We tend to shy away from politics around here, because… well, obvious reasons. But this one is too weird to pass up. Apparently a Maryland computer programmer, and former political candidate, spoke out against proposed Marriage Equality legislation. Not all that surprising in itself, but he invoked the specter of Robosexuality.
Seriously. He’s worried that Data will be able to get married.
That’s no hyperbole; he invokes exactly that scenario.
Yes. Because homosexuality is EXACTLY the same as robosexuality. Though it is amusing why he’s deciding to hide religion behind Data.
I continue to wonder why marriage still exists as a codified government protected religious institution. Seems better suited for contract law.
As such, hetero and gay marriage would work just fine, as would the polygamous ones my wife and I feel would make good sense.
Robosexual was brought up in last night’s Bicentennial Man frak. I thought it was a new term, not one that’s been around.
it does belong in contract law, the problem being the override of “family can visit you in hospital” or “taxes filed together”
I agree with you, it just would require a major overhaul of other lawa (which needs to happen as well)
Speaking from the traditional catholic upbringing
just let folk Boff, shag whoever they want… marriage should just.be a legal partnership nothing more.
As for robo_sexual, I always have been and always will be a supporter of the robot loving act shout out to skynext
Now that I think about it that may not be what they taught me in catholic school.
I think we’d all be better served by having two separate institutions, one of civil unions which would be processed and recognized by the state and one of private unions (religiously based or not, as individuals desired). But I think that it’s unlikely to happen in the near future, at least in the US.
Polygamy as a form of civil union does complicate some matters, such as requiring employers to provide family benefits to multiple partners, and complicating the concepts of filing joint tax returns or handling child custody after dissolution of a union, but as a private union would be just as legitimate any other.
Heinlein included polygamous unions in his work - and if memory serves, the one in Friday seemed rather like a co-op or a corporation where you buy in by purchasing shares or sell out (or could be pushed out).
One of Stableford’s books included a “family” that was run rather like a joint venture where partners came together for the sole purpose of rearing a single child. Once he was grown, the partnership was dissolved, but the personal relationships between partners, both with each other, and parent/child didn’t end with the end of the partnership. They were really a separate matters.
I think it’s rather more likely than not. Separating the contract from the ceremony frees everyone up. Don’t approve of the union? Don’t do the ceremony.
Polygamy as a form of civil union does complicate some matters, such as requiring employers to provide family benefits to multiple partners, and complicating the concepts of filing joint tax returns or handling child custody after dissolution of a union, but as a private union would be just as legitimate any other.
That’s a tricky one, for reasons you just outlined. There’s no reason it couldn’t be done (indeed, it is to varying degrees around the world) but multi-party contracts are inherently problematic. Maybe a REALLY high filing fee for them?
Heinlein’s ‘Line Marriages’ from Friday was exactly the model I was thinking of as an ideal. The advantages of it over a simple binary marriage seem… significant.
This is the state of things in the rest of the world, to my knowledge. In fact, when spouse and I married in exotic South American country, it was just a civil ceremony, and everyone has to have a separate civil ceremony, no matter how religious you are. I remember there was a bit of a celebrity scandal years back because a couple had a huge church wedding, but then weren’t actually legally married since they didn’t take care of the civil side of things. Now most of the commentary was how they must have been stupid to have forgotten about that part of it, but the idea that the religious ceremony is valid for RELIGIOUS reasons and the state must look to its own, separate, processes strikes me as very reasonable.
Is marriage a religious institution though? Lots of non religious heterosexuals get married and throw weddings, they just don’t do it in a church (and a church/etc obviously has the right to not let people get married in said institution, and I doubt non believers would care to have their marriage ceremony in a church either) - and they’re not forbidden to get married or have to call it something different and slightly less equal. It’s just a bit odd that any specific religion could have the dibs on ‘marriage’.
I wonder what said Maryland political candidate would say about robo-homo-sexuality?
if marriage is a religious thing, then atheists can not get married? if they can, and people can get married jumping out of planes… then why is marriage a religious thing. what about if the married couple believes in religions that doesn’t confine the definition of marriage to being between a man and a woman? so under those religions robots/homosexuals should be able to get married? by the way, if it has to be between a man and a woman, does that mean hermaphrodites can not get married?
i never understood what people mean when they say marriage is a religious thing…
The mathematician/programmer in me wants to redefine marriage as “a legal union between two marryable people”
Then you can define a marryable person. Right now, I suppose humans above the age of 18 is reasonable. Maybe 16, dunno.
That way, in the future, if we come across some alien race of superhot blue chicks (Liara? More like Liaryum!) we can simply define them as marryable and be done with it.
It was brought up in the cast #258.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IYR1e51n3vk
You can skip to 1:09 or watch the whole thing.
I posted before the cast came out, but good on you for finding that clip.
Are you actually issued a Bible in Annapolis? I thought that was an Air Force thing.
I know, and thanks for the props.
I posted for brevity. I should have said, it was brought up in cast #258, but the crew gave me the idea of searching for a video of the actual statement while it was being made.
Since you broke the no-politics taboo, I’ll say hooray that Maryland is likely to actually enact the marriage equality law after years of getting close and failing!
That means that when we do the whole getting wedding’d thing in Maryland next spring, we can do the legal part there as well.
Oh, congrats!
Congratulations. Aunt Net and Aunt Chris (which I started calling her years before I realized their relationship) got married at my parents’ house in Iowa a few months ago.
Woot! Congratulations!