Does homosexuality really lead to the collapse of a civilization...

Does homosexuality really lead to the collapse of a civilization? Will it just do more harm than good in the long run today?

Other urls found in this thread:

nytimes.com/interactive/2017/06/05/upshot/opioid-epidemic-drug-overdose-deaths-are-rising-faster-than-ever.html
medium.com/@mattfeifarek/are-you-so-sure-that-progressives-didnt-also-anticipate-more-sexual-freedoms-less-binary-thinking-33abe040d330
nytimes.com/2016/04/22/health/us-suicide-rate-surges-to-a-30-year-high.html
cbsnews.com/news/stress-anxiety-depression-mental-illness-increases-study-finds/
nber.org/papers/w14969
rexresearch.com/glubb/glubb-empire.pdf
slatestarcodex.com/2013/03/07/we-wrestle-not-with-flesh-and-blood-but-against-powers-and-principalities/
independent.co.uk/news/world/saudi-arabia-is-third-happiest-country-in-survey-which-shows-downbeat-europe-a6802516.html
census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2016/cb16-192.htmlP
census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2016/cb16-192.html
time.com/4575495/divorce-rate-nearly-40-year-low/
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

No, fuck off to /pol/.
>>

No modern society is structured differently so it wont fall the same way

I'm not even trying to start any /pol/ shit I'm legitimately curious. I've heard a lot of conflicting shit with this topic in the past.

>Only Abrahamics/Semitics have laws against Homosexuality.
>Get wrecked and massacred repeatedly.
What did G*d mean by this?

It gives birth to civilizations. Every civilized culture had them, while all primitive hunter-gatherers were hetshits. It's the purest form of love.

Heterosexuals are Jews

Love is a relict of feudalism. The only thing that matters is reproduction.

>Rome was tolerant of homosexuality at its height
>collapses soon after adopting Christianity and outlawing homosexuality
hmm...

> I've heard a lot of conflicting shit with this topic in the past.

From /pol/ probably. Plato's Symposium and homosexuality existed in Greece and Rome long before its fall. Using homosexuality as a scapegoat for the fall of Rome is just retarded and ignores the actual history of those societies.

>all primitive hunter-gatherers were hetshits
That's wrong.
What's correct is that the semi-nomadic pastoralist barbarian raiders on the fringes of civilization tended to look with distaste upon whatever their more advanced neighbors were doing as "effeminacy" and "degeneracy", especially sexuality, food and fashion.

Its a symptom not a cause

>muh /pol/ bogeyman

search out the Sotadic Zone

I've been meaning to type out my thoughts on the subject of decadence and civilization decline, especially how the subject is perceived and treated on Veeky Forums for a while and this thread is as good as any.

One thing that's especially important in my eyes when dealing with this topic, and this thread is a perfect example, is not getting bogged down on singular aspects of 'degeneracy'. "homosexuality" or any individual deviant sexual behavior as being "causes of collapse" are such ludicrous propositions that the entire topic of civilizational decline gets dismissed outright when framed in this manner.

More broadly what should be looked at are the institutions responsible for the success of a given civilization. Why, using Rome for example, did the population of the state decline and with the their martial and economic dominance? Why did the plebian citizens, formerly responsible for providing the bulk of Roman's army with their sons, stop having kids? Why did feelings of civic duty and responsibility wane among Rome's highest circles? Why did the Roman citizen who had for so long jealously guarded his political freedom from tyrants so willingly submit to the rule of the Caesars?

In this manner we can examine the changes in the US's or The West's own institutions. An erosion of civil liberties and a willingness to fight for them, a decline in the stability of the family structure and a normalization of single parent homes, a political system fraught with acrimony edging towards oligarchy that caters almost exclusively to well-endowed private interests, a deep sense of malaise, cynicism and pessimism not just about public affairs but in private life and a stark turn to pharmaceuticals to assuage those feelings, a consumerist culture that seeks to induce anxieties and offer hedonistic self-indulgence as a solution.

Don't interpret this post as "America is going the same way as rome" but merely a cursory examination of decadence.

