Irish siblings to marry

thebullkf

An Irish couple are planning to defy the law and get married later this month, despite being brother and sister. Skip related content
Related photos / videos


Irish siblings plan to get married Enlarge photo



The pair, who already have a child together, have been warned that it is illegal to marry a sibling but say they are determined to do so anyway and spend their lives together.
The couple, who have assumed the pseudonyms of James and Maura to protect their identities, claim they were unaware that they shared a father when they first met and fell in love........

i know its from a rag...

but-


any thoughts?

Personally i think its unfortunate,but ultimately wrong.

Discuss.











http://uk.news.yahoo.com/38/20100913/tod-irish-siblings-plan-to-get-married-045b8e8.html

Banned Account

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uzae_SqbmDE

Brendog

*puts on gloves*


Ok this is going to get messy!...

KeithM89_old

Incest is best....

rainbowdrop

Incest is just wrong, wrong, wrong...... But if Angelina Jolie was my sister, I might just reconsider that statement:D

karlog

<snip>

Wazdakka

Why walk across the street when you can just walk across the hall instead?

Procasinator

I feel sorry for the couple. They did not know at first that they were half-brother and sister.

The only thing I would say is that I hope they do not have any more children together. The risks of defects would be too high.

Whether they marry or not doesn't really matter now. They are already a family (in more ways than one).

MagicMarker

Did they have a kid before or after they realised they were siblings?

The kid is it's own cousin.

chin_grin

<snip>

rainbowdrop

MagicMarker wrote: »

Did they have a kid before or after they realised they were siblings?

The kid is it's own cousin.

And it's father is it's uncle, it's mother is it's auntie........

MrStuffins

Don't knock it til you've tried it boss!

Brendog

Farmer: You put your seed in ma daughters belly!

Boy: But Pa!

Farmer: You're lucky you're my brother too or else I'd kill you!:pac:

Biggins

Fitzcaraldo wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uzae_SqbmDE

Awe bless, some of the younger ones won't get the reference. :pac:

Showing your age there too Fitzcaraldo

wing52

Yore' uncle is yore brother

Yore sister is yore mother

They all ride each other

In yore famileeeeeeeee.

Sung to the tune of "The addams family":D

cython

Well, if you can't keep it in your pants, at least keep it in the family

kielmanator

This 14-year-old boy from Kentucky was banging his 12-year-old sister. He says "Damn sis, you're almost as good as Mamma." She replies "Yeah that's what Pappa says."

wakka wakka
:pac::pac:

GodlessInfidel

at least you don't have to worry about meeting the inlaws..

orourkeda

You got a pretty mouth

PeterIanStaker

GodlessInfidel wrote: »

at least you don't have to worry about meeting the inlaws..

Y'all marry three times but the in-laws stay the same

Latchy

What do you call an incestuous nephew? An aunt-eater.

WindSock

What else can you do if your hot family all kinda look alike :mad:

AckwelFoley

The hills have eyes.. i seen it. I seen the offspring

Coriolanus

Procasinator wrote: »

The only thing I would say is that I hope they do not have any more children together. The risks of defects would be too high.

I seem to remember something about first cousins being a riskier mating than siblings. :eek:

Procasinator

Nevore wrote: »

I seem to remember something about first cousins being a riskier mating than siblings. :eek:

I seem to remember hearing something similar before (think I heard about second cousins being riskier than first cousins), but after some quick reading (mostly Wikipedia), and I can't see why this would be. It appears the more closely related, generally the more dangerous.

I won't do in-depth research, cause, well, I am at work. :P

thebigbiffo

before they go ahead with this i suggest they watch this educational video on the dangers of inter familial marriage

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zeIsxXDyjlc&feature=related

Hail 2 Da Chimp

As Bill Hicks would say:
"I'd like to introduce you to my wife and sister." - There was one woman standing there...

bonerm

WindSock wrote: »

What else can you do if your hot family all kinda look alike :mad:

Speaking from personal experience?

nelly1912

incest or WINcest??

mikom

The family that lays together, stays together.

Tar.Aldarion

If only it was twincest

allanb49

Tar.Aldarion wrote: »

If only it was twincest

to japan or hentai!

Prof.Badass

It's an unfortunate case.

