood tests for marriage licenses in England?

Not required in CA where I was married.

[Kimberland30]

OT: if one of those blood tests comes back positive are you not allowed to get married?

Probably not, or else there wouldn't be so many marriages in Kentucky or West Virginia. DOH! :D


I doubt it. I think the tests are about making sure both parties have notice of important communicable diseases of the other partner before committing to a marriage.

Too bad they can't test for the "asshole gene" or other contributing factors. :)