Personal tools

Debate: Marriage is outdated

From Debatepedia

(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
Revision as of 09:38, 4 August 2009 (edit)
Lenkahabetinova (Talk | contribs)
(References: - deleted section)
← Previous diff
Revision as of 09:39, 4 August 2009 (edit)
Lenkahabetinova (Talk | contribs)
(internal link)
Next diff →
Line 86: Line 86:
==In legislation, policy, and the real world:== ==In legislation, policy, and the real world:==
-==See also on Debatepedia:==+==See also==
- +*[[Debate: Marriage]]
==External links and resources:== ==External links and resources:==
* [ Establishment of Family Values through the Institution of Marriage] * [ Establishment of Family Values through the Institution of Marriage]

Revision as of 09:39, 4 August 2009

Is marriage an outdated institution?

Background and context

Marriage is arguably losing its appeal claim many social scientists, and indeed many tabloids. With divorce ever on the increase – with statistics showing one out of every three marriages end in divorce, the institution of marriage as a religious and legal bond may be considered outdated in today’s society. Co-habitation is no longer unacceptable, indeed it is commonplace among the youth of today, and illegitimacy no longer carries such a social stigma. But is a stable family environment dependent on a marital bond – or more appropriately, if not dependent is it improved?

Argument #1


The principle of marriage has always been to provide a stable home life for the rearing of children. Psychologically scientific studies have found that co-habitation does not lend itself to as much psychological stability for a child. Regardless of the level of commitment between a couple, society still recognises marriage as an institution where most stability is gained. This is not to discredit single parent families or divorced parents, but to acknowledge the institute of marriage as the ideal outcome of a loving relationship and desire for a family.

A solid family gives status for children who then has no need to turn to gangs, drugs, or other problem causing behaviors, to feel accepted. Within a traditional family the identity of a child is able to develop. Identity is essential for vision, growth, and unity. Without correct identity, nations and communities cannot progress or develop unity because there are so many different identities and no common cause. Marriage is not outdated because we still see unity today and must see it in the future.


It is fallacious to presume that marriage as an institution is what provides a stable home environment for a child. What is most important is the relationship between the two parents and their attitudes and relationships individually and together with the child. This is completely uncorrelated with marriage. What’s more a stable co-habitation situation is far better for a child than an unhappy marriage. The heartache, pain, stress and psychological disturbance of a child when their parents break up is not due to the breakdown of marriage but the breakdown of a relationship.

Argument #2


Marriage statistics themselves show that 1 out of 3 marriages are re-marriages. So whilst the divorce statistics may be at 40%, this does not show a lack of faith in marriage as an institution, merely that divorce is easier and more acceptable, or couples are entering into marriage more freely than before. Just because some marriages may fail does not mean that we should give up on an ideal. We are frequently disillusioned by the criminal justice system when it fails, but this does not mean we do not aspire to the principles it upholds in society. The same can be said for marriage.


It is unreasonable to expect couples to stay together for a lifetime in this day and age. There is more social pressure than ever before to be happy - and this outweighs the necessity to make a marriage work regardless. Fidelity is not determined by a marriage certificate and with an ever increasing life expectancy, and the freedom to pursue one’s goals more liberal, it is naive to believe that there is no possibility of couples either changing or making an original "mistake" in choosing each other. Society has long accepted that life partners need not be for life anymore. If people want to be together, surely they will. If a couple doesn't want to be together, why should their pain be drawn out unnecessarily by the formal bond of matrimony?

Argument #3


Marriage is still important in society as a rational view of what a loving committed relationship actually is: if love is so transient in society it is important to have a foundation to hold couples together to realise that friendship, support, trust and commitment are more important. We cannot encourage couples to live a more relaxed relationship when as parents they are responsible for a child’s welfare.


It is often the restrictions of society’s old-fashioned view of marriage that can cause it’s very problems. Relationship counsellors discovered that boredom, and taking your partner for granted were the most common manifestation of marital disputes, and often the constraints of marriage as opposed to co-habitation may cause either partner to feel trapped, thus compounding their problems.

Argument #4


Legally, marriage represents a more solid and protected base for both parties. In addition to protecting against inheritance disputes, loss of belongings etc. if the couple break up, it also may provide a stopcheck for separated couples who may decide to work harder at the relationship, being bound together by a legal contract as well as an emotional one.

Legally, governments spend millions on social welfare programs. Every societal problem is trying to be fixed by one or more of these social programs that are so very much less effective than the role the traditional family. A deeper look at each social program would show that they are trying to make up where the traditional family has left off. Marriage is not outdated because we see the government funding programs that do not work as well as the family.


The law incorporates enough protection for couples with “common law marriages” and various jurisdictions over inheritance and ownership. Co-habitation is far more practical, and avoids lengthy, painful, and expensive legal proceedings in the event of a relationship breakdown. The only thing that marriage gains is a socially recognised sense of emotional stability, and divorce rates are indicative of the fact that if a relationship is set to fail, the institution of marriage itself will not save it.

Argument #5


Marriage as a religious institution still retains its validity in a country whose main state religion is Christianity. For atheists, marriage need not represent religious bonding, but may still be a socially recognised approval and public avowal of love and commitment.


The primary focus of marriage is religious in nature to many people. In the current declining popularity of religion in Britain, such an institution is simply not representative of the majority beliefs. British society is too diverse now to have a moral consensus that goes beyond small groups.


  • This house would get married for the sake of its children
  • This house believes that love and marriage go together like a horse and carriage
  • This house would marry

In legislation, policy, and the real world:

See also

External links and resources:


Problem with the site? 

Tweet a bug on bugtwits