German incest couple (who have 4 children together) lose European court case
59 replies, posted
[QUOTE]Berlin (CNN) -- A German man sent to prison over an incestuous relationship with his sister has lost his case that the conviction violated his right to a private and family life at the European Court of Human Rights.
Patrick Stuebing had a consensual sexual relationship with his sister after they first met when he was in his 20s and she was a teenager. They had four children, two of whom are disabled, the court said.
Stuebing lodged his case with the European Court of Human Rights after being sent to prison in November 2005 by a Leipzig court and losing subsequent appeals against his conviction for incest.
But the court ruled Thursday that the German authorities had the right to ban incest.
In convicting Stuebing, the German Federal Constitutional Court had "considered that sexual relationships between siblings could seriously damage family structures and, as a consequence, society as a whole," the court ruled.
Stuebing, who was born in 1976 and lives in Leipzig, was adopted and grew up with no contact with his birth family after the age of seven, according to a court statement.
When he reestablished contact with his birth family in 2000, he met his sister Susan, eight years younger than him and then aged 16.
Their relationship intensified after the death of their mother, the court said, and from January 2001 they "had consensual sexual intercourse and lived together for several years."
Their four children were born between 2001 and 2005.
Speaking to CNN's Frederick Pleitgen in 2007, Stuebing explained that he and his sister had fallen in love, and simply wanted to have their relationship legalized.
"We just want to lead a normal life," he said. "People harass us all the time and call us the incest couple. They have no idea who we really are or how it all happened."
Stuebing's sister was not prosecuted by German authorities because she was considered "only partially liable for her actions," Thursday's court ruling said.
The sister "suffered from a personality disorder and was considerably dependent on him," the court said.
An appeal can be lodged against the court's judgment, which is not final, within the next three months.[/QUOTE]
Source: [url]http://www.cnn.com/2012/04/13/world/europe/germany-incest-court/index.html?hpt=hp_bn2[/url]
[quote]People harass us all the time and call us the incest couple. They have no idea who we really are or how it all happened.[/quote]
ahh yes having sex with your sister after your mother died is totally not incest/weird
I know to everyone else incest will seem disgusting, but to him it's most likely a normal relationship. It has been scientifically proven that when children grow up together, they don't have sexual fantasies or urges towards their siblings and parents due to the daily close proximity with said siblings and parents. Makes sense that he was sexually attracted to his sister due to his adoption. It's also been proven that brothers and sisters (who hadn't been raised together) would find each other more sexually attractive due to the same traits.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying what he does is right. The man has 2 disabled children because of it. I think incest is disgusting and what he is doing is disgusting. He has no right bringing children into this world, especially due to the higher risk of their children having numerous health disadvantages.
I don't think it'd be bad if we let him have a relationship with his sister, as long as he was sterilised or something (consensually of course). What two people do is between them, and as it's consensual, there's no problem. What I find a problem in is the fact he has children. He should feel ashamed for doing that and be punished for that. He had no right bringing children into this world that he knew were at higher risk for deformities and disabilities.
[QUOTE=loopoo;35562699]
I don't think it'd be bad if we let him have a relationship with his sister, as long as he was sterilised or something (consensually of course). What two people do is between them, and as it's consensual, there's no problem. What I find a problem in is the fact he has children. He should feel ashamed for doing that.[/QUOTE]
I honestly started to agree with you up until you mentioned sterlization. I find it disgusting as well, and that they should at least adopt rather than having children of their own (due to health problems and such), but to say that he deserves to be sterilized is horrible. They should have safe sex, not be treated like stray dogs on the street. You seem like a hypocrite when you say that what they do is between them, so long as he's sterilized. You can't say that, then just jump between the two of them and (metaphorically) cut his balls off because of what he's doing. What you're saying is, basically "What you two are doing is wrong, but okay since it's between the two of you, so long as I [b](a third-party)[/b] have a word in it."
