Twins Unwittingly Got Married in Great Britain

[wintergreen48]

Eeewwww.

http://tinyurl.com/2v2keu

Long story short, they were adopted and found out after they were married that they had the same parents.

Incest laws are not based upon genetic concerns (i.e., that inbreeding is a genetically bad thing) but upon sociological concerns (i.e., that marrying close relatives will lead to disruptions in the family unit, if people are allowed to act out their Oedipal and Elektral fantasies). I suspect that the odds are pretty low of it happening, but obviously it is possible that this kind of thing can happen; with in vitro fertilizations and things like that going on, with totally anonymous donors, I suspect that the odds of such things happening are growing higher.

Lawn Order had an episode where the red herring involved such incest-- the first murder victim was pregnant, and genetic tests showed that the father was a close relative, which seemed to rule out her boyfriend, until they found that the boyfriend was actually her brother (their mutual father had secretly maintained two separate families, the boy's mother knew but no one else did).

[andrewjackson]

Eeewwww.

http://tinyurl.com/2v2keu

Long story short, they were adopted and found out after they were married that they had the same parents.

Incest laws are not based upon genetic concerns (i.e., that inbreeding is a genetically bad thing) but upon sociological concerns (i.e., that marrying close relatives will lead to disruptions in the family unit, if people are allowed to act out their Oedipal and Elektral fantasies). I suspect that the odds are pretty low of it happening, but obviously it is possible that this kind of thing can happen; with in vitro fertilizations and things like that going on, with totally anonymous donors, I suspect that the odds of such things happening are growing higher.

Lawn Order had an episode where the red herring involved such incest-- the first murder victim was pregnant, and genetic tests showed that the father was a close relative, which seemed to rule out her boyfriend, until they found that the boyfriend was actually her brother (their mutual father had secretly maintained two separate families, the boy's mother knew but no one else did).

I think your statement in the first sentence might be open to a little more difference of opinion than you are allowing. How do you know the basis of all incest laws?

My understanding is that incest in English common law was originally treated as a religious violation based on Leviticus. The U.S. courts and governments are the ones that made it a criminal offense. How do you know that the only rationale by those legislatures and judges was a social rather than genetic one?

Maine allows cousins to marry if they have genetic counseling. Surely that would lead one to believe that the law is at least partially based on genetic fears.

[wintergreen48]

Consider the prohibitions that are involved in incest laws (going back to Leviticus), where so many of them involve people who have no biological (genetic) relationship whatsoever, but they have strong familial/social impacts: a man cannot marry his brother's wife, for example, but how does that involve any genetic issues (unless the brother and her wife were already closely related). Leviticus provides that if a man marries his brother's wife, they will be childless; but it also provides that if a man dies childless, his brother must (MUST) knock up the widow so that the dead guy will have heirs (Onan was punished by God-- he was actually killed-- because he refused to do the job properly)..

In any of these cases, it is hard to see how there could have been any 'genetic' concerns about the relationships. It is obvious that the prohibition against marrying your sibling's spouse, and the requirement of knocking-up the spouse of a childless sibling, both have nothing to do with genetics, and everything to do with intra-family relationships, with the inheritability of property, etc.

Leviticus also prohibits a man from boinking his stepdaughters. In a society that practiced polygamy (at least, at the time of Leviticus), it also prohibits a man from marrying the sister of one of his existing wives. Again, where is the genetic concern? It all has to do with disruption of social relationships.

In light of Leviticus, consider the situation of Henry VIII: he had to obtain a special dispensation from the Pope in order to marry Catherine of Aragon, because she had been married to his older brother, Arthur, the Prince of Wales (for about four months, during which they never, um, did any consummating); Henry VII wanted Henry and Catherine to be married because he did not want to have to return Catherine's dowry to Spain after Arthur's death. Henry and Catherine did marry, and when they failed to have a son (two died quickly, as did three daughters), Henry convinced himself that it was because the marriage was 'incestuous,' in violation of Leviticus and in violation of canon law; the 'incestuous' nature of their relationship was the grounds for his request for an annulment of the marriage, but the concern about 'incest' obviously had nothing to do with genetics, of which Henry and the Pope were both ignorant.

And far from being concerned about genetics, consider what else was going on with Henry and Catherine... Two of Catherine's four great-grandmothers were sisters, and she herself was a cousin of both her father-in-law, Henry VII, and her mother-in-law, Elizabeth of York (and Henry VII and Elizabeth were themselves cousins, of course), as well as a cousin of Henry VIII himself. And before Henry grew tired of Catherine, he and she tried to arrange a marriage of their daughter, Mary Tudor, to the Emperor Charles V, who was the son of Catherine's sister, Joan (that didn't pan out, but when Mary became queen she did marry Charles's son, Philip II of Spain).

