These are interesting statistics, and you can create several different narratives from them. The biggest trend to keep in mind is that if your objective is to minimize divorce rates, your best course of action is to wait until you are 30 to get married. Some comparisons of divorce rates (all from Figure 5 in the link you provided) include:

1- If you wait until you are after 30 to get married, people with the lowest divorce rates are religious people who do cohabitate before marriage (i.e. among those who marry after age 30, religious people who cohabitate are about 20% less likely to get divorced that religious people who don’t cohabitate).

2- If you wait until after 30 and don’t cohabitate, you have a lower rate of divorce if you are nonreligious.

3- Religious people who get married under 20 and don’t cohabitate have a 5% divorce rate, while nonreligious people who do cohabitate but wait to get married until they are 25-29 only have a 4% divorce rate.

If minimizing the chances of divorce is your goal, you should wait until you approach age 30 to get married, even if that means you have to drop your religion and move in with your partner before tying the knot.

If minimizing the occurence of divorce were the only goal, foregoing marriage altogether would clearly be the optimal approach.

Of course. But if the goal is to get married and for the marriage to be successful, the statistics say wait to get married until you approach 30.

To the extent religion encourages people to marry young, maybe this article really does unironically belong in the “How Religion Poisons Everything” File©.

I got married at 30, and was active LDS. That's ancient by LDS standards, but on par outside the religion.

If the goal is to get married and for the marriage to be successful, the secret is to marry in the temple.
It is not a good idea to wait until you approach 30 because the risk of having children with autism increases. Children of older parents have an increased risk of being overweight. There are many reasons why Heavenly Father doesn't want temple marriages to be delayed .
Regards,
CD

BS:"To the extent religion encourages people to marry young, maybe this article really does unironically belong in the “How Religion Poisons Everything” File©."

That's certainly not how the article's author or the study's authors view it. Can you imagine why they don't?

It is what their data imply, and they seem to be aware of it.

In their words:

"Earlier marriage is a known risk factor for divorce...Yes, very young marriage still has risks (as does very late marriage), but religious upbringings seem to partly compensate for those risks." (emphasis added)

Billy, I think the gist of what they're saying is that even with all of the supposed benefits of cohabitating and waiting until later to get married and whatnot--those with religious backgrounds tend to do just as well--if not better--even without those supposed benefits. And the big takeaway (for me) is--because cohabitating unmarried couples break up at a far higher rate than married couples it follows that those with a religious background -- who tend not to cohabitate as much as the irreligious -- come out way ahead of the game because they aren't going through nearly as many serious (sexually intimate) relationships to find the one they ultimately settle down with. It's a much more healthy way to go for everyone involved.

"These are interesting statistics, and you can create several different narratives from them."

Especially if you ignore a little thing called "error bars".

You'll note that the error bars in Figure 5 are much wider for the non-religious categories than for the religious. If we read the figure keeping that in mind, there are only a few things we can actually say with any degree of certainty:

(Note, I'm assuming that the bars represent 95% confidence intervals rather than standard errors--neither the article nor the research brief specify.)

- For the 20-24 age range, among the non-religious, direct marriages are significantly less likely to divorce than cohabitating ones.
- Among the religious, direct marriages appear to reduce the risk of divorce relative to cohabitating ones for both the younger age groups (Under 20; 20-24).
- The overall risk of religious, cohabitating marriages goes down with age.

And why are the error bars so large for the non-religious categories? Because so few non-religious individuals are getting married in those older age groups in the first place. And because of that, we can't say a dang thing about those specific groups in isolation. This is one reason why actual social scientists don't conduct their analyses by squinting at bar charts.

The non-bar-chart-based conclusions here are pretty telling:

"Overall, if we control for basic socioeconomic background and a woman’s educational career trajectory, the typical marriage of a woman with a religious upbringing is about 10 percent less likely to end in divorce within the first 15 years of marriage than the typical marriage of a woman with a nonreligious upbringing."

"Adding controls for age at marriage yields about the same results, suggesting that even though religious people get married younger, their divorce rates are still a bit lower."

"The effect of cohabitation on marriage is indeed statistically significant, since premarital cohabitation increases divorce probabilities by about 15 percent."

For me, the real story isn't Figure 5, it's Figure 6, which is exactly the type of result that convinced me early on in my relationship-science career that co-habitating is a pretty terrible idea:

https://uploads.disquscdn.c...

Statistics will confess to anything under torture, and I know of no finer torture-master than Billy Shears.

Hi Kyler,

I realize we are now talking about something in your actual area of expertise, so I'll defer to your professional opinion on the matter. Do you agree with the study's authors when they say the following?

