Skip to main content

My response to a Columbus Dispatch letter-to-the-editor

Recently, I read the following letter-to-the-editor in the Columbus Dispatch and felt the need to respond. The letter was entitled, "Young people have lost their sense of values." Here it is:

"In his Thursday letter 'Young people more flexible on gay marriage,' Ben Meacham said, 'The younger generation is adapting to an ever-changing society.'

Well, either it is adapting to an ever-changing society, or it is changing society itself.

I recall that back in the 1940s and 1950s (I am 81), abortion, euthanasia, cohabiting before marriage, children born out of wedlock and — gasp! — same-sex marriage were simply unheard of. The problem, as I see it, is the members of the current generation, because many, if not most, are completely comfortable with these developments.

Does anyone really think our society is better off by virtue of allowing 54 million abortions to have taken place?

It’s really not a question of society evolving or traditions changing. We’ve lost a good part of our moral values and, at the risk of being old-fashioned, I must ask: Whatever happened to sin?

JACK WOLOCK

Columbus"

First off, even if young people are "changing society itself," as Mr. Wolock implies, what he appears to forget is that change in society isn't always a bad thing. When African-Americans fought for voting rights, was this a bad change for society? When women fought for similar rights, was this a bad change for society? When mixed-race couples fought for equal marriage rights, was this a bad change for society? So, now that homosexuals are fighting for equal marriage rights, is that a bad change for society? Maybe the problem here isn't the younger generation "changing society itself," so much as it's people like Mr. Wolock whom refuse to adapt to change due to their prejudices.

Secondly, the writer attempts to throw everything at the wall and hope something sticks by listing all the changes he's seen in his lifetime or may potentially see down the road which he feels to be immoral, yet the list is so random and full of false equivalence, I have a great deal of trouble not picturing this man outside his home, yelling, "Get off my lawn! Wait, where am I?" So, abortion is to euthanasia is to cohabiting before marriage is to having children born out of wedlock is to same-sex marriage, eh? ...and the 1940s and 1950s were the good old days because Mr. Wolock didn't hear about such things occurring? Could this partly be due to there being less media outlets and no Internet? No matter what Mr. Wolock would like to believe, homosexuals were around during those two decades, couples lived together before being wed, and children were born out of wedlock. Also, the Civil Rights Act had yet to be signed. After those two decades, women and minorities continued seeing non-discrimination laws passed, as well as rape laws, equal pay laws, etc. So, yes, the 1940s and 1950s were the good old days, for heterosexual Christian white men. Shame on everyone else for wanting to "change society" by obtaining equal rights. Isn't that right, Mr. Wolock?

http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/editorials/2014/07/14/young-people-have-lost-their-sense-of-values.html

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Boycotting jukeboxes because of TouchTunes

I love music and enjoy hitting the bar(s) over the weekend, so naturally, when the mood strikes me, I've never been coy about playing some songs on the jukebox. This past Thursday, a friend of mine turned 50, so several friends of her's, including myself, all met up to celebrate the occasion. At around 9:30, a friend of mine and I both chipped in $5 to play some songs on the jukebox. Four hours and 231 skips later, we gave up on hearing the songs we had selected, and went home knowing we had just wasted $5. This wasn't the first time such a thing had happened to me (and many others), and due to that, I'll be boycotting jukeboxes. Why? The scam known as TouchTunes. You see, here's how the plot typically breaks down. A person (or group of people) downloads the TouchTunes app on his/her phone, consumes one too many adult beverages, and due to this, has less care for spending extra money to hear the songs of their choosing right NOW. That's the thing with TouchTun

The difference between "looking" and "checking out"

I may be way off with these numbers, but it's my approximation that at least 75% of individuals whom are involved in a serious relationship feel it's perfectly acceptable to "check out" members of the opposite sex they're not involved with. Meanwhile, approximately 25% either don't feel this is acceptable or aren't sure about the matter. I hadn't thought about this matter for a while, but since I've been dating a woman for about 8 months, the topic has been pondered about some. When reading or hearing others discuss this very issue, I often times hear comments similar to the following: "It's human nature to look." "There's nothing wrong with checking others out. I'm sure he/she does it too!" "It's fine to do it. Just don't tell your boyfriend/girlfriend about it or do it in front of them!" "It's natural to find people attractive." When observing the array of comments, I i

The verdict is in. To no one's surprise, Jonathan Hoenig has been found guilty of being an idiot.

Just recently, when discussing the Michael Brown shooting and whether or not race had anything to do with it, Fox News contributor Jonathan Hoenig said, "You know who talks about race? Racists." One moment while I provide Mr. Hoenig with the well deserved slow-clap. :: slow-claps for two seconds :: So, that was quite the line by Mr. Hoenig, wasn't it? "You know who talks about race? Racists." Well, wasn't he just talking about race? So, by his own words, I guess that makes him a racist. Also, if he wants to be consistent, does this mean that people whom talk about gender are sexists and people whom talk about sexual orientation are homophobes? With that line of thinking, Hoenig would engage in the following back-and-forths: Hoenig: "So, who are you voting for?" A woman: "The Democratic candidate, because he's been adamant about his support for equal rights for women." Hoenig: "You sexist feminist nazi!"