Today I saw a discussion of marriage on Facebook (should gays be allowed? should polygamy be allowed?) and though I have long since resolved never to enter another Facebook argument — the one time I tried to engage with the cataclysmic inanity on display having left me clutching desperately at the ragged remains of my mental health — I figured it would at least make good blog fodder.

Today our imagined interlocutor is an alien, a creature from another world. Xyr name is unpronounceable by humans, so I call xem “Terry”. Terry does not understand our peculiar human customs, and asks you to explain “marriage”. What do you say to xem?

Marriage is a vague fuzzy cultural term that does not mean anything precise. Marriage is a can of worms; it is various unrelated concepts tangled up as if in unity. Treating marriage as a single thing invariably gets people into trouble for a couple of reasons. Firstly, all arguments inevitably spiral into a confused sludge if no one is clear about what they’re arguing, and Secondly, maintaining that marriage is a single thing allows a person to jump around between its different aspects and avoid being pinned down, which is a great tactic so long as you’re only interested in scoring rhetorical points.

To actually have a useful discussion about marriage and get to the bottom of the issue, it’s necessary to deconstruct it into its component parts. So what is marriage?

1. A Confirmation Of A Loving Relationship

Some people treat marriage like the final level of a computer game. You start out in Just-Met, you proceed through the pipe into Casual-Sex, you get an extra life in Loving-Relationship (though the Barrels Of Need-More-Space sometimes knock you back to the start), and then finally you ding Marriage — cue the victory music.

Actually, this should really be split into 1a and 1b:

1a. Confirmation Of A Loving Platonic Relationship

I think the state should stay out of this. It’s none of my business who loves whom, no matter how many of them there are or what their genitals are like. Or what colour their skin is.

If you want to spend thousands of euro on a fancy dress party and a big cake as a celebration of your love, that’s fine. But the state has nothing to do with it.

1b. Confirmation Of A Loving Sexual Relationship

Some qualifications are needed here, because with sex comes the issue of consent. I think the state should prohibit sex with anyone incapable of consenting. We prohibit minors because we consider them incapable of consenting. Sex with a mentally less-able person might also be prohibited. Bestiality too, although there are counterarguments to this. 

Incest would be fine under this point, but the prospect of children raises other issues. Note that brother-brother and sister-sister incest do not raise these issues.

2. A Statement Of Intent–To–Breed

Some people treat marriage as a sort of public announcement of their intent to have children.

Possibly the state should prohibit close relatives from having children because of the dangers of incest. This is partly a scientific question: just how dangerous is incest? Are the impressions we get from the popular media correct? What about cousin incest?

Two sisters cannot have children together, neither can two brothers, and neither can a brother and sister when one is sterile. Therefore the Intent-To-Breed issue cannot apply to them.

3. A Legal Arrangement Providing Certain State-Sanctioned Benefits

Marriage may bring tax benefits. It may also be a way to attain citizenship or a Green Card.

Why do we offer tax benefits with marriage? Seems to me that it might be reasonable to offer some kind of financial relief to parents raising children, but this has nothing to do with marriage: you can marry with no intent to breed and you can breed with no intent to marry. Other than that, I don’t understand why married couples should pay less tax. As far as citizenship goes, that’s presumably necessary for the two people to live together.

Conclusion

When you break marriage down into its component parts, you see two things happen. Firstly, most of the “problems” that people — mainly conservatives — worry about actually solve themselves very easily, and Secondly, you realise that marriage in its current state is really frickin’ weird.

Let’s look at some of the common themes in discussions of marriage and how they cope with the break-down:

Should Gays Be Allowed? Assuming they are able to consent, there’s no issue there. Seems to me they should certainly be allowed.

Should Polygamy Be Allowed? Assuming that none are closely related and all are able to consent, then why not? 

Should Incest Be Allowed? If the incest may result in children and there is a high likelihood of those children having genetic problems then it should be prohibited. If we’re talking about a same-sex couple or a sterile couple then surely it should be allowed.

Should Minors Be Allowed? Confirmation of a loving relationship? Sure. Sexual relationship? No; consent.