Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Display:
The numbers cited by that webpage aren't sourced to some official statistics but to the magazine of The General Council of the Assemblies of God,

Where did you find this? Please direct me.
by vbo on Tue Nov 6th, 2012 at 04:00:55 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Information on Divorce Rate and Statistics

According to enrichment journal on the divorce rate in America:

  • The divorce rate in America for first marriage is 41%
  • The divorce rate in America for second marriage is 60%
  • The divorce rate in America for third marriage is 73%

They certainly don't make "enrichment journal" stand out, and they don't offer a link to it (only to other sites run by the same set-up).

If you Google "enrichment journal" you will find (here) that it is a publication of the Assemblies of God, a Christian Fundamentalist Pentecostal movement.

by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Tue Nov 6th, 2012 at 04:53:28 AM EST
[ Parent ]
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/19/health/19divo.html
I do not really see the big difference if divorce rate is 41 % or 51%. It's too much. Not to mention that there is decline in marriages because more and more people decide to be de facto  and that do not stop them to have kids. As I said before I do not care if they are married or de facto ... if they stay together and raise kids together.
by vbo on Tue Nov 6th, 2012 at 08:17:38 AM EST
[ Parent ]
You may not see a difference, and your point of view is that it's "too much". Other people differ.

But at least you could try to avoid backing your ideas up using religious propaganda sites.

by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Tue Nov 6th, 2012 at 09:13:20 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I had no idea it has any connection with religious sites...but that's why I have you people to detect anything religious and discard it as false :)
by vbo on Tue Nov 6th, 2012 at 09:56:25 AM EST
[ Parent ]
The fact that it is religious propaganda only explains the practical deficiency: it is an assembly of badly sourced data (and we showed upthread how some of it is a clear mis-interpretation of actual data). The lesson from this for you should be to not rely on and to not trust at face value radom data you find somewhere on the web, but seek sources as close to the origin as possible. Data copy-and-pasted or (worse) paraphrased all across the web is not different from rumours spreading via barber shops and marketplaces, and then anyone can collect such "sources" supporting their preconceptions. It shouldn't be our job to check your sources.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by DoDo on Tue Nov 6th, 2012 at 02:01:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]
On de facto relationships

http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/shacking-up-for-the-future-20100721-10khn.html

https:/www.cis.org.au/media-information/opinion-pieces/article/56-rarely-a-case-of-happy-ever-after

https:/www.cis.org.au/media-information/opinion-pieces/article/56-rarely-a-case-of-happy-ever-after

We know from surveys (in the absence of official statistics) that de facto relationships break up much more frequently than formal marriages. But because these break-ups are not officially registered as divorces, the rate of break-up of the `socially married' is not represented in the ABS figures. If they were, the rate of separation of the socially married would be higher than the formal divorce statistics.
by vbo on Thu Nov 8th, 2012 at 11:13:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]
You surely noticed that both these are opinion pieces from writers with a conservative point of view?

You may agree with that point of view, but other people have theirs.

by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Fri Nov 9th, 2012 at 02:58:25 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Conservative views based on reality does not have to necessary be wrong...
by vbo on Fri Nov 9th, 2012 at 03:37:02 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I'm not saying they're necessarily wrong.

But to what extent they are "based on reality" is at question. For example, the quote you posted from the second piece sounds very "science-based" but isn't really if you look at it. There are no references to the "surveys" or to who carried them out. And there's no explanation of what definitions of "de facto" relationships are being used.

In fact there's a whole range of types of relationship where unmarried couples live together, from casual to confirmed to preparation for marriage to pre-marriage with children to long-term commitment without marriage. Attempting to compare break-ups across such a wide range of relationships with marital break-ups is unlikely to give dependable results.

by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Fri Nov 9th, 2012 at 04:23:18 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Well, yes de-facto relationships probably do break up more often then formal marriages. After all de-facto relationships tends to come first, and only if it looks like it will work people marry.

But if we limit our interest to couples with children, the Swedish study I previously linked gives about the same rate of sticking together ten years afer birth of first common child those that married first and then lived together and those that first had a de-facto relationship - 70%. Highest sticking together rate was found among those that first lived together, then got a child and then got married - 88%, narrowly beating those that first lived together, then married and then got a child - 83%. This indicates that those that do marry in a social context where de-facto relationships are acceptable are among those with stabler relationships in the first place. So it is not the marriage that increases the sticking together rate, but the sticking together likelihood that determines marriages.

Sweden's finest (and perhaps only) collaborative, leftist e-newspaper Synapze.se

by A swedish kind of death on Fri Nov 9th, 2012 at 06:20:24 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:

Top Diaries

Occasional Series