A great article in Sydney's Daily Telegraph on SSM

  • Thread starter Thread starter chris62
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

chris62

Guest
"SHOULD Labor leader Bill Shorten win office in 41 days, homosexual marriage will become a reality across Australia just 100 days later.

This has nothing to do with fairness, equality, human rights or any other humbug the homosexual lobby and the Marxists lurking close behind their agenda may wish you to believe.

This is about Labor being pushed to the Left by the Greens, radically altering customary practice, dramatically changing the way children are reared by removing either a male or a female figure from the family unit, and setting the stage for a generation who will forever be robbed of a better shot at life.

For it is the demonstrably evident fact that children raised in stable heterosexual families will, on the best available statistics, be best equipped to deal with the world.

That, as unpalatable as it may seem to those homosexual couples (as sharing, caring and warm and loving as they may be) who have chosen to adopt or create children through IVF or surrogacy, is just how it is.The consequences of adopting homosexual marriage are not benign. It is not just about having two little Ken dolls or two little Barbies in bridal wear on top of the wedding cake.

Those who would change the Marriage Act to redefine the traditional union of a man and a woman know they are merely stalking horses for massive societal change such as are already being experienced in the US, where, in a giant grab for exaggerated victimhood status, the homosexual and gender-confused lobby have now managed to have President Barack Obama force all state schools to permit children use whichever lavatory they feel fits their sexual orientation — not necessarily their biological and chromosomal identity.

I doubt whether many young girls will feel pressing need to express their inner manliness by fronting the urinals or even entering the boys’ (should they still be labelled as such) loos, but I suspect there will be a rush of hormonally charged teenage boys anxious to entertain their inner sheila and barge into the lavatories and change rooms traditionally set aside for females.

The new anti-gender laws have already restricted freedom of speech, and they will here, too, as there has already been a ridiculous try-on in Tasmania mounted by transgender activist and Greens candidate Martine Delaney.

Delaney lodged a complaint against the Catholic Archbishop of Tasmania Julian Porteous over a church booklet which carried the unthreatening slogan “don’t mess with marriage” and made the case accepted universally for millennia that marriage should be a “heterosexual union between a man and a woman”.

To change the law, it said, would endanger a child’s upbringing.

Earlier this month, Delaney withdrew the charge in the face of the Church’s obvious defence — that it was plainly false to assert there was nothing distinctive about a man and a woman, a father or a mother.

As much as Penny Wong and her partner may delight in calling themselves parents of the children who live with them, neither is a man, neither is a father and neither can provide the male presence under their roof that is the ideal in a true family.

Former Labor prime minister Paul Keating famously noted that “two blokes and a cocker spaniel” don’t make a family, and that was Labor’s view until a few years ago.

A more recent Labor PM, Julia Gillard, crossed the floor of the house and sat with then Opposition leader Tony Abbott, to vote down a Labor backbencher’s private member’s bill to amend the Marriage Act and permit homosexual couples to marry.

She wasn’t alone. Her treasurer, Wayne Swan, environment minister Tony Burke, trade minister Craig Emerson and former PM Kevin Rudd, joined her in voting down the motion 98-42.

Then the homosexual lobby arced up its campaign.

False statistics about the percentage of homosexuals in the community were flung about (internationally, the agreed number seems to be somewhat less than 2 per cent).

Claims that bullying of gender-muddled children forced some to at least contemplate suicide, if not carry through with their intention, were laid though no statistics bear this out and the statistic which seems most available would *indicate that the primary focus of anxieties among those who do report bullying is to do with their body image or ethnicity.

This has not stopped those, like Victoria’s socialist Premier Daniel Andrews, or the members of the grotesquely misnamed Safe Schools Coalition, headquartered in the truly *bizarre Australian Research Centre in Sex, Health and *Society unit at La Trobe University, from supporting the teaching of such skills as “penis tucking” and “breast binding” to prepubescent children.

Shorten, should he be elected, won’t just redefine marriage, he’ll destroy it.

As lesbian Russian author Masha Gessen told the Sydney Writers Festival four years ago “fighting for gay marriage generally involves lying about what we are going to do with marriage when we get there”.

“Because we lie that the *institution of marriage is not going to change. It’s going to change and it should change.”

Two months ago Labor senator Joe Bullock resigned as a matter of principle over Labor’s stance.

