[pseingatl]

Getting into an institution with no easy way out discourages entry in the first place. Alimony has no place in a society where men and women are equal; child support is based on the paradigm of a traditional stay at home mom who never worked and who will never work, taking numbers from Kentucky(!?) in the late 50's, early 60's as a base and slowly increasing from there.

Add to this the fact that to get out of the institution of marriage; two lawyers are needed, both paid for--generally--by the working spouse. The minute children are in the mix divorce becomes more of a nightmare.

I forgot to add the involvement of the judicial system with its clogged calendars and burdensome discovery procedures.

It is no surprise at all that people avoid marriage.

[mytailorisrich]

> child support is based on the paradigm of a traditional stay at home mom who never worked and who will never work,

Not at all.

It's based on the belief that children are the responsibility of both parents. If the children live with one parent it is therefore believed that the other parent should still contribute to the costs, which sounds fair and sensible to me.

> Add to this the fact that to get out of the institution of marriage; two lawyers are needed

The same lawyer cannot represent opposed parties for obvious reasons...

[tomjen3]

Child support is not legally required to be used on the child.

[ODWms]

Hence the increasing reluctance for men to get involved in the ridiculousness.

[dmitrygr]

It doesn’t help that in America taxes penalize you significantly for it if both spouses work

[saiya-jin]

Same in Switzerland.. and in same vein (probably as in US too), many parts of the country are inaccessible for living due to costs if there is only 1 spouse working (unless in top 1% of the income bracket, but even then it can be tricky).

It comes back down with more kids, but generally couple should stay single here till they want/are expecting kids. Being childless married couple hurts financially pretty badly for no reason.

[LurkingPenguin]

No doubt the things you mention make marriage less attractive, but I think it's also worth noting that more and more young couples are choosing not to have children. I suspect, based on my own experience and that of friends, that this is a big factor in decisions not to marry. Why get hitched if you're not planning to start a family?

[jhanschoo]

Fertility has been steadily dropping since long ago throughout industrialization; the boom since the 50's are an anomaly. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US_Birth_Rates.svg https://www.gapminder.org/tools/#$model$markers$line$data$fi...

[gsich]

That's a feature of marriage.

"Therefore, examine whoever binds forever".

[crooked-v]

Maybe it's time to try out those term-limited renewable contract marriages that appeared in a lot of classic scifi.

[saiya-jin]

Islam has those since forever - nikah mut'ah. One way to sleep around ie while traveling and not get into troubles with quran.

[gsich]

not all of islam

[echelon]

Perhaps it shouldn't be.

It doesn't fit the modern world at all. It was designed when people tended farms and raised a brood of children. We have new needs and lifestyles now.

[gsich]

Then don't marry. Monogamy is still the dominant lifestyle form. It's also a safety if children are involved.

[echelon]

> Then don't marry.

What about people with partners that are non-citizens? I know a lot of people in that situation, myself included.

Double income households are penalized outside of marriage.

Marriage also shackles you to the other partners' debts. Lots of people have mountains of student debt.

Divorce, even without kids, incurs alimony and division of property. And you have to deal with expensive lawyers and the court. This is stupid if both partners have jobs.

> Monogamy is still the dominant lifestyle form.

I didn't suggest that it wasn't. I said marriage is outmoded, and the article this thread is attached to agrees.

> It's also a safety if children are involved.

We're not having many of these now. Population growth is now driven mostly by immigration.

[gsich]

>What about people with partners that are non-citizens? I know a lot of people in that situation, myself included.

Marry or become a citizen. Or don't, depending on where you live this may not be a problem.

>Double income households are penalized outside of marriage.

Yes, because POV from the state is that you are 2 unmarried people. If you want something that is like marriage but doesn't have the same name (ie civil union), I am all for that.

>We're not having many of these now. Population growth is now driven mostly by immigration.

Which in term leads to population decrease from the other country. So not directly a solution.

[dzhiurgis]

> people with partners that are non-citizens?

In NZ you become de-facto partner after living together for few years. Marriage has become pointless and mostly done as a token party.

So wherever you live the problem is lack of partnership laws...

[aivisol]

> We're not having many of these now. Population growth is now driven mostly by immigration.

Suggested correction: We're not having many of these now in this <country name>

[paxys]

To put it more simply - marriage was created for a man and a woman who were both fulfilling strict social expectation of their gender. Man would hunt for food & protect the tribe, which eventually turned into work a 9-5 job and earn money. Woman would manage the house, cook food, raise kids.

It has increasingly less place in the world as lines between gender roles continue to blur.

[jhanschoo]

I disagree. Throughout most of history, people lived in extended families, and only recently (starting from 1900s) has it become nuclearized for most of the people.