The 60's is not the past, in the sense of historical context. The 60's is pretty much the present. Good grief, Loran, in the context of thousands of years, the last 48 is a mere drop in the bucket of time.
As I've already pointed out, your flaming strawman of the many thousands of years has no logical connection to any critique of the sexual revolution, at least not one that I've made.
Snip rambling gibberish.
I could source thousands of pages of text: books, magazine articles, think tank studies and essays, that clearly and concisely connect the cultural sea changes of the sixties and seventies to the clear decline of western civilizational standards and massive rise in social pathology in the decades since, but I'm not going to do homework that you, with your very own computer, can do yourself. You wouldn't read or credit them in any case, because all of them are going to be the work of
conservative intellectuals, scholars, and social critics, which you will dismiss out of hand on sight. I know this game, Scratch used to play it too. This is a theoretical and interpretive area, not an empirical one (except for the social science data of course, which can always be explained away as pure correlation) in which you or I get to "show" or "prove" our points. It is the quality of the critical analysis; the philosophical coherence and plausibility of the arguments brought to bear that tip the scales one way or the other. For example, your claim that the mass acceptance of the ideology of the Sexual Revolution had no causal influence on the mass acceptance of pornography, and the mass acceptance of pornography had no causal influence upon later cultural developments, or negative socio-cultural consequences, and, indeed, no historical connection to societal conditions in the present, isn't even plausible on its face. The connections can be shown (anyone who thinks porn doesn't have destructive effects on its viewers is a paleolithic ignoramus-or a liberal, because that's the kind of moral and intellectual cretinism necessary to accept such a claim), and anyone who has studied addiction, of which sexual addiction (a very recent phenomena in the sense of its sudden massive increase over just the last fifteen to 20 years) is a major part, knows this.
The opposite thesis, that the past conditions and affects the present, is not only plausible but unarguable historical fact. You say the sixties are the present? I say the 30s and 40s are the present; the Great Depression and WWII permanently altered the cultural and political landscape and we are still living with those cultural dynamics. But that is still the past, and the sixties are almost half a century behind us, though the effects of that era are with us, to our continuing peril.
You have yet to show that pornography is any worse now than it was hundreds or even thousands of years ago
This strawman is getting larger, fatter, and moldier with every post. What will it take to get you to deal with this argument logically and honestly? Pornography isn't worse, its global ubiquitousness and availability through modern communications technology are what make it worse. Its mass acceptance, its domestication on a mass scale, are what make it much more threatening now than in prior centuries (when only a few ever actually had access to it). Woodcuts, paintings, and carvings in societies without modern electronic communications have no bearing on the modern argument.
And by the way, thousands of years ago, the Gospel's critique of pornography would have been exactly the same as it is today, relative to its effects on the individual and upon society when it is domesticated, accepted, and become ubiquitous. Oh, but don't tell me, that critique is another of the things about the Church you don't accept. The Spirit told you...
(thousands of years ago, it was most prominently displayed in the dining room, and the size of a man's penis was equated to the size of his purse, so I guess you know what was all over the dining rooms of the rich!). And your knowledge of the history of marriage is abysmal and shows in your understanding of what you're calling "premarital cohabitation" (as if it was a new phenomena, and not simply a return to society's norm 500 years ago, when only the rich married. You do remember the Dark Ages, don't you?).
Don't even go there with the left wing revisionist history regarding the history of marriage. That's a interpretational template superimposed on that subject for which there is ample refutation. Marriage has actually been practiced in very much the same form, with variations and modifications, from time immemorial. Pointing out exceptions is easy, but similarities abound as well. I've been over this trope before with others, so stuff it, its ideologically based revisionism (created, by the way, by leftist historians primarily interested in defending...the sexual revolution, and, more specifically, Gay marriage). You see Harmony, he who controls the past controls the present. I'm quite cognizant of the efforts of some of the academic Left to try to make modern marriage seem historically atypical).
Don't you get it, Loran? There's nothing new under the sun! The 60's simply ended the preoccupation of the society with an antiquated and outdated Victorian morality (which, when you study that era, you'll find all sorts of interesting tidbits... like they weren't quite as moral on the inside as they liked to show on the outside).
Between the continuously growing strawman and the preformatted left wing can't, this is getting stale.