He said he couldn’t remain in a party which proposed to deny its members a conscience vote on the homosexual marriage question.

He made his decision after attending the Labor Party’s *national conference and finding himself, to the best of his knowledge, the only one to vote against this proposition.

“How can I, in good conscience, recommend to people that they vote for a party which has determined to deny its parliamentarians a conscience vote on the homosexual marriage question? The simple *answer is that I can’t,” he said.

Australians should ask themselves whether they want this radical change forced on their society when they vote on July 2."

Congratulations to the Telegraph for finally publishing the other point of view.
 
"SHOULD Labor leader Bill Shorten win office in 41 days, homosexual marriage will become a reality across Australia just 100 days later.

For it is the demonstrably evident fact that children raised in stable heterosexual families will, on the best available statistics, be best equipped to deal with the world.
Whether Shorten wins or not, it will become reality sooner than later in any case. The vast majority of Australians support it.

Secondly, you are going to have to produce some evidence that children raided in a same sex relationship do worse than children with male and female partners. Just saying don’t make it so, Chris.

Thirdly, the fact that SSM will become a reality has no bearing on children being brought up by same sex couples. They can do this already, so making their partnership a ‘marriage’ in a legal sense will not affect the situation at all.

In passing:

“Opinion polls suggest public support for marriage equality is even higher in Australia than in Ireland, at more than 70 per cent, according to a Crosby Textor poll.”

Read more: theage.com.au/comment/australians-deserve-a-say-on-gay-marriage-20150524-gh8qsg.html#ixzz49XVaWNxs
Follow us: @theage on Twitter | theageAustralia on Facebook
 
Whether Shorten wins or not, it will become reality sooner than later in any case. The vast majority of Australians support it.

Secondly, you are going to have to produce some evidence that children raided in a same sex relationship do worse than children with male and female partners. Just saying don’t make it so, Chris.

Thirdly, the fact that SSM will become a reality has no bearing on children being brought up by same sex couples. They can do this already, so making their partnership a ‘marriage’ in a legal sense will not affect the situation at all.

Firstly, the majority of Australians support it at this stage because, generally speaking, the media up until now have only told them one side of the story, as was the case in Ireland, where, even then only 38 percent of the electorate voted for it.

But the Telegraph and The Australian are now starting to wake up to the gay activists, particularly in the light of the disgraced “safe” schools program.

Secondly, here is the evidence that children raised in a same sex relationship do worse than children with a mother and a father.

P Amato, “Research on Divorce: Continuing
trends and new developments,” Journal of Marriage
and Family 72 (2010): 650-666; S McLanahan and
C Percheski, “Family Structure and the Reproduction
of Inequalities,” Annual Review of Sociology 34
(2008): 257-276; S McLanahan and G Sandefur,
Growing Up with a Single Parent: What Hurts, What
Helps (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press,
1994); B Ellis, et al., “Does Father Absence Place
Daughters at Special Risk for Early Sexual Activity
and Teenage Pregnancy?” Child Development 74
(2003): 801–21; W B Wilcox, et al., Why Marriage
Matters: Twenty-Six Conclusions from the Social
Sciences, 2nd ed. (New York: Institute for American
Values, 2005); E Marquardt, Family Structure and
Children’s Educational Outcomes (New York: Institute
for American Values, 2005); P Amato, “The Impact
of Family Formation Change on the Cognitive, Social,
and Emotional Well-Being of the Next Generation,”
The Future of Children 15 (2005): 75–96; C Harper
and S McLanahan, “Father Absence and Youth
Incarceration,” Journal of Research on Adolescence
14 (2004): 369–97.

Like, der!
 
Those who would change the Marriage Act to redefine the traditional union of a man and a woman know they are merely stalking horses for massive societal change such as are already being experienced in the US, where, in a giant grab for exaggerated victimhood status, the homosexual and gender-confused lobby have now managed to have President Barack Obama force all state schools to permit children use whichever lavatory they feel fits their sexual orientation — not necessarily their biological and chromosomal identity.
Gender identity (the issue involved in the bathroom bills in North Carolina and other states and mostly has an impact on Transgender people) is completely different from sexual orientation. Most gay men (that has to do with sexual orientation) do identify with their biological and chromosomal makeup and usually use the men’s restroom and lesbians (sexual orientation again) usually use the women’s restroom.
 