Only if they are as annoying as the ones who started the LGBT movement. Increased acceptance was a good result, but the whole thing has gotten out of hand and now there's this overwhelming sense of entitlement born from successfully forcing celebrations of diversity. Like the other 95% if the population MUST cater to their whims, no matter how retarded, while they bicker amongst themselves constantly. That's not a good way to run anything.

of course it does , any feminine culture gets destroyed by a more masculine one

Good, thoughtful post. Refreshing to see someone give a damn.

I know little about ancient history, trying to learn more. Can you direct me to some information regarding birth rate decline in the Roman Empire?

And also, regarding
>Why did feelings of civic duty and responsibility wane among Rome's highest circles?
Not saying that I disbelieve you, but can you provide some examples of this waning of civic duty? What would that even look like? I'm just really new to ancient history and don't have the background information.

Ah that's why Tengriism is so popular in the current year

Yes. Buttfucking leads to Assbabies, which are an existential threat, not only to civilization, but to the very survival of humanity.

No.

This is an inane question no matter what your disposition towards homsexuality is.

> every civilization ever has homosexuals
> every civilization eventually collapses

Theory checks out.

England hasn't had a homosexual monarch for 300 years and it's world standing has plummeted in that time.
I'm really trying to say that it doesn't cause anything

It doesn't lead to a collapse of civilization.

But modern homosexual culture is very harmful, since it is very hedonistic. Modern gay men have on average dozens of sexual partners and a very hedonistic way of life, that ends up influencing others.

Plato's kind of homosexuality was not carnal.

name a homosexual culture that has ever succeeded

it will act as a buffer between the sexes and alleviate conflicts eventually, once it stops being weaponized

>every civilization eventually collapses
not Rome

>the population of the state declined
[citation needed]
>the plebeian citizens stopped having kids
[citation needed]
>feelings of civic duty and responsibility waned among Rome's highest circles
[citation needed]
>the Roman citizen who had for so long jealously guarded his political freedom from tyrants
[citation needed]

Maybe I don't understand what period you're specifically referring to but a lot of that is unsupported at best or the fucking opposite of what happened at worst.

I would say that we have a problem of "a fall in virtue" in general, rather than homosexuality.

Pretty much every prediction by Paul VI on Humanae Vitae was confirmed. To the point that feminists are scared of men replacing them with sex robots. And sexual hedonism is not the only problem, as you mentioned.

Overdose rates are high
nytimes.com/interactive/2017/06/05/upshot/opioid-epidemic-drug-overdose-deaths-are-rising-faster-than-ever.html

>Drug overdoses are now the leading cause of death among Americans under 50.


I remember an article where the guy said

medium.com/@mattfeifarek/are-you-so-sure-that-progressives-didnt-also-anticipate-more-sexual-freedoms-less-binary-thinking-33abe040d330

>Social cons said that no-fault divorce would read to vastly higher divorce rates, and it did. Social cons said that ending the norm of the two-parent family would lead to more single-parent households, and they were correct. Social cons said that widespread access to birth control would lead to sexual licentiousness, and they were right. Social cons said that legalized abortion would decouple sex from procreation, and that happened. Social cons said that decriminalization of gay sex would lead to social acceptance of gay people, and so it was. Social cons said that social acceptance of gay people would lead to gay marriage, and that was true. Social cons said that efforts to end stigma against trans people would lead to a general rejection of the gender binary, and so it has.
>Again, these are mostly all good consequences, which is the difference between me and them.

And one reader wrote:

>I find that social conservatives predict DOOM AND DESTRUCTION ZOMG and progressive predict healthier, happier individuals, families, and civilizations from these changes.
>One is apocalyptic, one is utopian. Who has been right?

Looking at suicide rates, drug usage, depression statistics, broken families, etc... The social conservatives are right...

>. Modern gay men have on average dozens of sexual partners and a very hedonistic way of life, that ends up influencing others.

Why is it always about men with you guys? Lesbians exist.

>Looking at suicide rates, drug usage, depression statistics, broken families, etc... The social conservatives are right...

