Is it really incest if they're not blood-related?

[Your-Waifu-Sucks]

No, it's not incest. It's only incest if you're closely related to someone like your mother, sister, etc.

 

[fagguette101]

@DANDAN_THE_DANDAN i meant it's not scientifically wrong if they're not blood related

however, legally it is wrong

 

[sterven]

I don't think so.

 

[DANDAN_THE_DANDAN]

I think so

 

[Tamerlane]

Legally, in the US you can marry your step-sister because it's determined by blood relation in 49 states.

Additionally, the only clauses is that you can't marry your step-parents for different reasons, though you're free to date someone your parents dated but never married or married and divorced before you were born.

Laws tend to vary with cousins depending on the state, though there are social taboos. Scientifically, after about being 3 or 4 families removed, you're essentially strangers with 1/64th and 1/128th of your genes being shared, which is similar to the general population.

So it depends, if measured purely by a pragmatic view without factoring social or cultural stigma/support.

Just don't do it en masse.

 

[Adverso]

 

[KatoShuu]

What about cousins or distant-cousins?
As far as I know, they can get married, as long they have different family names

 

[ReverendMalice]

If they're not blood-related then no, it's absolutely not incest from a scientific standpoint, though it might be seen as incest from social perspective and can thus carry some stigma regardless of the presence of genetic problems.

On a semi-related note, I've seen an argument claim that if you don't support blood-related incest due to the genetic problems it causes, then you must support eugenics to some extent. The reasoning behind it being that if you're ONLY using the topic of genetic problems as a way to see incest as morally wrong, then what do you do with people who just happen to have genetic problems in their DNA that increases the chances of problems when conceiving a child with any other human? Should they also not be allowed to reproduce? I found it rather interesting, so I thought I'd share it here to see what others think.

To get back on track though, if you say you find incest (blood-related or otherwise) wrong just because it conflicts with your morals, I'd say that's a somewhat fair point too, since humans in general have their morals founded in emotions and not logic, it's almost impossible for a person to explain the WHY they find some act disgusting, other than they know for a fact that they do. Challenging that notion can be quite difficult too, even if done through introspection, so despite my views I understand why other people may see it as repulsive.

 

[DANDAN_THE_DANDAN]

@ReverendMalice Oh crap I never thought of rejecting incest as eugenics before. But is eugenics really morally wrong I'd you think about it? Nothing about it is morally right but if you compare the harm of rejecting one's desire to love versus the potential harm of the following generations, depending on the context (i.e. a family-full of cousins secluded from society) the harm of refusing one's love would be less than the latter. However, you can also make the argument that the benefit of being born outweighs the harm of being born with a disability which muddies the water furthermore... But then you can also argue that with one potential child not born because of the refusal to accept the parent's love, it's likely that a different child can potentially be born which negates the harm of not being born of the first child. But that's not acceptable since the two potential children are potential humans which deserve moral thoughts so the harm of not being born cancels out the benefit of being born, leaving only the harm of being born with a disability from the first child in the equation, assuming the second child won't be born with a disability and this would make incest morally wrong and eugenics morally right. But then you can also say that this line of thinking is absurd because there are 3.5 billion people of the opposite sex on Earth leading to 3.5 billion different potential children and only 1 will be born so does the harm of 3.5 billion children not being born is ignored by the fact that 1 child will be born? This doesn't even account the different egg and sperm cells that vary depending on mating time. With this counterargument, the previous argument is basically null...

Well this is an interesting food for thought. I'll leave these for everyone else to ponder on.