Robots Getting Married In Japan

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
If you think this is freaky, wait until the video of the honeymoon surfaces. :eek:

Each attendee paid about $81 to witness the momentous occasion and received special invitations featuring the couple in a heart. The groom was Frois, a boxy red and silver robot that wore a bow tie. The wedding dress-donning bride was Yukirin, a humanoid fashioned in the likeness of Japanese pop star Yuki Kashiwagi. Possibly for copyright reasons, Yukirin was called “Roborin” at the wedding.
 
God help us if this happened in America. Mike Huckabee would've had an aneurysm, and the new Ted Cruz GOP would be all over Faux Entertainment denouncing this as an attack on Christianity and "traditional marriage"!

Man do I miss the old Republican party...
 
At this point, we really don't have a leg to stand on not allowing polygamists to marry, or heck even if some guy wants marry his sheep. Actually, I wonder if I could marry my cat and file jointly to save on taxes. Then I could raise some honeybees in my back yard and claim my property is farmland like a lot of celebrities. The new 'Murica!
 
or heck even if some guy wants marry his sheep. Actually, I wonder if I could marry my cat and file jointly to save on taxes. Then I could raise some honeybees in my back yard and claim my property is farmland like a lot of celebrities. The new 'Murica!

...and that didn't take long.
 
At this point, we really don't have a leg to stand on not allowing polygamists to marry, or heck even if some guy wants marry his sheep. Actually, I wonder if I could marry my cat and file jointly to save on taxes. Then I could raise some honeybees in my back yard and claim my property is farmland like a lot of celebrities. The new 'Murica!

This

You can't selectively permit one group to redefine marriage and yet continue to discriminate against others. That would be very "bigoted" and "intolerant". To be truly inclusive, we should let all people marry as many as they want and whatever they want. Marry your pets, mothers, sisters, a tree ect. Or...are only liberals allowed to be hypocritical like the confederate flag fiasco? Amazon, Walmart ect ban the Confederate flag yet continue selling "I Love Hezbollah" baby outfits, Che T-shirts, Iranian flags, Communist items ect. :rolleyes:
 
This

You can't selectively permit one group to redefine marriage and yet continue to discriminate against others. That would be very "bigoted" and "intolerant". To be truly inclusive, we should let all people marry as many as they want and whatever they want. Marry your pets, mothers, sisters, a tree ect. Or...are only liberals allowed to be hypocritical like the confederate flag fiasco? Amazon, Walmart ect ban the Confederate flag yet continue selling "I Love Hezbollah" baby outfits, Che T-shirts, Iranian flags, Communist items ect. :rolleyes:

I sure hope this is a troll post ...
 
This

You can't selectively permit one group to redefine marriage and yet continue to discriminate against others. That would be very "bigoted" and "intolerant". To be truly inclusive, we should let all people marry as many as they want and whatever they want. Marry your pets, mothers, sisters, a tree ect. Or...are only liberals allowed to be hypocritical like the confederate flag fiasco? Amazon, Walmart ect ban the Confederate flag yet continue selling "I Love Hezbollah" baby outfits, Che T-shirts, Iranian flags, Communist items ect. :rolleyes:
I dunno man, it just cracks me up. White men are white women. White women are black women. Dogs and cats living together! Pandemonium! LOL!

Seriously, google "male daughters", as its another deal in Japan now where straight boys are dressing up as schoolgirls, but they still pick up girlfriends and everything (and just have to avoid the embarrassment of wearing the same dress simultaneously). And they have concerts where the star is a hologram with completely digital "singing", which is like autotune to a whole new level.

The weird thing is that for kids growing up today, this is the new normal.
 
imagine..... 2 remote controlled toy cars marrying each other..... cause lets face it that is what this is .... it's not hard ai so i wish people stop pretending as if it is >_>;

it's kinda like how dumb people believe the wwf is all real and not acting :/
 
This will help their birth rate problem :rolleyes:
Seriously japan, stop taxing your citizen through the nose, stop printing money to prop up your zombie banks and inflating wages away, and maybe your young people can actually afford to have a real marriage and real families.
 
Is there a single issue Ducman isn't wrong about? It's gotta be damn exhausting.
 
At this point, we really don't have a leg to stand on not allowing polygamists to marry, or heck even if some guy wants marry his sheep. Actually, I wonder if I could marry my cat and file jointly to save on taxes. Then I could raise some honeybees in my back yard and claim my property is farmland like a lot of celebrities. The new 'Murica!

