karmabeliever- actually no, I am not past childbearing age, how ridiculous. You are probably assuming that people born later; 1963, if one takes as a yardstick Philip Larkin's little ditty; automatically agree with "sexual revolution" morality (multiple partners, sodomy, etc. OK- based on pure-humanist "consent"/ "respect"/ "responsibility" principles without the principles of Judeo-Christian tradition, which is why I reject it, being Christian and not a secular-humanistic person.)
Although it is understandable it still makes me 
when people assume someone's views are in the majority of the TIME they live in. Time does not dictate morality- differences in circumstances with material progress can alter the application of principles needed in certain situations but the ethic of the human body is eternal as it is rooted in eternal things: I do not have the morals of my "era", my "generation" or my "society" and will never be accused of being "of my time" in any obituaries in the unlikely event of my becoming famous. The phrase "times change" is frequently used in debates where I believe it has absolutely no place; its corollary does not apply to me for I do not "change/move with the times".
Correct use:
Person 1: What do you think of child labour?
Person 2: It's bad and needs to stay illegal , why?
Person 1: In the 1800s and before every civilisation allowed it.
Person 2: They had low life expectancy, no welfare provision, most were unable to receive secondary education let alone any further, many were entirely illiterate, there was no social safety net organised by government to provide for parents... in all the circumstances there putting young children out to work could be justified, but now times have moved on and everyone has the opportunity to attend school until they reach adulthood while children don't need the money from work to survive, nor do parents face destitution and absolute hunger if they don't send their children out to work with the welfare state and other provisions. Thus the exploitation and disruption to education which child labour represents is now unacceptable.
INCORRECT USE:
Person 1: What do you think of a man having sex with multiple women before marrying one?
Person 2: It's perfectly fine if they all consent and take care to avoid infections or an unwanted pregnancy
Person 1: It has been accepted as immoral since time immemorial, throughout the West and all over the world...
Person 2: Times change, we have reliable modern contraceptive methods and access to safe legal abortion, our culture values experimentation, self-exploration and self-discovery in youth, we no longer view sexuality as an evil thing or one tainted by "sin".
This is an INCORRECT argument, as the real reason why sex outside of marriage is wrong is not about earthly cultural factors. It is about the heavenly design of the human species: intended by our Creator to express our sexual desires within the sanctified framework of matrimony. This is forever, and withstands any majority of a particular society saying otherwise. Yes, 99% of people would be wrong if they all thought homosexual sex was "equal" to natural intercourse and that a woman should be able to marry a fellow woman in just the same way as a husband. In any democratic system they would have their way over the legal definition of marriage, but one cannot legislate morality- as liberals like to say. Heck, even 100 per cent of people could be wrong...