not just another anime blog
Couple stand by forbidden love
At their home in Leipzig, Patrick Stuebing and Susan Karolewski are in the kitchen, playing with a young toddler.
They share a small flat in an east German tower block on the outskirts of the city. It looks like an ordinary family scene, but Patrick is Susan’s brother and they are lovers.
[…]
Patrick, who is 30 years old, was adopted and, as a child, he lived in Potsdam.
He did not meet his mother and biological family until he was 23. He travelled to Leipzig with a friend in 2000, determined to make contact with his other relatives.
He met his sister Susan for the first time, and according to the couple, after their mother died, they fell in love.
“When I was younger, I didn’t know that I had a brother. I met Patrick and I was so surprised,” said Susan, who is 22.
[…]
Patrick and Susan have been living together for the last six years, and they now have four children.
The authorities placed their first son, Eric, in the care of a foster family, and two other children were also placed in care.
[…]
“Under Germany’s criminal code, which dates back to 1871, it is a crime for close relatives to have sex and it’s punishable by up to three years in prison. This law is out of date and it breaches the couple’s civil rights,” Dr Wilhelm said.
“Why are disabled parents allowed to have children, or people with hereditary diseases or women over 40? No-one says that is a crime.
[…]
“Medical research has shown that there is a higher risk of genetic abnormalities when close relatives have a child together. When siblings have children, there is a 50% chance that the child will be disabled,” he said.
Patrick and Susan say they have no other choice but to fight the current law.
“I have read that some doctors claim that children born to siblings could be disabled, but what about disabled parents who have children, or older parents?” asked Patrick.
“People have said that our children are disabled, but that is wrong. They are not disabled,” said Patrick.
“Eric, our eldest child, has epilepsy, but he was born two months premature, he also has learning difficulties. Our other daughter, Sarah, has special needs,” Patrick said.
[…]
In 2004, Patrick voluntarily underwent a vasectomy.
“It’s legal for the couple to live together, and to share a bed. But they are breaking the law once they have sex. If there are no more children, then who will be able to prove that they are a couple?” asked their lawyer.
[…]
“Many criminal law experts say that we are right and I’m confident that my clients will win their case. The law against incest is based on very old moral principles. The law was abolished in France, it’s about time it should be scrapped here in Germany as well.”
The God of the Old Testament is so much cooler than the emofag of the New Testament. Old God never thought twice before punching people in the balls. He also used to encourage things such as rape, bigamy and incest. What happened to you, God? You used to be cool.
And they made their father drink wine that night: and the firstborn went in, and lay with her father; and he perceived not when she lay down, nor when she arose.
And it came to pass on the morrow, that the firstborn said unto the younger, Behold, I lay yesternight with my father: let us make him drink wine this night also; and go thou in, and lie with him, that we may preserve seed of our father.
And they made their father drink wine that night also: and the younger arose, and lay with him; and he perceived not when she lay down, nor when she arose.
Thus were both the daughters of Lot with child by their father.
See! Lot, the only decent man in Sodom, fucked his own virgin daughters. Technically they date raped him but assuming they were underage Lot would probably be charged for statutory rape. Oh, irony.
visitors since 2005
69 Responses for "Siblings fight for incest rights"
Onegai Twins picture ftw!
Give us our civil rights back to allow us to marry our sexy cousins. Jokes.
haha…true. Outdated. I mean, I’m not promoting incest, but let people live their own lives.
Lol, ‘God, you used to be cool.’ That cracked me up.
I find it disgusting that they had children knowing that their children would have disabilities.
I’m also curious, abq, what religion do you believe in? Or are you an atheist?
Humm it reminds me of “Koi Kaze” (haaa that was a good anime )
Beowulf: I’m pretty sure their children have disabilities that aren’t a result of being inbred, if it isn’t obvious already.
Loli insest FTW!
>>Loli insest FTW!
Lesbian loli twincest FTW
That shit is hella funny.
>>>Beowulf: I’m pretty sure their children have disabilities that aren’t a result of being inbred, if it isn’t obvious already.
And I’m talking about the disabilities due to them being inbred.
Beowulf, they had kids knowing that they might have disabilities. It’s not a 100% chance thing, it’s just something that makes it more likely.
In the article, the doctor said that the chances are 50%. Now, are you telling me it’s perfectly OK with those chances?
We see GSA and the Westermarck effect at work here. So what’s new?
Beowulf: What about regular parents where the chance of having disabled children is also 50%? Should we require everyone who wants to have a child to go through some sort of genetic examination, to prevent “defect” genes to be passed on?