[QUOTE=TAU!;35562768]I honestly started to agree with you up until you mentioned sterlization. I find it disgusting as well, and that they should at least adopt rather than having children of their own (due to health problems and such), but to say that he deserves to be sterilized is horrible. They should have safe sex, not be treated like stray dogs on the street. You seem like a hypocrite when you say that what they do is between them, so long as he's sterilized. You can't say that, then just jump between the two of them and (metaphorically) cut his balls off because of what he's doing. What you're saying is, basically "What you two are doing is wrong, but okay since it's between the two of you, so long as I [b](a third-party)[/b] have a word in it."[/QUOTE]
Woah woah woah, I don't mean have his balls cut off. That isn't getting sterilized. Getting sterilized is having your tubes tied. I don't know the specifics for the man, but you get the tubes tied that carry sperm to the urethra. Lots of men consensually get this procedure done when they don't want to bother with condoms / birth control. It's not barbaric. And cutting the balls off someone would have extremely negative effects.
EDIT: Men get their Vas Deferens (Spermatic Cord) tied and women get their Fallopian Tubes tied (I think).
They should be happy, but should also be warned that having children with someone of your own blood will give you messed up children, like they had together.
I don't see a problem with incestuous relationships.
food for thought: the same people who originally condemned it are the same people who originally condemned gay and interracial relationships.
Having incestuous children is cruel, as they usually have some sort of deformities or disabilities. But, just having incest should not be illegal, as it is no one else's business what happens between one or more consenting adults in the privacy of their home.
I think it's also wrong that only the man is being punished, seems like discrimination to me.
If we're going to ban incestuous children, then we should also be banning people with serious inheritable genetic conditions from having children. So where do we draw the line?
[QUOTE=download;35562822]Having incestuous children is cruel, as they usually have some sort of deformities or disabilities. But, just having incest should not be illegal, as it is no one else's business what happens between one or more consenting adults in the privacy of their home.
I think it's also wrong that only the man is being punished, seems like discrimination to me.
If we're going to ban incestuous children, then we should also be banning people with serious inheritable genetic conditions from having children. So where do we draw the line?[/QUOTE]
To be fair, people that are carriers of serious genetic conditions shouldn't be banned from having children as their is still the possibility of them having completely healthy children and the fact they are partaking in a usual marriage which further decreases the odds of having a child with a disability.
[QUOTE=loopoo;35562850]To be fair, people that are carriers of serious genetic conditions shouldn't be banned from having children as their is still the possibility of them having completely healthy children and the fact they are partaking in a usual marriage which further decreases the odds of having a child with a disability.[/QUOTE]
How would marriage decrease the chance of having a child with a disability? That is just silly.
You can't go and say "incest causes deformed children so it should be banned" while you're saying "but people with horrible inheritable genetic conditions can", that is just hypocritical.
Take Huntington's disease for example, it has a [i]50%[/i] chance of being inherited, it's silly that we have to legislate that, people should realise they are putting their children through horrors and not have them in the first place
[QUOTE=loopoo;35562805]Woah woah woah, [b]I don't mean have his balls cut off.[/b] That isn't getting sterilized. Getting sterilized is having your tubes tied. I don't know the specifics for the man, but you get the tubes tied that carry sperm to the urethra. Lots of men consensually get this procedure done when they don't want to bother with condoms / birth control. It's not barbaric. And cutting the balls off someone would have extremely negative effects.
EDIT: Men get their Vas Deferens (Spermatic Cord) tied and women get their Fallopian Tubes tied (I think).[/QUOTE]
That's why I added in "(metaphorically)".
incest only increases the chances of passing on inheritable disorders, not the chance of just magically having them. the same people that have handicapped children without incest are the same people that would have had handicapped children if there was incest involved
[QUOTE=TAU!;35562903]That's why I added in "(metaphorically)".[/QUOTE]
But being sterilized isn't metaphorically like having your balls cut off. In any way. Whatsoever. Being sterilized merely stops sperm travelling to the urethra and being ejaculated. Your testicles still work perfectly fine and everything is okay.
[editline]14th April 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=download;35562874]How would marriage decrease the chance of having a child with a disability? That is just silly.
You can't go and say "incest causes deformed children so it should be banned" while you're saying "but people with horrible inheritable genetic conditions can", that is just hypocritical.
Take Huntington's disease for example, it has a [i]50%[/i] chance of being inherited, it's silly that we have to legislate that, people should realise they are putting their children through horrors and not have them in the first place[/QUOTE]
When two people from different families produce offspring, "hybrid vigour" occurs. Hybrid vigour is basically the best genetic traits from both parents being passed on to the offspring. Unless both parents are carriers of a disease or disability, the child will be born healthy, and even then only a few of the children would be carriers of the disease themselves. If both parents were carriers of the disease then the child would also have the disease.
