kristof65 Posted January 11, 2008 Share Posted January 11, 2008 Twins unwittingly got married in Britain OUCH! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
haldir Posted January 11, 2008 Share Posted January 11, 2008 Luke & Leia perhaps?? RM Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CuCulain42 Posted January 11, 2008 Share Posted January 11, 2008 I'm wondering how they found out, did they do some random genetic test. "Hey hun, now that we're married let's go see how closely were related." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reaperbryan Posted January 11, 2008 Share Posted January 11, 2008 Funny as it is, it speaks volumes for reasons why adopted persons, when they become adults should have legal rights to the records pertaining to their adoption. I understand about the rights of the Parents wanting privacy, but sometimes 2 gropus of individuals have conflicting needs and desires, and one must be judged to trump another in every case. Up until now, the Parent right to secrecy trumps the childs right to knwo who they are. maybe this will help change that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kristof65 Posted January 11, 2008 Author Share Posted January 11, 2008 CuCulain - My guess is that the genetics tests came about as the result of children - either a genetically related health problem of a child who was born to them, or some type of screening as a result of infertility or something. Bryan - funny how the privacy of the parent trumps things, isn't it? This reminds me of a Dr Laura call I had the pleasure of hearing once - a man called in, and admitted to Dr Laura to having an affair with his secretary of 20+ years that resulted in a daughter. The affair ended, but he kept her on as an employee so he could provide for his daughter. His son by his wife, and his daughter by the secretary had practically grown up together, and as they approached the end of high school, they *gasp* started dating. Of course, he and his secretary were horrified, but neither could say anything without revealing their secret shame! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fieldarchy Posted January 12, 2008 Share Posted January 12, 2008 Funny as it is, it speaks volumes for reasons why adopted persons, when they become adults should have legal rights to the records pertaining to their adoption. I understand about the rights of the Parents wanting privacy, but sometimes 2 gropus of individuals have conflicting needs and desires, and one must be judged to trump another in every case. Up until now, the Parent right to secrecy trumps the childs right to knwo who they are. maybe this will help change that. Actually . . . in the US there are two types of adoption cases. I know alot about adoptions because I was adopted and so was my sister (from another family). Anyway, both of us had open adoptions. What that means is that upon turning 18, if my parents haven't told me any information regarding my birth family, I can request the records from the adoption agency or court that granted the adoption and basically track down my birth parents if I so choose. My parents were always very open about the fact that my sister and I were adopted and my sister's birth mother even lived with us while she was pregnant because her family kicked her on the street. So, she came to visit Ashleigh once a year. As Ash got older she stayed in touch but I think has lost contact now. She knows she has three half brothers but the father is very uncomfortable with Ash being in the picture. So they parted ways. My birthmother was a patient in my mom's OBGYN so her records were always available to my mom if she needed to contact my birthmother or her family regarding family history. Anyway, when I was 15 I tracked down my birthmother on my own using the internet. I contacted her and we met and stayed in touch for a couple of years. She was a very negative influence though and I cut my ties to her. The other type of adoption is a closed adoption and that is when no information is made available to the child. Choosing what type of adoption it is though is up to the birth parents. If they don't object to the possibility of being contacted then it's open. If they object and want no contact at all, it's a closed adoption. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mad Jack Posted January 12, 2008 Share Posted January 12, 2008 Weren't they required to take a blood test or something when they got married? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reaperbryan Posted January 12, 2008 Share Posted January 12, 2008 Not necessarily. I know Texas does not require blood tests (only 8 states in the US currently do), and even so the blood tests were intended to determine if one or both of the marrying couple had a disease that may be passed on to their children (Typically STDs that would be lethal or dangerous to newborns). Many of the state blood test laws came about during the 1930s, before penicillin and antibiotics. At the time, syphilis was considered a significant public health hazard. No part of the Blood test, if one were even done (I do not know if they do this in the UK at all) would check DNA to examine if genetic markers indicated unknown relationships. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bel_Amore Posted January 14, 2008 Share Posted January 14, 2008 yeah MN doesn't require a blood test at all. Knowing I have a large family and most staying in the general area, I took an interest in knowing my family tree so I wouldn't end up dating a cousin or anything. I always knew I'd have to marry someone from "out of town" to avoid this. I actually have an aunt and uncle that are like 3rd or 4th cousins I think. For those of you who aren't sure what that mean, either their great-grandparents were siblings, or their great-great-grandparents were siblings. I'd imagine knowing your family tree is much more difficult if you're adopted or if your family has severed ties along the way. anyway, I have to wonder if this british case is real or if he took some liberties (ie. Luke and Leia) to prove a point. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fieldarchy Posted January 14, 2008 Share Posted January 14, 2008 yup knowing your family tree when you are adopted is pretty much not going to happen unless you get in contact with your birth parents and get documentation from them to build your own tree. I basically know the last names to stay away from but considering I live a thousand miles from my home town and where my birth family lives not much of a big deal for me. But if you are adopted and don't know . . . I highly recommend getting blood tests before you get married. Can you imagine having been in a relationship with someone for a couple of years only to find out they are your brother or first cousin and you never knew it?! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Qwyksilver Posted January 15, 2008 Share Posted January 15, 2008 Massachusetts is one of the states that requires a blood test, but it is only for STDs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mad Jack Posted January 15, 2008 Share Posted January 15, 2008 Well, it *is* a small world out there... My grandfather one time got into a conversation with a total stranger and found out that the guy was his 1st cousin... The family split apart over whether or not to come to America, and my grandfather had no idea that the other part of the family had also eventually emigrated from Sicily... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kristof65 Posted January 15, 2008 Author Share Posted January 15, 2008 Right you are Mad Jack - it is a small world. I've had more than one random and unexpected encounter with someone from my past, miles away from where I would have expected them. My family on both sides are pretty big on genealogy and keeping track of each other, so it's never been family, but it easily could be. I had a boss once in California who hired a girl who had just moved to the area from Calgary. After we all worked together about 6 months, they got to talking, and figured out they were first cousins as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VelveteenRabbit Posted January 18, 2008 Share Posted January 18, 2008 I'm sad they didn't stay together. I don't really see what the big deal is... Not that I have a cousin I want to marry or anything, but inbreeding isn't always a bad thing. It can amplify negative genetic traits, but it can do the same for positive traits. I don't all that much about it, but most inbreeding issues come about from generations of inbreeding, not a one time pairing. Either way, it's not like they couldn't have adopted kids assuming they even wanted kids. I'm sure it was more of a psychological issue than a genetics issue for the two of them. I just think it's sad that they found each other, liked one another enough to get married, and then called it off because of genetics. You can't choose your family, but you can choose your friends, and I think those are the ones that really count anyway. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fieldarchy Posted January 19, 2008 Share Posted January 19, 2008 but they are brother and sister . . . I mean wouldn't you be grossed out about marrying a sibling? Now if they were cousins I would be more ok with them staying together as it isn't as direct a relation. but brother and sister separated at birth being in a relationship and getting married even though they knew they were brother and sister. That would be a bit odd. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.