A German man who fathered four children with his sister has failed to get his conviction for incest overturned at the European Court of Human Rights.
The court ruled that Germany’s criminalisation of sex between siblings is justified for the protection of marriage and the family.
But Patrick Stuebing claims his sexual relationship with his sister is not abnormal, and that Germany has interfered with his rights to privacy and a family life.
Judges at the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) commented that Germany’s ban on incest was “aimed at the protection of morals and the rights of others”.
17 Comments
In Germany, all the rights and obligations of marriage have been extended to same-sex couples ... yet incestuous relationships remain illegal. This shows exactly how slippery the slope isn't.
So?
What does that have to do with the price of a politician in North Carolina?
The battle for true "marriage equality" has begun. Soon all mothers, fathers, siblings and pedophiles will be free to love the person of their choice.
Barb writes:
If your reference to "siblings ... free to love the person of their choice" is a reference to incestuous relationships, the NOMblog article says exactly the opposite. You could just read the title of the post to get that meaning ... Man Fails to Overturn Germany’s Incest Ban.
Sarcasm. This is how it starts. Stuebing can and most likely will appeal.
On another thread, Ashley said, "They are not pedophiles. They are not sick. They are not immoral. They are not mentally ill. They are human beings with the same hopes and dreams as you and I. Just because they find love with someone of their own gender, does not mean they should be excluded from certain pleasures that we take for granted! Love is not superficial and there are different types of love! None of them mean any less than the other! LGBT's deserve the same dignity, respect and humanity as every other good person on this planet! To deny them protection, is to forfeit your own humanity."
and AnonyGrl said, "Unfounded would be if NOM was NOT in the business of trying to deny equal rights to people who only want the same protections that their neighbors have for their families."
and Daniel said, "... therefore, what? Is this meant to justify the exclusion of same-sex couples from the opportunity marriage provides to build lasting bonds of mutual belonging?"
Using the merits of their own arguments about love and belong, and respect, and equal protections, I fail to see how SSM is justifiable to those with SSA, but Mr. Stubing's claims are invalid, simply because his orientation is in the minority.
Just sayin.'
SSMers have already insisted that under the law marriage is not a sexual type of relationship and that it is not a type of relationship orientated toward procreation.
But the same SSMers clap with approval when marriage is treated as a sexual type of relationship that is orientated toward procreation under the law for the purpose of prohibiting siblings.
SSMers do not believe their own argumentation. But they do believe in arbitrary exercises of governmental authority that favors the gay identity group and disfavors the rest of nonmarriage.
The European Court of Human Rights is on a roll. They've found that same-sex marriage is not a right, and that incest bans are a societal good.
Great points, Chairm, as always.
Charm writes:
I think you misunderstand the SSM position, and that you muddy your own distinctions between what the marriage relationship IS and what marriage law REQUIRES. The SSM position is that the ability to express intimacy though coitus does not constitute the signe defining characteristic upon which we can (or do) determine whether or not a relationship is marriage. It simply is not, and ought not be, exploited like some secret handshake that one must be able to perform in order to be a member of the club.
... and for D.O.E. in particular ...
Because we are talking about a type of relationship. Professor Fred Parrella and Gerald Coleman, S.S., President of St. Patrick's Seminary expressed it beautifully. (emphasis added)
And for any reader who self-identifies as a "marriage protector" - please explain how you can be "pro marriage" while opposing the kind of relationship described above.
Chairm:
You can't start an argument with a point that you made up and then go on to contradict said point and think you won the argument. Please provide proof that SSMer have stated that marriage isn't sexual. Perhaps you are taking things out of context because we sometimes say (truthfully) that not ALL marriages are sexual (seniors want companionship, immigrants want green cards, some marry for money, or social status, etc) or solely procreational (some can’t and some don’t want to have children), but the majority of adults who seek marriage, want to marry someone unrelated that they love and find sexually attractive.
Why, thank you Daniel. No arguments about your comment.
