>You've muddled some many ideas in there you failed to make a point. Show me the stats you claim.
>
>I'm astonished- I expected you would have reviewed all the evidence before you made up your mind. ;-)
>
>For a start: in 2003, 43% of New Zealand children in single-parent households were living in poverty compared with 15% of those living with two parents.
>
>Perhaps we can agree that living in poverty isn't a great start in life.
>
>One response is to blame society and create further assistance for single parents. However, there is a chicken and egg situation here, with the rise in single-parent families closely related to the behavior of the welfare state and the liberalisation of marriage as an institution.
>
>Another approach is to promote 2-parent families, which includes promoting marriage (or whatever else you want to call it when you co-operate to raise kids) as a stable social entity rather than a fashion statement or lifestyle choice.
>
>FWIW, over 50% of Maori families were led by a single parent in 2003. This represents an underclass, something that should never exist in a country like New Zealand. The liberal Government denies that the underclass exists while the traditionally conservative National Party is doing its best to address the issues from opposition. Google "underclass new zealand" to see for yourself.


I am disappointed to read that about the Maori. In my brief time in New Zealand -- probably about 10 weeks altogether -- it seemed like whites and Maori lived together in as much harmony as exists between races anywhere in the world. Intermarriages being common enough to not be noteworthy, for example. I knew there were problems with the (other) Pacific Islanders but didn't know Maori were an underclass. There are apparently undercurrents that escaped my notice.