Disclaimer: This post is intended to provoke thought and encourage deeper reflection. By exploring non-traditional views of marriage, my goal is to uncover what is unique and valuable about traditional marriage. I don’t claim to have all the answers; instead, I ask questions to help us all better understand one of the most foundational human institutions.

Redefining Marriage: Exploring Alternatives

If society is intent on abandoning the notion of traditional marriage, why stop at only two people per marriage? What is the state’s role in marriage today, and does it even matter anymore? With contraception and the fact that many couples are opting out of having children, one might ask: Is marriage still necessary?

These questions aren’t new, but they demand more attention than they’ve been given in recent years. When debates on California’s Proposition 8 and the Defense of Marriage Act were raging, I engaged in plenty of online discussions. The battleground then was about defining marriage, often without any clear consensus on why the state even concerns itself with marriage in the first place. Yet, it’s essential to ask: Why is the government, especially in a supposedly secular society, involved in defining marriage at all?

In ancient times, the answer to this question was clearer. Kings and rulers saw marriage as a means of ensuring population growth, which in turn allowed for the defense of the realm. Children meant future soldiers, and marriage was the institution through which the state could indirectly regulate reproduction and child-rearing. The idea was straightforward: two parents, one male and one female, raising children in a stable environment. The state’s vested interest was in ensuring societal stability through familial structures.

But times have changed. Today, the necessity of marriage as a means of producing and raising children is no longer as pressing. Contraception, same-sex relationships, and shifting cultural norms have led many to question the institution itself. So, what’s the state’s current interest in marriage? And perhaps more provocatively, if we’ve already redefined marriage in some ways—allowing same-sex unions, for instance—why stop at just two people?

The Historical Purpose of Marriage: Is It Still Relevant?

Historically, marriage served two main functions: reproduction and child-rearing. But modern technology and societal changes have greatly diminished the necessity of marriage for either of these purposes. Contraceptives allow couples to choose whether or not to have children, and many modern marriages exist without any intention of procreation. So, what does that say about the nature of marriage today? Are these couples somehow “less” married?

The argument from a Christian perspective has often been that marriage is between one man and one woman for life, primarily for the purpose of procreation. The Catholic Church’s view, for instance, discourages contraception and holds that sex’s primary function is reproduction. Yet, this strict view raises uncomfortable questions: What about couples who can’t or don’t want to have children? Are their marriages somehow invalid or less meaningful?

The issue runs deeper than just individual beliefs. If we define marriage solely in terms of reproduction, we risk reducing it to a biological function. But we know that marriage is more than that. It’s a social contract, a legal arrangement, and—crucially—a commitment. As Jordan Peterson has pointed out, marriage provides a structure for mutual support. It’s a commitment that carries you through the inevitable ups and downs of life, creating a framework where people can thrive.

So, even if marriage isn’t strictly necessary for reproduction anymore, it still serves an important role in providing stability, both for individuals and for society. But if that’s the case, why limit marriage to just two people?

Why Two?

When the issue of same-sex marriage was debated, one question I often raised was: Why stop at two people? If marriage is about mutual consent and support, why shouldn’t we allow for polyamorous relationships, where multiple partners are involved? Some cultures, both ancient and modern, have embraced polygamy (one man with multiple wives) or polyandry (one woman with multiple husbands). And yet, these forms of marriage are still largely excluded from the legal definition of marriage in most societies.

Consider the argument for “marriage equality.” If the aim is to give people the freedom to marry whomever they love, then shouldn’t polyamorous relationships also be included? Why is two the magic number? After all, some people live in multi-partner relationships, and if all parties are consenting adults, what harm does it cause to society?

Let’s be clear: I’m not advocating for non-consensual or coercive arrangements. Any form of marriage—whether it involves two people or more—should be based on mutual consent and respect. But if that’s the standard, then it’s hard to see why polyamorous marriages should be excluded. So why does society insist on defining marriage as between two people?

The Role of the State: What’s the Vested Interest?

Here’s the crux of the issue: What is the state’s vested interest in marriage? If marriage is no longer primarily about reproduction, and if we’ve redefined it to include same-sex couples, then why should the state regulate it at all?

