>

Statistics say people that got married before 24 and are still happily married 10+ years later are the minority. That is the entirety of my point.
I think we should instead be teaching what to look for in a healthy long term relationship, doesnt matter the age. I got married at 22. Am happily married 5 years later and we are expecting our first. I was very selective with who I dated before my now husband and was very selective with him as well. I turned down many other guys who it would have been fun to date, but did not meet what I wanted in someone long term. Let's teach our kids the difference between someone you would want to date short term/just for fun and who to date long term. >

This is great. >

I married young and we’ve made it work. One plus is that I don’t get compared to an ex in any way. Just because you marry young doesn’t mean the house and kids come right away, or even at all. It’s great having someone who’s your dependable support that you can consistently confide in. Being single for me meant less freedom because I was too broke to afford to move out on my own and have my own vehicle. Together we could do that. We could’ve just moved in together, but neither of us believed that was the right thing for us religiously and we both had zero doubts about getting married. I don’t think getting married young is detrimental. I think it’s a combination of a lot of things all at once. College, marriage, kids, mortgage, car loans, and career goals all come with a stress load. Balancing the load is key. >

True. I think my point was more people don't fully know who they are at younger ages, so trying to build a life with someone while still growing and learning about yourself and the world is a big reason why relationships fall apart in the long run. It also depends on the values with which you were raised. >

I deleted that because I felt I got off topic a bit. I think making such a big commitment early on meant there wasn’t any backing out and forced us to make things better. I also think when you think you have the right person, you should go for it. There’s no guarantees someone better will ever come along. >

True, things are definitely worth the risk, but you are more likely to fail at younger ages was my point. >

I disagree. All of the failed relationships teach you things that you eventually take into your marriage. I had half a dozen multi year relationships before I met my wife. No way she would have married the version 1.0 of me. >

I understand where you're coming from, but this is just a bad take. It is 100% possible to gain the insight and skills you need to nurture a good marriage or lifelong relationship by your late twenties without having been in a relationship before. 
There are some people who have one relationship and stay in it for the rest of their lives and do very well in their relationships. There are some people who go through many relationships in yheor liftime and never learn the skills they need to learn to have a healthy relationship, and end up miserable, divorced alcoholics. 
Being in relationships does not inherently prepare you for future relationships. And it's possible to prepare for future relationships without having been in relationships beforehand. >

At the risk of just sounding contrary, I have to disagree again. 
As is true with nearly every complex thing in life; “knowing it and doing it are two entirely different things.”  You will not always act in the most rational ways. Your partner will not always act in the most rational ways. Guiding two humans with different goals, dreams and interests down the same path on days good and bad is a set of skills learned through experience….and almost never achieved flawlessly. 
My life advice is just to do things. You’ll never be “ready” for life. >

I dunno.
Some people are loyal, kind, honest, intelligent, and all the other things that make someone a good partner. Others are not.
The longer you wait to settle down, the less of those people will be in the dating pool. Because the good ones end up in relationships that work.
This is also the reason second marriages have a higher divorce rates than the first. The good ones are less likely to get divorced. >


Because the good ones end up in relationships that work.

This is circular reasoning. In my scenario, everyone would be equally available in their late 20's early 30's so therefore the "good" ones would still be available, and the "bad" ones would have had more time to grow and mature into a "good" one. >

Not everyone is equally available in their late 20s and early 30s. The average age of marriage is around 29 and most people date for a couple years before marriage.
As that's the average many people settle down before that. Late 20s and early 30s is when the dating pool gets shallow.
And it should be self evident that some people are better at relationships and are thus more likely to be in one that works. So the pool of available singles self selects for people that aren't easy to get along with or are unattractive mates. >

So at least more of the good ones would be getting in relationships then? I guess I'm missing your point. I'm saying to tell kids to wait until 27 to get into a serious relationship and you are saying people will be locked down by then, but that is contradictory to the original assumption that they wouldn't be. This is an ideal scenario not actual real life. >

"So at least none" 
"I guess I'm missing your point"
Yes.
But I think it's you not me. >

And then you edit your response after I reply and then don't reply back 😂 >

The idea that someone is less likely to divorce if they marry later is just wrong >

That being the average result doesn’t prove that someone who would otherwise marry early has a lower chance of divorce if they wait. It might just as well be the case that people who are prone to divorce are also prone to marrying early. There’s too many confounding factors. >


That being the average result doesn’t prove that someone who would otherwise marry early has a lower chance of divorce if they wait

That's exactly what it means. You are literally more likely to divorce if you get married in your early 20's than at age 30. It is a proven fact. >

No, correlation does not prove causation. It might just be that marrying early and divorcing both correlate with another factor, like intelligence or impulse control. >

True to a degree, but the factor or factors are largely based on the immaturity and inexperience that comes with being a teen or early 20's. In this situation there is no other "cause" that is not directly or indirectly related to the person's age factoring in to the highest divorce rate. It makes logical sense. >

I heavily disagree. I think it’s highly reasonable to assume that things like intelligence, education, impulse control, and income all relate to this. >

Which are byproducts of age. You are literally proving my point and then disagree with it. >

They aren’t entirely byproducts of age, though they relate to it.
Like for example, someone who is more intelligent (which doesn’t change much from your early 20s) is more likely to go into higher education, and therefore to wait with marriage, but they might also be less likely to divorce because of their higher intelligence, unrelated to education. It doesn’t follow that they couldn’t do the same if they didn’t go into higher education, but instead married earlier. >

Ok, your one example of intelligence is not based directly on age, yes, but there is also little evidence supporting higher intelligence and lesser divorce rate, on average. The studies are generally all centered around higher education.
And all your other examples (education, income, impulse control) are indeed byproducts of age. 
Ultimately though, my original point really didn't have anything to do with divorce, I just mentioned that as a potential side benefit. There are tens of thousands of people who are unhappy in their marriage because they grew up and grew a part from their spouse, but don't believe in divorce. So divorce rate is not universally indicative of happiness. >

The strongest couples I know, today, got married in their early '20s or even late teens. They had kids early. And they all grew up together.
I don't know anyone who has been in an arranged marriage, or at least who has mentioned that fact to me. But I hear those couples tend to report greater satisfaction, and stay together more often, than their counterparts who went into this institution with notions of finding true love and a soul mate.
So at a minimum, I'd say the jury is out, and the system that's worked for many thousands of years, where lovestruck young people with romance on their minds are pressured by their parents to just settle down already, probably doesn't need an overhaul.