Separated Twins' Marriage Annulled

AussiePam · Post by **AussiePam** » Sat Jan 12, 2008 7:15 pm

Spot, I've been singing that ever since this thread started, and I'm very glad you saved me from myself!! Thank you!!

librtyhead · Post by **librtyhead** » Sun Jan 13, 2008 12:17 am

When I first saw the papers about this I thought. "Siamese twins, how odd!" I suppose the world is not ready for that...................yet.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Sun Jan 13, 2008 3:35 am

theia;757178 wrote: It must succeed more than it fails though, or the practice would discontinue...wouldn't it? Or maybe it has? I wouldn't know.

You're talking about people that will dump or just kill the pups of a pedigree mother if they are fathered by a non pedigree male or one of another breed because they have no value and are just "not right" or who will chop the tails off and crop ears on dogs to improve the looks. They're not exactly the nicest of people. Have a look at any of the breed sites and even the most cursory glimpse will turn up lists of genetic defects to avoid. It's like beauty contests for humans-some people get so obsessed by what is the "right" kind of beauty maube it's a disorder of some kind.

History buff · Post by **History buff** » Sun Jan 13, 2008 5:23 am

AussiePam;757041 wrote: When God made Adam and Eve, they were the only people, and presumably from them came all of humanity. This is what I understand a large proportion of Christians, particularly in the United States, believe. Adam and Eve must have had daughters as well as the two sons mentioned or humanity would have died out, especially when one son killed the other. The next generation, and all that followed, down to the present day, might therefore be the products of incest.

I am very sorry for the two people in the OP. They are innocent victims of what has now become shameful.

The creation of civilization had to rely on sex from those related, true, as God only created from dust 2 beings, Adam and Eve. The same holds true if one believes, and I do, in the great deluge. Noah and his family were the only humans to populate the Earth after it, therefore mankind is an offspring of sibling relations. However, this plan was God's plan not mans, so for man to justify incest on that basis is not correct.

There is no "universal consenus" among scientists on the possibility of genetic abnormality in closely related people having children. However, many US states here, and I do not have a list, PROHIBIT, marrying your first cousin. In other words, you can NOT marry a brother, sister or first cousin, only those such as second cousin and further generations.

I will cite Arizona's law here (I like to pick on RG)

25-101. Void and prohibited marriages

A. Marriage between parents and children, including grandparents and grandchildren of every degree, between brothers and sisters of the one-half as well as the whole blood, and between uncles and nieces, aunts and nephews and between first cousins, is prohibited and void.

B. Notwithstanding subsection A, first cousins may marry if both are sixty-five years of age or older or if one or both first cousins are under sixty-five years of age, upon approval of any superior court judge in the state if proof has been presented to the judge that one of the cousins is unable to reproduce.

C. Marriage between persons of the same sex is void and prohibited.

All told, it is a sad event for the pair, it was through NO fault of thier own.

Post by **spot** » Sun Jan 13, 2008 8:27 am

History buff;757428 wrote: many US states here, and I do not have a list, PROHIBIT, marrying your first cousin.Here's a list of legality by state.First-cousin marriage without restriction is permitted in nineteen states — Alabama, Alaska, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Vermont, Virginia and the District of Columbia

Presumably if first cousins marry legally they can't then just travel to a state where it's illegal and carry on regardless.

History buff · Post by **History buff** » Sun Jan 13, 2008 9:06 am

spot;757446 wrote: Here's a list of legality by state.First-cousin marriage without restriction is permitted in nineteen states — Alabama, Alaska, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Vermont, Virginia and the District of Columbia

Thanks for the list, so it is less than 1/2 the states that permit 1st cousin marriage I see. Gee, I sure thought it would be less than that!

Presumably if first cousins marry legally they can't then just travel to a state where it's illegal and carry on regardless.

IF a state allows it, then it allows it, if not, not!