And now, for my sake, could you please answer the following:
"1. What is your moral argument for the claim that SSM is a type of marriage that the marriage law must recognize as real marriage?
To answer this you need to state what marriage is and to explain the moral reasoning that would compel society, through the legal system, to distinguish between marriage and the other types of relationships that populate the nonmarriage category.
2. What is the moral argument for the claim that same-sex sexual behavior is the moral equivalent of opposite-sex sexual behavior? And, as applied to marriage, that it is the moral equivalent of coital relations of husband and wife?
If you have no moral arguments for either of these assumptions, then, that should be stated forthrightly." (from a former statement made by C.O.)
Your thoroughness will be much appreciated.
The prohibition on the siblings and other near kin is not a prohibition on platonic friendship -- such as between siblings or other near kin.
It presupposes that marriage, as a type of relationship under the law, is a sexual as per the two-sexed sexual basis for the marital presumption of paternity, consummation, annulment, and adultery as expressed in legal requirements pertaining. The man-woman criterion is not a standalone.
Thus, coital relations of husband and wife is not a secret handshake. It is not a nonsexual behavior, like a handshake, nor is it secret but is expressed in marriage law's sexual basis.
Parrella and Coleman do not provide sound moral arguments for claiming same-sex sexual behavior (all of the range or just some select part of that range of behavior) is the definitive feature of a type of relationship that is somehow superior in moral standing to the vast range of nonsexual friendships and living arrangements.
Indeed, when they try to equate the gay subset of nonmarriage with marriage, they do not bother to even show that the all-male and the all-female scenarios are equivalent, morally, based on same-sex sexual behaviors that would be common to both scenarios.
Daughter of Eve, Barb Chamberlan, and Ash,
I'm going to be scarce for some time. Fortunately the discussion here rests in your capable hands.
Cheerio,
Chairm Ohn
Chairm writes:
Correct. The marriage relationship I described in #9 is clearly not platonic friendship. Please review the contrasting meanings of the terms "platonic" and "romantic" if you need further clarification.
Chairm, you presuppose and assert that marriage has exclusively a two-sexed basis by pointing to legal stipulations. You have repeatedly suggested that the existence of legal provisions does not define what the marriage relationship is. So why cross that line now?
Your refute what I did not state. I did not say that the act was a secret handshake ... I said that your ilk are exploiting in the way others exploit a secret handshake. Also notable, your appeal to marriage law as a basis for defining the type of relationship in question. How many times have you chastened me for this apparent transgression that you now freely indulge in?
Correct, they do not present moral arguments. They present a description of the type of relationship we are talking about - marriage. Its a definition of marriage Chairm, something you have repeatedly asserted as a requirement for any SSM argument. And this description, this definition, is clearly not referring to "nonsexual friendships and living arrangements". So why do you bring these other relationships up?
They describe the marriage relationship. There is no part of that description that is exclusive to the male-female scenario. Male-male and female-female couples possess the capacity for everything they describe as essential to the marriage relationship.
...
And you have not bothered to show that an all-male or all-female scenario is inferior, morally, to a male-female scenario.
Don't stay away for too long, Chairm!
Daniel, if I 'crossed the line' it was only to follow you to see where your thinking would take us.
You have emphasized legal requirements. I have emphasized that the source of marriage law is the type of relationship; I have pointed out the legal requirements regarding the sexual basis embedded in marriage law. You would sweep that aside. Your emphasis would make the romantic-platonic dichotomy an irrelevancy.
Your own remarks throughout our exchange have insisted marriage is not a sexual type of relationship under the law (no requirement of sexual behavior) and is not a procreative type of relationship under the law (no requirement for procreation) and so on.
But in your opening comment at the top of this thread you claimed the slope is not slippery because ... of an example in which marriage was treated as a sexual type of relationship orientated toward procreation. Hence the ban on the sibling friendship -- whether or not it is sexualized, romanticized, or whatnotized -- would be arbitrary if we followed you across the line you have emphasized.
I have not said the slope is slippery. I have said that your own thinking on legal stipulations being definitive is a leap off the cliff and not a slide down a slope.