If you ACTUALLY look at this statistics, then no, they're not right. Most things are actually improving.

joker

No. The only people that have such views that I know are Christian fundamentalists with a poor perception of actual history. No homosexuality did not destroy the Romans, please fuck off.

From who your youth pastor? No genuine historians seriously believe that shit.

Suicide

nytimes.com/2016/04/22/health/us-suicide-rate-surges-to-a-30-year-high.html

Drugs
nytimes.com/interactive/2017/06/05/upshot/opioid-epidemic-drug-overdose-deaths-are-rising-faster-than-ever.html

Depression

cbsnews.com/news/stress-anxiety-depression-mental-illness-increases-study-finds/

Broken families
Picture related. If the family is not even formed, can it be broken?

homosexuals are a small minority, they can't affect shit

And if you look at happiness research...

nber.org/papers/w14969

People are unhappier. And this affected women more than men.

Well put. I think you have a point in your 4th paragraph about oligarchies, I see our political system degrading now under Trump and the Republicans refusal to limit his power. I used to worry about it, but now I'm certain that party loyalty is more important than human dignity and belief in liberty and democracy.

But I live in the south where Republicans have gerrymandered themselves into power despite a large democratic populace that remains underrepresented. Perhaps this is true of all societies, but I certainly agree that throughout history there seems to be a cycle and a civilization's fall seems to come right after it's highest point. But that may be an oversimplified view. Once an empire becomes so big and powerful, it seems to collapse under its own size and wealth. While one emperor can be a great leader, his grandson is so coddled he can't even handle basic human interaction (in some cases). Power seems to make us weak.

So, sexual hedonism and materialism didn't make people healthier, happier and so on. And this affected women more than men. Not surprising given the Sexual Revolution.

lol this basically. I think we should be examining why everything collapses and stop trying to identify individual causes. It's ridiculous. Obviously there are a multitude of causes, not least of which is probably climate and warfare.

This, also correlation=/=causation

why don't you go read Glubb instead of pontificating?
rexresearch.com/glubb/glubb-empire.pdf
>you're welcome

See

Nope, it never has. The whole "cultural change leads to civilizational collapse" line does not stand up when any historical analysis is applied, and only exists to provide commentary on modern politics. One could just as easily look at the fates of Ancient Egypt, Ming China, the Russian Empire, and the Soviet Union and declare that rigid and conservative societies will collapse because people cannot think for themselves.

In reality, material factors influence the course of societies far, far more than any surface-level cultural factors could do. Hence why the resource-rich nations of France, China, and Russia have been extremely successful both in strictly conservative and passionately revolutionary contests, and fall only when their poorer neighbors outsmart them through new technology and economic innovations.

Homosexuality has nothing going for it civilizations wise.persons without biological children have zero skin in the game, hedonists are easier to corral, and their behavior is a disease vector.

Gay people are more law abiding, though, so...

>
>
>

>Roman men fucked each other
>gets empire

>Rome becomes Christian and bans homosex
>empire collapses

what do you think christcuck?

>implying that massive amounts of drug overdoses aren't caused by conservatives trying to fight a war on drugs
ayy lmao portugul.jpg

>Suicide

Is an interesting phenomenon, that's actually more common in prosperous, happy cultures. I wouldn't go so far as saying it's a GOOD thing, per se, but it is a sign our lives are safe and comfortable.

>nytimes.com/2016/04/22/health/us-suicide-rate-surges-to-a-30-year-high.html
>Drugs

A temporary blip that has nothing to do with "hedonism" and more to do with a soft in which drugs are popular, namely opiates.

>Depression

A rise in diagnosis is not necessarily a rise.

>Broken families

Showing "unwed" mothers. They can have two parents. Many people are married in all but name. Meanwhile, the divorce rate has been falling steadily for 30 years.

The broader picture, though, is that you can always cherry pick some things that are getting worse, which proves nothing since "literally everything is improving" is a ridiculous straw man. Why not focus on decreasing violence, poverty, and disease? Because it doesn't fit the narrative.

>originally an antisocial disorder
>more likely to do drugs
>more likely to diddle kids
That is tip of iceberg

>that picture
To be fair couldn't you argue that a lot of the self harm aspects are from gays receiving a crazy amount of shit from others for being gay?

