Re: They already are, redcocoa101....

It's because parenthood is a fact of nature, not an artificially created situation.

No, reproduction is a fact of nature. That parents keep the baby and boss the child around is an artificially created situation. You are channelling Goethe and don't even realize it!

Marriage is a legal contract, not a naturally occurring condition. People can live together, have sex, etc. without being married; however, people cannot give birth without being parents.

They can drop the baby in the trash can as they leave the maternity ward and there it is, parenthood over. Or at least they could if the state wasn't there enforcing the attachment. Of course, it enforces it both ways; and the baby is equally required to serve 18 years.

You well know that by parenthood I didn't mean the act (or process) of procreation, but the state of serfdom children live in vis-a-vis parents. This would apply to single parents or to gay couples too, for instance. I know the word has both meanings, but why choose the one I obviously didn't mean?

And there you go with your absolutist nonsense again.

I simply don't see any argument that the state should keep away from legalizing and enforcing (and denying) marriage (where I agree with you, btw) that cannot be applied also to the state keeping away from legalizing and enforcing (and denying) a parent(s)-child(ren) relationship (which I agree with too).

I am anyway surprized (and impressed, sincerely) that you consider so many things to be legitimate functions or actions of government, and yet you do not consider marriages to be one of them. It is quite a radical position, one that even many marriage reformers would never dare take.