I also did not see the analogy.
Let's illustrate the illustrative analogy by the help of an illustrative analogous table:
Thesis. In the general discussion of currency (A) at issue is the problem of inflation (B). The fact is that Bitcoin allows creation of new currency (C) through market-controlled mechanisms (D) but not through fiat, or if you prefer political, mechanisms (F).
Analogy. In the general discussion of human life (A') at issue is the problem of procreation (B'). The fact is that marriage allows the creation of new people (C') through intra-marriage mechanisms (D') but not through public, or if you prefer orgiastic, anonymous, polyamorous, loser-gets-some-action-too mechanisms (F').
Therefore bitcoins are the analogue of married women, Bitcoin (as a protocol) the analogue of marriage, politics the analogue of irresponsible, venereal-disease ridden, slovenly, high-risk sexual behaviors. Finally Bitcoin finance is the analogue of wholesome family relations.
A pregnant analogy, perhaps. And a pretty clever one at that.
I think the analogy is not horrible, it was just worded poorly. It seems to be saying "a woman" when it should be saying "women", because clearly there are specific married women who are sterile, which confuses the reader, when instead it should be referring to married women generally. I might be just nitpicking from a native English speaker perspective.
An analogy is like a joke, if you must explain it then it failed. Now, whether that is the teller or the hearer's fault might depend on the circumstances.