SPLIT--> Judicial Review & Gay Marriage

[melon]

Now this debate started decades before any country sanctioned same-sex marriage. It isn't "Gays are ruining everything" it's "are all forms of relationships equal?" and "should society promote any above the others?"

I think that's a debate worth having. Those in the "Just let people live their lives any way they damn well please and keep your nose out of their business" don't.

And what if the answer to this "debate" was to have gay marriage and to abolish straight marriage?

That's the thing. You're happy to have a debate, where the ultimate conclusion, one way or another, doesn't affect you in the slightest.

The other thing is that this "debate" has already been played out before. I get the sense, though, that you won't let this debate close unless it is exactly the answer you want.

You don't have to ban gay marriage to have programs to support or strengthen marriage. That's the problem with all of this. Conservatives are so drunk with hatred of homosexuals that they are flat out neglecting the things that they can change!

Canadian religious conservatives, understanding that they do not have public or political support for eliminating gay marriage, recently had a conference on how to strengthen marriages in Canada...and had few to no mentions of gay marriage at all. What a novel concept! It's too bad that American religious conservatives are too narrow-minded to do the same. Strengthening marriages and legalized gay marriage can--God forbid--exist simultaneously!

 

[martha]

Wow!! I thought that was pretty clear. Haven't you mentioned that you're a school teacher?

Proudly, and if any one of my students attempted the infuckingsane leaps you attempt, I'd fail them on that particular paper.

Just quoting Dutch advocates of same-sex marriage. Why don't you ask them for clarification.

Because you're the guy who used the quote to back your bigoted bullshit.

 

[A_Wanderer]

Any third grader who knows how to read a graph could see the curve was heading that direction without that factor...

FreeRepublic, that's so sweet that conservatives would think that would be considered a legitimate source.

You idiot, don't you understand that really means that out of wedlock births cause gay marriage, so if we want to protect the sanctity of marriage then pregnant women must be married off ASAP. The only way to stop gay sinfulness is to stop all sinfulness, equally.

 

[martha]

out of wedlock births cause gay marriage

You, sir, are onto something there!

That must be it! There's no other way to link them that makes any sense, so that's got to be it!

 

[A_Wanderer]

Now this debate started decades before any country sanctioned same-sex marriage. It isn't "Gays are ruining everything" it's "are all forms of relationships equal?" and "should society promote any above the others?"

I think that's a debate worth having. Those in the "Just let people live their lives any way they damn well please and keep your nose out of their business" crowd don't.

On what grounds? Personal responsibility is out. Morality is out.
Remember it's "Just let people live their lives any way they damn well please and keep your nose out of their business."

Now what you have here is the epitome of a statist, there is an issue which your gut tells you is wrong, namely gays getting married, and it must be stopped. And they won't listen to the pleas to make them stop so state force has to be used. Governmental obfuscation of liberty is the same all over the world, and it is generally wrong.

Your not taking a stand for personal responsibility at all, you want to use the state to enforce your morality thus robbing individuals the freedom to do the right thing.

Freedom of choice includes the choice to do the right thing, a monogamous relationship straight or gay is generally thought to be the right thing, if you want to obfuscate the freedom to marry, then you are preventing gays from doing the right thing.

It keeps coming down to it across so many of these hot button issues like the gays, prayer in school, flag burning etc. where people take their gut feeling and want to use it as an excuse to crush others liberties. There is no freedom from being offended.

 

[BVS]

Your not taking a stand for personal responsibility at all, you want to use the state to enforce your morality thus robbing individuals the freedom to do the right thing.

There's no need for logic in here...

 

[namkcuR]

I don't know why people keep pointing to statistics that have to do with marriage(of any kind) here. I think, in this particular debate, that word - "marriage" - is harped on too much. Conservatives want to make this a debate about marriage and relationships, but I think it's really a debate about equality.

The reason it is so offensive to gay people when they are told that they can't get married is not just that it prevents them from being able to tie the knot, it's because it sends the message loud and clear that they are somehow lesser people than straight people, and that they somehow deserve lesser liberties than straight people. This sentiment is, of course, bullshit.

So, instead of posting statistics about marriage and out-of-wed births and this sort of thing, I think the anti-gay-marriage crowd should just put all that crap aside and ask themselves one question: "Why do I act as though a gay person is a lesser person than I?".

