Separated-at-birth twins get married

[FatBastard]

ouuuch ....

Separated-at-birth twins get married
Fri Jan 11, 12:15 PM ET



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.

ADVERTISEMENT

David Alton, an independent, pro-life member of the Lords, said the brother and sister were granted an annulment after a high court judge ruled that the marriage had never validly existed.

The Catholic politician -- who discovered the case after talking to a judge -- used it to highlight perceived deficiencies in the government's proposed Human Embryology and Tissues Bill, which is currently going through parliament.

The bill is designed to make it easier for lesbian and gay couples to have children through assisted reproduction, recognising same-sex partners as legal parents of babies conceived through donated sperm, eggs or embryos.

But it contains no provision to require the identity of the donor to be disclosed, potentially meaning a child could not be told they were conceived by assisted reproduction.

Alton raised the case of the married twins -- who were born after IVF treatment -- during a debate on December 10, details of which only appeared on Friday.

"There are implications for everybody involved, but the needs of the child will always be paramount, and it is right that we should therefore make the process as transparent as possible," Alton told the Lords.

IVF -- which increases the chances of multiple births -- meant such cases could become more common if the law does not require children to be told they were donor conceived and have access to their genetic history, he said.

"The right of children to know the identity of their biological parents is a human right," he added Friday.

"There will be more cases like this if children are not given access to the truth. The needs of the child must always be paramount."

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.

[The PIT]

Well the couple should be allowed to marry and to be honest the fact that they were sister and brother shouldn't have never been revealed.
However the Gay couples shouldn't be allowed to promote such life styles as normal.

[Wulfman]

Well the couple should be allowed to marry...

and have children? well, if it's only one generation, inbreeding shouldn't be a big problem, but still...

mfg
wulfman

[High_Jumbllama]

How about a DNA test to check for such things.

[Brian Ellis]

1) Is there any proof that this "marriage" ever took place? Only the hearsay of a politician. Of course, it could be a dreadful mistake as any hereditary weakness in the family would have a 100% chance of being reproduced in the offspring. There's a damn good reason for consanguinity laws.

2) I see no reason why same-sex partnerships should not have children by some means or other. In the case of lesbians, one (or both) partners could be impregnated normally by a man and bring up the child(ren) in the lesbian household. What's the difference? Bit more difficult for a man to become preggers, though

[Fat Tone]

This is a HUGE can of worms.

Many will argue that the best environment for a child to grow up in is with a mother and a father, because of the influences and experience each brings. Many will also argue that if you choose (and I use that word loosely) a gay/lesbian lifestyle you are also choosing not to have children.

I'm not against same-sex partnerships if that what makes people happy (why should they be miserable just because of who they are and what society thinks of as 'normal') but having children is a whole other ball game.

[Brian Ellis]

Well, if the norm is Dad and Mum, then what about single-parent cases? These are acceptable but two parents of the same sex aren't. Doesn't make sense!

[Fat Tone]

Who's to say that being a single-parent through choice is any more acceptable?

[Brian Ellis]

Who said anything about choice? If it is not acceptable, then a widow or widower should not have the keep of her/his kids. If it is acceptable for a widow(er) to keep the kids, then I see no difference between that and a single parent by choice or even two parents of the same sex (or almost so!). I wouldn't mind betting that a kid by choice will be better brought up than an accident, no matter how many/type of parenting there is.

[Fat Tone]

That's the trouble with this issue, and one reason I said this is a huge can or worms. There are so many variations on the theme, such as the ones you raise, and of course it is a very emotive topic.

In an ideal world every child has two parents, one male, one female. The world is FAR from ideal.

[FatBastard]

Am I the only one that hears about 'normal' parents beating up their children?
starving them? abusing them ? physically or mentally ? molesting them ?
and I'm not talking just about the typical step dad story.
Just the other day somebody here posted a story about a 'normal' dad who threw his 4 kids to a river.
since when having a straight couple for parents is a guarantee for a child's normality (what ever the hell this is)?

[Fat Tone]

Of course not. There cannot be any guarantees. There's no reason to suppose that that sort of behaviour will correlate with any sort of parent group.

[NetSnake]

Brian

I have nothing against homosexuals. BUT allowing parents of the same sex to raise children I think is a serious violation of the children's right to be able to express normal behaviour (interaction with a mother and a father). Don't you think that homosexuality should be a matter of CHOICE not be influenced by the environment which a child is brought up in. Before everyone jumps on me, I DO NOT think that homosexual parents will raise homosexual children but you can't convince me that there will be no inlfuence at all to the child EVEN if the "parents" try to avoid it. Not to mention other psychological problems that the child might have because of the nature of his/her family.

Single parents is slightly different. I don't agree with it either but it is still not the same.

FatBastard
there is no reason to believe that a homosexual couple is less likely to be violent. so that goes for everybody.

[Wulfman]

I DO NOT think that homosexual parents will raise homosexual children but you can't convince me that there will be no inlfuence at all to the child EVEN if the "parents" try to avoid it.

if heterosexual parents can (involuntarily & despite "trying not to") raise a homosexual child, why would it be different the other way round? I mean - obviously, it is not necessarily the example, is it?

mfg
wulfman

[NetSnake]

@wulfman
I am not talking about what CAN happen I am talking about influence from the environment you are raised in.


Being a single parent by choice is also not very good. In any case, having a single parent whether the parent chose to be single or not is not the same as having homosexual parents. Because I think that a child that interacts with a single "normal" parent is closer to a natural environment than a child interacting with two parents of the same sex.