Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Roll yer ownFollow

#1 Mar 07 2007 at 5:10 AM Rating: Good
Ministry of Silly Cnuts
*****
19,524 posts
Vot iss ze Cherman vord for "RedNeck"?

Quote:
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.

"Many people see it as a crime, but we've done nothing wrong," said Patrick, an unemployed locksmith.

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.

"Our children are with foster parents. We talk to them as often as possible, but the authorities have taken away so much from us," said Susan.

"We only have our little daughter, Sofia, who is living with us," she said.

The couple's lawyer, Endrik Wilhelm, has lodged an appeal with Germany's highest judicial body, the federal Constitutional Court in Karlsruhe, in order to overturn the country's ban on incest.

"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 This law is out of date and it breaches the couple's civil rights," Dr Wilhelm said.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.


[:gobsmacked:]
____________________________
"I started out with nothin' and I still got most of it left" - Seasick Steve
#2 Mar 07 2007 at 5:13 AM Rating: Decent
Smiley: lol Only in Germany, Florida, and wherever Katie is from.

#3 Mar 07 2007 at 5:22 AM Rating: Excellent
Nexa
*****
12,065 posts
While I can't say that I agree with the choice, I think it's horrifying that their children were taken away from them if they were in no way being abused. Another case of the government spending money and time where it doesn't need to.

Nexa
____________________________
“It has always been the prerogative of children and half-wits to point out that the emperor has no clothes. But a half-wit remains a half-wit, and the emperor remains an emperor.”
― Neil Gaiman, The Sandman, Vol. 9: The Kindly Ones
#4 Mar 07 2007 at 6:05 AM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
35,474 posts
Quote:
"Why are disabled parents allowed to have children, or people with hereditary diseases or women over 40? No-one says that is a crime.


While I am disgusted at the thought of siblings bumping uglies, I agree with this statement. The only reason to keep them apart and take the kids is because of the increased chance of birth defects. If you allow the above mentioned situations despite those same increases, then what's wrong with this?
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.


An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#5 Mar 07 2007 at 6:56 AM Rating: Good
Ministry of Silly Cnuts
*****
19,524 posts
Overlord Uglysasquatch wrote:
If you allow the above mentioned situations despite those same increases, then what's wrong with this?
Perhaps the kids were deformed by German standards (I.e. not blonde with blue eyes)
____________________________
"I started out with nothin' and I still got most of it left" - Seasick Steve
#6 Mar 07 2007 at 6:59 AM Rating: Decent
Nobby wrote:
Overlord Uglysasquatch wrote:
If you allow the above mentioned situations despite those same increases, then what's wrong with this?
Perhaps the kids were deformed by German standards (I.e. not blonde with blue eyes)


Zey vill bee on ze first train to Polonia!!



And yes, we'll collaborate, just don't hurt us please...
____________________________
My politics blog and stuff - Refractory
#7 Mar 07 2007 at 8:32 AM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
35,474 posts
Nobby wrote:
Overlord Uglysasquatch wrote:
If you allow the above mentioned situations despite those same increases, then what's wrong with this?
Perhaps the kids were deformed by German standards (I.e. not blonde with blue eyes)


German's are messed. Everyone knows brunettes are hotter.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.


An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#8 Mar 07 2007 at 8:35 AM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
30,086 posts
While I can't say that I agree with the choice, I think it's horrifying that their children were taken away from them if they were in no way being abused. Another case of the government spending money and time where it doesn't need to.

Quitting smoking makes you Libertarian. Stop that right now!
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#9 Mar 07 2007 at 8:47 AM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,360 posts
Another case of a government, etc....

Dunno, seems weird to me, but if the kids are physically okay it's none of my business.

Come to that, if the kids are three-toed open-skulled sloths it's none of my business as long as I don't have to foot the bills.
____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#10 Mar 07 2007 at 8:51 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Samira wrote:
Come to that, if the kids are three-toed open-skulled sloths it's none of my business as long as I don't have to foot the bills.
You won't. The carnival will take care of everything.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#11 Mar 07 2007 at 8:51 AM Rating: Good
@#%^
*****
15,953 posts
A little behind on the times are we?

Banjos and coveralls... for everybody!
____________________________
"I have lost my way
But I hear a tale
About a heaven in Alberta
Where they've got all hell for a basement"

#12 Mar 07 2007 at 8:53 AM Rating: Good
Sisters: The original in-house pUssy.

Really a shame I was an only child.
#13 Mar 07 2007 at 8:54 AM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,360 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Samira wrote:
Come to that, if the kids are three-toed open-skulled sloths it's none of my business as long as I don't have to foot the bills.
You won't. The carnival will take care of everything.


Geek Love.
____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#14 Mar 07 2007 at 9:05 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Samira wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
Samira wrote:
Come to that, if the kids are three-toed open-skulled sloths it's none of my business as long as I don't have to foot the bills.
You won't. The carnival will take care of everything.
Geek Love.
Freaks!
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#15 Mar 07 2007 at 9:17 AM Rating: Excellent
Official Shrubbery Waterer
*****
14,659 posts
Jophiel wrote:

Quote:
Plot Keywords:Knife Thrower / Handicapped / Knife / Armless Man / Castration

Smiley: yikes
____________________________
Jophiel wrote:
I managed to be both retarded and entertaining.

