Much has been written of late concerning AI and how this technology is rapidly changing the world in which we live.

Many writers who have been following the advancement of this technology are even questioning the wisdom in empowering these robots.  In the secular community, scientists such as Stephen Hawking have been warning the world of the horrific possibilities of the destruction of the human race by AI bots.

From independent.co.uk

Earlier this year, Hawking  called for technology to be controlled in order to prevent it from destroying the human race, and said humans need to find a way to identify potential threats quickly, before they have a chance to escalate and endanger civilisation.

Back in 2015, he also expressed fears that AI could grow so powerful it might end up killing humans unintentionally – source

While researching for my other AI Robot articles, I ran across a gentleman who is a Rabbi, a Lawyer and Professor.  His quotes in the article prompted me to seek this man out and write to him. He spoke of AI robots one day becoming part of human society. He clearly distinguished AI from humans, but eluded to the need to assimilate these machines into our society; and with that he spoke of the “rights” of these nightmarish “beings.”

The Rabbi

I did write to the rabbi whose name is Dr. Mark Goldfeder.  I asked him if he had finished his dissertation on the subject of the rights of Robots. He responded by sending me a pdf of the writing.  He also gave me permission to quote from it with attribution.

From Dr. Mark Goldfeder and Joseph Razin

Robotic Marriage and the Law  (My commentary will be indented and in blue)

“INTRODUCTION

The United States, and the world at large, is in the midst of a family law revolution that will fundamentally change our very conception of family. Ethical challenges to age-old ideas have prompted people to ask foundational questions, such as how and why our most important personal relationships evolved. In a world where same-sex marriage has been legalized, it is only natural to wonder who marriage may include in the future.

“Ethical Challenges?”  There is nothing ethical about the family laws which are springing up.

At the same time, we are also living in an age of unprecedented technological innovation. The rise of smart machines and the incredible advances in robotics over the last few decades highlight that the difference between science fiction and science is closing with the passage of time. Social robots spend time with the elderly and the young. Robots can even experience a form of childhood.

Over 60 million unborn babies were slaughtered since 1973.  They were clearly DENIED a childhood experience.

Robots now work in our factories  and mines, and, career- wise, they can be anything from blue-collar prison guards to white-collar financial traders. Humans are already forming deep and meaningful relationships with their artificial friends, and indeed many humans are becoming intrigued by the possibility, and increasing reality, of human-robot romance. Movies and TV shows such as Her, are just a small sample of the dynamics of this relationship spectrum, ranging from platonic love to prostitution.

Are you kidding me?  Instead of human-robot romance, let’s just call a spade a spade. It will be at best human-robot lust, and quite disgusting in my opinion.

The question that this essay deals with will extend these possibilities one step further with a simple thought experiment: Could it ever be possible for a human and a robot to legally wed in the United States? The second Section addresses whether robots could be legal persons subject to marriage laws in the United States. The third Section considers what it would mean for robots to be in loving relationships. Sections Four, Five and Six analyze three threshold requirements for marriages-consent, understanding and decision- making capacity-that robots would have to meet to qualify for a legal marriage. Our conclusions are laid out in Section Seven.

Because the people who are pushing for marriage between people and robots do not believe in God – there is no mention of the fact that robots have no “soul.”

ROBOT PERSONHOOD
Legal personality is quite different than the colloquial meaning of “person”; it makes no claim about morality, and this term does not in any way require sentience or vitality.  “In books of the Law, as in other books, and in common speech, ‘person’ is often used as meaning a human being, but the technical legal meaning of a ‘person’ is a subject of legal rights and duties.”  To be a legal person is to have the capability of possessing legal rights and duties within a certain legal system, such as the right to enter into contracts, own property, sue and be sued.

Brethren, is it becoming more clear why Sophia was granted citizenship in Saudi Arabia?

The question whether an entity should be considered a legal person is reducible to other questions about whether or not the entity can and should be made the subject of a set of legal rights and duties. The particular bundle of rights and duties
that accompanies legal personhood varies with the nature of the entity.

Do you see how conveniently the writers of this dissertation do not mention the legal rights of the unborn?

According to Black’s Law Dictionary, an artificial person is:
An entity, such as a corporation, created by law and given certain legal rights and duties of a human being; a being, real or imaginary, who for the purpose of legal reasoning is treated more or less as a human being. An entity is a person for purposes of the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses but is not a citizen for purposes of the Privileges and Immunities Clauses in Article IV
Research Working Paper No.16049, 2010), http://www.nber.org/papers/w16049.

Not all legal persons have the same rights and obligations, and some entities are only considered “persons” for some matters, but not others. Corporations, for instance, have the right to free political speech, but not the right to vote.  If
the law creates legal persons, then legal “definitions of persons are prescriptive rather than descriptive, it follows that arriving at a satisfactory concept of personhood is a matter of decision not discovery.”

They speak “legalize” to confuse, and it’s quite effective.

The establishment of personhood is an assessment made by a legislature or a judicial body to grant an entity rights and obligations, regardless of how the entity looks and whether or not it could pass for human. The truth is that the:
Person, notion of personhood has expanded significantly, albeit slowly, over the last few thousand years. Throughout history, women, children, and slaves have all at times been considered property rather than persons. The category of persons recognized in the courts has expanded to include entities and characters including natural persons aside from men.., as well as unnatural or juridical persons, such as corporations, labor unions, nursing homes, municipalities and government
units.

We are waiting for the day when the unborn child will be declared a “person.”

So, can a robot be a person? Again, “personhood” as a legal concept arises not from the humanity of the subject but from the ascription of rights and duties to the subject. The determination of whether an entity or being counts as a legal person is largely context- specific, and not necessarily consistently made. ‘In the United States’ common law tradition there is no discrete body of law containing all of the applicable provisions of legal personhood.

