Posted on 06/19/2015 4:17:00 AM PDT by foreverfree
Re-read your history.
Re-read your history.
Yep, that too.
How about the racism and sexism?
Do you really think those are serious problems today?
Do you really think more traditional values are somehow oppressive to people of varying skin color and to women?
No, they’re not serious problems today—but they were then.
So that’s the tricky part of advocating the “morality” of that era. Just what lost aspects of that morality are you talking about?
It’s easy to say, “without the racism”. But 50’s morality without the sexism is harder to define.
Depends on your definition of “sexism”, I guess.
If supporting the natural inclination of the different sex roles is “sexism”, then I guess it would be “worse” with traditional morality.
The problem is that the left/satan ALWAYS twists the good things of God into perversions and calls good evil and evil good.
So, of course, the left would say that societal support of the natural bent of the sexes, even without prohibition of those who follow a different bent,
would be “evil” and “sexist”.
I’m not for policies—such as subsidizing day care—that undermine women wanting to stay home to raise their kids, if that’s what you’re about.
But if you’re looking for policies that promote such over other choices, or the social denigration if not legal prohibition of other choices—you lose me entirely.
The policy of no coercive interference will always favor traditional values.
For some, but I don’t think any longer for most.
Women show respect to their husbands.
&&
More than a few liberals would find this HIGHLY offensive.
^^^^^
Indeed!
My mother in law was a firm proponent of twin beds. She said that visiting was wonderful. Sleeping together was another matter.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.