The sheep one is pretty easy to argue against, considering an animal isn't capable of consent and has protections with regards to abuse. Polygamy would certainly take filing taxes a new form of hell...
 
Nobody will be marrying their animals or whatever... for lots of legal reasons. But, next time there's a raid on a polygamist cult compound somewhere, you can bet there will now be lots of interesting new lawsuits emerge as a result.
 
I don't understand why Christians/Catholics feel they have a say refusing marriage to groups.

1.) They are a minority.
2.) Marriage preceded their religion. Why do they even get a vote?

Did I miss something?
 
Omg. Every person involved in that event needs a smacking. And another smacking.
 
I don't understand why Christians/Catholics feel they have a say refusing marriage to groups.
I believe they are bitching more from a moral standpoint that marriage shouldn't be redefined. If you think of marriage as an action, then sure anything can get married. You could marry a robot or a pet or multiple people or your sister or a 12 year old. But if you think of marriage as an institution centered around a nuclear family that affects the moral fabric of the nation as its core component from the ground up, then completely redefining that makes it rather meaningless.

And if we say that morality should play no part in it, and talk about history that precedes Christianity, then for most of history it was completely normal for a man to marry a child like Mohammed and his 9 year old wife.

Then you have to ask the other question is if morality (which of course is subjective as the Greeks had institutional rape of little boys which they thought was perfectly moral) actually has a practical function in society, and if the answer is yes it does and that the nuclear family unit is the most successful and other acts like incest are illegal because it leads to nonviable children, then clearly homosexual and robot marriage is also a nonviable nuclear family unit from a practical standpoint. Otherwise, what purpose is there in defining marriage as two guys that want to hump monogamously that wasn't covered under civil union already? And if the answer is to create a stable environment for adopted children, then that again makes people antsy having two grown men adopting say a young thai boy, after all the buggering in the Catholic church and boy scouts and what not. I don't think most people really care about lesbians, other than that they find the fat butch ones to be gross imagining, but its they just get lumped in because of concerns with gay guys.

But back on topic, yes everyone knows the robots aren't sentient, the weird part is that there were like 100+ people paying a considerable amount of money for this crap, which especially with the current timing is kind of mocking conservatives degrading the sanctity of marriage even further.
 
I believe they are bitching more from a moral standpoint that marriage shouldn't be redefined. If you think of marriage as an action, then sure anything can get married. You could marry a robot or a pet or multiple people or your sister or a 12 year old. But if you think of marriage as an institution centered around a nuclear family that affects the moral fabric of the nation as its core component from the ground up, then completely redefining that makes it rather meaningless.

And if we say that morality should play no part in it, and talk about history that precedes Christianity, then for most of history it was completely normal for a man to marry a child like Mohammed and his 9 year old wife.

Then you have to ask the other question is if morality (which of course is subjective as the Greeks had institutional rape of little boys which they thought was perfectly moral) actually has a practical function in society, and if the answer is yes it does and that the nuclear family unit is the most successful and other acts like incest are illegal because it leads to nonviable children, then clearly homosexual and robot marriage is also a nonviable nuclear family unit from a practical standpoint. Otherwise, what purpose is there in defining marriage as two guys that want to hump monogamously that wasn't covered under civil union already? And if the answer is to create a stable environment for adopted children, then that again makes people antsy having two grown men adopting say a young thai boy, after all the buggering in the Catholic church and boy scouts and what not. I don't think most people really care about lesbians, other than that they find the fat butch ones to be gross imagining, but its they just get lumped in because of concerns with gay guys.

But back on topic, yes everyone knows the robots aren't sentient, the weird part is that there were like 100+ people paying a considerable amount of money for this crap, which especially with the current timing is kind of mocking conservatives degrading the sanctity of marriage even further.

Well that's a lot better argument than I've seen before. Personally I think two sentients that are of age should be able to willingly marry.

I have to chuckle about religious people talking about morality given the past history and current events.
 
I believe they are bitching more from a moral standpoint that marriage shouldn't be redefined. If you think of marriage as an action, then sure anything can get married. You could marry a robot or a pet or multiple people or your sister or a 12 year old. But if you think of marriage as an institution centered around a nuclear family that affects the moral fabric of the nation as its core component from the ground up, then completely redefining that makes it rather meaningless.

