I had a friend (now, alas, no longer with us) who had a twin brother, and their wives were sisters also. He was a staunch Church member (not Mormon!) and there was certainly no impediment to their marriage. Also my friend never re-married, and nor did his wife, so no problems there, and his brother who was widowed rather earlier did re-marry, but to someone totally unrelated, and again no problem. The next generation as far as I know married outside the wider family. Once you get past that stage, however, it becomes a bit problematic continuing intra-family marriage, and the closer the relatives concerned the more problematic it gets. One only has to look at closely inbred Royal Families (Romanov, Hohenzollern, and even Hanover) and some of the upper aristocracies to see just how bad they can be. I believe the ancient laws against such marriages were based on the experience of pastoral peoples with the breeding of their livestock, and these practices, as always in a theistic culture, became part of their religious law. Nowadays we know far more about genetics, and are able to inbreed livestock to a greater extent, but there is also such a thing as social inbreeding. This applies less to less intelligent species; but even so, fancied breeds like bulldogs, spaniels and terriers can suffer terribly from their inbreeding. Andrew Rodger rodgera@audioio.com On 04/06/2015, at 5:23 AM, Bart Simon via wrote: > > Hello: Just wondering: A father [AF] has a son [AS]. The father [AF] marries the dg [BD1] of Mr. [BF] in 1900. The son [AS] then marries the other dg of Mr. [BF] being [BD2] in 1901. Or simply, a father and son marry two daughters who have the same father. No law is broken there is it ?. Bart [!!!] .... > === > > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to SOUTH-AFRICA-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message >