One provocative solution is for the state to remove itself entirely from the business of defining marriage. Instead of marriage being a legal contract between two people, we could have something more akin to a “family corporation.” This would allow people to enter into legally recognized relationships with as many or as few partners as they choose, with the legal benefits of marriage—such as inheritance rights and tax advantages—being handled through this corporate entity.

Imagine a scenario where a group of five people—say, three men and two women—decides to form a family corporation. They share assets, raise children, and support each other in the same way a traditional family might. The corporation handles the legal and financial aspects, while the individuals are free to define their relationships however they choose. This structure would allow for maximum flexibility in marriage, without the state imposing a specific definition of what marriage should be.

Of course, this raises new questions: How would taxes work in such a system? Would all partners be considered equal shareholders in the family corporation? These are complex issues, but they aren’t insurmountable. Just as businesses have found ways to handle multi-owner corporations, society could develop legal frameworks for multi-partner marriages.

Redefining Marriage: A Slippery Slope?

During the same-sex marriage debates, critics often argued that allowing same-sex marriage would open the door to all sorts of other relationships being recognized—polygamy, polyandry, and even people marrying their pets or inanimate objects. This was often dismissed as a “slippery slope” fallacy, but it’s worth considering: If we’ve already redefined marriage once, what’s stopping us from doing it again?

To be clear, I’m not advocating for absurd cases like marrying your dog or a toaster oven. But if the goal of marriage is to allow for stable, committed relationships between consenting adults, then there’s no logical reason to exclude polyamorous relationships. If anything, polyamorous marriages could provide even more support and stability than traditional two-person marriages.

At the end of the day, the state’s interest in marriage should be about supporting stable relationships that benefit society. Whether that involves two people or ten, the key is that the relationships are consensual, supportive, and stable.

Conclusion: Rethinking Marriage for a New Era

So, what does this all mean? If society is moving away from traditional definitions of marriage, perhaps it’s time to rethink the state’s role in regulating it. A more flexible system—such as family corporations—could provide the legal benefits of marriage while allowing people to define their relationships in whatever way they choose.

Of course, traditional marriages—one man and one woman, for life—should still be an option for those who choose it. Religious institutions could continue to offer their own definitions of marriage, and individuals could seek out marriages that align with their beliefs. But for those who want something different, a more flexible legal framework could provide the answer.

Ultimately, if we’re serious about marriage equality, we need to move beyond the narrow definition of marriage as between two people. Society is changing, and our laws should reflect that. The question is: Are we ready for the implications of true marriage equality?

Things to think about:

• What would a society with family corporations look like?
• Should the state have any role in defining marriage, or should it be left entirely to individuals and their chosen communities?
• What are the potential benefits and challenges of redefining marriage in this way?
• Do the benefits of traditional marriage outweigh the potential negative impacts on society of drifting away from traditional marriages?

References

• The Moral Animal, Why We Are the Way We Are, the New Science of the Evolutionary Psychology, By Robert Wright, Chapter 4 The Marriage Market
• The Toxic War on Masculinity, By Nancy Pearcey, Chapters 3 The Paradox of Christian Marriage & 14 A Cure for Marital Cancer
• Marriage Love and Life in the Divine Plan (pdf)
• Same-Sex Marriage Around the World (Pew Research)
• 7 Different Kinds of Non-Monogamy by Elisabeth A. Sheff Ph.D., Psychology Today
• The Polygamy Amendments by Imaan Mirza
• What Is A Polycule? Understanding Polyamory Relationship Structures
• Learn about Polyamory: What is a Polycule?
• Bigamy vs. Polygamy
• Polygamy is rare around the world and mostly confined to a few regions
• What Is Serial Monogamy (Better Help)
• When Taking Multiple Husbands Makes Sense, Historically, polyandry was much more common than we thought. By Alice Dreger, The Atlantic
• The Fascinating World of Polyandry: Exploring Cultures that Allow Multiple Husbands (Trabalstoday)

Excerpt

This post challenges conventional ideas about marriage by questioning the state’s role and exploring non-traditional arrangements like polyamory and group marriages. It asks: Why limit marriage to two people? Through a provocative lens, the discussion seeks to uncover what remains uniquely valuable about traditional marriage.