From the article you linked:

"although the United States Constitution has been interpreted as requiring these states to give "full faith and credit" to such marriages performed in other states.[citation needed] Yet, in the absence of a United States Supreme Court ruling, the scope of the Full Faith and Credit Clause is not clear in this context, especially as it would have implications on whether states were required to recognize marriages commenced in Massachusetts between same-sex couples. There are conflicts and courts have interpreted the clause differently. Some states, such as Wisconsin [2], have marriage abroad laws that make marriages by their residents in jurisdictions in order to circumvent their state's marriage restrictions null and void, and marriages contracted in that state to avoid restrictions in another jurisdiction likewise void".

Some internet research on FFC has revealed this case and it's progenies would have bearing on the article's thoughts, in my view. I did not know this. This apparantly, and also DOMA, are why states do not have to legally honor same sex marriages from other states.

"The Full Faith and Credit Clause does not require a State to apply another State's law in violation of its own legitimate public policy. Pacific Ins. Co. v. Industrial Accident Comm'n, 306 U.S. 493": quoted in Nevada v. Hall.

The US Supreme court has already ruled, 1971, that prohibiting same sex marriages by the states does NOT violate the First, Eighth, Ninth, or

Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.

So those who are married in MA, same sex, it is under MA's Constitution, not the federal.

Post by **spot** » Sun Jan 13, 2008 9:43 am

History buff;757465 wrote: Thanks for the list, so it is less than 1/2 the states that permit 1st cousin marriage I see. Gee, I sure thought it would be less than that!

There's all sorts of strange things in US State law as far as marriage goes. Rhode Island has a clause allowing uncle/niece marriage in some circumstances for example, it's been tested by the courts (even cross-state) and affirmed.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Sun Jan 13, 2008 10:18 am

posted by history buff

The creation of civilization had to rely on sex from those related, true, as God only created from dust 2 beings, Adam and Eve. The same holds true if one believes, and I do, in the great deluge. Noah and his family were the only humans to populate the Earth after it, therefore mankind is an offspring of sibling relations. However, this plan was God's plan not mans, so for man to justify incest on that basis is not correct.

Leaving aside the absurdity of anyone believing in adam and eve in the first place I thought according to the creation myth that woman was made from Adam's rib? Biblical cloning no less with a bit of genetic engineering thrown in. In any case of it was god's plan that mankind procreate by incest who is man to say that is not the way things are meant to be? As a history buff are you saying that archaeology is a load of rubbish because it flies in the face of the creation myth which you purport to believe?

All it takes is a cursory look at families where incest has taken place to see why it is not a good idea- Leaving aside the morality or otherwise of it

RedGlitter · Post by **RedGlitter** » Sun Jan 13, 2008 10:19 am

All the more reason to scrap legal marriage and just do it the common law way.

suzycreamcheese · Post by **suzycreamcheese** » Sun Jan 13, 2008 11:01 am

gmc;757498 wrote: posted by history buff

Leaving aside the absurdity of anyone believing in adam and eve in the first place I thought according to the creation myth that woman was made from Adam's rib? Biblical cloning no less with a bit of genetic engineering.

well im surprised they managed to procreate at all then.

Kind of like masturbation isnt it!

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Sun Jan 13, 2008 12:50 pm

suzycreamcheese;757519 wrote: well im surprised they managed to procreate at all then.

Kind of like masturbation isnt it!

maybe that's the real reason they got chucked out of paradise and eve isn't to blame after all:eek:

AussiePam · Post by **AussiePam** » Sun Jan 13, 2008 1:12 pm

Should one allude to the Lilith discussion at this point?

I love it when threads - as they almost all do eventually - reach heights or depths where surreality takes over. Some of course start off in the realms of delicate or indelicate absurdity, some achieve this through their own manifest destiny. Some have it thrust upon them - even onanistically - and float off merrily into the sunset, where the Grim Reaper's scythe awaits - itself in need of some honing by the look.. though.. one expects the end will be the same with or without the rust. But I digress...

Neat signature logo - Red Glitter !!! Ladies Anarchist Sewing Circles ...

Chezzie · Post by **Chezzie** » Sun Jan 13, 2008 2:35 pm

Seems that this story is a bit of a mystery according to the british tabloids today.

