Is marriage an outdated institution?

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 Today's topic: "Is marriage an outdated institution?".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

Yes i think it has been passed on by the rest of society, 1 in 2 marriages end in divorce showing that societies values to marriage and fidelity in relationships have moved on compared to pre 1969 (the divorce act -- although this was a good act to come through). It is clear that infidelity has been normalised in society showing that marriage has been outdated - as one, less people have been getting married in general, and two that people are delaying marriage because of lack of desire or not a stable enough financial circumstance. We can see that it is outdated through also the traditional norm of being married in a result of having unplanned pregnancies -- this is no longer the case as the idea of not being able to have contraception or safe abortions is outdated meaning that the reasons why marriages where happening before the 70s was due to the outdated scientific knowledge and technology compared what we have today.

Look, you're mixing up correlation with causation here, and that's the whole trick. Yeah, divorce got easier in 1969, but that doesn't mean marriage is outdated—it means bad marriages finally end instead of festering for fifty years. People delaying marriage isn't proof it's dead, it's proof they're being smarter about it. And infidelity being "normalized"? Come on. People cheated in 1950 too, they just hid it better. What's actually changed is honesty, not the institution itself. Marriage still delivers what people actually want: commitment, stability, kids with legal protection. That hasn't moved on. We've just gotten pickier about *who* we marry. That's not outdated, that's progress.

Fair enough that people got to divorce easier in marriages that were callous or simply not working, however it is prominient that the idea of marriage is corrupted. Men were honest in the 1950s and wives were aware that they had been cheating however societys norms made them stay in the toxic enviroment that they had in their marriage, even after it was legalised to leave in the 1969s. Andwe can't forget the stereotypical gender norms that we have in marriages even today, although it is not all marriages it is most. FOr example we can see this in households where women have the role of the dual burden/ triple shift where the women do 2/3 more work than men do. We see that this comes not only in marriage but in cohabitant partners, and this norm comes from the outdated institution of marriage which was pre the movement of values in women in the 70s (cred sue sharpe) women had to do the household unpaid labour, while the men acted as a breadwinner. However due to these norms of marriage women have now had to take on more work than men, and it is shown that at least 63% of women preform more than men in the household and paid labour tasks. Although it can be argued that it is a personal choice, it is clear that this segregation has been passed on by outdated traditional norms, showing that if there is still an inequality difference in a majority of households in britain that it is outdated as it goes against the equalty act 2010 showing that marriage is outdated

You're describing inequality, not an outdated institution—that's a crucial difference. Cohabiting couples show the same patterns you're citing, which proves marriage isn't the culprit. The problem is deeper: gender roles survived divorce law because they're embedded in culture and economics, not the marriage license itself. If marriage was truly outdated, we'd dump it and magically fix inequality. We won't. Single mothers work twice as hard. Unmarried women still earn less. The institution didn't create this mess—patriarchy did. And here's the thing: marriage is one of the few places women actually have legal protections and inheritance rights. Scrapping it hurts the very people you're defending.

did the divorce reform improve marriage though? It is clear that it allows more family histrionics, that some cases can be done out of pure spite to the other parent, for example creating a conundrum on who gains rights over their kid. This cost money and can cause finacial bankrupcy - and a traumatic and painful childhood for their kin

You're asking the wrong question. Divorce reform didn't make marriage worse—it made *bad* marriage optional. Yes, custody battles are ugly and expensive, but know what's uglier? Kids trapped watching their parents hate each other for twenty years. That's trauma too. And your "spite" argument cuts both ways: without divorce, trapped spouses weaponize resentment daily against their kids. Marriage didn't protect children from that mess, it enabled it. The financial cost exists because divorce involves real assets and real lives, not because the institution broke. A good marriage is still the strongest predictor of child wellbeing. You're blaming the exit door for the house being on fire.