Apparently this sort of thing happens more than you'd think. Seems people are hard-wired to be especially attracted to other people who share a lot of their genes, provided they're not related (makes good evolutionary sense). Of course if you're adopted and meet a randomer your brain can't magically know that you're related. Genetic sexual attraction they call it; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_sexual_attraction .

Clearly there's nothing malicious going on here, do they really deserve jail?

The reason incest between consenting adults is illegal is because it's universally accepted as disgusting, and for good evolutionary reason. However, disgust is an emotion, not a rational idea. Just because we find something vile and repulsive, is not a reason in itself to make it a criminal offence. From a rational point of view, should incest bewteen consenting adults be legal?

I recognise that their children will be seriously disadvantaged in the world and probably have many diseases. But will those children be so disadvantaged that they'd atually wish they'd never been born?
Should the law have the power to interfere with the genetics of offspring?
Should 2 deaf people be allowed have a deaf child?
You can see where this is leading.....

There is a mental illness argument, that people who engage in incest are highly likely to be mentally ill. But if that's the case surely they need to be investigated and treated if neccesary. Doesn't mean they should be criminalised. Even so, the mental ilness argument does not apply to this couple as they never knew each other growing up and they did not know they were related and thus the natual incest-aversion mechanism was never activated.

I'm not claiming to have the answer. Cases like this test the limits of emotions vs rationality.

Tar.Aldarion wrote: »

If only it was twincest

I clicked on that twin site advertised on 4chan, i found it disturbing :eek::(.

Tar.Aldarion

I need to see this!

glennb

this type of thing is best kept in the family.

Nevyn

Are you sue it's not the couple in germany?

http://www.salon.com/life/broadsheet/2007/03/08/incest/index.html

Brother-sister couple challenges German incest law
Should the state butt out of private family business?
By Carol Lloyd

*

Straight from the scary fairy tales of once-upon-an-adoption comes the story of Patrick Stuebing and Susan Karolewski, a brother and sister, who fell in love, had four children and now are fighting the German courts to overthrow its brother-sister incest law. As reported Wednesday by the BBC, the couple describe themselves as a "normal couple" who just want to have a family and live without discrimination. Stuebing already spent two years in jail for committing incest, and he'll get thrown back into jail for another sentence if the current incest law stands. Three of the couple's four children have been taken into foster care.

Now, maybe I'm becoming a reactionary scold in my approaching dotage, but the couple's relationship doesn't sound terribly normal, nor even, perhaps, consensual. According to the article, Stuebing, who had been adopted by another family, found his biological family at the age of 23, when Karolewski was 15. After their mother died six months later, the couple fell in love and began living together and popping out babies at a prodigious rate of four in six years. OK, vive la différence and all, but people! That's a 16-year-old living with her 24-year-old brother and pregnant most of the time. Ech.

But it's not as if they don't have a case. Incest laws around the world vary widely, though the practice is illegal in most countries. In Germany, sex with a relative still constitutes a criminal offense, punishable by up to three years in prison. But in neighboring France, Napoleon abolished incest laws in 1810, and recently Japan, Argentina and Brazil legalized it. The United States still criminalizes incest and many states still outlaw kissin'-cousin incest as well.

The particulars of Steubing and Karolewski's story are less interesting than the questions raised by their lawsuit. Invoking racial hygiene laws on the one hand and modern motherhood on the other, the case fingers the bleeding edge of our own entitlements.

"Why are disabled parents allowed to have children, or people with hereditary diseases or women over 40? No one says that is a crime," Endrik Wilhelm, the couple's lawyer, told the BBC. "This couple are not harming anyone. It is discrimination. And besides, we must not forget that every child is so valuable."

These arguments play upon two cherished notions in modern Western societies: That consensual love between adults should be respected by society and that everyone who wants to have a baby should have the right to bear one.

Of course, incest taboos predate the science of genetics, but many of the contemporary arguments against the practice derive from the knowledge that interbreeding produces children with a higher risk of disabilities. Among offspring of siblings, there's a 50 percent chance of disability, and so far the German couple's children have proved the rule: According to Steubing, one son has "epilepsy and learning difficulties" and one daughter has "special needs."