I also said:
"Parrella and Coleman do not provide sound moral arguments for claiming same-sex sexual behavior (all of the range or just some select part of that range of behavior) is the definitive feature of a type of relationship that is somehow superior in moral standing to the vast range of nonsexual friendships and living arrangements."
It is astonishingly dishonest of you, Daniel, to claim that I have said that this is about merely presenting definitions.
I have queried about the moral assumptions asserted by the SSM campaign; I have asked about the lack of sound moral argumentation for those asserted assumptions. And I have asked them of you, Daniel.
And, no, coital relations cannot be considered as something treated as a secret handshake given the sexual basis of marriage in our laws -- laws regarding a public relationship.
And, given the societal significance of this sexual type of relationship oriented toward procreation, marriage is the source for marriage law, not the other way around. That societal significance is not treated as a secret nor as a nonsexual gesture.
Now, if same-sex sexual behavior (at least some subset of the full range of such behavior) is to be treated as the moral equivalent of coital relations, then, you -- or someone you scrounge up on an ad hoc basis -- needs to step forward and state the societal significance of that behavior.
Add that to the list of things still owed the discussion.
I'll step-off now and will be away for awhile.
Cheerio,
Chairm Ohn
Chairm writes:
Did you not read the definition of marriage I presented? It included: Marriage is exclusive in so far as everyone else is excluded from the innermost circle of intimacy, both sexual and personal, shared between the two partners—no one else has access to the inner heart and mind, as well as the body, of the partner in exactly the same way.
Sexual intimacy is not a characteristic of platonic love. It Is a characteristic of romantic love. Nothing is "swept away" by this.
You've asked about the morality of same-sex sexual behavior:
I've already answered "what is marriage" (see post #8 above). And, elsewhere, the moral arguments you requested. Here they are, again:
1) Moral argument that: same-sex sexual behavior is moral, ever.
1a) morality is not an attribute inherent to a particular act. for example, consider the swinging of a bat. there may be a moral good that results, such as advancing the health & fitness of the actor. or there may be harms that result, perhaps if the swing is taken at an innocent sentient target. discernment of the morality of the behavior is found in something other than the mechanics inherent to that behavior. i've already hinted at a source for that discernment.
1b) the morality of an action CAN be discerned through a utilitarian approach ... by assessing the benefits and harms that result from such actions. that notion holds that the proper course of action is one which maximizes net happiness. it then follows that:
1c) same sex sexual behavior is a means of giving and receiving pleasure
1d) the giving and receiving of pleasure is source of happiness
1e) same-sex sexual behavior can be shared without inducing harms to the self or others, particularly in cases where: (i) the risk of STD is absent or mitigated (ii) both parties are unencumbered by other romantic partners who would be harmed by infidelity (iii) the sexual acts themselves are non-injurious
1d) same-sex sexual behavior, in this scenario, would be seen as morally sound.
2) that same-sex sexual behavior is the moral equivalent of coital relations of husband and wife.
2a) morality is not an attribute inherent to a particular act. See 1a above.
2b) morallity can be discerned by considering the net happiness that results, keeping in mind any harms induced to the self or others.
2c) coital relations of husband and wife can be performed with no intention to maximize happiness or mitigate harms. for example, a husband might seek only his own pleasure with no regard for that of his wife. a husband might even induce harms by gaining access to marital coitus through coercion or force, against his wife's will. either party might induce harms by engaging in coitus when there is an unmitigated risk of transmitting an STD to the other.
2d) coital relations of husband and wife, in this scenario, would be seen as morally unsound - and inferior to the same-sex scenario cited in example 1 above.
And now you add a request to prove "societal significance" ? You already know the answer to this: stable marriages are beneficial to the espoused, to their household and any dependents it might include, and to the society of which they are members. It creates families, and helps those families avoid poverty. Married people enjoy better health and greater success in life - they are MORE likely to volunteer in their communities and LESS likely to become a burden on their community.
Cheers!