what motive does anyone have to be a provider?
And that's the problem with modern marriage: consumerism. Everything must be quantifiable now. It's no longer enough for marriage to provide things like a reliable support system, benefits from an expanded family network, a stable environment in which you can procreate, reliable access to human needs like affection, or any of those intangibles. You can't pick those things up and take them with you, you can't sell it, you can't put it in your pocket; therefore, it has little value to modern humans.
a reliable support system .. a stable environment in which you can procreate, reliable access to human needs like affection, or any of those intangibles
Those are not a part of modern marriage. 'Reliability' and 'stability' have been removed. Even the extended network is generally less than in past. You don't have to try and convince me of the benefits of marriage, I agree, the problem is that it has changed, and become a one-sided deal.
And that's the problem with modern marriage: consumerism.
While I do see that as an issue today, I don't really see how it has had a direct impact on marriage.
That ship has already sailed. I don't disagree that the institution of marriage was an important one, that had a purpose.
But it is already gone, past-tense.
When the contract heavily favours one side, and can be broken at will, what motive does anyone have to be a provider?
I am not making any claims on what should be. But that is what I think is happening. A risk-benefit analysis shows marriage to be a losing plan. I think the main reason it still continues as mainstream is a combination of tradition and momentum. But it's losing speed quickly, and will mostly disappear if it doesn't become a more even proposition.
I wish you the best of luck on that. But I am not optimistic you will succeed, so I'm going to save my energy for battles that I think might be possible to win.
But I will vote for you.