families

[R. Michael Litchfield]

>Michael says:
>When a group gives a discount to a family of specific sort, they make it
>harder on any family which does not fit that mold. It discourages
>diversity, and just add on just a bit more hassle to people who are already
>hassled to begin with.
>
>I tend to define a family as the person or persons who have taken on the
>responsibilty of raising a child and try not to make any other constraints
>on that.
>
>To which my reply is:
>
>I think you need to revisit your own definition, for I feel it violates
>your previous paragraph. Your definition is saying that myself and
>my lady wife are not a family since we do not have children.  From
>a practical standpoint, it means little since we don't come close
>to the maximum charge as Mordraut tried to point out to you from
>his standpoint in an earlier message.

I apologize, that is not my general definition of family, it is my definition
of a family which should be given some sort of financial support by our
institutions. I do not feel that any group of adults w/o children should
necessarily be given any sort of financial aid. (Though i would rather like
to see groups provide some sort of fund to help the impoverished members
afford events).

>You seem to think it easy to come up with a workable definition.

Easy? No, but I do think it is important.

>Stefan li Rous

-michael