> I'm not saying this would be a healthy thing, or a desireable thing, but it certainly is within the realm of possibility. And given that it happens, how much of a jump would it really be at that point to get married to someone's virtual alter-ego and never actually meet (or "meat" as the page jokes) the other person in the flesh? I can totally see it happening.

Because, barring the insane, living in VR, however convincing, will always be understood to be "make believe" on some level. Never mind anything about the "sacrament" of marriage -- just examine the reasons why people get married at all, whoever the two people are, and then tell me that those same reasons will motivate someone to be contend to be married within VR and never have contact in real life. I'm pretty sure you can't do that.

So that leaves us with coming up for new motives for why people would get married in VR. Are there any at all which do not involve reinventing the term "marriage" to mean something another previously established term isn't already fit to describe? I can think of one: role-playing, which, in a sane mind, is not going to result in a legitimate serious relationship unless it evolved into one over time, at which point I contend the desire to extend that lifestyle into reality would immediately crop up.

I can, though, envision role-playing gone wild. But I don't believe normal people could have romantic relationships beyond the casual or frivolous and be content to leave them in virtual space. The human psyche doesn't work like that.

I'd relinquish my position only on the condition that we get to the point where real-world needs allow us to live in VR essentially 100% of the time *and* the illusion of VR lacks nothing from reality. But I don't think we'll ever get there even if we get close, and, more relevantly, I don't see that as an assumption, implied or not, of the author of that article.