>>25364
>This is a board for topics that don't fit on other boards, but that are still otaku/hobby related.
This is neither otaku nor hobby related.

What? That makes no sense, those two things are not comparable.

Rather anyone would have to be allowed to marry anything, people could have multiple wifes or husbands and they could marry animals or objects (or like us, concepts). Then it would make sense for us to be allowed to get married to our waifus.

Post edited on 6th Nov 2014, 2:23am

Without repeating the toaster, why would it, in your mind, take gay marriage to make that jump? Gay people were no less real and 3D than straight people last I checked.

Though that is kind of banging the same point, even if not word to word.

Marriage in the legal sense doesn't mean anything other than some economic/legal stuff between two people. Real people having this makes sense, for us there's no purpose to it.

Then there's Marriage in the personal/religious sense. Each person should define what it is to themselves. To different people marriage means very different things. I consider myself to already be happily married to my waifu.

>>25368
Yeah, that's what I thought too.

>>25371
I agree with this also

>>25364
Where I live at least, legal marriage is essentially a contract between a man and a woman to have children, that is, to give them a full legal name and assume a series of mutual responsibilities that revolve around the kids' raising, including mutual fidelity and the administration of wealth. Further rights, such as women's alimony in the case of divorce, are founded in the notion of child support as well and within our patriarchal society; in the last few years, gay legal marriage was approved in some cities of my country under the assumption of extending a similar economical society between gay couples (I have no idea how they decide who the functional "man" and the "woman" are there, especially if both of them have an income), followed by an initiative to legalize and regulate their adopting of children...

So, as you see, either traditional or gay marriage is based on the concept of couples as social agents of human biological reproduction, so no legal marriage with fictional/synthetic characters of any sort has any foundation yet.

Also, notice that no mention of love took place in the matter. The alleged equivalence between the institution of marriage and love, if existent at all, duels not at a legal but merely religious/moral level: you're not obliged (nor expected, before modernity) to love your legal partner. So I, openly antinatalist and posthumanist, see 2D love as an escape from all this farce of conjugal happiness and the salvage of true love (for what that would be there are other threads around and in the archive), and so I have no wish for my waifu and my choice to be absorbed by their poor excuses of social institutions.

>>25366
This thread should be in /mai/, certainly.

Thoughts and ideas are far too different from living beings. Thoughts and ideas can be perfect, and will always remain with us, therefore meaning that we can be married to these things if we so choose to keep these thoughts and ideas with us, while humans die and destroy each other in various ways with their death and destruction. What I mean by that is that a humans death can and will happen, and that will without a doubt cause pain, while a thought/idea is yours for as long as you want and will never die until you do.

If gays should be allowed to marry then why can't we marry several people?

>>25385
Again, where do the gays come in?
And where is any semblance of relation to the topics of this or indeed any board on this website in an ideologically loaded non-sequitur related purely to real life relationships?

More importantly, do you believe meisters and weapons in an active working relationship should also be allowed to be romantically involved with each other?
Given the degree of independence afforded to both the answer seems obviously yes, and given the largely horizontal organizational structure conflicts of interest don't seem like they'd be an important factor as long as neither party is subordinate to the other, such as a teacher-student relationship.
Even so, I believe there could be very real concerns over sexual favors or other factors pertaining to such relationships being used in coercive or exploitative ways that would be counterproductive to the overall mission of hunting down bad guys.

Of course, the system being essentially a free market with a surplus of heroes for most situations, the harm of a dysfunctional personal relationship interfering with work would primarily affect the team in question. Not really grounds for regulation so much as informing prospective meisters and weapons of the potential risks as part of some boring policy class they all sleep through.

But I'm sure some would have stronger objections on ideological or moral grounds, and while personally highly skeptical of the value of any such objection, I must admit I remain unsure of the weight that ought to be given to such concerns by any organizations concerned. We wouldn't want to have a fictional diplomatic or political shitstorm on our hands. Might have to be "We don't really mind, but do try to keep it on the down-low guys. We don't want the conservative meister lobby cutting our funding." at least.

This discussion really doesn't belong here.

>>25384
>will never die until you do
Or until you develop a neurological illness. Sooner yet, wait an arbitrary duration of time and discover that the chemical structure of your mind has irreversibly transitioned into a distinct physical state. Not a "death" in the conventional sense, but any semblance of cognitive permanence is rendered impossible by the perpetual subatomic flux.

Thoughts are absolutely living things provided your definition of "living" includes varying configuration of organic molecules and electrochemical states that constitute the central nervous system.