Italian Historian Says Homosexuality Destroyed Rome ZOT!

The Eponymous Flower ^ | 04/10/11 | Tancred

[0beron]

Editor: They've done quite a job on the Catholic Church already.

Does anyone remember when Richard Nixon discussed one of the redeeming features of the Soviet Union as being its antipathy of homosexuals when he was talking in his office about Archie Bunker, said exactly the same thing? [Warning, fowl language, blasphemy] At first he starts demurring, saying he has no moral objections to homosexuality, then goes on to say that the immorality actually destroys societies. It's also interesting that Nixon's off-color comments are made much of when figures like Gandhi and Voltaire get away with it. Of course, apologists for Richard Nixon won't defend what Nixon was saying, they'll just argue that times, and morals, have changed, and if you know anything about principles, it's an indefensible position to take, but anyway.

Of course, never mind Richard Nixon, despite the fact that he's correct. Let another voice speak by way of a message from Bminormass on 'www.fisheaters.com", who said in his book, "Life is Worth Living" on P. 260, where he quotes the sociologist, Dr. Sorokin, who said:

[gusty]

At the time of the fall, the contemporaries of that time did not recognize that Rome had fell. The barbarian conquerors saw themselves not replacing Rome, but rising to the leadership of Rome. Roman civilization survived as it was accepted by the kingdoms that supplanted the empire. We have this picture of barbarians with painted faces, running around in animal skins. The truth was quite different. The barbarian tribes had absorbed the culture of Rome into their own for hundreds of years before 476AD. The notion that homosexuality led to the fall of Rome is just silly. At the time of the fall, the Roman Empire was a fully Christian empire since the time of Constantine the Great. More plausible reasons are Rome's constant civil wars. Gibbon in 1776 argued that Christianity itself was the reason Rome fell. He believed that Rome's earlier religion fostered a more martial spirit. Be what it may, lets hope that the United States has the staying power of Rome. We have another 400 years to tie them.

[0beron]

[i]I meant to say that for a while, the Emperors themselves were successful military leaders - it wasn’t possible to become Emperor without winning a (civil) war of succession.[/i]

Indeed, it guaranteed in certain cases that the successor was the best man for the job, or at least the best at doing all of those things, administering provinces, influencing allies, isolating enemies, that made for an effective leader during that time period.

Although, Christianity did make for SOME smoother transitions, in some cases a perspective emperor would resign and allow a more able man take his place, and rather than killing his opponents, a new occupant of the throne would simply blind his enemies and put them in a Monastery, but that’s another thing...

[Zhang Fei]

We don’t really know much about the Germans except for what the Romans and the Greeks wrote about them, and homosexuality wasn’t much mention, so I don’t know how you could make that claim.

I'm making a generic assumption that homosexuality has existed as a fringe phenomenon since the beginning of recorded history. I don't see this statement being controversial at all. Traditionally, Judaism, Christianity and Islam have proscribed homosexuality (in some cases as a capital crime); other religions generally have not. If anything, after Christianity became the state religion, Rome should have had fewer homosexuals than the pagans on its borders, given that this coincided with homosexuality being made a capital crime.

[0beron]

Belloc actually handles that thesis quite handily in his book http://books.google.com/books?id=5ryGAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA21&lpg=PA21&dq=belloc+on+the+roman+church&source=bl&ots=rCbzs8Z0_v&sig=8np-hr2MoW49X_gX5lyyCxcQgWU&hl=en&ei=rUCiTcivE-H30gGJo6ifDQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=5&ved=0CDIQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q&f=false

The thesis that spiritual and moral generation or exhaustion is what spells the end of civilizations isn’t a new one. It’s very persuasive, and you can see that more than a few influential people believed in it with regard to the Roman State.

What I’m suggesting is that the calamities which followed on the heels of the extreme moral exhaustion of the Roman Empire, which wasn’t entirely Christian at the time you speak, maybe about half, came as a result of the moral decay which negatively effected the fertility of the women and the desire to form families. You can see from contemporaries in the quotes that Sheen is making that the family is under attack and the generality of the population is mercilessly immoral.

