posted January 12, 2008 03:07 PM         

TWINS who unwittingly got married after they were separated at birth were victims of a quirk of fate “cruel beyond belief,” it emerged last night.

The smitten brother and sister — adopted by different families — discovered the shattering truth only after tying the knot.

Against all odds they had met and fallen for each other — neither even knowing they had a twin.

The horrified British couple faced the heartbreak of seeking to have their marriage annulled in the High Court after eventually finding out their love was forbidden.

A judge was forced to rule the union was NEVER valid in law.

Last night the peer who uncovered the astonishing case told The Sun of the twins’ “trauma”.

Lord Alton of Liverpool said: “Anyone hearing this story would feel heartbroken for them.

Trauma

“It’s cruel beyond belief to discover that someone you’re in love with is so closely related to you.”

The twins were not named — but it is known they were separated soon after birth. Each was adopted by different parents — who never told them they had a twin. It was not clear HOW they eventually discovered they were brother and sister.

Experts said they would have been naturally attracted to each other — because they were so alike.

Biological psychologist Dr George Fieldman said: “Their mannerisms — and even their odour — would remind them of themselves.” Psychotherapist Audrey Sandbank, a consultant for the Twins and Multiple Births Association, said: “These twins were together until they were born and may have had a strong connection in the womb.

“When they met they would have felt like soul mates — particularly as like all siblings they shared approximately 50 per cent of their genes.”

The organisation’s chief executive Keith Reed said: “This sad situation shows that in the majority of cases it is vital that multiple birth siblings are raised together.”

Pro-life crusader Lord Alton, who used the case to highlight problems with the Human Embryology and Tissues Bill in Parliament, said it showed the need for children to know their biological parents.

Donors who help couples have children lost their right to anonymity in April 2005. A new law gave children the right to identify their genetic parents when they turn 18.

But there is still no legal obligation for the parents who raised them to tell them the truth about how they were conceived.

Lord Alton said of the twins’ marriage: “We are opening the door to more cases like this one.

“One of the most fundamental things of all is to know who you are. The issue here is about human rights.” He told the Lords the saga of the twins was revealed to him by a High Court judge.

Inevitable

Lord Alton said: “It involved the normal birth of twins who were separated at birth and adopted by separate parents.

“They were never told that they were twins. They met later in life and felt an inevitable attraction.”

Speaking to The Sun last night, he admitted: “I don’t know if the judge was hearing the case himself or if it was simply one he was familiar with.”

The Human Embryology and Tissues Bill is due to be voted on next Tuesday and again on January 21.

It eases the path for lesbian and gay couples to have test-tube babies as well as recognising same- sex couples as parents

------------------
There is no real evil except ignorance itself- an amnesia, a desensitization of who we truly are- a part of the unity of all creation.

posted January 12, 2008 03:10 PM         

Not having a clue they had a twin, the love they felt each other was interpreted into a romantic love- big deal.

I hope they don't feel bad about what has happened- it's the love they feel for each other that truly matters.

IMO, sex is placed on a pedestal too much anyway. I'm sure none of that matters in the afterlife, where a pure love can be shared for everyone regardless.

posted January 12, 2008 03:23 PM         

quote:

---

IMO, sex is placed on a pedestal too much anyway. I'm sure none of that matters in the afterlife, where a pure love can be shared for everyone regardless.

---

posted January 12, 2008 06:24 PM         

They could still be together for life. They could go on living together in spite of the fact that the courts nullified their marriage as not a legal one.

People live together without marriage all the time so what difference would it make? The law can't tell you that you have to marry to live together and the law can't tell you who you can live with.

posted January 12, 2008 06:48 PM         

quote:

---

Exactly!
My beloved and I in past lives have been twin brothers, father and son, father and daughter,
brothers, sister and brother, uncle and niece,
and the list goes on.
It is not about sex nor gender.
Eternal love is true soul love

---

posted January 12, 2008 07:25 PM         

quote:

---

Gosh, Fayte.... I really need more prove of reincarnation and afterlife issues, something I can say "I saw it with my own eyes" because situations like these are very hard to swallow.
I can not see me and my brother (RIP) having a romantic relationship (I'm sorry this is kind of disgusting and wrong to even type-to me-)

---

Our souls are not biological things.

Only our bodies.
Incest is a body biological relationship thing.....

Do you honestly think your brother is eternally your brother?

If so...
that may be why you will not get proof of your past lives.