And when you can't answer that question with any kind of validity, perhaps you'll see the light. There is absolutely no reason to treat them differently just because their sexual orientation is different. In the end, that's the point of this. A straight couple might want to get married, or they might want to stay together without getting married. But they have the choice. And that's all the gay community wants: the choice. The equality.

 

[redhotswami]

all this debate over marriage. and how many of us walk the talk we give??? how many are REALLY going to vote for the candidate who DOES believe that all are equal and believes that love defines marriage and will create legislation in support of that? how many are REALLY going to vote for a candidate that is pro-gay marriage?

 

[Irvine511]

that marriage is not about parenthood and they just might begin to believe you.

how hard is this?

marriage does not equal parenthood. many straight people are married and have no children. many are unmarried and have children. some cohabitate, some are single. marriage is incidental to parenthood. many gay people would get married and have children, many would not.

one has nothing to do with the other, necessarily. it can be agreed that a marriage can enhance one's parental abilities, but one does not need to exist for the sake of the other.




[q]Make household diversity and relationship equality a rallying cry, remove societal supports, and people might decide that all forms of relationship are equal -- especially young people, of family-forming age, most of whom have left religion behind. *[/q]

so what you are saying is that a gay relationship is less worthy than a straight one.

if you'd just come out and say that, then we might have time.

what you don't get is that gay people don't want to change anything. they just want to be let into the club.




[q]Now this debate started decades before any country sanctioned same-sex marriage. It isn't "Gays are ruining everything" it's "are all forms of relationships equal?" and "should society promote any above the others?"[/q]

please, please, please tell me: how is a straight relationship better than a gay one? please, please, please tell me why you would defend Britney's right to marry anyone, anywhere, for however long she wants, and then turn around and tell me that my relationshpis, always, at all times, are worse than hers.

you are valuing form over content. and this is what comes up -- for when you say that one "form" is by definition superior, you ignore content.

On what grounds? Personal responsibility is out. Morality is out.
Remember it's "Just let people live their lives any way they damn well please and keep your nose out of their business."

well, i'm sad. i guess i really have failed at trying to flesh my life and relationship out. i've shared so much on this board, i've talked about very, very personal things, and all in order to try and get you to see, INDY, that i am no different from you. yes, i love men in the way that you love women, but other than that, i'm not asking for anything else other than to be treated as your equal. i'm not choosing to live my life any damn way i please. THERE IS NO CHOICE HERE. i'm not choosing shit. the only thing i'm choosing is not to live a life of loneliness and misery. i am choosing to stand up to you and say, yes, i am a worthy person, and my life and loves and relationships are equal to yours in form. i am not asking you to look the other way while i cheat, or abuse my partner, or babysit my kids with the TV, or let my 13 year old smoke pot in the basement, or whatever other fantasies conservatives harbor about how liberals live their lives. all i am asking for is to be treated in exactly the same way you would be treated.

you have absolutely whatsoever no logical argument unless you are going to stand up and say the following two things:

1. Straight relationships are always, and in all ways, preferable to gay relationships, so therefore we have a vested social interest in promoting one and discouraging the other, and it is so important that we need to deny people rights in order to do so

2. Gay people have made a conscious, aware choice to be gay; if they wanted to, they could marry people of the opposite sex, but they choose not to, so therefore, since this option is technically open for them, and since their minority sexual orientation is a chosen action, we don't have to provide any "in" for them into this club, because it already exists.

if you'd just say that, then i wouldn't get so depressed when you post about this subject.

 

[U2democrat]

I'm straight.


I hope to get married some day.



I never want kids. I'm just not the motherly type There are probably a lot more gay men and women out there who would enjoy being parents much more than myself, and they should be allowed to have that opportunity.

A good parent is a good parent regardless of race, sex, or orientation.

 

[BVS]

I'm straight.


I hope to get married some day.



I never want kids.

Then you are part of the problem...

Married people should procreate.

 

[Vincent Vega]

It's certainly the bad influence of melon and Irvine.
Because, it's impossible for a woman to not wanting to get married and become a mother.

 

[U2democrat]

 

[Irvine511]

I'm straight.


I hope to get married some day.