Besides, I wouldn’t believe that 50% claim just because of came from some doctor. There was a german doctor who, like a week or so ago, claimed that a third of all Swedish children suffer from mental illnesses due to them going to kindergarten instead of being home with their mother.
That Old Testament excerpt was hot.
“What happened to you, God? You used to be cool.”
God still cool!
(Reference to Simpsons I’m guessing.)
Relevant to this post’s interests:
http://www.unfehlbar.net/index.php/incest-as-a-crime-10-truths/
children born to siblings do not have a 50% chance of being disabled. it’s simple genetics, it depends on what genes the siblings actually have. if both of them happen to be homozygous for wild-type in everything, then there’s practically a 0% chance of a disorder (always a chance of spontaneous mutations). idiots don’t know what they’re talking about.
and it’s not like people ban downs syndrome patients from having children (though they’re strongly advised not to). this isn’t the eugenics movement of the early 20th century, banning people from having kids because of the possibility that the kid might have a disability is silly
The Anonymous above me speaks truth
from what i recall, in the US legally retarded people may actually be sterilized if there is the danger that they might reproduce. this has been held up in dozens of legal cases, even in the modern era
50%? That doesn’t seem right. I could have sworn the odds were *far* lower than that, that the danger only really cropped up after multiple generations of incest.
On a side note, aren’t the Amish getting royally screwed-over with genetic abnormalities because of how inbred they’ve gotten?
The lawyer in the article actually raises a pretty good argument.
Putting aside morality, it would seem that the incest law is based on the very real danger of malevolent, recessive genes emerging, if children born of siblings were to be born. But if we take that to be the basis of the law, it can sound very much like eugenics.
And that opens up a whole can of worms. Can we, by the same line of thinking, legally prevent two people who both have, say, a recessive hemophilia or sickle cell gene to marry and have children? This two people are unrelated by blood, but any children that come out of the union will have a high chance of getting sickle cell disease.
So for the incest law to stand, there must be a reason other than biology. If the courts rule against this couple, they will probably leave aside biology altogether and rely entirely on case law.
Personally, I can’t see the incest law being of any merit, unless the society is willing to implement eugenics into law as well.
Incest?
Genetics?
Just look at dogs!
Mutts live much longer and are much smarter than pure breeds.
Lol Nice Bible quote mahahahahhahaah
Anyways intersting topic
Oh yah Da Capo Deja-Vu Nemu Is A BEECH!!!!
what is the other daughter, sarah, special needs ?
So it’s legal vs. moral. An old topic in reasoning gives a lot of varied responses. This should be interesting.
Everyone knows the best kind of incest - is Twincest. LULZ
Artificial insemination reduces to zero (AFAIK) the probability of ereditary diseases. Problem is, artificial insemination costs money. Lots of money.
So the most logical solution would be for the state to pay 100% of the cost of artificial insemination when parents that are very likely to end up with a sick child if they do it the natural way.
Yeah, of course they could be stupid enough not to use it anyway and end up with a sick child, but there are people who won’t abort a 2-months fetus with Down syndrome and go adopt a sane child, either.
Oh, and Pope Ratzinga can kiss my a** with his idiotic, anti-humanitarian morals.
P.S. money wise, a Down child costs to the State several orders of magnitude more more than paying for the artificial insemination of a sane child.
“Susan, who is 22. […] Patrick and Susan have been living together for the last six years”
22 - 6 = 16! LOLICEST f0r t3h w1n!
P.S. magnificent Bible quote
Also abq is pretty retarded for taking that Bible quote out of context; nowhere does it say that it was a God-Endorsed™ notion or anything like that. Then again, religion-hating fags are always like that, nothing new here.
It appears that the staunch agnostics and atheists don’t believe in either God or logic, because, y’know, the actions of a few people are the sum of a religion! Really. How about quoting the hundreds of other instances where something non-retarded’s happening?
I’m just hoping that I will live long enough (and that it comes fast enough) that the world will become GATTACA and all such genetic concerns will leave the picture.
Then I can engineer the perfect daughter and marry her Heinlein-style when she’s old enough.
I’ll bet more than a few people would disagree with that, but we’d both be happy and all other things being equal, most of those same people would agree that being happy is a good thing.
>I’ll bet more than a few people would disagree with that, but we’d both be happy
You’re banking on her being what, teh Rei? I assume by “perfect” you mean “emotionless”, and by “daughter” you mean “cumslut”? Hi2u Gendo Ikari, gb2/b/.
