Re: They already are, redcocoa101....

None for so long, developmentally speaking, as us.

Relevance?

OK, not completely unrestrained rights (marriage doesn't, either); but still very strong rights that we would never accept in any other social relationship. Much less in any other social relationship that we ask the state to uniquely recognize and enforce.

As I see it, Goethe simply takes this point to the extreme and is proud of so doing; but the slippery slope is always there. It's only protectiveness that (some of the time) prevents real parents from going all the way.

Well, Marc Dutroux believed having sex with children was okay. As I see it, he just carried this to the extreme. Therefore, I shall henceforth compare you to Marc Dutroux.

Naturalistic fallacy?

Nope. Nowhere did I argue that because this is natural, it is therefore right. In fact, I specifically said that what we do with that fact is up to us. Nice try though.

But really this is a weakness of the argument as much as it is a strength. No species maintains a parental bond for so long as we do. If we take nature to mean that parenthood should be recognized, it would also mean that the age of majority is more around 5 or 6 than 18.

Actually, since all animals reach maturity at a different rate, it would tend to suggest sexual intercourse should be allowed around the time we reach childbearing years, so basically around 11 or 12.