I have a few observations to make about this article. I'll start off by saying that incest should continue to be illegal and that this group pursuing the decriminalisation of it, are typical of the cultural marxist 'sexual liberation' brigade who would probably also support lowering the age of consent.
Apart from the obvious health issues that come with children born in an incestuous relationship, it is morally wrong for society to even consider sex between siblings as acceptable or normal. It is a continuation down the slippery slope which began with the Frankfurt School strategy of normalising all kinds of sexual behaviour in order to break down Western society and morality.
What I find hypocritical about, is when it says:
'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.'
It isn't the content in relation to the story I find hypocritical, it is the fact that the same truth is not stated in relation to children forced into same sex households to be raised by homosexuals.
Do the courts not have a duty to protect children from the consequences of a homosexual relationship? Do they not have a duty to the children who are forced into these situations to satisfy an ideological agenda? Do they not have a duty to protect the rights of a child to have both a mother and father figure raise them?
Yes people can say that not all children are raised in a mother father household and many are rasied by single parents. That doesn't justify the forcing of children into an environment that they have no choice or say in. It is the state who decides for them and in the process turns these children into ideological trophies of the militant homosexual agenda.
If it isn't right for children to be raised in an incestuous household, then surely it isn't right for them to be raised in a homosexual household either.
A spokesperson for the ruling Christian Democrats in Germany said:
“Eliminating the threat of punishment against incestuous acts within families would run counter to the protection of undisturbed development for children.”
These same people hypocritically support children being forced into adoptive homosexual households. The protection of undisturbed development for children should also be applied to the militant homosexual agenda and their targeting of children for indoctrination and homosexual adoption.