I never want kids.

i'm gay.



i hope to get married.



i probably want kids.







is it so hard to see the inherent discrimination here? i'm willing to take all of the "sanctions" and "promotions" that society offers the institution of marriage and put it towards raising good, healthy kids. U2dem is not. yet, who gets to get married and the 1,049 tax breaks, power of attorney, and who doesn't?

the opening of marriage to include gay people in NO WAY changes the institution. two gay people who get married are no different from two infertible striaght people or two straights who choose not to have children. there is no difference.

until someone can demonstrate to me that a childless gay couple is somehow less worthy of marriage than a childless straight couple, there is NO ARGUMENT to be had against gay marriage. or, likewise, a post-menopausal woman getting married.

i can agree that there should be some sort of privileged status to two people who wish to commit to each other for life and choose to bring children into the world through their union. that's fine to me. but we've already allowed people who have no intention of children to enter into this supposedly "privileged" relationship -- proving that, yes, i guess all forms of STRAIGHT relationships really are equal -- so i'm wondering how we can bar gay people from this.

please, someone address this.

another example which i'd love for INDY to tackle.

i recently became aware that an aquaintance of mine (very good friend of a good friend) is actually a Female-to-Male transgendered individual. he has a female fiance. he also has a vagina, but is legally a man. looks like a man, acts like a man, has a goatee, you'd never know unless he told you. but he has a vagina. and he's allowed to get married, but Memphis and i are not.

explain that.

 

[U2democrat]

explain that.

Life is confusing and not fair.

However, we should try and make it less confusing and more fair.

 

[martha]

It's certainly the bad influence of melon and Irvine.
Because, it's impossible for a woman to not wanting to get married and become a mother.

It's true. I wanted kids until I met a gay man. Then that urge suddenly vanished and here I am, 18 years of straight marriage and no kids. It must be their fault.

 

[melon]

You know what I find offensive? That a thread like the "Devil's Advocate" thread is "offensive" and gets closed, while this hateful tripe gets enough attention to get a split thread and stays open.

But I shouldn't be surprised. America sure knows how to bend over every time a conservative gets a hangnail and pitches an infantile temper tantrum, while homosexuals get harassed, ignored, belittled, and beaten and nobody cares.

No, this post isn't meant to be a direct and unique observation about the nature of FYM or its dedicated moderators. Instead, it just goes to show that FYM and its moderators aren't separated from the real world.

 

[melon]

please, someone address this.

another example which i'd love for INDY to tackle.

Since we're past decorum here, we might as well state the obvious. INDY won't be addressing this, because it would require him to:

1) Look at the world outside the frame of Christian conservative ideology.

2) Accept that that same Christian conservative ideology might be wrong, at least in part.

3) Directly contradict and condemn that fallacious ideology.

We can very politely and idealistically hope that the conservatives here will do, at least, one of those three. And after being in FYM here for seven years, there's one thing I know for sure: if a conservative here in FYM is going to do any one of those three things, he/she will do it within a few weeks or, at most, months after first appearing here.

No, instead, at this point, what we're doing here is beating a dead horse. And the best we can do, at this point, is that when these kinds of monolithic, deluded conservatives reach this forum and spout nothing but a bunch of logically fallacious, easily discredited, hateful bullshit, we must fight back with logic, critical analysis, and, most importantly, the truth. By that time, if we haven't humiliated the bastard into shutting up and putting his/her head back into the sand again, the least we can do is to tell them to proverbially fuck off.

 

[martha]

You know what I find offensive? That a thread like the "Devil's Advocate" thread is "offensive" and gets closed, while this hateful tripe gets enough attention to get a split thread and stays open.

But I shouldn't be surprised. America sure knows how to bend over every time a conservative gets a hangnail and pitches an infantile temper tantrum, while homosexuals get harassed, ignored, belittled, and beaten and nobody cares.

No, this post isn't meant to be a direct and unique observation about the nature of FYM or its dedicated moderators. Instead, it just goes to show that FYM and its moderators aren't separated from the real world.

I completely agree. Once again, if this were thread about how biracial marriage is tearing apart America's moral fabric, with the accompanying graphs, citations, and political quotes, the originator would risk suspension.

 

[martha]

By that time, if we haven't humiliated the bastard into shutting up and putting his/her head back into the sand again, the least we can do is to tell them to proverbially fuck off.