Bradski;13920340:
Whether Shorten wins or not, it will become reality sooner than later in any case. The vast majority of Australians support it.

Secondly, you are going to have to produce some evidence that children raided in a same sex relationship do worse than children with male and female partners. Just saying don’t make it so, Chris.

Thirdly, the fact that SSM will become a reality has no bearing on children being brought up by same sex couples. They can do this already, so making their partnership a ‘marriage’ in a legal sense will not affect the situation at all.

Firstly, the majority of Australians support it at this stage because, generally speaking, the media up until now have only told them one side of the story, as was the case in Ireland, where, even then only 38 percent of the electorate voted for it.

But the Telegraph and The Australian are now starting to wake up to the gay activists, particularly in the light of the disgraced “safe” schools program.

Secondly, here is the evidence that children raised in a same sex relationship do worse than children with a mother and a father.

P Amato, “Research on Divorce: Continuing
trends and new developments,” Journal of Marriage
and Family 72 (2010): 650-666; S McLanahan and
C Percheski, “Family Structure and the Reproduction
of Inequalities,” Annual Review of Sociology 34
(2008): 257-276; S McLanahan and G Sandefur,
Growing Up with a Single Parent: What Hurts, What
Helps (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press,
1994); B Ellis, et al., “Does Father Absence Place
Daughters at Special Risk for Early Sexual Activity
and Teenage Pregnancy?” Child Development 74
(2003): 801–21; W B Wilcox, et al., Why Marriage
Matters: Twenty-Six Conclusions from the Social
Sciences, 2nd ed. (New York: Institute for American
Values, 2005); E Marquardt, Family Structure and
Children’s Educational Outcomes (New York: Institute
for American Values, 2005); P Amato, “The Impact
of Family Formation Change on the Cognitive, Social,
and Emotional Well-Being of the Next Generation,”
The Future of Children 15 (2005): 75–96; C Harper
and S McLanahan, “Father Absence and Youth
Incarceration,” Journal of Research on Adolescence
14 (2004): 369–97.

Like, der!
Thanks for the links. I grew up with an absentee Dad back in the day. I’m 53. There was a plethora of literature of how difficult it was for children in those situations that anyone can find online if they so desire. Having no Father leaves a hole in your heart that is hard to fill.

I think it is impossible to believe that children with two “mommies” or two “daddies” will be just fine with it. Just ask they boy that grew up with my daughter years ago in elementary school with two lesbian mothers. He always talked about how much he would like to have a daddy “too.”

It’s always the kids who suffer from these issues. God Bless our Children.

My own experience has been for the most part it’s people that grew up in two parent families, with a mother and a father that feel free to dictate to our world children with two moms or two dads etc will be just fine with no problems or yearning to live with a parent of the opposite or same sex whatever their situation may be.

Those persons who come out saying their life with same sex parents was living in a word of homosexual couples, stress, and a longing for a normal two parent male female led marriage and family are silenced by the Left.

Mary.
 
Bradski;13920340:
Firstly, the majority of Australians support it at this stage because, generally speaking, the media up until now have only told them one side of the story, as was the case in Ireland, where, even then only 38 percent of the electorate voted for it.

But the Telegraph and The Australian are now starting to wake up to the gay activists, particularly in the light of the disgraced “safe” schools program.

Secondly, here is the evidence that children raised in a same sex relationship do worse than children with a mother and a father.

P Amato, “Research on Divorce: Continuing
trends and new developments,” Journal of Marriage
and Family 72 (2010): 650-666;!
The huge majority of Australians support gay marriage precisely BECAUSE they are well informed. Including a majority of Australian Christians. Are you suggesting that they are not being well informed?

If you think the media is changing it’s viewpoint, then examples please.

And no, cutting and pasting a ream of reports which you claim is good evidence for the defence ain’t going to cut it, Chris.

Pick one, quote something from it that might be considered a claim for the defence and then we can discuss it’s merits. No-one is going to do your work for you. Make an argument. Let’s hear your views, backed up, if neccesary, by those reports.

And in passing, you can tell us, honestly, how many of them you have read.
 
