A Sister Gives Her Thoughts on Their New Life

Sometimes, after this blog publishes an interview, a partner of the interviewee or someone else connected to them wants to add some more from their perspective. This time, the lover of the man interviewed in this recent entry is adding her perspective. Read that interview or read it again, as it will be helpful for reading what this woman has to say below.

If you have any heart at all, you have to see how outrageous it is to deny this woman and her lover their rights.

*****

FULL MARRIAGE EQUALITY:  Did you want to add to how your brother described you?

Samaira: The only thing I can add to is that we have a never-give-up approach to life.


FME: What is your take on your childhood, family life, and discovering your sexuality?

A New Life With True Love

We have another exclusive interview to bring you. 

People in consanguinamorous relationships are everywhere, though consanguinamorists tend to be closeted. Fortunately, some are willing to be interviewed for this blog. As a result, Full Marriage Equality has featured scores of exclusive interviews with lovers denied the freedom to marry and have that marriage treated equally under the law. Most can’t even be out of the closet or they’ll face persecution and prosecution under absurd incest laws, which, instead of focusing on abuse, also target consensual relationships.

The man interviewed below should be free to legally and publicly marry his lover, or simply be with her without having to hide, yet they can’t. Prejudice can be deadly. They are consenting adults; why should they have been denied their rights? In much of the world, they could be criminally prosecuted for loving each other this way, and might be persecuted severely in addition.

Read the interview below and see for yourself what he has to say about the love they share. You may think this relationship is interesting, or it might make you uncomfortable, or you might find it ideal, even highly erotic, but whatever your reaction, should lovers like these be denied equal access to marriage or any other rights simply because they love each other this way?

Also please note that someone you love, respect, and admire could be in a similar relationship right now. Should they be attacked and denied rights because of the "incest" label? 

*****

FULL MARRIAGE EQUALITY:  Describe yourself.

Vishal: We were born in India. My name is Vishal, I'm a 26 year-old man, and my sister’s name is Samaira, she's a 25 year-old woman.

We both are in IT industry in Germany. We chose it because it is a high paying industry. Our high salaries enables us to live a comfortable life here. Right now we are able to save little over half of our salaries, which we invest, because we pool our resources. If everything goes well, then I can get a promotion soon, so our future looks good in Germany.

There is a whole tale behind how we ended up being in IT industry in Germany. We grew up in a well-off family in India. We have also an older brother there. We have a shared hobby of playing tennis. But I also like to go to CrossFit and she likes to play video games. We also like to read non-Fiction books. But due to time constraints nowadays we can only read one book in four to five months.

Thanks to Dr. Endrik Wilhelm

Thanks to a Friend of FME for calling my attention to this interview at dw.com with Dr. Endrik Wilhelm, a solicitor for criminal law based in Germany, about legalizing consanguinamory.

There's a very good map at The Final Manifesto's blogspot. Whatever these maps depict, it would be a good idea for anyone concerned to contact attorneys or lawyers or solicitors where they live who specialize in criminal and family law to get clarification about the laws where they live.

Section 173 in the German criminal code says that sexual contact between siblings is illegal. Offenders face years in prison. Where does the problem lie in the current legal situation in Germany?

The criminal offense itself isn't even linked to the evolution of new life, it's limited to vaginal sex - irrespective of whether it's protected, whatever contraception is or isn't being used, whether or not a woman can even bear a child - all of that doesn't matter, vaginal sex between siblings is illegal, full stop.

It's not an offense to have oral or anal sex, and that's where the Federal Constitutional Court's verdict from 2008 really does get ridiculous. Don't you push a loving couple into a desperate situation once you ban them from having sex? The court said that wouldn't be the case because they'd have 'enough other options' for intercourse. This whole discussion is utterly irrational.

Peter Singer Looks at German Report on Consanguinamory

There continues to be commentary on recent news from the German Ethics Council we last discussed in this entry. Ivy League professor Peter Singer checked in on the topic again, and his thoughts were printed in several places and I was tipped off by a Friend of Lily and Friend of FME. You can find Singer's thoughts at project-syndicate.org...

Incest between adults is not a crime in all jurisdictions. In France, the offense was abolished when Napoleon introduced his new penal code in 1810. Consensual adult incest is also not a crime in Belgium, the Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, Russia, China, Japan, South Korea, Turkey, Côte d’Ivoire, Brazil, Argentina, and several other Latin American countries.

This map should be of great help.