More legalize……

Legal persons constitute a diverse community that includes various individuals, entities and collectives in different ways for different jurisdictions. To add to
this diversity, the common law of legal personhood is disparate and diffuse, found in cases, statutes and treatises.’

And more of the same…….

If an autonomous artificial being were capable “of accepting social responsibility, legal responsibility, or duties necessary for rights of legal personhood,”  then there is no reason why a robot could not be a legal person. Indeed, many scholars,
noting that robots already serve as agents, make contracts, and commit torts and crimes, have started calling for the ascription of robotic personhood to
those intelligent autonomous systems that seem to deserve it.

It is so very easy for atheist (and yes, I am including the Rabbi) to say that a robot could possibly be a legal person even though they have no soul. That fact is of no consequence to these people.

Once the potential personhood of a robot is admitted, it is worth exploring the extent of such rights and duties that judges and lawmakers may decide to grant to these robots in the future. We may grant robots rights for their own safety as well
as establish a duty to protect another person’s safety. We may also consider assigning them responsibility in regard to issues of custody and liability, rights to privacy, or even intellectual property. Once we have established that at least some robots can or should be some kind of “person” with some selection of rights, the question becomes whether they should be the kind of person that has the right to marry other persons.

Well, it seems that the authors of this article have already deemed robots to be “persons.”  Now they have delved right into whether these machines should have the right to marry other persons.

Before making such conclusions about robots, we must consider a more developed set of case law concerning the most common articulation.

“Note that this question is quite different than debates about, say, abortion or end of life issues. Those debates focus on the outer limits of natural personhood, and when (and until what time) a natural person is human. This question fundamentally assumes that robots are not human, but can still be unnatural persons.

Unbelievable.  They go right from speaking about the unborn and the elderly – questioning when both of these persons are no longer deemed “persons” to speaking about a new name for robots – “Unnatural persons”  This is demonic.

 Thus, courts consider corporations to be persons under the Constitution, subject to laws and entitled to protections of their many and varied rights. If corporations can associate, and, indeed, can even be religious, it is not farfetched to push a little further and ask if all persons-including all corporations as juridical people-hold the specific right to marry.

Hodges found that the fundamental right to marry is guaranteed to same-sex couples by both the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. As the Court noted: The nature of marriage is that, through its enduring bond, two persons together can find other freedoms, such as expression, intimacy, and spirituality. This is true for all persons, whatever their
sexual orientation.

Same sex marriage was indeed opening Pandoras box. The uber Leftists will use the union of two same sex people to open wide the door for all manner of idiotic and absurd arguments!

If this is true for all persons, then should natural persons differ from juridical persons? Or should we adopt the approach of Professor Hilary Putnam, who once wrote, regarding the concept of robotic personhood, that “discrimination” based on the “softness” or “hardness” of the body parts of a synthetic “organism” seems as silly as discriminatory treatment of humans on the basis of skin color. As Angelo Guisado notes: precluding a subgroup of persons, whether they are homosexual, Latino, or artificial, is a classification that, should the State wish to exclude them from marriage rights, must be justified in the face of the Equal Protection Clause. Thus, [a corporation] could possibly find repose in an equal protection claim, even in light of the extensive case law indicating that marriage is a fundamental right and a liberty interest under the Fourteenth Amendment.

The absurd has now traveled into science fiction. And to use the “color of the skin of people”  and compare it to whether a “person” has soft living skin, or a hard shell (robot) well, we are now into INSANITY!

It would seem then, that there is no obvious reasons why a juridical person could not theoretically marry a natural person, or another juridical person for that matter. In fact, on July 26, 2012, in King County (Seattle), Washington, Angela Marie Vogel became the first woman in America to legally marry a corporation. The marriage was short-lived, as the County quickly reversed its decision and voided the license. But the statement by Cameron Satterfield, a spokesperson for the County, was revealing:

When either party to a marriage is incapable of consent then it’s void, no longer valid, or not valid period. So that’s the basis in which we went ahead and voided the application. We went ahead and did that ourselves within our office because by the time it would’ve gone to the state, they would’ve voided it anyways. So we just avoided that altogether and voided it here.

The problem then seems to be in the finite and quite addressable area of “consent”. Perhaps, corporations cannot consent, and maybe the division of power between shareholders, board members, a CEO, COO, President, and others makes unambiguous consent too much of an issue. The question of whether an artificial person could actually express simple consent is answered in Section Four, but, first, the question of whether robots can love must be addressed.

There is much I have left off and have gone right into the rabbi’s “conclusion.”  The absurdity continued to grow in this article, and quite honestly, I was weary of even dignifying it with my commentary.  

CONCLUSION
The question then really becomes the following: Why should a robotic person not be able to marry? In general, the law seems to favor an intentional approach to attributing intent to better predict outcomes. Additionally, case law has been slowly moving towards using that approach to equate the actions of autonomous machines with the actions of human beings when required to consider mental states for legal purposes. Conversely, if the claim of Professor Gary Marchant is considered: “Robot-human marriage is not about robot rights; it is about the right of a human to choose to marry a robot.” If that is the case, then, again, seeing as how Western society is inching toward the harm- principle as the ultimate ideal in deciding cases-if no one else is being harmed then consenting people should be allowed to enter into any marital agreement.”

Brethren, we are now witnessing the inevitable, and that is that this sin sick society will indeed grant personhood to these AI robots.  They will also allow them to marry humans. Does this not open wide the door for Antichrist to be an AI Robot?  Of course, by then our society will not be calling these freakish machines “robots” any longer.

They will have been given personhood status.  I believe that in the coming years, it will be nearly impossible to distinguish a living “Created by God” person from an AI Bot.

God help us all.

MARANATHA!