Also, do read Frankenstein by Mary Shelley, it’s a pretty good read about someone who tries the same!
It appears that the staunch agnostics and atheists don’t believe in either God or logic, because, y’know, the actions of a few people are the sum of a religion! Really. How about quoting the hundreds of other instances where something non-retarded’s happening?
Was this deliberately ironic, or do I have too much faith in people?
Now that’s what I’m talking about.
> You’re banking on her being what, teh Rei? I assume by “perfect” you mean “emotionless”, and by “daughter” you mean “cumslut”? Hi2u Gendo Ikari, gb2/b/.
So you only assume she would be willing without emotions. It seems to me that you fail to understand that I would be more than willing to take “no” for an answer and still be fine with it. All I meant was that such relationships could flourish with a better understanding of genetics than what exists today.
My goal would be only to bring her happiness in whatever form I can. If she decides against such a physical relationship, I’m fine to accept that, but would ideally strive for a bond that exceeds familial relations and fulfills a more intimate need.
Hmmm…this case is interesting.
Dude
Comment on Mar 7th, 2007 at 23:42
Humm it reminds me of “Koi Kaze” (haaa that was a good anime )
>>>>>>>> Yes,indeed!!
For the people who want to do their sisters or brothers, go ahead for I am not stopping them.
As for me, I’m staying away from it.
>>Also abq is pretty retarded for taking that Bible quote out of context; nowhere does it say that it was a God-Endorsed™ notion or anything like that. Then again, religion-hating fags are always like that, nothing new here.
God didn’t disapprove. The story about Lot is part of the Torah which is a Hebrew word for instructions or laws. In other words God wants you to get drunk and fuck your own daughters.
When God doesn’t like something he shows it by punching people in the balls, like the time when Abraham was a pimp in Egypt. Abraham, the patriarch of the Jews, took his wife Sarai and went to Egypt. He asked Sarai to pretend to be his sister because if people knew she was his wife they might have killed him and raped Sarai.
Sarai was quite the looker and Pharaoh wanted a piece of that ass. He asked Abraham if it was ok for him to fuck Sarai and Abraham agreed. In exchange Abraham received lost of bling bling.
Pharaoh fucked Sarai thinking she was Abraham’s sister. God apparently disapprove the act of fucking another man’s wife so punched Pharaoh in the balls and plagued his house with great plagues.
Pharaoh confronted Abraham and asked him why he lied and said that Sarai was his sister. If Pharaoh had known that Sarai was married he would never have fucked her.
The moral of this story is that all Jews are liars but that is fine with God, pimping is fine according to God and don’t fuck a Jew’s wife or God will punch you in the balls. It doesn’t matter if you were deceived, you are the one to blame and not those lying Jews.
Genesis 12:11-20
Genesis 12:11-20
>The story about Lot is part of the Torah which is a Hebrew word for instructions or laws.
This is where you fail hard because your entire argument is based around it. Christians (read: not Jews, that’s a different basket of fruit which I’m not talking about here) differentiate between records of history and laws. You’re obviously blind to that fact, to say nothing of how you jump on any bible verse that gets you hard and attempt to use it to mock Christianity.
Nice quoting of verses there, but you got the entire thing wrong from the start. gg no re.
Just as planned.
I am greatly amused by any biblical references to pimps or God punching people in the balls. Please continue, for that art made of win.
Anonymous bitching about the misuse of bible verses and the bible as a whole. Unusual yet amusing, please continue.
>>>What about regular parents where the chance of having disabled children is also 50%?
How would they know?
>>>children born to siblings do not have a 50% chance of being disabled.
From what I’ve read, it comes down to that inbreeding results in far higher chances of having genetic and physical abnormalities. I don’t know what those chances are, but looking at the kiddie winks those two Germans produced, I’d say that those chances are high enough.
>>>Putting aside morality, it would seem that the incest law is based on the very real danger of malevolent, recessive genes emerging, if children born of siblings were to be born. But if we take that to be the basis of the law, it can sound very much like eugenics.
If eugenics means the prevention of producing fucked up babies, then by all means I support. But (un)fortunately, the definition of eugenics is on the positive, meaning the active selection of breeding. (To put it into a political spectrum, the government decides who to bangs who.) But incest laws are not eugenics in that the government doesn’t select who bangs who, but gets to select who doesn’t get to bang who. Plus, the other point of eugenics is to make “better humans” with breeding. The point of incest laws (for what I see) is to prevent purposely making babies with high percentage chances in having genetic defects.