The report does not attempt to provide a definitive assessment of the ethics of consensual sexual relationships between siblings. Instead, it asks whether there is an adequate basis for the criminal law to prohibit such relationships. It points out that in no other situation are voluntary sexual relationships between people capable of self-determination prohibited.

Singer notes that the report goes on to talk about Discredited Arguments #18, 19, and 20.

The taboo against incest runs deep, as the social psychologist Jonathan Haidt demonstrated when he told experimental subjects about Julie and Mark, adult siblings who take a holiday together and decide to have sex, just to see what it would be like. In the story, Julie is already on the Pill, but Mark uses a condom, just to be safe. They both enjoy the experience, but decide not to do it again. It remains a secret that brings them even closer.

Haidt then asked his subjects whether it was okay for Julie and Mark to have sex. Most said that it was not, but when Haidt asked them why, they offered reasons that were already excluded by the story – for example, the dangers of inbreeding, or the risk that their relationship would suffer.

That's because they don't want to admit their reason is simply that they wouldn't personally want to do it. However, their personal disgust should not prevent other people from enjoying sex or loving as they mutually agree.

In the case of the incest taboo, our response has an obvious evolutionary explanation. But should we allow our judgment of what is a crime to be determined by feelings of repugnance that may have strengthened the evolutionary fitness of ancestors who lacked effective contraception?

Even discussing that question has proved controversial. In Poland, a comment presenting the views of the German Ethics Council was posted online by Jan Hartman, a philosophy professor at the Jagiellonian University in Krakow. The university authorities described Hartman’s statement as “undermining the dignity of the profession of a university teacher” and referred the matter to a disciplinary commission.

That's terrible.

I would argue that it is immoral to use government resources to try to prevent consenting adults from loving each other how they wish, or to discriminate against them by denying them their fundamental right to marry. Germany, and many other countries, need to drop the discrimination against consanguinamory and embrace full marriage equality.

It Must Be Prosecuted Because... Prosecution!

Previously, I noted positive news out of Germany about support for decriminalizing consanguineous sex between siblings. I wanted to take a look at how a couple of other news sources covered the story. Here's the news as it is presented at telegraph.co.uk by Justin Huggler.

Laws banning incest between brothers and sisters in Germany could be scrapped after a government ethics committee said the they were an unacceptable intrusion into the right to sexual self-determination.

“Criminal law is not the appropriate means to preserve a social taboo,” the German Ethics Council said in a statement. “The fundamental right of adult siblings to sexual self-determination is to be weighed more heavily than the abstract idea of protection of the family.”

Laws against consanguinamory are actually harmful to families, in many ways, including adults who are in consensual relationships some raising children together, feeling that they can't be completely honest and open with health care providers and being denied equal access to legal marriage when they feel it would benefit them; peaceful homes being disrupted and torn apart as adults are prosecuted for consensual sex and their children taken away; minors close in age engaging in normal adolescent experimentation with each other not being able to talk with parents or counselors about it... on and on it goes.

About one famous case specifically...

The family was forced to live apart after the courts ruled that there was a duty to protect their children from the consequences of their relationship.

And what were those consequences? Criminal prosecution! Don't you see how that works? The people PROSECUTING are telling lovers the problem with them being together is... that they could be prosecuted! Hmmm... how to remove the negative consequences... oh yeah... how about... NOT PROSECUTING THEM???

German Ethics Council Gets It Partially Right

One of the most famous cases of Genetic Sexual Attraction that was reported in the news media was the Stübing case in Germany, in which consenting adults were prosecuted, convicted, and given criminal sentences for loving each other. Now there may be some legal progress around the corner.

Several news outlets are reporting on this story, and here's what was printed at dw.de... 

The German Ethics Council has called for the repeal of the prohibition of incest between siblings. In a statement released on Wednesday, the majority of the council's members requested that consensual sexual relations between siblings of legal age should no longer be a crime.

That's a good start.

Among other things, the council argued that the risk of genetic impairment to a child born from an incestuous relationship doesn't completely warrant the current ban and that the social taboos remain even without an implemented law.

They've seen through the sham of Discredited Argument #18.

A spokeswoman for Angela Merkel's CDU party, Elisabeth Winkelmeier-Becker, responded to the Ethics Council's vote saying that the abolition of the law against incest would give out the wrong signal.

"Abolishing criminal punishment against incestuous actions within a family would go completely against protecting the undisturbed development of children," she added.

