Twins, separated at birth, later marry

12 Comments

1. Chairm on January 15, 2008 at 9:47 pm

   From the link that Dave provided:

   –> “So it looks like this piece of news needs to be categorized as an urban-legend-reported-as-news until proven otherwise.”

   * * *

   Still, the question remains, why did the story resonate the way it did?

   The “yuk factor”, a meaning social taboo, or what?

   Is there a principled reason to prohibit closely related people from a publicly endorsed relationship such as the conjugal relationship?

   
   
   
2. Dave Rattigan on January 15, 2008 at 5:31 pm

   I believed this story at first, since I had read it in the Daily Telegraph, but it now seems there’s good reason to suspect it’s an urban legend. The only source seems to be Lord Alton: http://www.museumofhoaxes.com/hoax/weblog/twins_get_married_or_maybe_not/

   
   
   
3. Chairm on January 15, 2008 at 2:25 pm

   The two clearly loved each other and consented to marry.

   The made a mutual commitment. Exclusive, it seems.

   The law was blind to their being siblings so their marriage served to make unrelated people related, at law.

   What harm did they do to any one else’s marriage?

   * * *

   I agree with the line that is drawn on closely related men and women, however, what is the principled objection to the case of these twins?

   
   
   
4. Eddy on January 13, 2008 at 10:19 am

   Don’t worry, Jay, my comment was mostly tongue-in-cheek. LOL. I once worked with a woman who wouldn’t just watch the sensational programming but she’d insist on talking about it to everyone. She never understood the line between truth and dramatization saying things like: “And you wouldn’t believe what her last words were.” I’d try to pull her back to reality saying things like “wasn’t she alone when she died? who heard her say that?” or “it was just the murderer and the victim, right? are you saying the murderer, who claims to be innocent, reported the victims final words?”

   
   
   
5. Jay on January 12, 2008 at 4:07 pm

   Eddy, all we’re likely to get is “Law and Order” or “CSI” using the concept for one of their “ripped from the headlines” episodes. It does sound television worthy, but there are lots of implications involved as well.

   
   
   
6. Eddy on January 12, 2008 at 9:16 am

   I appreciated this article most for how it demonstrated the need for an accurate historical record. I commend the couple for realizing that although they loved each other enough to marry, the fact that they were biological siblings took precedence over that feeling.

   I’m wrestling with the fact that a part of me can’t wait to see a televised dramatization of this story. I’m afraid there’s a little bit of the National Enquirer in all of us. 🙂

   
   
   
7. Byron on January 11, 2008 at 5:48 pm

   Kinda gives new meaning to the term “kissing your sister”, doesn’t it?

   
   
   
8. jayhuck on January 11, 2008 at 5:34 pm

   I finally was able to access the article – very interesting!

   
   
   
9. jayhuck on January 11, 2008 at 3:16 pm

   Warren,

   I’m having a problem with the link. I’m getting a 404 error when I click on the link to the story

   
   
   
10. Mary on January 11, 2008 at 1:51 pm

    That is my real concern with test tube babies, broken families, unknown genetic lineage etc….

    
    
    
11. Warren on January 11, 2008 at 1:41 pm

    Thanks College Jay, for the headline correction. I was thinking of another case with a similar result. The reference is here: Eckert, E. D., Bouchard, T. J., Bohlen, J. & Heston, L. L. (1986). Homosexuality in monozygotic twins reared apart. British Journal of Psychiatry. 148, 421-425.

    
    
    
12. Jay on January 11, 2008 at 1:35 pm

    That’s a very interesting article, but your headline needs revising. If they had been identical twins, they would have been of the same gender…

    And the story would have been even that much more strange.