#16 Mar 07 2007 at 9:40 AM Rating: Good
**
296 posts
Overlord Uglysasquatch wrote:
Quote:
"Why are disabled parents allowed to have children, or people with hereditary diseases or women over 40? No-one says that is a crime.


While I am disgusted at the thought of siblings bumping uglies, I agree with this statement. The only reason to keep them apart and take the kids is because of the increased chance of birth defects. If you allow the above mentioned situations despite those same increases, then what's wrong with this?


Hrmmm Sasquatch... you and I are agreeing on a lot of stuff the past few days.

If incest is really only considered wrong because of the likelihood of genetic abnomalities in the offspring, then a couple with a clear proclivity for producing children with genetic problems should also be considered wrong.

I doubt many people (I would say "anyone" but there are real jerks out there) would walk up to a pair of Jerry's Kids and say, "The thought of you two reproducing and creating more people like you sickens me." But unless you are able to do exactly that, I don't see how you can defend an anti-incest position.

If it is all about reproduction, then legislating that based on the likely genetic status of the offspring does seem to lean towards a pro-eugenics stance. I don't know, it's just a weird situation.
#17 Mar 07 2007 at 10:06 AM Rating: Good
*****
18,463 posts
Socially, at least in our culture, it's still a taboo. The thought of being intimate with a sibling makes me gag. I suppose you could extrapolate and relate it to gay and lesbian relationships, but I don't think it's the next big paradigm shift or anything. I would think most people still hold it at the same level as polygamy, or to some extent, bestiality.
#18 Mar 07 2007 at 10:07 AM Rating: Excellent
Nexa
*****
12,065 posts
Atomicflea wrote:
Socially, at least in our culture, it's still a taboo. The thought of being intimate with a sibling makes me gag. I suppose you could extrapolate and relate it to gay and lesbian relationships, but I don't think it's the next big paradigm shift or anything. I would think most people still hold it at the same level as polygamy, or to some extent, bestiality.


Sure, but should a social taboo be legal grounds to take someone's children away?

Nexa
____________________________
“It has always been the prerogative of children and half-wits to point out that the emperor has no clothes. But a half-wit remains a half-wit, and the emperor remains an emperor.”
― Neil Gaiman, The Sandman, Vol. 9: The Kindly Ones
#19 Mar 07 2007 at 10:11 AM Rating: Excellent
Official Shrubbery Waterer
*****
14,659 posts
Nexa wrote:
Atomicflea wrote:
Socially, at least in our culture, it's still a taboo. The thought of being intimate with a sibling makes me gag. I suppose you could extrapolate and relate it to gay and lesbian relationships, but I don't think it's the next big paradigm shift or anything. I would think most people still hold it at the same level as polygamy, or to some extent, bestiality.


Sure, but should a social taboo be legal grounds to take someone's children away?

Nexa

It was enough to keep the women and blacks down for a few hundred years....
____________________________
Jophiel wrote:
I managed to be both retarded and entertaining.

#20 Mar 07 2007 at 10:12 AM Rating: Good
*****
18,463 posts
Nexa wrote:
Sure, but should a social taboo be legal grounds to take someone's children away?
It wasn't for the third child. Makes me wonder if something else is at play besides the obvious.
#21 Mar 07 2007 at 10:12 AM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
30,086 posts

Sure, but should a social taboo be legal grounds to take someone's children away?


Depends on your level of investment in the taboo, I guess.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#22 Mar 07 2007 at 11:30 AM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,360 posts
Atomicflea wrote:
Socially, at least in our culture, it's still a taboo. The thought of being intimate with a sibling makes me gag. I suppose you could extrapolate and relate it to gay and lesbian relationships, but I don't think it's the next big paradigm shift or anything. I would think most people still hold it at the same level as polygamy, or to some extent, bestiality.


So you've met my brothers.
____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#23 Mar 07 2007 at 11:31 AM Rating: Good
*****
18,463 posts
Samira wrote:
So you've met my brothers.
Yes, and I promised them I'd keep out of your kool-aid.

Edited, Mar 7th 2007 1:32pm by Atomicflea
#24 Mar 07 2007 at 11:34 AM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,360 posts
Atomicflea wrote:
Samira wrote:
So you've met my brothers.
Yes, and I promised them I'd keep out of your kool-aid.

Edited, Mar 7th 2007 1:32pm by Atomicflea


Well, we are Southern.
____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#25 Mar 07 2007 at 11:48 AM Rating: Decent
King Rimesume wrote:
Smiley: lol Only in Germany, Florida, and wherever Katie is from.



You forgot West Virginia, and any state below the Mason Dixon line.
____________________________
EQ1: Gooshy: http://eq.magelo.com/profile/1870652
EQ2: Gwenythe: http://u.eq2wire.com/soe/character_detail/468152233422
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 280 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (280)