Check out the other historical incest laws, and you see that, consistently, blood relationships are not the driver, it is family and social relationships. Remember, no one really knew anything about genetics until the 19th Century, and the laws against incest go WAY back before that. Besides prohibiting someone from marrying their sibling's spouse, most incest laws also prohibit a man from marrying an aunt or niece by marriage, and prohibit a woman from marrying an uncle or nephew by marriage: these kinds of things disrupt the family unit, and the incest laws originally began as a way to eliminate the possibility of intra-family rivalries. To the extent that anyone noticed that there were adverse genetic consequences to an illicit relationship (i.e., noticing the greater occurrence of physical defects among children born to parents who are themselves closely related), they would not have attributed it to genetics-- again, something about which they had no knowledge until the 19th Century-- but they would have been attributed it to God's judgment on them for violating His rules (again, that's what Henry VIII believed, and that was the legal basis for his annulment petition).

And consider the long, long history of royal marriages, not just the wacky Tudors, but going back to the Egyptian Pharaohs (who routinely married their own sisters, and occasionally their mothers and daughters), or the Hapsburgs (who routinely married their nieces and first cousins), or (to get back to England) the married king and queen William III & Mary II (who were first cousins): these marriages resulted from the idea that marrying close blood relatives was the best thing to do, because this would give you the 'purest' blood/lineage. Again, they didn't know about the genetic problems that arise: while the usual rules against incest were social constructs designed to prevent intra-family competition for mates, the royals insisted upon exceptions to the usual rules for the purpose of keeping 'it' (political power) within the family.

In modern times, people have come to consider the genetic consequences of breeding within close blood lines (hence the genetic testing exception in Maine, which obviously is a law of very recent vintage). But look at most incest laws, and you will see that blood is not the deciding factor, it is the social relationship that governs.

From an evolutionary standpoint (can we talk about evolution here?) there is a lot of interesting research that indicates that the incest taboo is somewhat ingrained in us, as to people with whom we have close relationships, but not as to people 'outside,' that is, in the vast majority of 'normal' people, there seems to be an actual aversion to breeding with the people with whom you grow up, but not with people who are 'strangers' to your household. In some societies that provide for arranged marriages, the young couple are brought up in the same household, and when it comes time for them to formally marry, there are often a lot of problems, it just does not work out, but in societies where the same kinds of arranged marriages take place, but where the young couple does not meet until just before the marriage (or the attempt to consummate it), those problems occur much less frequently. Most people simply do not have a strong urge or desire to marry siblings with whom they grow up (despite the fact that the are likely to be very compatible, in terms of interests, tastes, preferences, even in their ideas about what makes a good mate), but as the case mentioned in the first post, where siblings do not grow up together that seemingly natural aversion may not be present.

[VAdame]

where siblings do not grow up together that seemingly natural aversion may not be present.

Not only is the natural aversion not present -- but it seems that siblings raised separately who meet often experience an intense sexual attraction to one another (anecdotal evidence only, of course -- but pretty strong anecdotal evidence!) It's called genetic sexual attraction, and can also occur with reunited birth parents/children given up for adoption.

One theory is that when we meet a closely related person as an adult, our subconscious recognizes the kinship -- but since we didn't grow up together & "know that person all our life" -- our only other frame of reference for this feeling is to interpret this "recognition" as sexual attraction or falling head-over-heels in love!

Why on earth do you suppose the separated twins (whose marriage has since been annulled, BTW) fell in love in the first place?!

[wbtravis007]

wintergreen said:

In a society that practiced polygamy (at least, at the time of Leviticus), it also prohibits a man from marrying the sister of one of his existing wives. Again, where is the genetic concern?

My guess is that AJ could explain the genetic concern. People who breed animals know about this. Hell, even I could explain it if I had to.

As to the other people and situations mentioned in your post, I'll just ask first whether you believe what's in The Bible. (It's obvious that some of them didn't.)

[ne1410s]

Lady in Mediterranean area gives birth to twins and subsequently gives them up for adoption. One goes to Spain and one to Syria. Years later the mother desperately wants to see the boys. She makes contact with the boy in Spain but also wants to see the boy in Syria.

The father of the boys objects to the expense of travelling around the Med:














"If you've seen Juan, you've seen Ahmal."

[silverscreenselect]

Why are people making a big deal out of this?

After a few beers, this happens in Alabama all the time.

[Bob Juch]

Why are people making a big deal out of this?

After a few beers, this happens in Alabama all the time.

Yes, and they're 14 years old too.

[andrewjackson]

Consider the prohibitions that are involved in incest laws (going back to Leviticus), where so many of them involve people who have no biological (genetic) relationship whatsoever, but they have strong familial/social impacts: a man cannot marry his brother's wife, for example, but how does that involve any genetic issues (unless the brother and her wife were already closely related). Leviticus provides that if a man marries his brother's wife, they will be childless; but it also provides that if a man dies childless, his brother must (MUST) knock up the widow so that the dead guy will have heirs (Onan was punished by God-- he was actually killed-- because he refused to do the job properly)..

In any of these cases, it is hard to see how there could have been any 'genetic' concerns about the relationships. It is obvious that the prohibition against marrying your sibling's spouse, and the requirement of knocking-up the spouse of a childless sibling, both have nothing to do with genetics, and everything to do with intra-family relationships, with the inheritability of property, etc.