And wonder, as always, how that person can possibly be a U2 fan?

 

[Irvine511]

i guess i'd like to take the PFOX attitude and apply it to those who can't quite understand just how deep their prejudices run (and how unaware of these prejudices they are) -- change is possible.

so, when possible, i'd like to have a conversation, though i fully understand how even countenencing some of these issues is incredibly offensive to a gay person, but we've always had to defend ourselves against indefensible attacks.

 

[yolland]

I've explained several times before that had FYM been around at the time when interracial marriage, racially segregated schools etc. were pervasive political flashpoint issues, then yes, in my opinion they would/should have been open for discussion in here, so long as the rhetoric didn't descend into racial slurs and the like. But the implications of advocating what in the present context is almost universally regarded as a shockingly despicable fringe position are simply very different; gay marriage IS still very much an actively contentious issue (at least here in the US) whether any of us like it or not, so constructive dialogue is necessary. You may feel that being openly opposed to gay marriage is morally no different from openly belonging to the KKK, and you're welcome to that opinion, but to say it's socially and politically no different is sticking your head in the sand. You will not find a serious candidate for national political office who's unwilling to strongly condemn the views of the KKK, but plenty of them are unwilling to strongly condemn the anti-gay-marriage position. To the extent that candidates who personally support gay marriage shrink from saying so publically out of political expediency, that is cowardly and shameful, but it does underline the fact that this is very much still an active controversy.

I split this thread off because it had strayed very far from the original thread's topic for several pages, not to honor the stellar quality of debate in it. Had I not been away from my computer for the last several days, I probably would have attempted to cut it off at the pass early on by pointing out that it was straying. And BonosSaint's thread was closed because hardly anyone in it was even attempting to make an argument for anything (despite that being the thread's stated purpose), not because it was "offensive."

If this thread proceeds to just go in circles, then yes, it will probably wind up closed, as have many previous gay marriage threads. Obviously for many this is an intensely personal issue and it would be unreasonable to expect a calm, detached tone to be the rule. But I don't think it bodes well for the future of national-level dialogue on this issue (and if you don't think there was sustained national dialogue on the Civil Rights Movement, you don't know the first thing about it) if the tendency in here towards transparently unsympathetic preachiness from the one side and unwavering overt hostility from the other (yes, there are some noteworthy exceptions) is representative of that.

 

[BVS]

You know what I find offensive? That a thread like the "Devil's Advocate" thread is "offensive" and gets closed, while this hateful tripe gets enough attention to get a split thread and stays open.

I have to respectfully disagree. The other thread, quickly strayed away from the topic and was blantantly used as a means to portray stereotypes, no matter how funny some of the thread was, I agree it should have been closed.

As frustrating as any thread about gay marriage can be, I still think it's important to have these threads, because as you are well aware there is still much ignorance out there and it's still a very hot issue right now(as morally reprehensible as that is). Does it allow hatred and homophobia to be posted in here? Yes. But it also allows for those to post truth, and maybe, just maybe someone's mind may actually get freed.

Now I can think of at least two people who've admitted they've changed their view on gay marriage since posting in FYM, to me that's progress. Too often FYM becomes a battleground rather than a place where to truly discuss, I know I'm guilty of it, but I also know that over the years since I've been here, FYM has been very productive for me and others in educating ourselves and I have actually found myself changed about certain issues...

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

I agree. It's frustrating as hell, these debates, no argument there. But discussion still needs to take place, that's the only way this issue can ever be resolved (how much time it'll take for this to be resolved, now that's another story. But I try and keep my patience).

The first part of this quote was adequately covered by other people, so I'll just say that I echo their sentiments.

Now, the American debate is more centered on equality and stability, but is it really bigoted nonsense to even consider the question of the long term effects of same-sex marriage on society? After all, I thought we all approved science, even if it's only social science.

I do approve science and studies of society. The only thing is, it doesn't make sense to assume there'll be some long-term effects of same-sex marriage on society, because you know what's gonna happen if we allow gays to get married? NOTHING. The world will still stay as it always has. Straight people will still get married if they so please (I fully intend on getting married someday, I know that. And I hope to have children as well). Straight couples that love each other and are committed to each other will still love each other and still stay married (I don't see my parents' 30 year marriage ending if gays were suddenly allowed to marry in the U.S. tomorrow). Given that there are areas where same-sex marriage is legal and the lives of the people there haven't come to a crashing halt, logic would assume that would be the same situation here.

