Why Not Marry a Robot?

  • Adrian David Cheok
  • Emma Yann ZhangEmail author
Part of the Human–Computer Interaction Series book series (HCIS)


The trend of robotics research and development, from industrial robots to service robots to companion and carer robots, has as its logical continuation the design and construction of partner robots, sufficiently human-like and sufficiently appealing in various ways to take on the role of a partner in a relationship with a human being. This trend immediately raises many questions relating to humans loving and being loved by robots, treating robots as life partners and being similarly treated by them, marrying robots and having sex with robots. We discuss some aspects of human-robot marriage and reassess the author’s 10-year-old prediction that the first human-robot marriage will take place in the state of Massachusetts around the year 2050.


  1. 1.
    Association CP (2006) Marriage of same-sex couples – 2006 position statement.
  2. 2.
    Chopra S, White LF (2011) A legal theory for autonomous artificial agents. University of Michigan Press, Ann ArborCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Freitas RA (1985) The legal rights of robots. Student lawyer 13(1):54–56Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Goldfeder M, Razin Y (2015) Robotic marriage and the law. J Law Soc Deviance 10:137Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Hubbard FP (2010) Do androids dream: personhood and intelligent artifacts. Temp L Rev 83:405Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Leroux C, Labruto R, Boscarato C, Caroleo F, Günther J, Löffler S, Hilgendorf E (2012) Suggestion for a green paper on legal issues in robotics. Contrib Deliv D 3(1)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Levy D (2006) Emotional relationships with robotic companions. In: EURON workshop on roboethics, GenoaGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Levy D (2006) A history of machines with sexual functions: past, present and robot. In: EURON workshop on roboethics, GenoaGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Levy D (2006) Marriage and sex with robots. In: EURON workshop on roboethics, GenoaGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Levy D (2007) Intimate relationships with artificial partners. PhD thesis, Maastricht UniversityGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Levy D (2007) Love and sex with robots: the evolution of human-robot relationships. Harper CollinsGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Muzyka K (2013) The outline of personhood law regarding artificial intelligences and emulated human entities. J Artif Gen Intell 4(3):164–169CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Pawelski JG, Perrin EC, Foy JM, Allen CE, Crawford JE, Del Monte M, Kaufman M, Klein JD, Smith K, Springer S et al (2006) The effects of marriage, civil union, and domestic partnership laws on the health and well-being of children. Pediatrics 118(1):349–364CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Rule S (1989) Rights for gay couples in denmark. The New York Times 2Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Sparrow R (2011) Can machines be people? reflections on the turing triage test. Robot ethics: the ethical and social implications of robotics. MIT Press, Cambridge, p 301Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Stone LS (2004) Gay marriage and anthropology. Anthropol. News 45(5):10–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Turkle S (2011) Alone together: why we expect more from technology and less from each other. Basic BooksGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Wettig S, Zehendner E (2003) The electronic agent: a legal personality under german law. In: Proceedings of the law and electronic agents workshop (LEA03), pp 97–112Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Zimmerman EJ (2015) Machine minds: frontiers in legal personhoodGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Imagineering InstituteIskander PuteriMalaysia

Personalised recommendations