And if we say that morality should play no part in it, and talk about history that precedes Christianity, then for most of history it was completely normal for a man to marry a child like Mohammed and his 9 year old wife.

Then you have to ask the other question is if morality (which of course is subjective as the Greeks had institutional rape of little boys which they thought was perfectly moral) actually has a practical function in society, and if the answer is yes it does and that the nuclear family unit is the most successful and other acts like incest are illegal because it leads to nonviable children, then clearly homosexual and robot marriage is also a nonviable nuclear family unit from a practical standpoint. Otherwise, what purpose is there in defining marriage as two guys that want to hump monogamously that wasn't covered under civil union already? And if the answer is to create a stable environment for adopted children, then that again makes people antsy having two grown men adopting say a young thai boy, after all the buggering in the Catholic church and boy scouts and what not. I don't think most people really care about lesbians, other than that they find the fat butch ones to be gross imagining, but its they just get lumped in because of concerns with gay guys.

But back on topic, yes everyone knows the robots aren't sentient, the weird part is that there were like 100+ people paying a considerable amount of money for this crap, which especially with the current timing is kind of mocking conservatives degrading the sanctity of marriage even further.

Did you really have to turn a thread about two robots in japan having a silly marriage ceremony into some rant about marrying 9 year old girls and homosexual acts with boys? Is it really that painful to you that gay couples can now marry and have the same rights that straight couples have enjoyed for centuries?
 
Did you really have to turn a thread about two robots in japan having a silly marriage ceremony into some rant about marrying 9 year old girls and homosexual acts with boys? Is it really that painful to you that gay couples can now marry and have the same rights that straight couples have enjoyed for centuries?
Yeaaaahhhhh, I'm guessing you literally didn't read the first eleven words in the actual linked article:
It’s been quite a week for the institution of marriage: First the U.S. Supreme Court legalized same-sex marriage;
Oops! ;)
 
Did you really have to turn a thread about two robots in japan having a silly marriage ceremony into some rant about marrying 9 year old girls and homosexual acts with boys? Is it really that painful to you that gay couples can now marry and have the same rights that straight couples have enjoyed for centuries?

You underestimate his ability to be wrong in every thread. It's his superpower.
 
Yeaaaahhhhh, I'm guessing you literally didn't read the first eleven words in the actual linked article:

Oops! ;)

And I repeat: Is it really that painful to you that gay couples can now marry and have the same rights that straight couples have enjoyed for centuries?
 
I have to chuckle about religious people talking about morality given the past history and current events.
Well, I don't think religious people were happy that homosexuals had snuck into their ranks. Heck, even the ancient Greeks that pretty much insisted that all young boys had to get their asses pounded by old guys in order to learn their trade (interesting logic) believed that a grown man should never be on the receiving end and certainly not marry another grown man since they found it necessary for the proper functioning of society that a man's role was to provide for his woman with which he would raise a family. So probably the gayest civilization to have ever been successful though believed that gay marriage was unacceptable, and in fact one of the political opponents of Julius Caesar claimed that he had a gay relationship with a man (King Nicomedes) which would have emasculated him, whereas him buggering boys all day and night in huge orgies would have been no problem at all.
 
Well, I don't think religious people were happy that homosexuals had snuck into their ranks. Heck, even the ancient Greeks that pretty much insisted that all young boys had to get their asses pounded by old guys in order to learn their trade (interesting logic) believed that a grown man should never be on the receiving end and certainly not marry another grown man since they found it necessary for the proper functioning of society that a man's role was to provide for his woman with which he would raise a family. So probably the gayest civilization to have ever been successful though believed that gay marriage was unacceptable, and in fact one of the political opponents of Julius Caesar claimed that he had a gay relationship with a man (King Nicomedes) which would have emasculated him, whereas him buggering boys all day and night in huge orgies would have been no problem at all.

That's pretty disturbing. So going by that example the church actually makes things worse if history was any indicator.

I thought this documentary by Louis CK on the Catholic Church was very thought provoking.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=VABSoHYQr6k
 
At this point, we really don't have a leg to stand on not allowing polygamists to marry, or heck even if some guy wants marry his sheep. Actually, I wonder if I could marry my cat and file jointly to save on taxes. Then I could raise some honeybees in my back yard and claim my property is farmland like a lot of celebrities. The new 'Murica!