>>>And that opens up a whole can of worms. Can we, by the same line of thinking, legally prevent two people who both have, say, a recessive hemophilia or sickle cell gene to marry and have children? This two people are unrelated by blood, but any children that come out of the union will have a high chance of getting sickle cell disease.
I would think, then, there would have to be laws governing specific genetics. For example, I’m sure if two people with 6 fingers are OK. Two people who are mentally retarded would have problems. How to decided the degrees is another issue.
>>>So the most logical solution would be for the state to pay 100% of the cost of artificial insemination when parents that are very likely to end up with a sick child if they do it the natural way.
I don’t know about European nations but that would never happen in Red-Scared United States.
>>>This is where you fail hard because your entire argument is based around it. Christians (read: not Jews, that’s a different basket of fruit which I’m not talking about here) differentiate between records of history and laws.
I’m not Christian so excuse my ignorance. What exactly is the point of putting a story about a guy who has children with his two daughters into the Bible? Is it to say that’s it’s not OK? But from what I’ve read, Lot didn’t get punched in the balls by God. Is it to say that’s it’s OK? Well, Lot, his daughters, and his grandchildren seemed just fine and became respectable people afterwards. But, if it is just recorded history, from what I see, then it might as well say that’s it is A-OK as it has respectable people setting a example.
Beowulf…
your right God didn’t punch lot in the balls…but his wife got turned into salt…
and he lost pretty much everything material that mattered to him…
And no…that excerpt doesn’t mean it’s “ok”…..then again…why the F*** am I discussing this on a Loli website….
blegh…how do I get myself into this sh**
>What exactly is the point of putting a story about a guy who has children with his two daughters into the Bible?
To not… selectively omit history? I don’t get what you’re getting at at all. All because history’s recorded doesn’t mean that it’s something approved of — Hitler’s in your history textbooks, just fyi. LOL. That’s an awesome example amirite.
>>your right God didn’t punch lot in the balls…but his wife got turned into salt…
and he lost pretty much everything material that mattered to him…
God turned his wife to salt because the bitch disobeyed God and turned around and saw how God punched the people of Sodom in the balls, not because Lot would fuck his own daughters in the future. God punched Lot’s wife in the balls because she turned around, God did shit when Lot fucked his daughters.
>>Hitler’s in your history textbooks
Hitler got cockpunched by God in his bunker.
Well, the man’s unemployed and the woman seems quite ignorant and just few steps past of beign illiterate, not to mention that they seem to have some serious need for a shrink in their heads (regardless if they’re siblings) Heck, they don’t love each other for the … eh… (coff-coff) right reasons. Dude got there to initially help her sist cope with the death uf the mum, and then the lady adores him to (sex and) death.
Wonder how far will this go. Curious. By the by, abq READS the BBC news it seems.
>>blegh…how do I get myself into this sh**
welcome
>> To not… selectively omit history? I don’t get what you’re getting at at all. All because history’s recorded doesn’t mean that it’s something approved of
But it is! Those who win write history. If Hitler had won and conquered the world, history would say how he saved everyone from those “evil races”.
So why DID god have that recorded?
too hell with rules.
you can’t fight love, no matter how wrong it is.
Boy, that’s a nice picture…
>>>To not… selectively omit history?
If you’ve been in a half decent history class, you’d know for a fact that history put into books are biased one way or another. Partly because of that we can’t cramp everything into a book, and partly because people are just partisan in general.
Your analogy with Hitler would work if it weren’t for the overly extensive amount of crap about the baked Jews in the Holocaust in almost all, if not all, textbooks. “History” tells us Hitler is a bad man and there’s no other argument.
Plus, to say that the Bible is history would be about as good as saying the Flinstones is a documentary of the Stone Age.
Hi, I’m from the BBC news - not as a reporter - sorry - but as a reader who googles a lot. loli is near the top! y’all sound like a fun group. btw, what *is* a loli?
>>Hi, I’m from the BBC news - not as a reporter - sorry - but as a reader who googles a lot. loli is near the top! y’all sound like a fun group. btw, what *is* a loli?
For lack of better words, a loli is generally an under-age, and pre-mature girl; usually in the fictional sense. Lolicon is the sexual attraction to under-age girls. Ofcourse, this is usually in a fictional sense, though not always.
Pro’s of being a lolicon - You can sontaneously combust, “in your pants”, without the self regret of being sexually stimulated by a flat-chested, washing board of a figure.
