We're reading the same words, but apparently we're interpreting them differently.

That seems to be the main thing yes :)

As far as the data itself goes, I have nothing to add that /u/3andfro hasn't already covered.

However this:

Fertility and marriage are demonstrably linked.

and this:

If you want a "larger brood," then you should make marriage a priority.

Are not statements I'd buy into, without being already biased towards marriage.

Marriage is a social construct, fertility is biological (and if there's a focus on fertility, maybe there should be some mention of the still unknown effects of the experiment that's just been done on millions upon millions of women of childbearing age), wanting kids (and how many) is a mix of biology and culture, being able to have kids is a mix of biology and economy.

There may be data correlation between marriage and the rest, but there's no logical reasoning linking one to any of the other, without the intervention of some other social/cultural pressure.

You don't need marriage to have relationship, or to have kids, or to want kids. It's entirely irrelevant to the supposed point of the article (wanting large families) and isn't mentioned even once anywhere in the "data-based" part of the article.

Then suddenly, it's everywhere.

To me, this looks very similar to the hordes of 'analysis' articles that have been pumped out during the pandemic, starting from a desired conclusion and working backwards to present the data then switch into the predetermined framing, as if the data part was evidence of the conclusion.

And that is sending my bullshit-o-meter flying.

The entire last sentence summarizes everything that's wrong with this conclusion:

While finding love and marriage may not be easy, the growing number of Americans hoping for a larger brood should make it their priority.

• you don't need love to procreate

• marriage has nothing to do with either procreation or love (if anything there's an unlimited amount of examples of marriage being a great way to destroy the whole love thing)

• those data points are a long way away from being enough to say that if you want a 'larger brood' then you should prioritize this. This is taking the 'observed behavior' you're mentioning and stick a big personal bias on top of it as if one was tied to the other.

As for "save civilization," if everyone adopted your idea of rationality civilization would cease to exist, along with the species, so I don't see that as a normative statement either. Just fact.

And the issue with this would be...? :)

Besides, I'm not saying "nobody should ever have kids, ever". Survival of the species is one thing. One thing that has is purely biological and has no ties whatsoever to any kind of social construct or chemical reaction, though those can be used to facilitate things.

I'm saying that the jump from "survival of the species through procreation" and "love and marriage" is a jump that you cannot make without a preexisting bias towards that conclusion, which this author obviously has.

As /u/3andfro already mentioned, you just have to look around to see how frail this supposed link is.