Huh? How so? This is about grown people. Here's the signal it would give out: We see the folly of prosecuting consenting adults for loving each other.

Nine members of the Ethics Council voted for continued adherence to the ban, highlighting the importance of roles within a family, which they say incest threatens to destabilize.

They never explain how, but let's accept their reason for the sake of argument. Would they support decriminalizing consanguinamory for cases like with the one the article references, in which they were not raised together and thus did not have those roles? Or was the "destabilization" thing just an excuse to mask their personal prejudice? I think we know the answer.

Two members of the council abstained from the vote.

Statistically, at is very likely at least one if not more of the people on council have personal experience with a sibling that was positive.

An adult, regardless of gender, sexual orientation, race, or religion, should be free to share love, sex, residence, and marriage (or any of those without the others) with any and all consenting adults. This is a a small step in the right direction.

Stanford Journal Article: Remove Laws Against Consensual Incest

Clare Theresa Kasemset wrote “Should Consensual Incest Between Consanguine Adults Be Restricted?” It is found in Intersect: The Stanford Journal of Science, Technology &; Society, Vol 2, No 1 (2009)
NOTE: Comment left by Anonymous gives this link: http://ojs.stanford.edu/ojs/index.php/intersect/article/view/137

The abstract says…

Many states outlaw sexual intercourse between adults who are closely related by blood, such as first cousins. This paper first gives an overview of recent news involving this type of incest and the current legal restrictions surrounding it. It then lays out arguments in favor of either stricter regulation or more lenient treatment. Finally, it proposes and justifies an alternate solution to legal restrictions.

She starts off with the “ick” factor.

Because the term “incest” can apply to such a wide variety of situations, people often confuse their feelings about incest with their feelings about pedophilia, rape, and adultery. The fact that incest often involves those acts, which seem obviously destructive and wrong, makes people associate it with grievous harm. Most news cases about incest report sexual relations between a parent or stepparent and a child.

That’s because consensual incest rarely comes to the attention of the news media.

To avoid the confusion of incest with other sexual crimes, this paper will restrict its scope to the issue of incest between consenting adults who are related by blood.

That is what I call “consanguineous sex”.

What sort of restrictions should be placed on consensual sexual intercourse between biologically related individuals?

None, if they are adults.

She goes on to write about the Stuebing-Karolewski case in Germany...

Daniel Sokol on Germany's Prosecution of Consensual Adult Sex

I've got a very cluttered virtual desk that needs clearing, probably a byproduct of having a lot of work to do (for which I am thankful) and because of... personal involvements (for which I am even more thankful!) A couple of months back, Daniel Sokol wrote about Stübing v Germany and the recent European court decision maintaining that countries can keep prosecuting adults for consensual sex.

Sokol noted...

Professor Jonathan Haidt, a well-known social psychologist, presented this scenario as part of a study:


Julie and Mark, who are brother and sister, are traveling together in France. They are both on summer vacation from college. One night they are staying alone in a cabin near the beach. They decide that it would be interesting and fun if they tried making love. At very least it would be a new experience for each of them. Julie was already taking birth control pills, but Mark uses a condom too, just to be safe. They both enjoy it, but they decide not to do it again. They keep that night as a special secret between them, which makes them feel even closer to each other. So what do you think about this? Was it wrong for them to have sex?


Most people answered with a resounding yes, supporting their "yuck" response with reasons. Yet Professor Haidt noticed that many respondents ignored elements of the story. Some invoked the risk of bearing children with general abnormalities despite mention of two forms of contraception. Others referred to the risk of damaging the sibling relationship, ignoring the fact that the experience actually improved their relationship. Others pointed to the impact on others, but overlooked their pact of secrecy. When one argument was rebutted, people plucked out another. When their ammunition was exhausted, most people clung to their view that Julie and Mark committed a grave moral wrong. Haidt calls this state "moral dumbfounding". His conclusion is that intuitive moral judgments precede the explanations of the rational brain.

Emphasis mine. Prejudice is what feeds anti-consanguinamory attitudes and laws. Sokol then turned to the Stubing case...

In December 2000, their mother died and the relationship between Patrick and SK intensified. The following month, they had consensual sex. Over the next five years, they had four children, after which Patrick underwent a vasectomy. The youngest daughter now lives with SK, but the other children are with foster families.


