This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Law This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Catholicism: Cath. canon law Low‑importance Affinity (Catholic canon law) is within the scope of WikiProject Catholicism, an attempt to better organize and improve the quality of information in articles related to the Catholic Church. For more information, visit the project page.CatholicismWikipedia:WikiProject CatholicismTemplate:WikiProject CatholicismCatholicism articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Catholic canon law task force (assessed as Low-importance). Catholicism task list: edit history watch purge Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Sanctification; Westminster Cathedral Other : Watch recent changes for Catholicism articles Sociology Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Affinity no longer begets affinity

The example given, "Hence a father and a son could not marry a mother and a daughter." might add additional complexities to the issue. In this situation there is implied either prior bond, or, perhaps less likely to be inferred, incest. I believe a better example would be "A man and his nephew could not marry a woman and her niece, respectively." I could be mistaken, so I will leave my comments here to be judged. DAMurphy (talk) 00:53, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the following, which seems to relates to civil law more than church law:

Until the passage of the

British Parliament

in 1906, a strong effort was made to enact a law to recognize as valid, in Great Britain, such a marriage, if the colonial law recognized its validity where contracted.

In Virginia this marriage is null, but it is generally recognized in the other States of the Union.

--Zfish118 (talk) 18:59, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am not a writer or an editor, so I am not sure how to approach the correction of the page, nor am I a genealogist or a theologian, so I'm not really schooled in the subject matter, so I could be wrong about this.

 In the article under the heading of Eastern Orthodox Church and other Eastern Churches, it says "However, in the Eastern Orthodox Church, marriages of affinity that produce children who are closer genetic relatives than legal are also not permitted (unless the genetic relationship does allow marriage between those children).  For example, two siblings may not marry two other siblings because legally their children will be cousins, but genetically they'll be half siblings.  On the other hand, two siblings may marry two cousins."
 Although I am not sure what the laws are in the EOC regarding marriage of first cousins, I believe the example given is in error.  Half siblings are children who share one parent, either the father or the mother.  I believe that their children would in fact be cousins in two lines.  However, according to the Wikipedia page on siblings, two of the siblings in the scenario were identical twins, this would in fact make their children genetically equivalent to half siblings, as well as cousins.
 As for the second example, of two siblings marrying two cousins, their children would be first cousins in one line, and second cousins in the other line.
 Again, I have never formally studied genealogy, and have no references, so don't take this as an affront, but I think I am correct.

Thank you. Jescurious (talk) 19:25, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We need to reach a consensus here before deleting entire sections with source citations. I question the use of a Consanguinity table in an article on Affinity, also one that predates the 1215 changes. At best it's misleading. I didn't see anything better at WP:Commons however but we might be able to create something. There were a few problems with source citation. Copying source citations and applying them to other statements (not even mentioned in that cited page or pages) is covered in

The section on Mosaic law belongs ahead of the Roman law section, and both should be ahead of the Christian Law. It shouldn't be necessary to point out Mosaic laws predated Christian canons by well over a millennium and Roman laws both predated and paralleled the development of the Church canons. In earlier visits here this month I added source citations and saw some things I thought should be changed, a couple of which you changed. I did see some additional sources that we can use to better transition from one section to the next and that perhaps Mosaic and Roman law sections at least could be subsections to a History section. But I don't see why we can't work together on this cooperatively; discuss changes and provide good sources for the article. Bearpatch (talk) 15:35, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is a move discussion in progress on