From: pontius@tt.com (Doug Pontius)
Subject: Re: Anita Hill to Head EEOC
Organization: Telecommunications Techniques Corporation, Germantown MD
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 18:11:56 GMT

(Previous verbiage omitted)

In article <1eebl5INNeol@SUNED.ZOO.CS.YALE.EDU> jovanovic-nick@cs.yale.edu (Nick Jovanovic) writes:

>
>I apologize for my remarks.
>
>I do not apologize for criticizing someone who says to others, "you want to
>call it a family."  My Webster's New World Dictionary has 7 definitions for
>*family*, 2 of which have a combined total of 7 sudefinitions.  My other,
>smaller dictionary has 6 definitions for *family*.  Amazingly, they both
>agree that one meaning is *all the people living in the same house*, or
>*all those who live in one house*.  Thus, the word has a very inclusive
>meaning and I resent someone attempting to Republicanize it. 
>
>BTW, I doubt that only a _handful_ of people realize that *denigrate*
>comes from the same Latin root, *niger*, as have *Negro* and *Nigeria*. 
>
>-Nick
>

I think we are dancing around the real issue here by playing word games.

I think the issue that we Republican Fascist Extremists are really talking
about is *traditional* family values.  As such, the question is not whether
we can reach a consensus on the dictionary definition of the word family,
but rather, what view of family life should be embraced by our society.

I really do not believe there is such a thing as neutrality on this issue.
One viewpoint holds a very limited view of the purpose of the family and
what constitutes the ideal family structure, and the other basically holds
that this is not the case and other views are either superior or at least
equally valid.  Therefore, if one does not fall into the former category,
one automatically belongs to the latter.

I happen to believe that the purpose of the family is to pass on values and
preserve the society that my ancestors risked their very lives to establish.
I also happen to believe that my narrow-minded traditional view of the family
is best for our children and our society as a whole.  I am also a little bit
too intelligent to expect people whose values are completely different from
mine to inexplicably agree with the positions I take on specific issues.

Likewise, if you choose to hold views which clash with traditional views,
please don't get upset because those who hold to traditional views find it
impossible to agree with you!  Of course, we conservatives also have a
responsibility to defend *our* beliefs in a calm and sensible manner, without
getting excessively nasty.  Too often the substance of a given debate is
overshadowed by the caustic tone of the debate.

Whether we like it or not, the values that our society espouses will shape
the future of our nation.  We <adjectives omitted> conservatives are fully
entitled to our view, and yes, you non-conservatives are entitled to yours.
Ultimately, one viewpoint will win out; one will be proven correct, and
the other incorrect.  In the meantime, I'm afraid the debate will remain
very much alive.

			--Opinions of me, not TTC!--



-- 
=======================================================================  
                          Douglas C. Pontius 
                  Telecommunications Techniques Corp.
                            Germantown, MD
Newsgroups: alt.activism