Lord Alton an anti-abortion campainer claims the tale was told to him by a high court judge who anulled the marraige "within the last twelve months".

But Sir Mark Potter, president of the high court family devision for the last two years said; This is the first I have heard of it. I know of neither any judge who presided over such a case nor of the case itself.

RedGlitter · Post by **RedGlitter** » Sun Jan 13, 2008 5:20 pm

AussiePam;757574 wrote: Should one allude to the Lilith discussion at this point?

I love it when threads - as they almost all do eventually - reach heights or depths where surreality takes over. Some of course start off in the realms of delicate or indelicate absurdity, some achieve this through their own manifest destiny. Some have it thrust upon them - even onanistically - and float off merrily into the sunset, where the Grim Reaper's scythe awaits - itself in need of some honing by the look.. though.. one expects the end will be the same with or without the rust. But I digress...

Neat signature logo - Red Glitter !!! Ladies Anarchist Sewing Circles ...

:wah: Thank you Pam!

Galbally · Post by **Galbally** » Mon Jan 14, 2008 3:18 am

As an aside about faith ect. Just because someone is aware that it was not possible for the story of the Garden of Eden to be true, or that the concept that a biblical figure called Noah put a mating pair of every land speicies of planet Earth on a boat and sailed around for a while (and used 2 individuals of each species (except humans) to repopulate the planet) is simply not possible does not automatically make them an Atheist at all, and any suggestion that they are is also another "insult".

It does come to mind why people of a literal relgiosity nearly always fall back on taking extreme offense whenever their beliefs are questioned by someone who isn't religious. Would you think that God would be happy that you would take offence on his behalf? Its interesting.

History buff · Post by **History buff** » Mon Jan 14, 2008 3:59 am

Galbally;757725 wrote: As an aside about faith ect. Just because someone is aware that it was not possible for the story of the Garden of Eden to be true, or that the concept that a biblical figure called Noah put a mating pair of every land speicies of planet Earth on a boat and sailed around for a while (and used 2 individuals of each species (except humans) to repopulate the planet) is simply not possible does not automatically make them an Atheist at all, and any suggestion that they are is also another "insult".

It does come to mind why people of a literal relgiosity nearly always fall back on taking extreme offense whenever their beliefs are questioned by someone who isn't religious. Would you think that God would be happy that you would take offence on his behalf? Its interesting.

I deleted my post, but you are right, I should not hurl any perceived insult back.

I tend to overreact sometimes on subjects, religious or not, one of my faults, my itent was not to be mean or insult anyone. Everyone gets moody that way now and then.

Galbally · Post by **Galbally** » Mon Jan 14, 2008 9:12 am

History buff;757734 wrote: I deleted my post, but you are right, I should not hurl any perceived insult back.

I tend to overreact sometimes on subjects, religious or not, one of my faults, my itent was not to be mean or insult anyone. Everyone gets moody that way now and then.

Sure your only human, like the rest of us. :-6 I also have been known to get moody on occasion, though I try to not post when I am in a strop about something as its usually counterproductive.

History buff · Post by **History buff** » Mon Jan 14, 2008 12:46 pm

Galbally;757798 wrote: Sure your only human, like the rest of us. :-6 I also have been known to get moody on occasion, though I try to not post when I am in a strop about something as its usually counterproductive.

I hear ya buddy!

Though actually, I am from the Planet Krypton and have powers far beyond those of mortal men!

MAA89 · Post by **MAA89** » Sat Jun 20, 2009 2:31 pm

Absolutely agree with the user above who said: "I haven't a clue why society's still critical of adult consensual sibling incest, I can't think of a single reason to condemn it."

Consensual sibling incest will be the next sexual boundary to become obsolete, after the gay rights movement eventually succeeds.

Post by **spot** » Sat Jun 20, 2009 2:46 pm

Good lord. That was ME!

Odie · Post by **Odie** » Sat Jun 20, 2009 7:10 pm

spot;1206272 wrote: Good lord. That was ME!

:yh_rotfl:yh_rotfl:yh_rotfl