The German Criminal Code (section 173) prohibits sexual intercourse between consanguine siblings. It is punishable by up to two years' imprisonment or a fine. Consensual sex between siblings is a criminal offence in the majority of states of the Council of Europe, including the UK.


In April 2002, Patrick was convicted of 16 counts of incest. He received a suspended sentence and was put on probation. He was again convicted of incest in April 2004 and November 2005, on each occasion receiving a custodial sentence.

Ridiculous.

Patrick argued that the conviction breached his Article 8 rights by affecting his ability to raise his children and interfering with his sexual life. There was no pressing social need to justify the conviction. Incestuous relationships did not spread genetic diseases in society and, moreover, other people with a higher risk of transferring genetic defects, such as older and disabled persons, were allowed to procreate. The criminal ban, plagued by inconsistencies, did not protect the family unit. Why ban sexual intercourse between siblings but permit other forms of sexual contact? Why exempt step-children or adoptive children from criminal liability?


In Patrick's case, the siblings had not grown up together. The normal sexual inhibitions had not developed. The sex was consensual. No one was harmed by the incest. In fact, the conviction destroyed a new family unit. 

Anti-consanguinamory laws are anti-family.

The European Court's reasoning is meagre. It avoids a careful analysis of each individual argument and counter-argument. The dissenting judgment by Judge Hassemer in the Federal Constitutional Court contained a number of thought-provoking observations – such as the law's prohibition of sexual intercourse but not other sexual acts that are also potentially damaging to family structures and society – that were side-stepped by the European Court.

Someday, most people are going to look back at these laws and court rulings and shake their heads. Let the lovers be.

Two Families, Two Countries and Why Equality is Needed

Cornelius, a frequent commenter here, linked to this recent coverage of persecuted couple Patrick Stuebing (or Stubing, depending) and Susan Karolewski. It is a Spanish website and it also covers a Spanish couple, Daniel and Rosa Moya. Thank you, Cornelius!

Today's society accepts - legally, at least - almost any type of relationship between adults, yet alarm bells ring where siblings are concerned. The cases of Patrick Stuebing and Susan Karolewski in Germany, and of Daniel and Rosa Moya in A Coruña, show that it is possible for two close relatives to fall in love and form a family just like anyone else. But the different way both couples were treated - obtaining legal papers in Spain, facing a criminal conviction in Germany - underscores the fact that criteria differ even within European Union countries. In any case, there is no denying that siblings who love each other, have sex and produce children, prove problematic both from social and legal standpoints.

The entire European Union needs to get with the 21st century and let all consenting adults have the relationships they want. What happened in the Stuebing case is terrible.

Will Germany Move Towards Full Marriage Equality Soon?

It is just a matter of time before momentum for full marriage equality and general relationship rights for all consenting adults make equality commonplace in most of the civilized world. Germany has been in the news recently as a higher European court upheld the country's enforcement of its ridiculous and outdated laws against consanguinamory, but there is hope for change, according to this article, which says that Germany is evolving sexually. It cites Trend Update magazine.

The magazine, published by German think tank the Zukunftsinstitut, said that not only the lines of relationships but also those of gender identity were being blurred.


Fewer people are identifying themselves as in a traditional monogamous sexual relationship.


Rather, arrangements such as “friends with benefits”, “polyamory” and “scheduled sex” are becoming increasingly socially accepted.


“This is not a sexual revolution, but sexual evolution,” the report said.

Generally, this is a good thing. People are being who they are, rather than conforming to some outside imposition upon their love lives and identities. If someone is heterosexual and needs monogamy, they should have the freedom to find that. If someone is LGBT or needs polyamory or is in a consanguinamorous relationship, they should also be free to be themselves and to have the relationships in which they will best function.

Long-lived sexual hang-ups are being discarded as in particular online dating and other virtual meeting places enable people to connect with others who want in the same way they do.


The internet has created a public platform for even the most unusual of lifestyle choices, which previously would have remained under wraps – dampened by strict social rules.

This is happening in many other countries, not just Germany. It will continue until an adult, regardless of gender or sexual orientation, is free to share love, sex, residence, and marriage with any consenting adults, without prosecution, persecution, or discrimination. Let's make it happen sooner rather than later!

Another Reason the German Law Against Consanguinamory is a Sham

Michael Owens, prompted by the recent court decision we wrote about here, writes "Incest laws in Germany may be a bit outdated." Just a bit.

Patrick appealed to the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) arguing that his basic rights were violated and that Germany should not have been allowed to punish two consenting adults for their sexual activities. But the ECHR ruled that Germany could punish them for incest, and that Germany's laws against incest were also permissible.