As far as I can tell, everyone posting on this website came from a mommy and a daddy, with the majority being raised at least for the formative years in a two parent, opposite sex parental unit. My question in reading all those who dispute that God’s plan is a good one would be: Why this frenzy to destroy what God has ordained for humanity? Most incarcerated individuals were denied having a father in the household and that is a provable fact. All children benefit from having a same sex parent and a parent of the opposite sex involved in their upbringing. Our first experiences with each parent of the opposite sex impact us for the rest of our lives in major ways. Denying this is similar to the story about the emperor’s new clothes. Someone stated that an “old” study was automatically wrong. We are becoming duller and duller as a society. Totally self absorbed and not able to see the forest for the trees.
 
This study, above, is about families and the effects of divorce on adults and children…
Now that, Shirley, is an impressive post. I was too slack to investigate to that extent, only to imply that cuttin’ ‘n’ pastin’ without an argument was worthless.

But full marks and kudos for proving it to be the case.

One has to wonder of the intentions of those who call up such inconsequential articles, obviously unread (otherwise they would have realsed that they bear no relationship to the discussion in hand).

I am constantly amazed that people whomtread this path do not realise that they are either preaching to the choir or are turning away those who might have some doubt about the direction the arguments are going.

I say…keep up the good work, Chris. The more fatuous your arguments, the better it serves tho opposite view. And, anecdotally, that is exactly what I see. The arguments become so nonsensical and irrelevant and strident thatbthose on the fence can do nothing but fall one way.

By the way, Chris, can you honestly tell us how many of those articles you actually read. Those articles which you implied supported your argument? And lying is a sin, don’t you know.
 
As far as I can tell, everyone posting on this website came from a mommy and a daddy, with the majority being raised at least for the formative years in a two parent, opposite sex parental unit. My question in reading all those who dispute that God’s plan is a good one would be: Why this frenzy to destroy what God has ordained for humanity? Most incarcerated individuals were denied having a father in the household and that is a provable fact. All children benefit from having a same sex parent and a parent of the opposite sex involved in their upbringing. Our first experiences with each parent of the opposite sex impact us for the rest of our lives in major ways. Denying this is similar to the story about the emperor’s new clothes. Someone stated that an “old” study was automatically wrong. We are becoming duller and duller as a society. Totally self absorbed and not able to see the forest for the trees.
Well Stated and Amen.

Mary.
 
…the fact that SSM will become a reality has no bearing on children being brought up by same sex couples. They can do this already, so making their partnership a ‘marriage’ in a legal sense will not affect the situation at all…
I think that is only partly true. When behaviours move from the private choices of individuals, to the publicly endorsed and supported position of the law, a lot changes.
 
…God may have ordained a certain kind of marriage for humanity, according to your faith…but what about those who believe in a different God than you, or no God at all?
…It is not right that you want them to only marry in the definition that you think is the correct one.
Out of interest, do any proponents of SSM follow a God who advocated or taught favourably SSM?
 
Out of interest, do any proponents of SSM follow a God who advocated or taught favourably SSM?
Not sure about specifically SSM, but as regards sex in general, Rati, the Hindu goddess of love, is pretty X rated when it comes to the sexual aspects of love. The Hindus don’t seem to be so prudish about sex. And here are about another 80 gods and goddesses who are primarily associated with sex and lust: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_love_and_lust_deities.

I don’t think Christianity is represented anywhere on that list.
 
Not sure about specifically SSM, but as regards sex in general, Rati, the Hindu goddess of love, is pretty X rated when it comes to the sexual aspects of love. The Hindus don’t seem to be so prudish about sex. And here are about another 80 gods and goddesses who are primarily associated with sex and lust: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_love_and_lust_deities.

I don’t think Christianity is represented anywhere on that list.
The lack of SSM evident in the broader faith traditions is somewhat surprising. Even those Faith’s that “accept it” have no tradition nor scriptural basis to endorse it.

Christianity is pretty “pro-sex”, but holds strongly to what is the right “venue” for sex.
 
Whether Shorten wins or not, it will become reality sooner than later in any case. The vast majority of Australians support it.

Secondly, you are going to have to produce some evidence that children raided in a same sex relationship do worse than children with male and female partners. Just saying don’t make it so, Chris.

Thirdly, the fact that SSM will become a reality has no bearing on children being brought up by same sex couples. They can do this already, so making their partnership a ‘marriage’ in a legal sense will not affect the situation at all.

In passing:

“Opinion polls suggest public support for marriage equality is even higher in Australia than in Ireland, at more than 70 per cent, according to a Crosby Textor poll.”