When is it OK to knowingly conceive a child that has a higher than average chance of disabilities? At what point does the desire to become a parent turn into criminal selfishness? With a 10 percent chance of disability, or a 20 or 30 percent chance? I know 50-50 seems like pretty bad odds, but no doubt some parents with genetic diseases face similar risks without legal ramifications. With older parents, in vitro-produced multiples and the dubious gift of genetic testing all poured into the societal test tube, no doubt the next decade will force us to confront the edge between the freedom to bear children and the responsibility to protect them.

AckwelFoley

Dunno, its easy to saw ewwwww, and all that, but if after all this time i only found out now that my fiance was my biological sister.. would i not be atteacted or love her anymore?

Procasinator

Thaedydal wrote: »

Are you sue it's not the couple in germany?

That sounds a lot worse to me. With both parties knowing they were brother and sister (and if I understand the article correctly, full siblings, unlike the half-brother and sister in the Irish case).

She was only 16, himself 24, when they fell in love after the mother died. It doesn't sound like a normal or healthy relationship in any way, shape or form.

I have sympathy for the Irish couple, what this brother and sister duo did is highly irresponsible.

Banned Account

At the risk of being accused of all manner of Leitrim related madness, I want to raise a point here.

Two people who have no idea that they are related meet and fall in love. Later it transpires that they are indeed of the same parents. Now, why exactly is this taboo? It can't be to do with the closeness of familial relationships - as this doesn't arise in the instant case.

So, it must be to do with pure hard genetics. Is it more probable that this couples children will suffer birth defects? If so, then there is an obvious reason for prohibiting this, if not, then is there really a concrete reason for stopping them, or is it a case of "but, but, but ... it's just not cricket!!"

Procasinator

Fitzcaraldo wrote: »

Is it more probable that this couples children will suffer birth defects?

Quite simply, this is the case.

_blank_

is she hot?

cynder

Procasinator wrote: »

Quite simply, this is the case.

There was a case in London (aprox 2 years ago) where a woman has miscarriage after miscarriage about 7 or more in a row, they could find no reason so did genetic testing on herself and her partner and they found out that they were brother and sister, shared the same father but not the same mother, turns out that the father of the 2 was a sperm donor and these two found each other. Once they found out they were siblings they canceled the wedding and split up.

Banned Account

grindelwald wrote: »

There was a case in London (aprox 2 years ago) where a woman has miscarriage after miscarriage about 7 or more in a row, they could find no reason so did genetic testing on herself and her partner and they found out that they were brother and sister, shared the same father but not the same mother, turns out that the father of the 2 was a sperm donor and these two found each other. Once they found out they were siblings they canceled the wedding and split up.

So, he got to have loads and loads of sex and never had to get married or be saddled with a kid?


Every cloud ...

Thirdfox

Fitzcaraldo wrote: »

At the risk of being accused of all manner of Leitrim related madness, I want to raise a point here.

Two people who have no idea that they are related meet and fall in love. Later it transpires that they are indeed of the same parents. Now, why exactly is this taboo? It can't be to do with the closeness of familial relationships - as this doesn't arise in the instant case.

So, it must be to do with pure hard genetics. Is it more probable that this couples children will suffer birth defects? If so, then there is an obvious reason for prohibiting this, if not, then is there really a concrete reason for stopping them, or is it a case of "but, but, but ... it's just not cricket!!"

Procasinator wrote: »

Quite simply, this is the case.

I too find it strange that in a society where we are on the verge of accepting homosexual marriage as valid that we seem to decide that marriage should not be legal for two people of another kind who love each other - if, as the new judges who rule in favour of gay marriage state - marriage and family have no connection - it's about taxes, love and partnership.

So why the problem with incestuous marriages? If they want to have kids let them adopt (like gay couples). Moreover, having children apparently isn't part of the requirement package of marriage anyway.

Apart from issues of dominance/abuse by a parental figure over their child I don't see how this is any different than gay marriage (which people of AH seem to overwhelmingly support) - it is an act considered repugnant by some - but perhaps that's just social mores - plenty of people considered homosexuality repugnant too. Perhaps in time we will become more enlightened and see that this discrimination is wrong too?

