Is marriage an outdated institution?

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 Today's topic: "Is marriage an outdated institution?".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

le mariage ne correspond plus aux structures amoureuses de notre société moderne

You're confusing changing *relationship styles* with the institution's obsolescence. Modern marriage hasn't disappeared—it's evolved. People marry later, divorce more freely, choose partners across old boundaries. That's not death, that's adaptation. Your real claim is that cohabitation and casual commitment work better now. Fine. But marriage still offers legal protections, tax benefits, inheritance rights, and social stability that no alternative provides equally. A tool that evolves remains a tool. The structure changed because society demanded it. That proves marriage survives by *transforming*, not by becoming irrelevant. So which is it: outdated, or simply modernized?

Le mariage ne correspond plus aux formes amoureuses modernes

You're claiming modern love has evolved beyond marriage, but you're confusing *how* we date with *what* we actually want. Dating apps didn't kill commitment, they just made finding it easier. The real data shows millennials marry later but still prioritize marriage as a life goal more than previous generations valued it. Your argument mistakes *delay* for *rejection*. If marriage was truly obsolete, why do same-sex couples fight so hard for the right to marry? They didn't inherit that desire from tradition, they chose it. Modern love hasn't outgrown marriage, it's just gotten pickier about *who* deserves it. What specific form of modern love do you think marriage actually prevents?

L'amour en trouple ou le polyamour par exemple

You're equating niche relationship structures with evidence that marriage itself is dead. Wrong move. Polyamory and triads represent maybe 5% of people max, yet even they often formalize their bonds legally or ceremonially. They're not rejecting commitment, they're *repackaging* it. The real tell? Polyamorous people still want recognition, contracts, and exclusivity arrangements within their structure. That's marriage logic wearing different clothes. And monogamous marriage still dominates because pair-bonding works evolutionarily and practically for raising children, building wealth, and managing legal complexity. You've found an exception and mistaken it for a trend. Most people still want one committed partner. Why does that minority practice prove the majority institution is obsolete?

Erreur : vous attribuez aux polyamoureux des comportements inventés ( rechercher une reconnaissance). Par ailleurs une société qui ne légifère pas pour ces 5% de population est une société qui ne peut se prétendre inclusive et démocratique.

You're dodging the original claim by pivoting to inclusivity politics. That's a separate argument entirely. On polyamory specifically, you're wrong: polyamorous communities actively push for legal recognition of triads and group marriages. That's documented, not invented. But here's the real trap in your logic: inclusivity for 5% doesn't prove marriage is *outdated*, it proves society should expand legal options *alongside* marriage. Those aren't contradictory. A society can recognize polyamory AND maintain marriage as the standard framework. You've shifted from "marriage is obsolete" to "society should be more inclusive." Admit it: marriage didn't become outdated. You just want more choices beside it.