Read more: theage.com.au/comment/australians-deserve-a-say-on-gay-marriage-20150524-gh8qsg.html#ixzz49XVaWNxs
Follow us: @theage on Twitter | theageAustralia on Facebook
Where are the studies in regards to outcomes for children raised by same-sex parents that are done on large samples, samples which are random and representative and where the parents are not asked to self report on the child (which could open the study to the possibility of social desirability bias), and not recruiting participants from specific locations (like the NLLS has done in their study/survey)?

I suspect if you do the research, you will find not many studies that meet these parameters. There are many studies out there that claim that basically there are no differences between outcomes for children raised by same-sex parents as compared to children raised by male-female parents, but if many of these studies don’t have he best methodology, then that opens up criticism.

Although you may struggle to find this in the media reporting of the study, a recent study found more negative behavioural issues in female same-sex parented homes compared to homes in which there was a male and female parents:

thepublicdiscourse.com/2016/04/16760/

An analyses of survey data found there was a higher prevalence of emotional problems with children raised by same-sex parents compared to male-female parents:

papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2500537
 
Where are the studies in regards to outcomes for children raised by same-sex parents that are done on large samples, samples which are random and representative and where the parents are not asked to self report on the child (which could open the study to the possibility of social desirability bias), and not recruiting participants from specific locations (like the NLLS has done in their study/survey)?

I suspect if you do the research, you will find not many studies that meet these parameters. There are many studies out there that claim that basically there are no differences between outcomes for children raised by same-sex parents as compared to children raised by male-female parents, but if many of these studies don’t have he best methodology, then that opens up criticism.

Although you may struggle to find this in the media reporting of the study, a recent study found more negative behavioural issues in female same-sex parented homes compared to homes in which there was a male and female parents:

thepublicdiscourse.com/2016/04/16760/

An analyses of survey data found there was a higher prevalence of emotional problems with children raised by same-sex parents compared to male-female parents:

papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2500537
I don’t know the extent of reliability of research in this area. But it would really be odd if “mother + father” - the requirement to bring every child into the world - was found to be (in general) other than the best model to nurture a child!
 
Where are the studie/survey)?

I suspect if you do the research, you will find not many studies that meet these parameters. There are many studies out there that claim that basically there are no differences between outcomes for children raised by same-sex parents as compared to children raised by male-female parents, but if many of these studies don’t have he best methodology, then that opens up criticism.
So surveys can’t be trusted. But, hey, here’s one I found that supports MY position and you must accept this one as being entirely valid.

Notwithstanding that the thread is about SSM with, presumably, the emphasis on the M. Any gay couple can adopt a child whether SSM has been legalised or not.

Maybe what you should be discussing is whether a child brought up by two people of the same sex in a loosely defined partnership is better off if the couple can actually marry.

Adoption is a horse that left the stable a long time back. No point in trying to close the door now. You need to make up your mind whether marriage would be better for the children.

And it does make me wonder…when all this is finally done and dusted, what are ypu going to argue about? When your children, and their children ask themselves what the hell was all the fuss about back in the early part of the century.

Life will still go on. You’ll still complain about your taxes and the bus service. Your knee will still ache when the rain’s coming. You’ll still walk the dog, mow the lawn, watch the game, go to mass and confess your sins.

Nothing will change. Life will go on. Trust me.
 
So surveys can’t be trusted. But, hey, here’s one I found that supports MY position and you must accept this one as being entirely valid.

Notwithstanding that the thread is about SSM with, presumably, the emphasis on the M. Any gay couple can adopt a child whether SSM has been legalised or not.

Maybe what you should be discussing is whether a child brought up by two people of the same sex in a loosely defined partnership is better off if the couple can actually marry.

Adoption is a horse that left the stable a long time back. No point in trying to close the door now. You need to make up your mind whether marriage would be better for the children.

And it does make me wonder…when all this is finally done and dusted, what are ypu going to argue about? When your children, and their children ask themselves what the hell was all the fuss about back in the early part of the century.

Life will still go on. You’ll still complain about your taxes and the bus service. Your knee will still ache when the rain’s coming. You’ll still walk the dog, mow the lawn, watch the game, go to mass and confess your sins.

