‘Gay Marriage,’ Bourgeois Family & Hair Styles

TIA,

Re: 'Gay' Rights Hit Roadblocks Around the World

While it may be true that “over half the states define marriage as the union of a man and a woman” not all states should be viewed as equal. Those states recognizing gay marriage and civil unions account for 52% of the population. If Ohio and Michigan change columns, which seems likely given recent events, the split will tilt to 58% / 42% (favoring homo marriages).

I’m not staking a claim on either side of this debate, but to claim you are winning because you have AK, ID, MT, WY, ND and SD on your side, while the other side has CA, NY, PA and IL seems a little disingenuous. I would expect a JD to know how to argue better.

Richard Stadtherr


TIA responds.

Mr. Stadherr,

If you are as impartial as you pretend and concerned about the number of Americans who support “gay marriage,” you should know that California, the most populous State in the US, in public referendums have twice approved Proposition 8, which defined as valid only the marriage between a man and a woman. It was only an arbitrary and dictatorial decision of the Supreme Court that imposed such an anti-natural law on the State.

So, even though you argue that California is legally pro-homosexual “marriage,” as far as the desire of the people is concerned, this is not true. It is a law without any base in the democratic vote.

You should be aware of this, especially when you are trying to correct others by quoting supposedly objective data.

     Cordially

     TIA correspondent desk

TIA,

I am sending you an excellent segment of Phyllis Schlafly's column today (August 19, 2014)

Steve Sanborn, Sr.

A major part of the Communist Manifesto is its unrelenting attack on the so-called "bourgeois family," which Marx believed was responsible for the inequality he despised. If Communism was to succeed, he wrote, the bourgeois family had to be done away with.

The bourgeois family is the Marxist term for what modern liberals call the "Ozzie and Harriet" or "nuclear" family. It means a husband and wife who are legally married to each other, using the husband's name, with the husband as provider and authority figure, and the wife as nurturing homemaker, and with both parents raising and educating their own children within the household.

Marx hated the bourgeois family, not only because it provided the means of transmission and accumulation of private property, but also because the family controlled the formation and education of children. Marx wanted to break the family so that children could be raised and educated communally, free from patriarchal ties and religious beliefs.

With all that history, which should be familiar to every educated American, it's incredible that we're now seeing the worst of Marxist ideas, the deconstruction of the family, presented in the name of libertarianism and even conservatism.

Besides marriage, Marx's ideas on education have influenced too many education reformers on the right, including, unfortunately, the Bush family's obsession with remaking public education. George H.W. Bush wanted to be the "education president"; George W. Bush wanted to "leave no child behind"; and now Jeb Bush wants to impose the Common Core.

As conservatives seek new leadership for 2016 and beyond, let's insist on candidates who recognize that marriage and the nuclear family are the essential foundation of a free and prosperous society.

Dear Editor,

I waited a while to write after the Short Hair question was posed, thinking someone would surely beat me to the punch and defend older women and why they wear short hairstyles. I was surprised no one did, so here goes.

The original letter, written by a man I think, questioned why older women cut their hair short. It’s simple: Long hair is aging on an older woman. I’m not talking about women in their 40s, but, say, 50s and up.

Long hair has the effect of exaggerating every facial line, every sag, every drooping of the jowls. It pulls everything downward. It was interesting that the letter-writer referred to the old fashioned buns. That was because even in years past, as severe looking as buns were, older women realized they simply couldn’t let that hair hang around their face.

With a short hairstyle the eye is drawn up and away from the sagging jowls, the nose to mouth lines, and the general sagging of the flesh in the lower part of the face. The effect is more youthful. I’ve seen it over and over when an older woman finally cuts her hair. The difference is dramatically better and the compliments always bear that out.

I’ve also seen mature women desperately clinging to the long styles of their younger years, never realizing how much older it makes them look. They concentrate on the hair only it seems, oblivious to the overall effect. They also think if they dye it, it will make them look younger. It unfortunately often has the opposite effect, due to the more marked contrast between hair and aging skin. As far as not dyeing long hair and leaving it gray, well… the less said about that, the kinder.

A couple of the photos Dr. Horvat used in response to the man’s letter went to extremes to prove a point. The Butch haircuts are obviously awful. But an older woman with a short hairstyle that has softness around the face can look and be every bit as feminine — as well as more vibrant-looking and chic — as her long-haired older friends.

     Sincerely,

     S.D.


The Editor responds:

Dear S.D.,

Let me state, first, that the topic you raise is not my area of expertise. I am only answering you to reply to the comments of a lady directed to me.

Independent of the advantages or disadvantages of this or that hair style, what I would like to observe is that your whole argument is based on the presupposition that mature and old women should hide their age. Now then, this presupposition is not according to Catholic custom. Catholics do not hide their age, be they women or men.

The myth of maintaining an eternal youth is an invention of the Revolution. It denies the normal cycle of life, which supposes childhood, youth, adulthood and old age. When someone rebels against appearing as old as he is, he is rebelling against nature, trying to hide the consequences of original sin.

A person who adheres to this myth not only tries to appear younger in her or his hair style or facial appearance, but also assumes a “younger mentality,” so to speak. Then, the dignity of old age is abandoned to appear more jovial, irresponsible and attractive. I will not address the pretense to seduce young men or young women, which often follows this myth as a sad and ridiculous consequence.

I believe that everyone loses with this falsehood. First, The old person, because she or he does not fool anyone; second, those who could benefit from that person's experience and wisdom, because they are always trying to camouflage their real age and personality.

The Catholic solution for old age is not to hide it, but to live it with dignity. The elderly have the honor to shine with the dignity of a life that reflects meritorious actions, repentance and reparation made for many errors, but above all the dignity of a person who approaches his or her final destiny and encounter with God. A person like this imposes respect and admiration. This is the way Catholics uphold their old age.

I hope and pray you will reconsider the superficiality of living a mature or old age trying to fool others and will take on a true Catholic position, living with the dignity your age requires.

     Cordially,

     A.S. Guimarães, editor