If you can't handle this, then you can't handle that

I want to know whether or not this argument contains a logical fallacy: If you can't handle college problems, then you can't handle marriage problems either. So, don't marry anyone until you can handle your college problems.

It could be a weak analogy , but mostly I would just call it an unsubstantiated claim . It might be the case, but we need to know why this is the case. To any critical thinker, a mere assertion won't do.

Problems here is too ambiguous. One might say that staying faithful to your girlfriend is a college "problem"... It you can't stay faithful in college you can't in a marriage. The reasoning is a parallel but it's not logical to conclude one leads to another. I would say fallacy from ambiguity because "problems" is ambiguous

the say I see it, it either is a weak analogy or a non-sequitur.

Lo and behold, Dr. Bo offers two excellent descriptions of this kind of fallacious reasoning. Pick your poison or perhaps a cocktail? Haha!

Non Sequitur
(also known as: derailment, “that does not follow”, irrelevant reason, invalid inference, non-support, argument by scenario [form of], false premise [form of], questionable premise [form of], non-sequitur)

Description: When the conclusion does not follow from the premises. In more informal reasoning, it can be when what is presented as evidence or reason is irrelevant or adds very little support to the conclusion.

Logical Form:

Claim A is made.
Evidence is presented for claim A.
Therefore, claim C is true.
Example #1:

People generally like to walk on the beach. Beaches have sand. Therefore, having sand floors in homes would be a great idea!
Explanation: As cool as the idea of sand floors might sound, the conclusion does not follow from the premises. The fact that people generally like to walk on sand does not mean that they want sand in their homes, just like because people generally like to swim, they shouldn’t flood their houses.

Weak Analogy
(also known as: bad analogy, false analogy, faulty analogy, questionable analogy, argument from spurious similarity, false metaphor)

Description: When an analogy is used to prove or disprove an argument, but the analogy is too dissimilar to be effective, that is, it is unlike the argument more than it is like the argument.

Logical Form:

X is like Y.
Y has property P.
Therefore, X has property P.
(but X really is not too much like Y)
Example #1:

Not believing in the literal resurrection of Jesus because the Bible has errors and contradictions, is like denying that the Titanic sank because eye-witnesses did not agree if the ship broke in half before or after it sank.
Explanation: This is an actual analogy used by, I am sorry to say, one of my favorite Christian debaters (one who usually seems to value reason and logic). There are several problems with this analogy, including:

The Titanic sank in recent history
We know for a fact that the testimonies we have are of eye-witnesses
We have physical evidence of the sunken Titanic
Example #2:

Believing in the literal resurrection of Jesus is like believing in the literal existence of zombies.
Explanation: This is a common analogy used by some atheists who argue against Christianity. It is a weak analogy because:

Jesus was said to be alive not just undead
If God is assumed, then God had a reason to bring Jesus (himself) back—no such reason exists for zombies
Zombies eat brains, Jesus did not (as far as we know)
Exception: It is important to note that analogies cannot be “faulty” or “correct”, and even calling them “good” or “bad” is not as accurate as referring to them as either “weak” or “strong”. The use of an analogy is an argument in itself, the strength of which is very subjective. What is weak to one person, is strong to another.

Tip: Analogies are very useful, powerful, and persuasive ways to communicate ideas. Use them -- just make them strong.