"Earlier marriage is a known risk factor for divorce...Yes, very young marriage still has risks (as does very late marriage), but religious upbringings seem to partly compensate for those risks." (emphasis added)

Under 20 gets a bit dicey, for sure. But I think age itself has less to do with it than the reasons why someone would marry that young within a given culture. Outside of LDS culture (and it's important to note that we don't have an LDS subsample here, and those are hard to come by), if you're getting married at 18 or 19 (or even under 25 for the irreligious) the chances that it's because a baby entered the picture prematurely rise considerably. The perception of being stuck or forced into a relationship by external factors doesn't bode well for the future of the relationship, and it changes how problems are framed when they inevitably arise. It's also clear that marriages are helped out by getting time to actually know (in the non-biblical sense) the person you're marrying, and marrying that young can give short-shrift to that process.

So yes, marrying very young is a risk factor, but there's a ton to unpack within the specific factor of age that would make the general prescription of "don't get married young!" a bit more complicated.

Biologically, the twenties are better years for childbearing. Related problems increase with age. https://www.healthline.com/...
Modern economics is out of sync with nature. Declining fertility rates for society show that we can't fool Mother Nature. Waiting too long to have children may lead to frustration and disappointment.

Billy, it is refreshing to see someone defer to another's expertise. Age of first marriage is not in my area of expertise, I am more interested in the difference in age of the couple, but I have read several article and books on the topic. On the age of marriage, Meg Jay writes,

The most recent studies show that marrying later than the teen years does indeed protect against divorce, but this only holds true until about age twenty-five. After twenty-five, one’s age at marriage does not predict divorce. These findings run counter to the notion that it is unquestionably better to postpone marriage as long as you can. Jay, Meg. The Defining Decade: Why Your Twenties Matter--And How to Make the Most of Them Now (p. 63). Grand Central Publishing. Kindle Edition.

In pushing for later marriage, Jay would note at least a couple of difficulties. First, twenty somethings want committed relationships.

As passé or postponed as marriage or partnership may seem, what is even less in vogue is talking about it. Popular magazines portray a twentysomething culture dominated by singles who are almost obsessed with avoiding commitment. But behind closed doors, I hear a different story. I have yet to meet a twentysomething who doesn’t want to get married or at least find a committed relationship. Jay, Meg. The Defining Decade: Why Your Twenties Matter--And How to Make the Most of Them Now (p. 60). Grand Central Publishing. Kindle Edition.

One final quote in the paragraph after the first quote explains a problem caused by cohabitation.

And a series of low-commitment, possibly destructive relationships can create bad habits and erode faith in love. And even though searching may help you find a better partner, the pool of available singles shallows over time, perhaps in more ways than one. Jay, Meg. The Defining Decade: Why Your Twenties Matter--And How to Make the Most of Them Now (p. 64). Grand Central Publishing. Kindle Edition.

"Billy, it is refreshing to see someone defer to another's expertise."

Deferring to me based on the fact of my expertise alone is pretty dumb. The arguments and the data need to stand for themselves, not my credentials or even my years of past research.

You've earned enough respect, though, that most of us here give you the benefit of the doubt.

Delaying marriage is what Satan wants. The increase in maternal age at delivery in the UK over the past two decades could partly account for the increase in incidence of childhood diabetes over this period.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih...

Very interesting topic. Below is a Patheos article showing Atheists have lower divorce rates. Maybe the best thing to do to save your marriage is stop being religious and stop believing in the one or more of the various gods/goddesses.

Gemli, do you feel your marriage would improve with more religiosity?

https://www.patheos.com/blo...

And this:

https://www.learnreligions....

L the A:"Below is a Patheos article showing Atheists have lower divorce rates. Maybe the best thing to do to save your marriage is stop being religious and stop believing in the one or more of the various gods/goddesses."

Probably the most effective way to lower divorce rates is not to marry. And I assume that cohabitation rates may play a role here.

L the A:"Gemli, do you feel your marriage would improve with more religiosity?"

Obviously, since you know gemli's stance here and know him well enough to single him out for a question to which you plainly already know the answer, you're not really a newcomer to this blog. The only questions remaining are (a) which previous sockpuppets are yours and (b) how long you'll be able to last before you, umm, expose yourself.

Perhaps you need to Lance the Boil...

“The only questions remaining are (a) which previous sockpuppets are yours and (b) how long you'll be able to last before you, umm, expose yourself.”

Dan if you don’t want me here just let me know and I’ll be gone.

If disagreements and contrary opinions are not welcome please let me know.

It seems like that’s the stated purpose of Patheos. Regardless let me know if you would like me to leave.

L the A:"If disagreements and contrary opinions are not welcome please let me know."

The previous sockpuppets have all pretended that it was merely a matter of "disagreements" and "contrary opinions." Which, of course, wasn't true.

Dan, just let me know when you feel I’ve worn out my welcome and I’ll leave. I would appreciate you doing that rather than these posts from you complaining about motives and other posters you’ve banned. Thanks

L the A""Dan, just let me know when you feel I’ve worn out my welcome and I’ll leave."