Leviticus also prohibits a man from boinking his stepdaughters. In a society that practiced polygamy (at least, at the time of Leviticus), it also prohibits a man from marrying the sister of one of his existing wives. Again, where is the genetic concern? It all has to do with disruption of social relationships.

In light of Leviticus, consider the situation of Henry VIII: he had to obtain a special dispensation from the Pope in order to marry Catherine of Aragon, because she had been married to his older brother, Arthur, the Prince of Wales (for about four months, during which they never, um, did any consummating); Henry VII wanted Henry and Catherine to be married because he did not want to have to return Catherine's dowry to Spain after Arthur's death. Henry and Catherine did marry, and when they failed to have a son (two died quickly, as did three daughters), Henry convinced himself that it was because the marriage was 'incestuous,' in violation of Leviticus and in violation of canon law; the 'incestuous' nature of their relationship was the grounds for his request for an annulment of the marriage, but the concern about 'incest' obviously had nothing to do with genetics, of which Henry and the Pope were both ignorant.

And far from being concerned about genetics, consider what else was going on with Henry and Catherine... Two of Catherine's four great-grandmothers were sisters, and she herself was a cousin of both her father-in-law, Henry VII, and her mother-in-law, Elizabeth of York (and Henry VII and Elizabeth were themselves cousins, of course), as well as a cousin of Henry VIII himself. And before Henry grew tired of Catherine, he and she tried to arrange a marriage of their daughter, Mary Tudor, to the Emperor Charles V, who was the son of Catherine's sister, Joan (that didn't pan out, but when Mary became queen she did marry Charles's son, Philip II of Spain).

Check out the other historical incest laws, and you see that, consistently, blood relationships are not the driver, it is family and social relationships. Remember, no one really knew anything about genetics until the 19th Century, and the laws against incest go WAY back before that. Besides prohibiting someone from marrying their sibling's spouse, most incest laws also prohibit a man from marrying an aunt or niece by marriage, and prohibit a woman from marrying an uncle or nephew by marriage: these kinds of things disrupt the family unit, and the incest laws originally began as a way to eliminate the possibility of intra-family rivalries. To the extent that anyone noticed that there were adverse genetic consequences to an illicit relationship (i.e., noticing the greater occurrence of physical defects among children born to parents who are themselves closely related), they would not have attributed it to genetics-- again, something about which they had no knowledge until the 19th Century-- but they would have been attributed it to God's judgment on them for violating His rules (again, that's what Henry VIII believed, and that was the legal basis for his annulment petition).

And consider the long, long history of royal marriages, not just the wacky Tudors, but going back to the Egyptian Pharaohs (who routinely married their own sisters, and occasionally their mothers and daughters), or the Hapsburgs (who routinely married their nieces and first cousins), or (to get back to England) the married king and queen William III & Mary II (who were first cousins): these marriages resulted from the idea that marrying close blood relatives was the best thing to do, because this would give you the 'purest' blood/lineage. Again, they didn't know about the genetic problems that arise: while the usual rules against incest were social constructs designed to prevent intra-family competition for mates, the royals insisted upon exceptions to the usual rules for the purpose of keeping 'it' (political power) within the family.

In modern times, people have come to consider the genetic consequences of breeding within close blood lines (hence the genetic testing exception in Maine, which obviously is a law of very recent vintage). But look at most incest laws, and you will see that blood is not the deciding factor, it is the social relationship that governs.

From an evolutionary standpoint (can we talk about evolution here?) there is a lot of interesting research that indicates that the incest taboo is somewhat ingrained in us, as to people with whom we have close relationships, but not as to people 'outside,' that is, in the vast majority of 'normal' people, there seems to be an actual aversion to breeding with the people with whom you grow up, but not with people who are 'strangers' to your household. In some societies that provide for arranged marriages, the young couple are brought up in the same household, and when it comes time for them to formally marry, there are often a lot of problems, it just does not work out, but in societies where the same kinds of arranged marriages take place, but where the young couple does not meet until just before the marriage (or the attempt to consummate it), those problems occur much less frequently. Most people simply do not have a strong urge or desire to marry siblings with whom they grow up (despite the fact that the are likely to be very compatible, in terms of interests, tastes, preferences, even in their ideas about what makes a good mate), but as the case mentioned in the first post, where siblings do not grow up together that seemingly natural aversion may not be present.

OK but I'll stick my my contention that at least some incest laws are based on concerns about close relatives having children. (Maybe "genetic" was the wrong word but people knew about the problems of close relatives having children way before the 19th century. The very first farmers and pastoralists would have figured it out even if they didn't know the mechanism.)

That's all I have to prove to contradict your original statement, "Incest laws are not based upon genetic concerns (i.e., that inbreeding is a genetically bad thing) but upon sociological concerns....". If you had said "most" or "primary concern" then I would have had no problem with such a flat statement but you said "are not". I had to argue with that.

[marrymeflyfree]

Eeewwww.

http://tinyurl.com/2v2keu

Long story short, they were adopted and found out after they were married that they had the same parents.

I have to admit that this was a driving thought in my own search for my birth parents. What if, you know?

[Ritterskoop]

It is all so Luke and Leia.