>I reject any facts I disagree with: the post

So, people killing themselves means society is healthier, overdoses increasing steadily over 3 decades (going from less than 10k to more than 50k) is a temporary bleep, a rise in depression is just because more people go to psychologists (even if other markers correlated with depression also increased).
As for the breakdown of family, the percentage of children living with two parents declined a lot. Do you want the article so that you can give a bullshit excuse to that?

>Why not focus on decreasing violence, poverty, and disease?

Because we are dealing with physicological well being. Poverty, disease and crime are economic issues.

This is consistent in uber fag friendly Europe. The fetish is associated to the social dysfunctions.

How did I do that?

>Why not focus on decreasing violence, poverty, and disease? Because it doesn't fit the narrative.
>dismiss all evidence that doesn't fit a different narrative
wew

What am I dismissing?

Presumably they'd be just as likely to manifest mental disorders whether they were tolerated or not, yes?

>percentage of children living with married parents

Declining

I mean just because the location is tolerant doesn't mean there aren't gonna be people giving them shit.
I live in a pretty tolerant place myself (Melbourne) yet I still come across a decent amount of people that aren't keen on gays. Also with how huge the internet is and social media you can easily come across people wanting to bash on you for being gay which can be pretty common.

>suicide
>the sickness of despair
>"oh, people only kill themselves when they're happy"

>people are doing more drugs
>no indication that it's temporary
>"that's just temporary"

>more diagnoses for depression
>no reason to assume that all or even most of these diagnoses are spurious
>"probably just over diagnosed"

>unwed mothers
>no reason to assume that all, most, or even some of them are living happy more-or-less married lives just without the certificate
>"common law marriages could be uncounted in this statistic"

Are you even trying?

>>"oh, people only kill themselves when they're happy"

Not at all what I said.

>>no indication that it's temporary

So it's unlike every other drug trend ever? Ok.

>>no reason to assume that all or even most of these diagnoses are spurious

Ask any doctor about drug seeking behavior. You don't need to be depressed to want antidepressants, but you do need to be diagnosed to get them. Plus, it's not just overdiagnosis (which obviously exists), but the fact that it used be underdiagnosed. Now, I don't know whether depression is rising or falling or steady and I'm not claiming to, but using diagnosis rates as proxy for real rates is obvious bullshit.

>no reason to assume that all, most, or even some
>even some

Really? You don't think that ever happens? That's the position you're taking?

I think single parent households probably are on the rise, but that's still bad statistics.

Intelectual dishonesty, the posts.

Is there any evidence that you would accept showing that hedonism is not so great?

Not even that guy, but your evidence is worthless. The society was completely different 60 years ago. Generally people are more happy when they have less opportunities and simply accept their way of life.
I bet medieval peasants were actually pretty content with their lives.

You should compare happiness in modern progressive and conservative societies.

So suicide rates, overdoses and depression are worthless statistics?

>Generally people are more happy when they have less opportunities and simply accept their way of life.

Do you have evidence for that? If that is true, wouldn't liberalism be a huge mistake? Wouldn't that be in favor of restrictive social norms or North Korea?

And is comparing the evolution of America over the decades that much worse than comparing Sweden and Saudi Arabia, who don't even share the same language?

>If that is true, wouldn't liberalism be a huge mistake? Wouldn't that be in favor of restrictive social norms or North Korea?

"Let’s assume the Reactionaries are totally right. Past was a thousand times better than the present in every way. So what?

The past contained things like “everyone living in close-knit mono-ethnic villages”. We could, perhaps, with great effort and not a little atrocity, restore the “mono-ethnic”. But the close-knit? The villages? Unless we’re going to roll back the Industrial Revolution, the main ingredient of that particular transition, the move to urbanization, is there to stay.

Any statistic in which the present differs from the past is much more likely to be a result of technology than of politics. Reactionaries correctly use this to excuse themselves of advantages like the present’s better health care or greater wealth.

