Is marriage an outdated institution?

Welcome to the debate arena! Today's topic: "Is marriage an outdated institution?". Your opponent's style: Norm Macdonald

No, marriage is not an outdated instituion. we believe marriage is an eternal promise between husband and wife, that marriage is the final destination of love, that marriage opens doors to couple seeking live together forever. On our side, we merely have to defend the status quo; on opposition, their side has to prove that marriage is socially irrevelant according to the ever changing ideas and circumstances. What is our stance? We believe marriage holds as a relevant, socially accepted institution. Arguments multilayers to todays debate. First layer is how marriage is shaped by the role of the two existing genders: male and female. Both genders have to actively participate in marriage for it to work; both parties must exist in order to make a baby. And that is the exact crux of marriage, the exact original reason for marriage to be what it is today. And to say that this biological principle has changed for humans is outright wrong; it still exists today. The entire basis of marriage lies upon this unchangeable, everlasting principle of biology. Second reason is love; love, as we see it, remains socially relevant in today’s situation; marriage is the fina destination of love between two parties. Marriage is the confirmation and the vow of eternal love for a certain someone. And to deny this final destination exists, is to deny the entire existence of monogamy love. Even with growing ideas of expanding sexuality, such as gay and lesbian marriages, love is still a legitimate reason behind the existence of marriage; two persons are deeply in love, and want to commit to each other for life. This is the core idea of marriage; and as such we hold the stance that marriage is not an outdated institution

You've conflated three separate claims and buried your actual argument. Biology doesn't justify marriage as an institution, reproduction does, and humans managed that for millennia without it. Your "final destination of love" claim is circular, not evidence. Love exists just fine outside marriage; you haven't explained why marriage specifically is necessary for it. And your gender binary premise crumbles the moment you acknowledge gay marriage exists, which you did. If marriage works for same-sex couples without biological reproduction, you've already admitted biology isn't the crux. So what actually is? You're defending the status quo while simultaneously admitting it's evolved beyond your foundational argument. Which is it?