Nothing will change. Life will go on. Trust me.
You didn’t present any studies that refutes the point of suspect that was made. I’m by no means saying the two links I presented are enough. This further goes to the point. There needs to be a more studies and analyses overall, studies that have the best methodology, and they should when it’s an issue as serious the raising of children and their outcomes.

Same-sex marriage can affect public policy, religious liberty… need I go on. So this argument that life will go on if same-sex marriage is legalised, which I think is the point is that you are making (correct me if I’m wrong), well yes it will, but that doesn’t mean there aren’t negative effects as a result.

If you are interested, check out the “effects” of same-sex marriage in Canada: thepublicdiscourse.com/2012/11/6758/
 
Now that, Shirley, is an impressive post. I was too slack to investigate to that extent, only to imply that cuttin’ ‘n’ pastin’ without an argument was worthless.

But full marks and kudos for proving it to be the case.

One has to wonder of the intentions of those who call up such inconsequential articles, obviously unread (otherwise they would have realsed that they bear no relationship to the discussion in hand).

I am constantly amazed that people whomtread this path do not realise that they are either preaching to the choir or are turning away those who might have some doubt about the direction the arguments are going.

I say…keep up the good work, Chris. The more fatuous your arguments, the better it serves tho opposite view. And, anecdotally, that is exactly what I see. The arguments become so nonsensical and irrelevant and strident thatbthose on the fence can do nothing but fall one way.

By the way, Chris, can you honestly tell us how many of those articles you actually read. Those articles which you implied supported your argument? And lying is a sin, don’t you know.
A queer little post from you, even by your standards, or lack thereof.
The list of references was given in answer to your request for evidence in post 2.
There are many more, suggesting children do better with a mother and a father. There are also others which suggest children of same sex parents don’t do as well along with several individual testimonies as well, with one lady even appearing on the ABC recently.
No , I haven’t read any of them. Why should I have?
Raising children is not the point of this thread.
This is also not just another thread on SSM.
This thread is about the Australian media.
The point I made in post 1, and the ONLY point I made, is that finally the Australian media is telling the other point of view.
In post 8, you ask me to provide details of this.
Please search articles by The Australians Paul Kelly on SSM and the so called safe schools program.
After years of one sidedness, finally the other point of vew.
Media Watch recently said the ABC had interviewed gay activists 12 times about SSM while in the same period intervewed the other side 0 times.
So I am starting to see a change from that sort of media bias.

As far as your falling off the fence onto the other side remark goes, I apply the Matthew 10:14 verse.
Which in the modern Australian vernacular translates as: You can’t educate mugs.
 
This study, above, is about families and the effects of divorce on adults and children.

This study is about income inequality among genders in the workplace and how that affects the family.

This study is on growing up in a single parent family. It’s from 22 years ago.

This study is about the impact of a father’s absence on early sexual activity and teenage pregnancy among girls.

This is a book (originally published in 2002) about why marriage is “an important social good, an important public good, and how the benefits of marriage extend to poor and minority communities,” with a special focus on the impact of cohabitation on the family unit.

This is an article put out by the Center for Marriage and Families in 2005 about how family structure — whether a child’s parents are married, divorced, single, remarried, or cohabiting — influences a child’s educational performance.

This is a study about the effects of growing up in on one or two-parent family, and in a family where a parent has remarried.

This is a 2004 study that measured the likelihood of youth incarceration among adolescent males from father-absent households,

.
What a very impressive post Shirl.
Thank you for informing us that: P Amato, “Research on Divorce: Continuing
trends and new developments,” Journal of Marriage
and Family 72 (2010): 650-666; is “about the effects of divorce on adults and children”.

And that S McLanahan and
C Percheski, “Family Structure and the Reproduction
of Inequalities,” Annual Review of Sociology 34
(2008): 257-276; is about “income inequality among genders in the workplace and how that affects the family.”
We never would have known.

And that S McLanahan and G Sandefur,
Growing Up with a Single Parent: What Hurts, What
Helps (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press,
1994); was actually about “growing up in a single parent family”.

Thank you for your information that
B Ellis, et al., “Does Father Absence Place
Daughters at Special Risk for Early Sexual Activity
and Teenage Pregnancy?” Child Development 74
(2003): 801–21; is, in reality about “the impact of a father’s absence on early sexual activity and teenage pregnancy among girls.” I would never have guessed.

Keep up the good work.
And thanks once again for being a “Prayer Warrior”. That is a very well kept secret.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top