But they have to acknowledge that the same manuever relieves the other side of a lot of their burdens as well. Progressives also have some uncomfortable statistics, usually those relating to social cohesion and trust and happiness. And I am totally willing to throw every one of these out. Of course the move to an urban society is going to do that! Of course having people work factory or office jobs instead of either on the land or in an skilled trade like blacksmithing is going to alienate them. Of course having the average person watch TV four hours a day because it’s a novel superstimulus is going to affect community ties!

I suspect that the most valuable features of past societies – the ones that we read fantasy books to recapture, the ones that make Renaissance Faires and Medieval Times so attractive – have nothing to do with politics and cannot be restored through politics. In order to regain them, you’re going to have to roll back the Industrial Revolution."

slatestarcodex.com/2013/03/07/we-wrestle-not-with-flesh-and-blood-but-against-powers-and-principalities/

>evidence

Or in other words, if you want to be as happy as a North Korean, prepare to suffer in North Korea.

Also this part:
"I often hear Reactionaries make an argument like: the old ways are the result of thousands of years of trial-and-error. Those thousands of years created a remarkably stable culture that survived for centuries. When Progressives throw them out, they are abandoning something we know works for some sort of grand experiment that might end in complete failure.
[...]
I tend to agree with Reactionaries that cultures have a mechanism that gradually adapts them to their conditions. This may not be morally good – if the conditions are “cotton is very lucrative” then the “evolutionarily advantageous” adaptation for a society may be to institute slavery – but they are at least effective and stable.

[...] But no matter how well Bourbon France was adapted to the 1600s, it would have no idea what to do with 2013. If it tried, it would probably end up converging towards the same 2013-technology equilibrium – liberal democracy – as everyone else in 2013. Maybe Louis XIV could stick around as a figurehead or something.

The Reactionaries are correct that we live in a scary time, a time when changes in technology are way outpacing our ability to have any idea how to cope as a society. Maybe if you froze technology at 2013 levels for a hundred years, we would get a pretty good idea what to do with it and would build a culture as well-adapted to our technology level as the Bourbon French were to theirs.

But, uh, getting rid of our culture and replacing it with Bourbon France doesn’t shortcut that process. We have a four hundred year head start over Bourbon France in adapting to our conditions."

>Intelectual dishonesty, the posts.

What's dishonest about them? They don't agree with you?

>Is there any evidence that you would accept showing that hedonism is not so great?

Well first you would have to define hedonism and explain how it relates to any of those things....

>What's dishonest about them?
>Suicide is a symptom of a happy society
>A sustained 30 years increase in overdoses that led to them increasing 5 times is just a blip, bro

Not to mention that at first your argument was that those things did not happen and statistics say otherwise. Then, when shown that statistics were really that, the claim became that none of this is that bad.

Great intelectual honesty.

Homosexuality is the purest form of love, women are mercenary whores

>Or in other words, if you want to be as happy as a North Korean, prepare to suffer in North Korea.

I find that people are expressing dissatisfaction because they now feel safe in expressing dissatisfaction.

independent.co.uk/news/world/saudi-arabia-is-third-happiest-country-in-survey-which-shows-downbeat-europe-a6802516.html

Remember that study that supposedly shown a link between single mothers and violent crime?

>cohen

hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

Are you stupid? You should compare sons of single mothers with others when seeing if single motherhood leads to more crime.

There are plenty of other issues that can reduce or increase crime.

> Lesbians exist.
So they say, but I've never seen one in real life.

>gives counter-argument
>"YOU'RE BEING INTELLECTUALLY DISHONEST"

>tfw correlation = causation

and if you disagree you hate facts!

>this triggers the christcuck

Yep, as soon as the numerous closet gays started popping out all those Aryan civilizations collapsed

>what is pleiotropy?

>it was 68% like 3 decades ago
>the percentage who lived with their mother was around 24%
>the percentage who lived with their father or without their parents was over 4% in either case

>cue present day
>64.7% live with their parents, but only 23.1% live with their mother and less than 4% in the other arrangements, basically all the percentages dropped (indeed it only comes out around 95%)
Wait, that doesn't fucking add up.
And don't fucking tell me the missing 5% are staying with their unmarried parents or something, that can't account for only 5% either

there's also the counterintuitive fact that while all these numbers dropped recently, the percentage who stayed with their married parents has actually dropped slower than the percentage who stayed with "no parents" or only with their father, although the percentage who stayed with their mothers dropped slowest.