Thanks. I will. I think that I've been too tolerant lately of malicious nonsense, and I'm disinclined to continue that policy.

Do you deny that you are the same person who had those previous accounts, or are you going to sort-of-imply that you're not without denying it outright?

In the time-honoured style that they also followed?

(By some strange coinkydink)

Lance, if you answered my question to you, I seem to have missed your answer; perhaps due to the deafening chorus of crickets.

In the absence of an answer, I suppose we can safely conclude that you are simply the latest in a series of sockpuppets?

Stop believing that God exists? That's akin to ceasing to believe that my parents exist.

It's not a one size fits all. Religion might make stronger marriages for some while it causes issues and stress for others. For us, it was more stress.

BH:"It's not a one size fits all. Religion might make stronger marriages for some while it causes issues and stress for others. For us, it was more stress."

Medicines that are 95% effective are useless for 5%. Some people are allergic to popular, healthy foods.

It happens.

Of course

Thank you for sharing!

Divorce is a sad thing, and unfortunately sometimes necessary. If readers are interest, information about Utah’s divorce rates are found here: https://ibis.health.utah.go...

Divorce statistics by religion are interesting. They are also often presented in a way that is misleading to non-statisticians. For example, in the US, among the divorced, most are Protestant. BUT, one most take into consideration the ratios of Protestants to other religious persuasions (including Atheism) and the ratio of marriage among Protestants compared to other religious persuasions. Thus LtA cites common but ignorant and fallacious interpretations of statistics which leads LtA to make boastful but dumb conclusions (i.e., LtA makes a fool).
The proportion of those survived does not directly equate to the rate. Rather the survey bias must be removed.
See: https://www.pewforum.org/re...
See: https://divorce.lovetoknow....

To put it simply, Protestants tend to marry, Athiest do not.
See: https://www.pewforum.org/re...

Thus a few married Protestants must get a divorce, most married Atheists just walk away.

https://atheismexposed.trip...

Discusses and criticizes the atheist claim.

https://divorce.lovetoknow....

Discusses divorce by religion. The Latter-day Saints do comparatively well.

Complete off topic and probably inappropriate here: Omicron Threatens Red America, New York Times, December 17, 2021.
Curious! Thoughts?

"...let's hope that this is the last time we experience a real old-fashioned Coronavirus Christmas. "

--Derek Lowe

Sam, so far I know of a single death with (not necessarily from) omicron, making me suspect omicron will be non-fatal. If that impression is the case, then (once again) the NYT is untrustworthy and inadequately fact checked.

If I am right I can only hope for a breakthrough infection despite my vaccines, since the Israelis want me to think that natural immunity is far more effective than vaccine-based immunity.

What say you? Will you beat up on me at the family reunion for holding such an obnoxious idea?
Fearfully,
Cousin Lynn

"What say you?" For epidemiology, of a truth, I really do not know. We are flying blind here - at least until real data manages to settle down with some level of preponderance to one side or the other. I'm in the process of running four model scenarios: No effect, optimistic effect, pessimistic effect, and total disaster effect. None of the models will be right, but may give some idea of where right might be. Probably somewhere close to optimistic effect.

I am amused/intrigued by their thoughts regarding shifting voting demographics.

At the next Johnson Reunion, I intend to focus on family history and only family history. So join me there for lunch.

Netherlands shutting down seems to have spooked a bunch of folks, but I find it encouraging that Netherlands' ICU numbers are already starting to trend downward, and too soon for it to have actually been due to the lockdown.

https://coronadashboard.gov...

See the "Show Everything" button in the "ICU bed occupancy over time" section for the clearest visual.

Lynn, I have had some of the same thoughts that you have had about the advantages of a mild breakthrough case of COVID-Omicron. If it is less severe than Delta, it might also create some immunity among the unvaccinated. This would be a godsend.

My main point is to defend David Leonhardt, at least a bit. He suggests Omicron is more infectious, and thus the headline, "OmicronThreatens Red American," but he does not suggest that it is more deadly. He also notes that natural antibodies can help the unvaccinated

There is still a chance that Omicron will be less bad than scientists fear. Some early evidence suggests it is less severe than earlier versions of the virus. And a substantial number of unvaccinated Americans have also had Covid before, giving them some level of immunity.

If Omicron does kill, even at a lower rate than 19 or Delta, it is likely to hit high density Republican counties harder than Democratic counties as recent data suggest that Delta has.

In the meantime, deaths from COVID remain around 1,200 per day, which is the numbers of deaths of an average flu season every month.

The authority for lockdowns are derived from the tenth amendment. (I have responded to this claim soooooo many times ....)

I do agree that some states abused their tenth amendment powers.
https://www.wsj.com/article...

