"Conservatives" love to look at statistics and make a causal connection to prove their point.  But, the causal connection they make can also demonstrate the opposite. In any event, someone over at Concerned Women for America has an issue understanding statistics in the first place.  For some reason, the group compared the institution of marriage to that of health care reform (the nanny state) to show why marriage is a healthier option for people (unless you are gay of course).  Here is the part that is the head scratcher:

Logic and common sense, however, face no such obstacle. To take just one instance, ordinary folks look at the following set of facts and draw the obvious conclusion that marriage does make a difference. In 1976, only 35 percent of all 20- to 34-year-old males had never married; these never-married males accounted for only 31 percent of the male labor force but half of the unemployed males of that age group. Now, a little over 30 years later, 61 percent of 20- to 34-year-old males have never married; they comprise only 57 percent of the males of that age in the labor force but they account for nearly three quarters (74 percent) of all of the unemployed males 20 to 34 years of age. Unlike social science researchers, people in business concerned with holding down expenses recognize which workers have not learned the habits that make them reliable workers. And so, when cut backs have to be made in their work force, they have no difficulty determining which are the least valuable workers and thus the ones they are going to lay off first.

If you just look at the numbers in the first place, the author makes it seem like that things are getting worse for never married men in our society.  Never married men are more likely to be unemployed today than back in 1976, but the statistics the author cites do not show that.  While never married men are more likely to be unemployed, they are less likely today than back in 1976.  This is not math class, but I will give a quick (and not entirely thorough explanation).  The number of never married men almost doubled from 1976 to today.  But, the percentage of never married men who make up unemployed workers only increased about 50% in the same time frame.  Clearly, math skills are lacking over at Concerned Women for America.

Even lacking more is reasoning.  Now, the statistics can show two things, if anything at all.  Those who are not employed are less likely to get married.  Or, those who do not marry are less likely to get employed.  But, what does the author take from this - employers are more likely to lay off never married individuals because they have not learned the habits which make them reliable workers.  Where the hell does this come from?  So, even a person who is married for, let's say 24 hours, has learned the habits to make them reliable workers than someone who never married.  Get that, people who have divorced (and have shown an inability to fulfill commitments made) are more reliable workers than those who never married.  Yeah, that makes sense.

The author is not only bad at math, but also bad at reasoning and English.  Why even use statistics if you are just going to make stuff up anyway.  Pretty pathetic.  And, if you take the author at her word, is she not arguing for gay marriage?  You better hope other "conservatives" do not find out, they may purge her.