I wonder could they avail of the Civil Partnership Act... and if they couldn't I'm sure they could take a constitutional case against the government on the grounds of equality/discrimination.

edit：
and of course they'd need to make a constitutional challenge to the validity of the criminal law in regards to the criminal act of incest (again, generally applicable for the dominance scenarios). Male homosexuality was illegal in Ireland until the 90's when Senator Norris had to take a case to the ECHR to get the Irish government to change its stance officially - so fight the good fight I guess. I wish the couple good luck in their quest to vindicate their human rights

Procasinator

Thirdfox wrote: »

I too find it strange that in a society where we are on the verge of accepting homosexual marriage as valid that we seem to decide that marriage should not be legal for two people of another kind who love each other - if, as the new judges who rule in favour of gay marriage state - marriage and family have no connection - it's about taxes, love and partnership.

I'm sorry, but I can't equate homosexual marriage and incestuous relationships. I do think that incestuous relationships should be actively discouraged, because of the damage it can cause.

Read this recent article for example:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/health/article7069255.ece

I'm not going to start discuss homosexual marriage and all that it entails, but needlessly to say the risk of conceiving children with genetic defects is not effected by homosexual relationships.

Secondly, I would worry that incestuous relationships often come about in less than ideal situations, like a parent having power over there children, or an older sibling dominating that of a younger one. Incest has been found throughout history also to retain property, lineage and nepotism, and existed in royalty and similar structures going back even as far as the Egyptians.

All I know is, incestry is a recipe for disaster, and should be actively discouraged (and in my opinion, by law).

I think the couple in the OP should be allowed to continue their relationship if they so wish, but I do hope they do not have any more children.

squeakyduck

Personally I think it is disgusting. But during the summer I studied psychoanalytic work for my thesis and ended up reading into incest, for one of my chapters.

I can't remember who the article was by but as a result of "knowing each other" they feel a certain bond. Like a brotherly/sisterly bond etc but mistake it for lust and love. It was quite sickening to read, but most psychoanalysis is pants anyway!

But, back to my stream of thought....EWWWWW!

Thirdfox

But as I said - having/ability to have children apparently has nothing to do with getting married - according to the jurisdictions that allow gay marriage. So why discriminate on this ground? They know the risks - should they not have the freedom to choose (and as always, they can adopt).

And addressing the having kids issue (which I don't think is an issue anyway) - should we mandate genetic screening for couples before allowing them to have kids i.e. you and your partner have a 80% chance of having a child with Down's syndrome (or any other genetic disease, I'm not a doctor ) so we should revoke your licence/right to procreate? Or legally prevent women over 40 from having kids? Where is the line to be drawn?

flyton5

*fap fap fap fap fap*

IvyTheTerrible

This is one good reason why it shouldn't be kept in the family...

Procasinator

Thirdfox wrote: »

But as I said - having/ability to have children apparently has nothing to do with getting married - according to the jurisdictions that allow gay marriage. So why discriminate on this ground? They know the risks - should they not have the freedom to choose (and as always, they can adopt).

Marriage isn't all about that, true, but are you suggesting we should allow Fathers to Marry daughters? Brothers to marry sisters? Should it just be that you are allowed to marry anyone?

Many don't know the risks: the article I linked on touches on this. That is why there is a drive to provide education on the matter.

Thirdfox wrote: »

And addressing the having kids issue (which I don't think is an issue anyway) - should we mandate genetic screening for couples before allowing them to have kids i.e. you and your partner have a 80% chance of having a child with Down's syndrome (or any other genetic disease, I'm not a doctor ) so we should revoke your licence/right to procreate? Or legally prevent women over 40 from having kids? Where is the line to be drawn?

No, because one is feasible while the other isn't. If you know that someone is your sister, don't have children or engage in a relationship. It's quite simple and doesn't cost a cent.

I wouldn't apply the law retroactively: that is, a couple are together with child and then find out they are half-siblings. In that case, I think the plea of ignorance is perfectly acceptable.

Nature slows down the ability for people of certain ages to have children (with 40 not being too much of an issue, though there is a risk increase) that there is little reason to have legislature against it. It's potential for harm is much smaller than incestuous relationships.

Dude111

rainbowdrop wrote:

Incest is just wrong, wrong, wrong

Yes well if the bible is correct,WE ARE ALL RELATED!! (Everyone is having incest)

Ah man!!