by Sam Carana

I support the idea of abolishing the traditional marriage and replacing it by a combination of insurance and contractual arrangements. This will go a long way towards catering for all eventualities, but there will still be some cases where support for the children is lacking. Often,
it is hard for families to adopt children, especially for couples who don't have any children. Therefore, it makes sense to both abolish marriage and adoption law, replacing both by this combination of insurance and contractual arrangements.

Another issue is vicarious care and responsibility. The family carries the first responsibility for children. The family may entrust someone else with the care for their children, but the family should ensure that this trust is backed up by insurance, so that they can be held responsible in case failure in their duty results in unwanted pregnancy.

Note also that the average number of children has fallen dramatically in most developed countries, despite the many efforts by government to support children. One could therefore conclude that these efforts are misdirected, which calls up the question whether, instead of
governments encouraging the poor to have more children by giving them financial incentives, efforts should be directed to entice richer people to have children. Alternatively, should governments encourage any family to have (more) children? From some environmental
perspectives, the world is overpopulated anyway, so why force rich people to pay taxes that go to poor families that have many children?

Marriage is an institution of patronage, going hand in hand with a culture of sexual suppression. That suppression often results in negligence to properly educate children about
sexuality, which is the major cause of unwanted pregnancy. In many developed countries, due to better sex education and the availablity of abortion and anti-conception, the number of children is actually falling. Archaic marriage laws are out of step with a modern society and constitute discrimination in many ways, against single parents, against parents living together without being married, against gay families, against children who get stigmas like bastard child, etc. Such discrimination is often institutionalized in tax and inheritance laws, in social
welfare, education, superannuation, housing, banking and insurance policies.

It makes more sense to abolish marriage laws altogether and instead leave it up to people to make private arrangements about something that is so intimately private. At the same time, children should receive adequate education about sexuality, rather than be kept in the false
belief that only married couples have sex. It's that kind of deception that is the problem.