If two people from the same family produce, their genes are pretty much the same, so hybrid vigour can't occur as the "best" traits carry the disease causing traits. That's why incestuous relationships are so dangerous to your children. If - for example - schizophrenia runs in your family, the likelihood that you are a carrier of the gene that causes schizophrenia is high. If you go and produce children with your sister, you're increasing the odds of passing schizophrenia to your child by a huge amount.
If I had huntington's and married a woman, what are the odds of her being a carrier of huntingtons? Most likely my children would be perfectly healthy.
Incest couples are common with separated kids who meet as adults, it's called genetic sexual attraction. [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_sexual_attraction[/url]
The man shouldnt be punished for having the relationship, it's fine if they love eachother. But bringing these deformed children into the world should be considered a crime. Not worthy of jail of course, but a crime nonetheless.
It seems pretty silly and horrible to throw him in jail over this.
Plus if they've already had children, separating them will only make it harder for the kids.
Germany is a bad country anyway, their government is run by nutjobs who ban any form of entertainment that has violence in it out of fear of god or something
I don't know, is this really something that can be considered illegal? Having children later in life also greatly increases the chance of complications. Should that be illegal too?
I mean I understand the argument I just don't understand where precisely the line is drawn
[QUOTE=Stick it in her pooper;35563136]Germany is a bad country anyway, their government is run by nutjobs who ban any form of entertainment that has violence in it out of fear of god or something[/QUOTE]
^ Someone who has never been to Germany.
[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;35563189]I mean I understand the argument I just don't understand where precisely the line is drawn[/QUOTE]
It's funny to me in an odd sort of way that nobody really has bothered to legally set a well-defined precedent for this sort of stuff yet. Maybe because it's so controversial. Consequently, all these cases become really muddled and debatable every time they arise.
the Lannisters are at it again
I don't have a problem with incest couples.
Is it just me?
I mean, it's pretty much no differant from gay couples.
[QUOTE=Burgervich;35563360]I don't have a problem with incest couples.
Is it just me?
I mean, it's pretty much no differant from gay couples.[/QUOTE]
well, it's not entirely like that
i mean it's actually a definably negative thing, like reproduction wise, and I understand that argument
I just don't see what's wrong with the relationship in and of itself itself beyond it being fucking weird
[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;35563394]well, it's not entirely like that
i mean it's actually a definably negative thing, like reproduction wise, and I understand that argument
I just don't see what's wrong with the relationship in and of itself itself beyond it being fucking weird[/QUOTE]
Well I said couples not reproduction.
Most of the reason that we don't have guidelines for this type of situation is because there is so many ways one case could be different from another, plus it is now even more complicated because we know what type of genetic deceases could croup up from a brother and sister having a relationship before they actually have children, I mean we could put laws into place banning children from being born in this type of relationship but what would happen if it turns out the incestuous couple would always have completely healthy children?
[QUOTE=LunchboxOfDoom;35563205]^ Someone who has never been to Germany.
[/QUOTE]
>implying that my visiting Germany would stop them from banning all of your favorite games
I've been to a handful of European countries and I'm in Estonia right now, obviously I would rather stay in places that don't have a corrupt batshit crazy government.
cue boxes from nazi fags in denial
[QUOTE=ButtsexV3;35562819]I don't see a problem with incestuous relationships.
food for thought: the same people who originally condemned it are the same people who originally condemned gay and interracial relationships.[/QUOTE]
The difference is that incestuous relationships actually have possible negative outcomes unlike gay and interracial ones. That being children much more likely to have physical/mental issues.
It's definitely much easier to argue against than gay and interracial couples.
[QUOTE=Meller Yeller;35563636]The difference is that incestuous relationships actually have possible negative outcomes unlike gay and interracial ones. That being children much more likely to have physical/mental issues.
It's definitely much easier to argue against than gay and interracial couples.[/QUOTE]
I read somewhere that mixed race children are more likely to have birth defects than average but that might just be a statistical anomaly rather than as a result of miscegenation. Gay couples can't have children anyway, but children adopted by gay parents could be subject to ridicule by their peers.
It's ok if it's with a cousin.
[QUOTE=cqbcat;35564171]It's ok if it's with a cousin.[/QUOTE]
somebody's been screwing around with their cousin...
[QUOTE=cqbcat;35564171]It's ok if it's with a cousin.[/QUOTE]
second and on man, first is untouchable except in a few certain situations
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.