It would gross you out to discover any past lives that disgust your tastes or societal induced behaviours upon you now.

posted January 12, 2008 10:17 PM         

quote:

---

Do you honestly think your brother is eternally your brother?

---

Sorry, but I feel that since NAM just lost her brother not along ago this thread is not the place to force our own afterlife concepts on others.

All afterlife teachings are just that, teachings. They are concepts that cannot be proven. We only know for certain when we die. So it makes no difference what we think about the afterlife concerning those we love who have gone before us. For that reason if NAM, like myself, thinks her brother is eternally her brother it would be perfectly okay do so. Just as it is perfectly okay if others don't think that.

Actually, except in dysfunctional families, from birth and growing up together in the same household any romantic feelings about one's siblings seems to be something we naturally or innately are not led to and which naturally repels us.

To say that it is okay for sisters and brothers to engage in sex is saying it is equally okay for mothers and fathers to have sex with their children. We innately know that to be wrong. We don't need laws or society to tell us what we know innately to be wrong.

To say it is okay for biological brothers and sisters to have sex is no different than saying it is okay for parents to engage in sex with their children.

posted January 12, 2008 11:58 PM         

quote:

---

Sorry, but I feel that since NAM just lost her brother not along ago this thread is not the place to force our own afterlife concepts on others.

---

posted January 13, 2008 12:08 AM         

quote:

---

All afterlife teachings are just that, teachings. They are concepts that cannot be proven.

---

posted January 13, 2008 12:28 AM         

I have noticed that our world has to still learn the difference between love and romance. These things are not the same. One requires NOTHING while the other requires A LOT.

In romance you need the person near by, to be touched, and all things worldly. But, love... Love is a Beautiful Thing, that if I were to try and define it, I would take away from it...

I hope those two do not feel shame and guilt, that's all. I have a feeling that now, they will begin to love each other as two souls, and look beyond the flesh.

I think that this was a traumatic experience for them, but one which will come with much wisdom for the both of them.

posted January 13, 2008 11:17 AM         

quote:

---

Sorry, but I feel that since NAM just lost her brother not along ago this thread is not the place to force our own afterlife concepts on others.

---

Well, it is not because of my brother just passed...

quote:

---

All afterlife teachings are just that, teachings. They are concepts that cannot be proven. We only know for certain when we die. So it makes no difference what we think about the afterlife concerning those we love who have gone before us. For that reason if NAM, like myself, thinks her brother is eternally her brother it would be perfectly okay do so. Just as it is perfectly okay if others don't think that.

Actually, except in dysfunctional families, from birth and growing up together in the same household any romantic feelings about one's siblings seems to be something we naturally or innately are not led to and which naturally repels us.

To say that it is okay for sisters and brothers to engage in sex is saying it is equally okay for mothers and fathers to have sex with their children. We innately know that to be wrong. We don't need laws or society to tell us what we know innately to be wrong.

To say it is okay for biological brothers and sisters to have sex is no different than saying it is okay for parents to engage in sex with their children.

We innately do not have the same kind of love for our parents, our siblings or our children as we do our husbands, wives or life partners. Were this not the case there would not be the different forms of love that exists in the material world. And there does exist different forms of love, though it is all love.

---

It is exactly because of the reasons you name on the second quote in this post that I feel weird about thinking my brother or my father could have been a romanticly envolved partner in any other life of mine...
I can see (or it would be easier to accept) if my brother was my father or mother or any other friend or family but a soulmate is just not feels right.

I am also afraid that if these teachings would be more streamline then some people would suddenly have a "out of jail" card to take advantage of their kids, just because it would be more acceptable since the body does not count anymore and we become more soul oriented... that just seems wrong.

posted January 13, 2008 11:22 AM         

quote:

---

I don't think sex is necessary in the afterlife either, LTT since there is no need for procreation in the afterlife.

---

Now, this statement strikes another bad chord on me; I feel I have suddenly been compared o an animal that only have needs and no emotions.
Where is the beautiful love that couples have for each otehr when they bring a baby to this planet?

See, these are all the reasons why even know I am for spiritualism and doing good for people I don't really buy all of it, there has to be more, it can not be this easy.
The love for my father today can't be compared to the love for my life partner.
But, I am a romantic and a dreamer, so maybe life and death just suck all together; I say suck because to me the feeling of being with the love of my life is special and to think that it is not special after all and I am just a robot that makes babies and in another life will have the same feelings for someone else to only "pay" a karmic debt seems wrong, very wrong.