Is marriage an outdated institution?

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 Today's topic: "Is marriage an outdated institution?".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

No, not yet. Marriage is the only institution that provides the best outcomes compared with any other. Monogamy solves the issues that arise from hypergamy, harems, and degeneracy. Marriage principles provide the proven better conditions for the raising of children. Lastly, the likelihood of reproduction and the creation of stable family units offer the backbone for any successful civilization.

You're confusing correlation with causation. Marriage didn't create stable societies, stable societies created marriage. Look at the data: kids raised by unmarried but committed partners show identical outcomes to married ones. What actually matters is economic security and parental involvement, not a legal contract. You're arguing the institution itself is magic when it's really just a framework. So here's my question: if marriage principles are what work, why do 50% of marriages fail while many unmarried families thrive?

I didn't claim marriage created stable societies, even though it obviously contributed to them; I said they "offer the backbone for any successful civilization". "Stable societies" didn't create marriage; Christianity did. I've looked at the data in Western countries and in Catholic countries; without a doubt, kids from married heterosexual couples, on average, outperform every other kid in not becoming criminals, in becoming productive members of society, in lack of substance use, in health, etc. In fact, I've also noticed from the data that kids from married heterosexual couples but where the parents fight, with DV incidents, they still have better outcomes than kids from single mother hoseholds. Incorrect again; what actually matters is religion. These couples have the longest marriages, the most kids, and the fewest instances of DV and divorce. The most successful couples, on these metrics, are heterosexual, religious, and both married virgins. I'm not arguing for a contract. Marriage isn't a "framework"; it's a Christian concept and tradition that was hijacked for many reasons. Regardless, it's a religious institution. It's the only way it makes sense. It's beyond a shadow of a doubt that marriage works. There are many reasons why "50% of marriages fail". Lack of religion, a crazy housing market, interest rates, inflation, etc. But the main reason is due to feminism. Lastly, unmarried families don't thrive, they manage. In fact, the vast majority of atheists aren't even having 2.1 kids. Not reproducing and being divorced is the opposite of thriving.

You're cherry-picking data while ignoring the elephant in the room: religious communities also have higher rates of domestic abuse that go *unreported*. You claim DV families still beat single mothers, but that's only true if abuse stays hidden. And your "feminism caused divorce" argument is backwards, men left too when women gained options to leave abusive situations. Here's the real question: if religion is what matters, why do secular countries like Denmark and Sweden have lower childhood poverty, better health outcomes, and stronger social stability than deeply religious nations?

"Religious communities having higher DV" isn't true. But how do you know if the cases are unreported? "That's only true if abuse stays." Incidents of DV are the opposite of hidden. These "abusive" households still produce kids with better outcomes than single mothers. "Men left too when women gained options to leave abusive situations". Women initiate +70% of divorces, and few are due to abuse; the main reasons women give are "irreconcilable differences and financial reasons". The majority of DV is initiated by women, and the vast majority of unreciprocated DV is from women hitting men. Also, the couples with the highest incidents of DV are in lesbians, then heterosexual and the lowest DV comes from gay men couples. Meaning, all those assumptions you made are the exact opposite of the truth. "Secular countries like Denmark and Sweden". The countries that have the highest suicide rates, higher substance use in all ages, higher consumption of antidepressants, higher reported increase in unhappiness, higher divorces, collapsing birth rates, etc. But higher GDP is better how? And how is not reproducing and importing millions providing social stability? If you reply again with so many lies and fabricated assumptions, I'll just stop here.

You're conflating causation again. Sweden's issues stem from immigration policy and rapid social change, not secularism itself—Japan is atheist, stable, and suicide rates there dropped 20% this decade. Your "women initiate 70% of divorces" stat proves my point: they leave when they have economic independence, meaning marriage only "works" when women have no exit. That's not marriage succeeding, that's coercion working. So if your model requires women trapped with no options, isn't that the real argument you're making?

Western countries, and specifically way more pronounced in more atheist nations, have birth rates below the the 2.1 replacement rate. If South Korea continues with its 0.7 birth rate, it's reasonable to assume it will cease to exist in just 3 generations. There won't be any more South Korea. And the same argument applies to every atheistic, secular nation. I don't even need to bring examples of substance uses or whatever; there's nothing worse than ceasing to exist, and that is what secular/atheist/liberal ideologies bring. "Marriage only "works" when women have no exit". Marriage works because it provides the best outcomes for all the members of the family. Your so-called "women's independence" has only brought an exponential increase in women's substance abuse, antidepressant consumption, and unhappiness. The "female happiness paradox" is well established. If women having "options", which only means everything except creating a family, is such a good idea, then why did it such worse outcomes for everyone? And why is your framing of marriage for women is always negative, "trapped," "coercion," etc. with misandrist undertones?

South Korea's collapse isn't atheism, it's astronomical housing costs and brutal work culture—religious countries like Italy and Spain have identical birth rates. You're conflating unrelated crises. But here's your real problem: you're blaming women's freedom for outcomes caused by economic policy. If marriage truly worked, it'd survive women having choices. Instead, you need coercion to keep it alive. That's not an institution's strength, that's its weakness. If your system only functions when half the population can't leave, why should anyone believe it's actually good?