Con’s of being a lolicon - You have to deal with the crowed which shunn’s lolicon-izm, and thinks its sick, and disturbing. Not that I care, nor do most other members on this site. I find it utterly impossible to not ogle over one of my favorite loli’s, without forming an erection the size of Mount Kilimanjaro, followed by the use of a cleanex, and my right hand.
Yep, surf through this site long enough, and you will inevitably become a lolicon, whether you know it or not!
adq: Boy you are horribly confused.
First in the beginning Who can they marry?
Adam and Eve’s kids HAD TO marry their brothers and sisters. there wasn’t anyone else around.
Likewise after the flood.
It wasn’t until much later when a law was placed stating that you can’t do that anymore. Lev. 18:9-14; Lev. 20:17,19
So Why Lot wasn’t punished was because he lived before this law was in place.
All I can say is THANK GOD for the Westermarck effect.
Also, I don’t think these people should be banned from having their retarded little inbred family. I just think society should, and most likely will, simply instinctively shun them as sick, defective members of the herd.
This sh*t cracks me up. How could the topic even become a semi-serious argument?
As far as it goes, I say live and let live. In the end society will follow its own norms and shun them.
Shun them enough, they’ll go away = no more problem.
Life is simple but people have to make f*cking problems for everyone else because they can’t get their sh*t strait so they try to cram their sh*t down everyone elses throat. *shudders* no pun intended.:P
in reference to the christian who is defending the bible, i like the ideals of christianity but christians themselves i dont like, how can a religion that worships an ‘all’-loving god breed so much hate? if it wernt for the fact they hate you id say you were all members of the KKK
>> (read: not Jews, that’s a different basket of fruit which I’m not talking about here)
you do realize that half of the bible is jewish religious text dont you? christianity is a less strict version of judaism
>>To not… selectively omit history?
i took history and part of the study was post 1st pre 2nd WW Germany, if it hadnt been for the war and the holocaust Hitler would be considered a hero for all that he did for the Germans
and the only real major mistake he made was attacking Russia . . and in the Winter none the less . .
if he had not done that but had gone the southern route through india and the other smaller states down there and through africa we’d probably be living in a world with 2 or 3 major blocks of power . . western/central/northern Asia/Russia, below them to the west parts of the german reich and below them to the east and on the east-coast japanese . . and the japanese would probably have attacked and taken over the smaller islands between asia and australia, and probably in the end australia too . . so germany would be in europe and africa mostly with some parts in southern asia, japan would be mor or less the pacific rim, parts of south-asia, the smaller islands and later on due to help from germany after having taken care of great brittain australia . . and america would have to conquer southern america and canada and iceland to more or less keep the balance . . et voila, 3 larger blocks of power and a no go situation more or less because none of those three blocks are adjacent to their “allies” . . germany not to Japan, Russia not to America, everybody would have to fight a 2 front war and nobody wants to do THAT on a global scale . .
*cough cough* I have firsthand witnessed the outcome of incest… See, this woman that lives next door to me slept with her brother and her father. She has a son by her brother who’s perfectly normal. She has a daughter by her father. The daughter is mentally retarded and is physically… She has undesirable traits such as a crooked mouth, eyes that aren’t the same ((they aren’t where they should be and they look different directions)), and she has a speech problem. The son is actually pretty cute and very nice. He’s my age. I used to like him, then I found out he was the son of a brother and sister. It kinda turned me off. He’s very normal though and just because I’m bothered by it doesn’t mean anything. I suppose these people are entitled to their own rights, but I don’t think its fair to those children who do end up with the problems. Does anyone else feel this way or is it just me?
The kids didn’t decide to be born from incest so you shouldn’t judge them based on something they can’t control.
If you like that boy, like him. Don’t let who his parents are get in the way of a relationship. You don’t get to choose who your parents are.
Hey wazzup.
First of all you all forgot Italy was part of the Axis Powers as themselves and not invaded.
Most importanntly this topic: Personally I would not have sex with my family but I do not believe that I have the right to be a hipocrite and say that people can’t have sex with their family which is what anyone who says they cant is (hipocrites). This whole topic is between people that do this supported by people who protect their God-givin right to do that and hipocrites who seek to prevent others from using God’s givin right for us to have the choice to do anything. So therefore this topic is the same as abortion and gay rights topics so you hipocrites should just stop being jackasses. Thank You
here we go, got a fix to all this inbreeding issue!!! BIRTH CONTROL SHOT, PILLS, AND CONDOMS!!!
now go forth and plow your sisters, mothers, brothers and cousins…just make sure its a mutual lust, no rape.
“Wait till the grandchildren hears what we did when we were young!”
Leave a reply