Put same-sex marriage aside for a moment, this was also the argument in the 90's about single-family households and "Murphy Brown." Well, we have a little better statistics about that and guess what? It isn't pretty. Higher rates of dropout, drug use, teen pregnancy and crime.

And those exact same things can and have happened in the "ideal" nuclear households where there is a mother, a father, and 2.5 children (I should know, I went to school with tons of kids who were from male/female parent households and fell into those problems). So what's your point?

The kind of parent makes no difference, it's how those parents raise their children that counts. There are good single parents, homosexual parents, and heterosexual parents, just as there are also bad ones. You can't single out one group of parents and put the blame on them and them alone for society's ills. And the bottom line is that as long as nobody is hurting you or anyone else, butt out of their lives and worry about your own.

(Besides that, when a kid gets to a certain point in their life, they can't use their upbringing as a crutch to defend their behavior anymore. Once they're at the stage where they know full well the consequences of whatever they do, they are responsible for the results of their actions. Nobody else)

So how is Mike Huckabee or myself wrong when we say "marriage does matter, I would add that nothing in our society matters more. Our true strength doesn't come from our military or our gross national product, it comes from our families."?

I fully agree family is a very important aspect of life. What I find wrong about statements like the one Huckabee makes (and which you support) is the idea that only a certain KIND of family is necessary to how society functions, that only a certain type of marriage provides a family that is beneficial to society. It's just blatantly untrue, for one thing, and for another, it's a means of trying to impose one way of life on everybody, which is irritating, especially when they don't give justifiable reasons as to WHY this way of life is the best one. People who make statements like that forget that one size does NOT fit all.

I guess I just want to know who died and made people like Huckabee the ruler of how people's families should be structured.

Angela

 

[BonosSaint]

I supported gay marriage from the minute it became a national topic because it was only common sense to me. It wasn't an emotionally charged issue to me. I thought a first step, if the word "marriage" itself wasn't going to fly, was civil union--not as a settling, but as a way of practically getting many of the desired rights in place, while continuing the fight. I believe in time the language will follow once the situation becomes defacto. I accept and understand Melon's contention that that is "separate but equal", but thought the "marriage" fight might end up unnecessarily delaying essential rights being accorded to gays.

Part of me believes that there should be no civil marriage at all (easy for me to say, not being married and all) and there should be only civil unions and the varying religions could dole out marital status as they will. I also believe that such would probably end up in a backlash against the gays.

Do I know that there won't be a societal effect if gays are allowed to marry? No. But I cannot imagine ANYTHING harmful coming from it. I suspect in time the success of gay marriages will mirror that of heterosexual marriages because I don't think gays will necessarily be any better or worse at the actual execution of it. Part of me believes that in the initial stages at least, the marriages will be more successful due to the long fight to achieve them, but I don't know that I really believe even that--human beings and partnerships being what they are.

But that is neither here nor there. The right often makes simplistic connections without due diligence for cause and effect and creates a nightmare scenario based on odd reasoning against the sometimes pie in the sky ideals of the left (often reversed when the topic changes). If you want to make a simple statement that abdication of responsibility is a great cause, I would agree, but that is all across the social spectrum and too many people equate responsibility with a specific set of rules, a specific set of values.

There is always discomfort when there is change in society, always a perceived threat. But usually by the time the discomfort sets in, the change has already fundamentally occurred and must be dealt with. There will be gay marriage and life will go on.

 

[Irvine511]

i understand where the frustration comes from -- we're willing to discuss and tolerate blatant homophobia, whereas we'd never discuss and tolderate blatant racism, sexism, or anti-semitism, or pretend that any of them were a legitimate position to hold.

but that's where society is, sadly, and what baffles me, and i would assume most of us, is how dug-in someone's position can be about this topic when presented with a mountain of evidence and testimony to the opposite. it seems intentionally antagonistic, and really not much better than verbal fag-bashing in the locker room.

 

[sulawesigirl4]

Now I can think of at least two people who've admitted they've changed their view on gay marriage since posting in FYM, to me that's progress.

