2007-01-13 11:06:32 · 10 answers · asked by Ethan M 5 in Arts & Humanities ➔ History
It certainly didn't make people any happier, especially the resulting children and the one-parent families.
In Ibsen's play Ghosts, a character says that free unions will stop the spread of STDs. LOL.
2007-01-13 18:09:39 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
To "There's an app for that"-- some so called Christians may act like that, but I am sure you are smart enough to realize that that is NOT what Christianity is about AT ALL. Read the Bible if ya think I'm wrong. And until you can show me in the Bible, which is THE text for Christianity, where it says in there ANYWHERE that it is ok to HATE OTHER PEOPLE who are different from you, then please don't spout hateful comments like what you just posted. The closest thing you will find is where it refers to abhorring the sinful actions of people, not the people themselves. Yes, I abhor things that cause pain, suffering and loss. I abhor murder, lies, theft. Not the person who is tempted to do them. I abhor the devil, not those who he deceives.... Just wanted to point out the untruth behind your comment. ... And to answer the original question. I don't think the movement itself was "anti-christian" but MANY of the going-on's of the movement were "un-christian." For example: Before the movement, many people had the notion that sex was "dirty" or "naughty". Not true....God designed sex to be the greatest physical blessing between man and wife. He meant it to feel that good, to be celebrated and cherished. However, the movement kinda went overboard, it took something that was meant to be a sacred act of LOVE and manifested it into an act of recreation in the PURSUIT of love. No one will convince me that all the people "toup'in'" in the sixies, truly and deeply LOVED each other. As a result we see the huge boom in STD rates that the free-love movement brought. We misused what God designed and got ourselves into trouble. Go figure.
2016-05-23 22:16:44 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
The 40th anniversary of the 1967 "Summer of Love" will be fondly remembered this year. Jimi Hendrix, Janis Joplin & Otis Redding at Monterey Pop. The era' apex. That's a failure? Granted this period is bookended by the mess at Altamount & the Manson murders, the era's symbolic nadir. What doesn't come to an end. As an epoch it set the groundwork for incredible social examination & positive change.
2007-01-13 12:05:08 · answer #3 · answered by puritanzouave 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋
False. The free love movement accomplished what it set out to do--provide an avenue of rebellion for teens of that generation.
2007-01-13 11:16:46 · answer #4 · answered by loryntoo 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
False. Women's rights and other issues took a big step forward during the 60's.
2007-01-13 11:44:24 · answer #5 · answered by willow oak 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
It depends on how you look at it. First, you really had to be there. No, it was not a complete failure.
2007-01-13 11:35:17 · answer #6 · answered by David L 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
What free love movement was that. I didn't notice.
2007-01-13 17:48:24 · answer #7 · answered by brainstorm 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Depends on whether you were able to score or not, if ya didn't, it was a failure, if you did, it was a success.. :)
2007-01-13 11:17:09 · answer #8 · answered by chuckufarley2a 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
FALSE
It was a good time, and it continues today.
2007-01-13 11:41:43 · answer #9 · answered by sudonym x 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
True.
2007-01-13 11:12:05 · answer #10 · answered by kyle.keyes 6 · 0⤊ 2⤋