But the reasoning behind the decision by the court has perhaps asked more questions than it has answered. 

It sure did.

Germany's law on incest is quite peculiar. If a woman would like to be artificially inseminated by the sperm of a lineal relative, i.e. by a brother or her father, this is allowed. But if she becomes pregnant through coitus (sexual intercourse), this is outlawed. The law is actually a law against sex between two consenting adults.

Interesting. I wasn't aware of the artificial insemination law. That shows the law against consensual sex to be even more of a sham. There is no reason to criminalize consanguinamory or deny consanguinamorous adults the freedom to marry.

 

Outrageous Court Decision Backs Bigotry

I'll write more about it later, but it is all over the news that so-called European Court of Human Rights has ruled against Patrick Stuebing, who was prosecuted for the "crime" of loving his genetic sister. What is more basic of a human right than freedom of association and the right to love another consenting adult? If adults do not have the right to love each other in the way we want, what rights do we really have?

German courts did not violate a Leipzig man's privacy rights by convicting him for incest with his younger sister — with whom he fathered four children, the European Court of Human Rights said Thursday.

The court, part of the 47-nation Council of Europe based in eastern Strasbourg, France, said German courts didn't violate the rights of Patrick Stuebing, who was sentenced to 14 months in prison in 2005. He is now free.

The case had prompted calls for Germany to follow countries like France, Turkey, Japan and Brazil in amending its laws so that consensual sexual relations between adult relatives are no longer illegal.

An adult should be free to share love, sex, residence,and marriage with any consenting adults.

For more, see...
Discredited Arguments
Consanguinamory FAQ
Genetic Sexual Attraction

Patrick Stuebing and Family Back in the News

German man Patrick Stuebing is back in the news, rightly pointing out that his rights were violated.

An incest dad who was jailed after he fathered four children with his sister is demanding compensation claiming his three year sentence was a breach of his human rights.

Patrick Stuebing, 34, from Leipzig, Germany, and his sister Susan sued the German government seeking 35,000 GBP compensation for the conviction under incest laws.

Now the European Court of Human Rights is to announce its verdict this week on the case which could affect similar laws in Britain and across the EU.

The court should defend the rights of adults to love, sex, and marriage with any consenting adults.

Three of the couple's children have been taken into care by local social services and are now with foster parents.

The couple say they fell in love when they met for the first time as adults after locksmith Patrick - who had been adopted as a child - got back in contact with his real family.

Susan, 24, explained: "I hope this law will be overturned I just want to live with my family, and be left alone by the authorities and by the courts."

This consanguinamorous pair should be allowed to be together, to marry, and to raise their children. They should not be bullied.

Stand up for people like this family. Support Full Marriage Equality on Facebook.

More Marriage Rights For Same-Sex Couples

In California, it is possible that a federal judge will strike down a ban preventing same-sex couples from marrying. The trial is resuming. Let’s demand the judge strengthens the right to marriage in a way that knocks down other laws in addition Proposition 8, so that other people who are currently prevented from marrying will have their freedom. If not, I hope he will at least knock down "Prop H8." The bigots would appeal to a higher court, but it would be a start.

Referring to the federal prohibition on recognizing same-sex marriages, Walker asked the plaintiffs bluntly, ''Can the court find Proposition 8 to be unconstitutional without also considering the constitutionality of the federal Defense of Marriage Act?''

It would be great if DOMA could be struck down, too.

The question is particularly relevant nearly 3,000 miles away, where another federal trial court judge – U.S. District Court Judge Joseph Tauro – is directly considering whether a portion of DOMA is constitutional in a challenge brought by Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders in Boston.

One way or another, we’ll advance marriage equality in the US, the way we advanced rights for people of color.

In Germany, a court recognized a Canadian marriage between two men, but unfortunately they will only call it a civil partnership.

Andreas Boettcher, a 37-year-old German event manager, married his Spanish partner, a dancer and choreographer, in Montreal in July 2006. He asked a Berlin administrative court to recognize the relationship as a marriage after local authorities listed him as "single" on his registration card in November, despite his Canadian marriage certificate and a family registry entry from Spain that names him as the husband of his partner.

The best news comes from Iceland, where same-sex couples got marriage rights on Friday.

Unfortunately, in all three places, laws against marrying more than one person and against consanguineous marriage are still in effect.