You can make that at least three. When I joined this forum back in 2000, I was a staunch religious conservative who believed unquestioningly in the so-called "values" that I had been brought up with. I voted for Bush in the first election. Through a combination of confronting diverse people and views in my own personal life as well as in my on-line life, I was given the opportunity to truly "free my mind" and open my eyes. Since that time, I have rethought my entire framework of looking at the world. In many ways, I can also blame U2 for this because they were the first examples I had ever run across of authentic Christians who were able to be both committed to their faith and passionately engaged in fighting for the social and human rights of others not in spite of their faith but because of it. It didn't happen overnight, but I am extremely grateful to the melons and Irvines of my acquaintance who helped me to look beyond the stereotypes and see the humanity behind the issues.

 

[Irvine511]

i also want to add that i fully understand where the vitriol is coming from in this thread, since the anti-marriage equality folks have added a new element to the debate.

it isn't enough to simply say that they don't want to let gay people get married. they know that's not intellectually or morally defensible, and so widely (and it is true -- if anyone paid more than passing attention to the marrige equality debate, they are well familiar with Kurtz's studies, and just how laughable their conclusions are) discredited "studies" are brought up in an attempt to link the rise of marrige equality with the rise of "bad things" in society that have nothing, whatsoever, to do with gay people, like out-of-wedlock births.

this is no different than trying to blame inflation on the Jews. no different at all.

i keep thinking that i should start a thread about the dangers of (straight) fatherhood. after all, the vast, vast majority of children who are sexually abuse are abused by their fathers or an older striaght male relative. it seems that if we truly want to keep children safe from sexual abuse, we'll keep them away from straight men. and the evidence increasingly points to the fact that the children of lesbians are, on average, more tolerant and accepting of difference amongst their peers.

so, since we're promoting the ideal, and if marriage is really only for raising children, it seems that the best place to raise a child -- where she will be safe -- is in the arms of two loving lesbians.

 

[melon]

but that's where society is, sadly, and what baffles me, and i would assume most of us, is how dug-in someone's position can be about this topic when presented with a mountain of evidence and testimony to the opposite. it seems intentionally antagonistic, and really not much better than verbal fag-bashing in the locker room.

Exactly. It's not exactly a "debate" at this point, now is it? We're supposed to, somehow, treat these nonsense arguments from the right--whether it's entertaining their homophobia or intelligent design--as if they're somehow automatically "valid." Yet, if these ideas came from anyone else, we'd laugh them back into the Dark Ages.

I'm sorry, maybe I've completely grown out of postmodernism and cultural relativism at this point in my life, but let's stop pretending that this stuff is anything more than what it is: unmitigated hateful crap.

Under normal circumstances, if this were on any other subject, I'd walk away. Politics are politics, and even religion is just religion. But I imagine that, when confronted with a thread creating a "debate" on whether Jews really do drink the blood of Palestinian children, as Hamas broadcasts on their propaganda TV stations, fellow Jews would undoubtedly get so angry as to keep arguing, no matter how stubborn or nonsensical that Hamas supporter was.

But then, such a hypothetical thread would have been closed before it ever got to that kind of ad nauseum, because anti-Semitism, at this stage, is considered societally unacceptable. Yet, because homophobia is acceptable and because it involves America's sacred cow, the "Christian Right," not the big-bad(foreign)evil Hamas, we have to keep on pretending that these people have any sense of validity or bearing on reality. I look forward to the day when everyone can stop pretending.

 

[diamond]

Would the proponents of Gay Marriage be in favor of people marrying robots?

It could be a viable reality in the near future.

Please explain your position.

Thanks and I'm posting the article:

Sex and marriage with robots? It could happen
Robots soon will become more human-like in appearance, researcher says
LiveScience



• Forecast: Sex and Marriage with Robots by 2050

By Charles Q. Choi
Special to LiveScience

Updated: 3:05 p.m. MT Oct 12, 2007
Humans could marry robots within the century. And consummate those vows.

"My forecast is that around 2050, the state of Massachusetts will be the first jurisdiction to legalize marriages with robots," artificial intelligence researcher David Levy at the University of Maastricht in the Netherlands told LiveScience. Levy recently completed his Ph.D. work on the subject of human-robot relationships, covering many of the privileges and practices that generally come with marriage as well as outside of it.