I very much disagree that "all lockdowns are a violation of the first amendment." At least at the state-by-state level.
https://www.mtsu.edu/first-...
https://www.cato.org/commen...
https://infotagion.com/fact...

I do agree that a federal universal lockdown order could violate the tenth amendment. However, even the federal government has some authority for case-by-case, situation-by-situation lockdowns (i.e., cruise ships, and international airports).
https://www.cdc.gov/quarant...
https://www.theatlantic.com...
https://www.politico.com/ne...

That being argued, in Utah, the law that directs how and when and from what part of government a lockdown order can come was recently changed. I suspect more adjustments will be coming in this next legislative session.

Continuing Disclaimer: (1) I am at best a pretense of an epidemiologist - not a bona fide constitutional lawyer. Dr P has some lawyer readers who may have better ideas than I do. (2) I am expressing these thoughts as a private citizen, who may (or may not) know anything about the topic. Hopefully, my life's experience have correctly informed my position. I do not represent any government agency or government official.

Gratefully, "think tanks" known as the US Congress and the US Supreme Court currently disagrees with your legal assessment.

https://www.cdc.gov/quarant...

https://www.americanbar.org...

https://www.latimes.com/opi...

Clearly though, even those "think tanks" are subject to the evolving wants and wills of the people. Challenges may change the law delegating authority in the future.

https://www.nejm.org/doi/fu...

https://www.americanprogres...

https://ballotpedia.org/Law...

And that is the way it should be.

But for today, lockdowns are recognized to be constitutionally legal. Sorry!

On: The same organizations that thought something for 50 years.

As I said, the evolving will and wants of the people result in changes in the law. Marijuana was legal 50 years ago. 10 years ago not. Today partially. It is not a very impressive argument to argue that change has changed.

On: Sorry != glib.

I am truly sorry that we as a people, because of our lack of self-will and consideration of others, must rely on the government to enforce good public health practice on us. It would be much better if we could learn to listen to the expert's guidance and were willing to act appropriately on those recommendations. But as a people we are not there.

On Rules: I have set no rules (I lack that authority). I have not violated any rules (I don't have any of my own, and not of any others). I still wear a mask in public even though there is no longer a PHO to do so.

On Deaths: Today we reported 21 new COVID caused deaths in Utah. Seven of those were younger than I am. I morned for all 21.

On Visitation: I know some health care organizations of their own accord based on their own policy have restricted visitors. At least in Utah, that was not the doings of the government.

tLD: "legal != moral." Absolutely.

Sam's dilemma: tLD started with this rebuttal "All lockdowns are a violation of the first amendment."

While Sam fundamentally disagrees with that rebuttal and has demonstrated it is false on a legal basis, it appears tLD is suggesting it should have been considered on a moral basis, so Sam asks himself "Is the US Constitution (including the 1st and 10th amendments) a document of law or a document of morals?"

Sam sees it as just the foundation to US law - but obviously not the complete law. If the law were complete, there would be no need for a Congress. In other-words, Sam sees the first amendment as a legal right (which can be restricted by other legal authority) but not a moral right.

See: https://bordaslaw.com/blog/...

(Incidentally, I know I am misusing the term "Moral Right:" https://cyber.harvard.edu/p... )

But other do see the constitution as a moral code (a better term): https://en.wikipedia.org/wi...

If it is truly a moral code, it is certainly a poor one. The US constitution has been interpreted to allow/justify/require a lot of immoral actions (thinking of perhaps the Edmund-Tucker Act, or slavery, or abortion, or the draft, or ...) in the past. And will likely be so interpreted in the future.

Sam admits confused defeat.

tLD: "There is no we here." Sam is sorry that tLD does not consider himself part of society and wishes him well in what ever non-society group he claims.

The lockdown violates due process. Well, that brings in a new amendment (the 14th).

There are certainly legal scholars and courts that are arguing that the lockdown did indeed violate due process: https://www.persaudlawoffic...

And in some cases, they are likely correct: https://cumberlandtrialjour...

There are also those that disagree: https://www.abajournal.com/... or https://www.justsecurity.or... or https://www.law.com/2020/12...

Ultimately, whether a public health order is or is not a violation of the 14th amendment is a question for the courts, and not for me (I am not qualified).

On speaking for you. Understood. You are correct. I am mistaken. I am sorry.

I agree with one point that you made, but disagree with both the substance and tenor of your argument. Sam is not expressing unreasonable ideas and does not deserve a dismissive response. What he suggests, that there are limits to individual freedoms, even those enumerated in the constitution.

The preamble of the constitution states its objectives: form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty. Each objective prior to secure the blessings of liberty force tradeoffs between community and more individual freedom.

As an example, the right of assembly does not allow a group to gather on private property without the owner's permission. Often, exercising the right requires a permit.

When the citizenry acts in a prosocial manner, it increases individual freedom.