« MSNBC Suspends Olbermann – Shhh or BFD? | Main | An Evening with Dan and Karl »

05 November 2010


Steve Enos

George posts:

"But what they didn’t have is the ability to pass themselves off as just another married couple introducing each other as their ‘husband’ or ‘wife’. (Now this is where I began to have a problem following their argument – who is which?)"

"I feel that a sacrosanct word and its referent institution are being taken away from me".

"the less awkward alternative they sought was for a couple of guys to walk up to the teller and be able to say, “My wife and I want to open a joint account.” Modern times.

"government interest of preserving public morals"

"sex is related to marriage"

George's posted views on race and homosexuals is very telling.

Russ Steele

Telling what? Let's hear what you felt or thought. That may be more telling about you than anything that George wrote.

Todd Juvinall

So Steve, do you support and agree the homosexual lifestyle? Are there no boundaries in society?

RL Crabb

As we rocket toward the Singularity, the marriage question will only become more complicated. At some point, robots and androids will be as realistic as any human being, and programmed by their owners to fit whatever personality he or she chooses. It only follows that love will blossom in such a relationship.

It will give new meaning to the AC/DC debate.

Russ Steele


Great comment. I have been reading some of the comments you are posting at the SFR and you are on a roll!!

Michael Anderson


If a man and woman are married but do not have sex, should such a marriage be annulled by the state?

Anne of Cleaves and Henry VIII come to mind...

Michael A.

George Rebane

Bob - The concept that advanced robots and androids will be "programmed by their owners" is foreign to me in the presumed sense you use it. If they are primitive humanoid devices, then they might be programmed to serve a sexual gratification function. But no one would consider actually marrying such a machine.

And if they are of the advanced state you imply, they will not be programmable by humans. They will be autonomous, and perhaps then consensual marriage would be possible in the brave new world of Judge Walker.

George Rebane

MichaelA - you ask a question the contingencies for which are numerous and complicated. In this piece I mainly focus on what new label can be assigned to the traditional heterosexual monogamous marriage that unambiguously identifies the institution which has been sacred among humans across cultures and millenia. In adopting such a label, we acknowledge transition to a new epoch in legitimate human relationships.

RL Crabb

Turnabout is fair play. We won't need androids to control us. Our human women perfected that eons ago.

Michael Anderson

Humans separated sex from procreation long before recorded history: http://www.amazon.com/Prehistory-Sex-Million-Sexual-Culture/dp/product-description/055337527X

What you're really talking about here is the decoupling of sex from Christianity.

Barry Pruett

Michael: Marriages end by being void or divorce. There are two types of void marriage. Void and voidable.

Examples of void marriages (the marriage never existed) are:
1. bigomous
2. relation within two degrees
3. the parties are not respectively male and female (in most states)

Examples of voidable marriages (marriage exists but can be voided) are:
1. at the time of the marriage, your wife was pregnant by some person other than you
2. at the time of the marriage, your spouse was suffering from veneral disease in a communicable form
3. the marriage has not been consummated owing to the wilful refusal of your spouse to consummate it

So yes, a marraige can be voided...I doubt thatthe state could void it for you.

I just wanted to have a little fun this morning!

Barry Pruett

Come on Bob and Michael...I put it on a tee for you.

Michael Anderson

Thanks Barry, you did indeed "put it on a tee." I'll be sure to get back to this after my kids' soccer games this morning.

And thanks George for teeing this subject up as well. I'm sure you're going to get a lively debate out of this one!

Dixon Cruickshank

I still want a post from Enos - on topic

Mikey McD

Regarding the trend of women marrying themselves: http://weeklyworldnews.com/headlines/24040/woman-marries-herself/

Michael Anderson


Perhaps Kim Kardashian should have married herself before the inevitable happened: http://weeklyworldnews.com/headlines/19194/kim-kardashians-butt-explodes/

Michael A.

George Rebane

This is getting to be an education with women marrying themselves and exploding implants. I wonder when brain implants will become feasible. I bet it wouldn't be hard to talk one of those lovelies into having one from an intellect with a terminal illness who just wants a healthy good looking body. Modern times.

Michael Anderson

So Barry, with void marriage #3 removed, it seems that none of the other void or voidable #s apply.

I agree with you that gay marriage is about state law and not about cultural convention or religious precedent.

Dixon Cruickshank

Stupid has always been an attribute I looked for in good looking women, preferably one that can't find Lawyer in the phone book

The comments to this entry are closed.