United States & Canada International
Home PageMagazineTravelPersonalsAbout
Advertise with us     Subscriptions     Contact us     Site map     Translate    

 
Table Of Contents
April 2007 Cover
April 2007 Cover

 Dirty Dishes Dirty Dishes Archive  
April 2007 Email this to a friend
Check out reader comments

Family Values
By Dawn Ivory

Ex-Senator Rick Santorum predicted it. First, gay marriage, then a Mormon running for President, and now news from Germany about Patrick Stuebing and Susan Karolewski.

It seems Patrick, now 30, was given up for adoption and only sought out and met his biological family when he was 23. After his biological mother died, Patrick and his recently-discovered sister fell in love and have been living together for the last six years; they have four children, three of whom have been taken by the state and placed in foster homes.

I
View our poll archive
ncest remains a criminal offense in Germany. According to BBC News, Patrick has already served a two-year sentence for committing incest, and there is another jail term looming if paragraph 173 of the legal code is not overturned. "Many people see it as a crime, but we've done nothing wrong," Patrick told the BBC. "I hope this law will be overturned," Susan added. "I just want to live with my family, and be left alone by the authorities and by the courts." Amen, Susan.

In modern condemnation of incest, science has stepped in to play the role previously assigned to religion: since the brand of "sin" no longer inhibits, the scientific condemnation of "reproductive unfitness" is hauled out-- siblings should be banned from sexually relating because, the white coats claims, their issue is likely to be defective.

But do we really want the state to start concerning itself with partners' reproductive worthiness? Should a state-issued certificate be required before giving birth?

And what would the rationale be for outlawing homo-incest amongst siblings? With the already-dubious objection about inbreeding removed, how can the state claim the need to ban bro-on-bro or sis-on-sis sex?

No, paragraph 173 belongs in the dustbin along with anti-gay paragraph 175. (For curious readers, paragraph 174 appears to be a ban on sex with dependents, while paragraph 176 outlaws sex with anyone under age 14; under the Nazis, violators of any of these sex crime paragraphs wore the pink triangle.)


Guidemag.com Reader Comments
You are not logged in.

No comments yet, but click here to be the first to comment on this Dirty Dishes!

Custom Search

******


My Guide
Register Now!
Username:
Password:
Remember me!
Forget Your Password?




This Month's Travels
Travel Article Archive
Seen in Fort Lauderdale
Mark, David, John & Bob at Slammer

Seen in San Diego

Wet boxers at Flicks

Seen in Fort Myers

Steve, Ray & Jason at Tubby's



From our archives


Faggotry at Harvard


Personalize your
Guidemag.com
experience!

If you haven't signed up for the free MyGuide service you are missing out on the following features:

- Monthly email when new
   issue comes out
- Customized "Get MyGuys"
   personals searching
- Comment posting on magazine
   articles, comment and
   reviews

Register now

 
Quick Links: Get your business listed | Contact us | Site map | Privacy policy







  Translate into   Translation courtesey of www.freetranslation.com

Question or comments about the site?
Please contact webmaster@guidemag.com
Copyright © 1998-2008 Fidelity Publishing, All rights reserved.