Lawmakers Consider Preventing ALL Marriage In Oklahoma

[Major Nikon]

60. You are describing the need for a contract

You are not describing the need for a license. In no instance, marriage or otherwise, does a license replace the need for a contract. That need either exists or it doesn't regardless of whether a license is or is not required. Marriage is and always has been a contract. Marriage has not always been, and not always is a license.

The fact is that the state has the authority to dictate which consenting adults can and can't and this happens in every state in the union, often for other reasons than the ones listed by your state and in fact this is true for the majority of states.

Since you want to take the most extreme example, please explain why you think a brother and sister should be told by the state they can't get married. You want to look at it from the perspective of why the state should allow it. I look at it from the perspective of why the state should prohibit it. I can think of no good reason why the state should prohibit it. It certainly isn't going to stop them from having sex or children, at least in the last 50-100 years or so, if not before. That's the difference between authoritarianism and anarchism. If you don't understand that, then you don't understand Chomsky. So please do educate me on the subject, but if you want to continue with your line that I'm advocating something you or anyone else considers taboo, or dirty, or wrong, then please don't bother because such disingenuous gibberish doesn't work on me. i just see it as a tactic by those who have run out of logical arguments or never had them to begin with.

http://www.alternet.org/civil-liberties/noam-chomsky-kind-anarchism-i-believe-and-whats-wrong-libertarians