At first, sex with robots might be considered geeky, "but once you have a story like 'I had sex with a robot, and it was great!' appear someplace like Cosmo magazine, I'd expect many people to jump on the bandwagon," Levy said.



The idea of romance between humanity and our artistic and/or mechanical creations dates back to ancient times, with the Greek myth of the sculptor Pygmalion falling in love with the ivory statue he made named Galatea, to which the goddess Venus eventually granted life.

This notion persists in modern times. Not only has science fiction explored this idea, but 40 years ago, scientists noticed that students at times became unusually attracted to ELIZA, a computer program designed to ask questions and mimic a psychotherapist.

"There's a trend of robots becoming more human-like in appearance and coming more in contact with humans," Levy said. "At first robots were used impersonally, in factories where they helped build automobiles, for instance. Then they were used in offices to deliver mail, or to show visitors around museums, or in homes as vacuum cleaners, such as with the Roomba. Now you have robot toys, like Sony's Aibo robot dog, or Tickle Me Elmos, or digital pets like Tamagotchis."

In his thesis, "Intimate Relationships with Artificial Partners," Levy conjectures that robots will become so human-like in appearance, function and personality that many people will fall in love with them, have sex with them and even marry them.

"It may sound a little weird, but it isn't," Levy said. "Love and sex with robots are inevitable."

Sex with robots in 5 years
Levy argues that psychologists have identified roughly a dozen basic reasons why people fall in love, "and almost all of them could apply to human-robot relationships. For instance, one thing that prompts people to fall in love are similarities in personality and knowledge, and all of this is programmable. Another reason people are more likely to fall in love is if they know the other person likes them, and that's programmable too."

In 2006, Henrik Christensen, founder of the European Robotics Research Network, predicted that people will be having sex with robots within five years, and Levy thinks that's quite likely. There are companies that already sell realistic sex dolls, "and it's just a matter of adding some electronics to them to add some vibration," he said, or endowing the robots with a few audio responses. "That's fairly primitive in terms of robotics, but the technology is already there."

As software becomes more advanced and the relationship between humans and robots becomes more personal, marriage could result. "One hundred years ago, interracial marriage and same-sex marriages were illegal in the United States. Interracial marriage has been legal now for 50 years, and same-sex marriage is legal in some parts of the states," Levy said. "There has been this trend in marriage where each partner gets to make their own choice of who they want to be with."

"The question is not if this will happen, but when," Levy said. "I am convinced the answer is much earlier than you think."

When and where it'll happen
Levy predicts Massachusetts will be the first jurisdiction to legalize human-robot marriage. "Massachusetts is more liberal than most other jurisdictions in the United States and has been at the forefront of same-sex marriage," Levy said. "There's also a lot of high-tech research there at places like MIT."

Although roboticist Ronald Arkin at the Georgia Institute of Technology in Atlanta does not think human-robot marriages will be legal anywhere by 2050, "anything's possible. And just because it's not legal doesn't mean people won't try it," he told LiveScience.

"Humans are very unusual creatures," Arkin said. "If you ask me if every human will want to marry a robot, my answer is probably not. But will there be a subset of people? There are people ready right now to marry sex toys."

The main benefit of human-robot marriage could be to make people who otherwise could not get married happier, "people who find it hard to form relationships, because they are extremely shy, or have psychological problems, or are just plain ugly or have unpleasant personalities," Levy said. "Of course, such people who completely give up the idea of forming relationships with other people are going to be few and far between, but they will be out there."

Ethical questions
The possibility of sex with robots could prove a mixed bag for humanity. For instance, robot sex could provide an outlet for criminal sexual urges. "If you have pedophiles and you let them use a robotic child, will that reduce the incidence of them abusing real children, or will it increase it?" Arkin asked. "I don't think anyone has the answers for that yet — that's where future research needs to be done."

Keeping a robot for sex could reduce human prostitution and the problems that come with it. However, "in a marriage or other relationship, one partner could be jealous or consider it infidelity if the other used a robot," Levy said. "But who knows, maybe some other relationships could welcome a robot. Instead of a woman saying, 'Darling, not tonight, I have a headache,' you could get 'Darling, I have a headache, why not use your robot?' "