Ignoring this silly charade in japan. The definition is simple, Two sentient beings that are able to vocally consent. That certainly allows for polygamy, and frankly who cares and outright excludes animals and inanimate objects with zero room for argument. Animals obviously cannot consent and arguing otherwise is just a logical fallacy.

This

You can't selectively permit one group to redefine marriage and yet continue to discriminate against others. That would be very "bigoted" and "intolerant". To be truly inclusive, we should let all people marry as many as they want and whatever they want. Marry your pets, mothers, sisters, a tree ect. Or...are only liberals allowed to be hypocritical like the confederate flag fiasco? Amazon, Walmart ect ban the Confederate flag yet continue selling "I Love Hezbollah" baby outfits, Che T-shirts, Iranian flags, Communist items ect. :rolleyes:

Sure you can..See above. If they don't meet the criteria of both parties being able to consent it isn't discrimination. Otherwise it isn't anyone elses damn business.

I don't understand why Christians/Catholics feel they have a say refusing marriage to groups.

1.) They are a minority.
2.) Marriage preceded their religion. Why do they even get a vote?

Did I miss something?

This...This is the thing that i laugh about every time I hear some religious kook arguing that marriage is a covenant with god. Marriage existed before most religions, christianity especially. It was originally nothing more than a business contract and has been redefined numerous times over history. Christians arguing that it is some religious ceremony that only they are entitled too is just so laughably pathetic that I would almost feel sorry for them if they weren't using it to actively fuck over peoples lives.

The short of it for me is this. You don't have to like marriage that sits outside of your belief system. However the government of a free and equal country that respects no religion over another Cannot abide laws that deliberately discriminate in favor of one.
 
The definition is simple, Two sentient beings that are able to vocally consent. That certainly allows for polygamy
Well, that's your definition... and you forgot incest and pedophilia. Also seems kind of prejudice, unless you allow deaf/mute people to sign their consent. :p
 
At this point, we really don't have a leg to stand on not allowing polygamists to marry, or heck even if some guy wants marry his sheep. Actually, I wonder if I could marry my cat and file jointly to save on taxes. Then I could raise some honeybees in my back yard and claim my property is farmland like a lot of celebrities. The new 'Murica!

This demonstrates a severe lack of understanding. Do you really think this or is it a bad joke?
 
Well, that's your definition... and you forgot incest and pedophilia. Also seems kind of prejudice, unless you allow deaf/mute people to sign their consent. :p

Incest isn't an issue, if they are legal consenting adults that is their problem. It doesn't allow for pedophilia because children can't legally consent and the whole deaf/mute thing was implied. Frankly at this point I feel like you are trying to argue a straw man just because you can.
 
Why aren't children allowed to consent when they say "I do"? Who decides that for them that they are mentally unfit? Why are they fit to consent to a gender reassignment? Wasn't the argument that homosexuals can't consent because they were suffering from a mental condition that gave them crosswired sexual urges? Its clearly all subjective, but liberals can't accept that.
 
Still think he makes good points backed by facts Dekoth? Or are you starting to see what I was talking about?

It's easier to spot on an issue you totally disagree with him on, no?
 
Why aren't children allowed to consent when they say "I do"? Who decides that for them that they are mentally unfit? Why are they fit to consent to a gender reassignment? Wasn't the argument that homosexuals can't consent because they were suffering from a mental condition that gave them crosswired sexual urges? Its clearly all subjective, but liberals can't accept that.

<--- The soapbox is that way comrade.
 
I don't understand why Christians/Catholics feel they have a say refusing marriage to groups.

1.) They are a minority.
2.) Marriage preceded their religion. Why do they even get a vote?

Did I miss something?

Do you think marriage was only a slip of paper filed in some bureaucracy?
 
I sure hope this is a troll post ...

No, it's the new reality in the USA, thanks to 5 elites in black robes ignoring the constitution. (this also applies to the 2 rulings before the ruling on marriage)

Laws no longer seem to matter, as the courts just rewrite the law or point to foreign law when the feel like it. Since we already have states ignoring federal drug laws (i.e. marijuana laws), the conservative states should just ignore this unconstitutional ruling by the supreme court, claim it's a states issue (it is)and tell them to shove it where the sun doesn't shine.
 
Back
Top