I was flamed and mocked for this -- turns out I was on to something...

[mjr]

Humans Should Be Able to Marry Robots

http://www.slate.com/articles/techno...ts.single.html

[Rapscallion]

Er, I don't see why you posted this? It's not something that's being brought into law anywhere. Some opinion pieces and speculation.

What is your position? Horror that people might be able to marry a robot? Cheering them down the aisle?

Also, it misses a very important point. Human same-sex couples are able to give consent and agreement to marry. It's not the case for robots.

Rapscallion

[HYHYBT]

As things stand now, if you cannot see significant, relevant differences between humans and robots that do not apply when the question is only about gender, you're not going to be capable of sanely discussing the question.

As far as hypotheticals go: given the existence of robots as living beings very much like humans so far as thoughts, emotions, independence, and so forth go, but which happen to be artificially made, well, why not?

[Andara Bledin]

So, because some op-ed said, "Yeah, sure," you're taking it as a sign of the times?

You know that people have been marrying inanimate objects for, well, all of recorded history?

It is not a legal marriage (in most western countries) because there is no consent on the part of the non-human. End of discussion.

This is just more silly slippery slope hysteria.

[the_std]

Also, I take umbrage with the fact that you say you were "flamed and mocked" previously.

This is a debate site. We debated your previous post, and found flaws and errors all over the place. If you were flamed and mocked, users would have been moderated or banned.

[KabeRinnaul]

Given the current state of AI and robotics, I'm going to take this about as seriously as I do someone marrying their blow-up doll of Sailor Moon (beyond questioning their tastes as Makoto is way hotter than Usagi).

If we're talking about a potential future robot-marriage when we're more at the Blade Runner level, then I'd be all for supporting marriage rights between humans and thinking, consenting robo-sapiens.

[Gravekeeper]

Sigh, really? -.-

[wolfie]

If we're talking about a potential future robot-marriage when we're more at the Blade Runner level, then I'd be all for supporting marriage rights between humans and thinking, consenting robo-sapiens.

Throw in the remake (a.k.a. Starbuck is female) of Battlestar Galactica and you've got it. Some of the cylons were HOT.

[Rageaholic]

The path to recognition of robot-human marriage is likely to be equally, if not more, lengthy, torturous, and contested. But as the court emphasized at the close of its opinion in Obergefell, the issue comes down to the “fundamental right” of a person in a free society to choose the nature of the relationships and lifestyle they choose to pursue, providing they do not unreasonably harm others in exercising their choices. Robot-human marriage is not about robot rights; it is about the right of a human to choose to marry a robot. While few people would understand or support robot-human intimacy today, as robots get more sophisticated and humanlike, more and more people will find love, happiness, and intimacy in the arms of a machine. Robot sex and love is coming, and robot-human marriage will likely not be far behind.

Bolded for emphasis.

[Kara_CS]

So, because some op-ed said, "Yeah, sure," you're taking it as a sign of the times?

You know that people have been marrying inanimate objects for, well, all of recorded history?

It is not a legal marriage (in most western countries) because there is no consent on the part of the non-human. End of discussion.

This is just more silly slippery slope hysteria.

Not just an op-ed, but a speculative op-ed for a blog built around hypothetical theses written by bored professors in their free time.

This article is part of Future Tense, a collaboration among Arizona State University, New America, and Slate. Future Tense explores the ways emerging technologies affect society, policy, and culture.

I'm just going to walk away from this so no one thinks I'm being inflammatory or mocking.

[Canarr]

"If you prefer male genitalia, I come with interchangeable parts." - Wendy, Entertainment Bot (Dark Matter)

[mjr]

So, because some op-ed said, "Yeah, sure," you're taking it as a sign of the times?

If you wanna interpret it that way, feel free. The author posited an opinion, and I'm quite sure there are others who feel that way.

If it comes to fruition, you OK with it? One person in this thread (at least) has already said they are.

[mjr]

Also, I take umbrage with the fact that you say you were "flamed and mocked" previously.

That's indeed your prerogative.

If you were flamed and mocked, users would have been moderated or banned.

Why do I doubt this?

[mjr]

So, because some op-ed said, "Yeah, sure," you're taking it as a sign of the times?

You know that people have been marrying inanimate objects for, well, all of recorded history?

For someone who, under her avatar, has a quote that says, "Accepting of differences", you sure don't act like it here, on this particular site.

Maybe I'm wrong. I dunno. Maybe it's just differences you agree with. I dunno.