It was 73% 3 decades ago. And 87,7% in 1958. Can it be that /leftypol/ can't even read graphs?

The argument that is being criticized is not regarding correlation and causation. But rather the one where "suicide means things are going well" and a sustained increase in overdoses for 3 decades is called "a blip in the data".

I want everyone here to take a look at the NYT and to ask yourself if someone who called that "a blip in the data" is really decent.

Athenians. Spartans. Also Romans buggered people all the time. I mean Caligula probably fucked boys and empire survived him.

Keep in mind the empire fell due to failing economy, immigration, and lack of funding to their military.

And by then everyone was Christian so buggering wasn't really tolerated in the open anymore.

Nigga the percentages add up to 100% in 1958 and 95% in 2015

>It was 73% 3 decades ago
I mean 2 decades ago obviously.

Oh, and I must repeat that the retarded chart is also useless thanks to the fact that it doesn't count children who live with their two parents unless they're legally married. You can say what you like about single parents but you're not going to convince anyone that two biological parent in a long-term relationship raising their kids is child abuse if they don't marry.

Here:

census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2016/cb16-192.htmlP

Now go fight against the census.

Are you still going to continue to argue that the number of children raised without a parent is not something that increased?

Wrong link. Here is the real one.

census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2016/cb16-192.html

>Between 1960 and 2016, the percentage of children living in families with two parents decreased from 88 to 69. Of those 50.7 million children living in families with two parents, 47.7 million live with two married parents and 3.0 million live with two unmarried parents.

Homosexuality is pretty much irrelevant to civilization, because there's so few of them. If every fag lived a life of pure faggotry, you've still only lost like 6% of the breeding population.

What kills civilizations is the idea of tolerance. Not just tolerance of odd sexual behavior, but tolerance in general; the idea that something deviant and loathsome to the majority is okay and should be allowed to persist. Before you know it, you've got barbarians beating down the gates while the people are unwilling to take up arms to protect themselves.

>Between 1960 and 2016, the percentage of children living in families with two parents decreased from 88 to 69.
So to get this straight. It went down 19% over 56 years, and if the former graph is any indication, it basically hasn't budged for over 2 decades, the proportion of children who do not live with their two parents has actually started decreasing.

In short, following a relaxation of divorce laws and greater female autonomy through work or welfare in the mid-20th century, many took the opportunity to end unsatisfying (and probably abusive) marriages, which led to a notable drop in children living with their two parents and a sharp increase in children living with single or remarried parents... After which it essentially stabilized, because by now anyone who needed a divorce got one as there are few obstacles or stigmas against it anymore.
Certainly it's hard to identify any real trend after the mid-90s, except that the percentage who lived with their single father or without both parents recently collapsed (4.6% to 3.7% is a >20% drop, more significant than the

>0.9% is larger than 2.6%

Indeed, the divorce rush hypothesis seems to check out:
time.com/4575495/divorce-rate-nearly-40-year-low/
Didn't expect the marriage rate to stabilize/recover though. It's probably mexicans.

Are you pretending to be retarded? a 20% drop in one category is a real trend, a 5% drop is just noise.

You really don't know how to read graphs, do you? 67.3% was in the middle 2000's.
In the middle 90's, it was about 68-69%. In 2014 it was 64,7%. That's almost a 5% decrease.

>Are you pretending to be retarded?
No, but you either have vision problems or you are completely dishonest. I don't even know why I'm still even bothering to argue with you.

>Between 1960 and 2016, the percentage of children living in families with two parents decreased from 88 to 69.

In the last 56 years, the number of children raised without two parents raised from 12% to 31%. This is a huge societal issue.

I'm Frankly, I don't think you are arguing in good faith.
Look at your sequence of posts
You have your ideology and you will defend it no matter what.