I’m actually surprised to see this much resistance to the idea here of all places. After all, this IS a socially conservative site. We do believe, like Richard Nixon, that the State will suffer correspondingly if the people are not moral, and all around us we see these influences destroying the coherence of American Society, not only on an intellectual plane, without which there can be no right actions, but in every aspect of society from folk culture down to the elites themselves who regard those of us who hail morality with contempt, even if they agree with us publicly.

[Cacique]

BTT

[Admin Moderator]

They’re trying to bait you.

Ignore them.

[Zhang Fei]

The thesis that spiritual and moral generation or exhaustion is what spells the end of civilizations isn’t a new one. It’s very persuasive, and you can see that more than a few influential people believed in it with regard to the Roman State.

I think these people are naive. Ultimately, a civilization's continued existence depends on its martial virtue (in the sense of potency). Plenty of very pious Christians have been erased from this world, including many in what is now Turkey, most of the Middle East and North Africa. In reality, religious faith is no substitute for military preparedness. What is surprising is that Christendom has survived two rounds of intra-religious genocidal-scale wars - WWI and WWII - without being threatened by Islam. It's symptomatic of just how relatively weak Islam is, from a military standpoint.

[TheOldLady]

Yay! FReepathon SPAM on a blog pimp post. It’s a two-fer, DJ!

[DJ MacWoW]

There’s no reason they should esca....er...I mean be exempt from a FReepathon. :-)

[TheOldLady]

Indeed.

[gusty]

Don’t be surprised. We are not drones like those on the Left. We on the Conservative side, like you and I, think for ourselves. We do not need to follow the party line. This site would be pretty boring if we all agreed with each other, and just posted ditto. Been many a time I posted, someone disagreed, and I saw the error in my argument and changed my opinion. Its a great site for Conservative of all stripes to hash out their arguments.

[DungeonMaster]

Homos are crazy. They get involved in public policy and their involvement is crazy. Crazy has many faces like spending more money that one has or eliminating defense or crazy self destructive social behavior which weakens a whole nation like cancer weakens a body. We see it happening all around us.

[DMG2FUN]

It sure did! When the perverted homosexuals chant Rome accepted homosexuality. They always fail to mention. It was only at the end of Rome that this was done. Not the beginning!

[DMG2FUN]

It sure did! When the perverted homosexuals chant Rome accepted homosexuality. They always fail to mention. It was only at the end of Rome that this was done. Not the beginning!

[Salamander]

I don’t think the resistance is to the subject, per se...it’s resistance to the 6 tracking sites and 37 cookies dumped onto our machines by your blog.

Now, if you’ll pardon me, I have go run my spyware/malware programs after checking it out.

[Bean Counter]

“They’re trying to bait you.

Ignore them.”

Ya know, I really prefer my Admin Moderators to be the silent type, until it is absolutely necessary to jump in and truly moderate a thread. I’ve been here since 1998, and I have seen countless examples to back me up since then...until just recently when all of a sudden, we have a new Admin Mod who likes to do a lot more than just “moderate”.

I do not like it when a rogue Admin Mod jumps into a thread where they are not needed. For starters it is a cowardly act because we all know that Admin Mod is the keeper of the keys, and nobody really knows who the duty Admin Mod is.

Why? Because until very recently, the only words out of a good Admin Mod have been “Zot” and little else. It’s a good way to run things and I believe that policy, such as it is, has served this site very, very well; and I question whether you have the singular authority to make a change like that all by your lonesome, especially on a Sunday night when nobody else is apparently looking.

This is not the first, or second time I have brought this up either.

Whomever you are, if you want to participate in this thread, then I strongly suggest that you log in under your real FR identity and take your lumps like the rest of us. If you want to play Admin Mod, then do so quietly and stop distracting yourself by rolling on the floor with the dogs when you ought to be watching the entire site.

You’re supposed to be in charge. Act like it.

[Bean Counter]

*ping*

[Daffynition]

When I signed up to FR, the screen name I chose was *Rainbow Sprinkles* ...Mr. Robinson kindly changed it after Paulycy explained its connotation. Carry on.

[Salamander]

Yeah, because parasites *always* make an honest effort to benefit their hosts.

/s

:)

[Please buy my product!]