Half the men in Seattle are never-married singles, census data shows

> As marriage becomes less popular among younger generations, Seattle men have hit a milestone of singledom: For the first time, half of the men living in the city have never been married.

How can this logical fallacy pass through editorialising? As marriage becomes less popular, for the same number of couples, you will have fewer marriages but not more singles.

Can you explain the fallacy in more detail? It doesn't seem like a leap that if marriage is less popular, a larger percentage of the population is single.

"Single" for the purposes of this just means "not married". They don't care if the man has a girlfriend, situationship or polycule. If a person isn't married, they're single for the sake of taxes, census data, etc.

They can be in a relationship (not single) but not married. I know people in relationships for 7+ years who haven’t married. That was far less common the further back you go.

"Single" is a stupid word to use as an antonym for "married", even if technically correct according to the dictionary.