Re: They already are, redcocoa101....

No, reproduction is a fact of nature. That parents keep the baby and boss the child around is an artificially created situation.

Right. Let's see . . . How many mammals not only give birth to their young but stick around to raise them for some period of time? Oh yeah, pretty much all of them.

You are channelling Goethe and don't even realize it!

q, you're already trying my patience. You know better than to go there. I'm not stupid. This is calculated to irritate me. Don't do it again. Now, if you go back and look at my post, you'll see that nowhere did I claim that this gives parents any special right to abuse or harm their children, or really to do anything. The point was that parenthood is a fact of nature, just like the earth being round, the existence of gravity, etc. What we do with that fact is up to us as a society, but the government should recognize what is real and natural. Marriage, however, is entirely artificial. It hinges on a legally created and binding contract, without which the concept is meaningless. Living together is not marriage.

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.

No. Shedding your responsibility for the children you create does not negate the fact that you are still the parent(s) of a child. Once you have a child, you will always be a parent.

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?

No, I didn't know that this is what you meant specifically, but it's ultimately a moot point. As I said earlier, what we choose to do with the fact of parenthood is up to us. As far as I'm aware, all mammals raise their children to some level of maturity. This does not in and of itself mean that this is the right thing to do, but it does give us a model and a basis for the modern concept of parenthood. And the state must also recognize the fact that, unlike with most mammals, for a time human children are entirely helpless. There is no set cut-off point at which children cease to be helpless; it is entirely transitional. What, then, would you propose be the alternative to parents being responsible for the offspring they bring into the world? Oh right, I believe you're one of the people who would grant them complete autonomy from the very beginning. :-S

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).

Look at it this way: what people do in terms of their social arrangements have never required state interference. We can form bonds of friendship, or create a sexual relationship with more than one person, or live with anyone who agrees to allow us into their home, or whatever. No state certificate is required to recognize that so-and-so is my friend, my lover, my acquaintance, or whatever. Marriage was not created by the state, but subjecting it to state authority places it in the same arena as business transactions. I find that completely distasteful. Not only that, it often creates more problems than it fixes, for several reasons but primarily because of the social and legal pressures to make it work. Whatever romantic arrangements consenting and competent people come to on their own should be entirely between them. If you need the state to step in and compel you to stay in that situation, you probably shouldn't be there to begin with.

Look, whether you have some fancy ceremony in a church or declare yourselves married in your own backyard, I really don't care. Sure, you're husband and wife (or husband and husband, or husband and wife and wife, or King Shit and Royal Slave), it really doesn't matter to me. But making the state a party to this is absurd. It creates a bias against natural arrangements and generates situations where some parties (like gays) are discriminated against by the state. You can eliminate all of that simply by doing away with legally recognized marriage.

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.

Thanks. Well, I calls 'em like I sees 'em.