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:

[Vendome]

It was. LOL

[Vendome]

LOL

just zipping through the thread and ran across your post again.

Too funny!

[Vendome]

 

[Salamander]

Yeah.

That’s why every American is filthy stinking rich.

[oh...wait...just the guy peddling that crap to suckers is loaded...never mind]

/facepalm

[TheOldLady]

Sorry I called the posse and then went to bed.

I had good reasons, mostly to do with having to get up so much earlier than usual.

[TheOldLady]

Thank you for #’s 91 & 92.

[Daffynition]

[Daffynition]

His 'n hers models... for the 'mander fam. *The family that welds together, stays together,*

[Straight Vermonter]

BTW, not clicking on your blob. If there was something worth posting, I figure you would have posted it.

It was so poorly written it was nearly impossible to follow. You didn't miss a thing.

[0beron]

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. Actually, that brings an interesting point, because the contemporary accounts of the Greek Empire in the East by the time of the Crusades had begun to decay morally as well.

[0beron]

Thanks Sara and the rest who are courteous.

I’ve been posting here for more than a year with occasional rude posters. No big deal. Generally Freepers are intelligent Americans who are concerned about the welfare of their families and the destiny of their homeland. That’s always what it has been about for me.

The Admins have already told me I was ok, since the Religion section is kind of slow. Don’t much know what all the fuss is about, but if people want me to post entire articles. I don’t care. I’ve actually tried to post/write more lengthy things and it gives me this governor limiting he length of my post, so I’m thinking, oh, excerpts it is. I’m just too lazy to go back through again and post all of the links throughout, but that’s neither here nor there.

Anyhow, I consider a moral life to be the foundation of stable families without which the State, any State, can not long survive. The very nature of homosexuality militates against that and it has done great damage to the Catholic Church, incidentally.

For those who don’t care to read what I’ve written, I’ll direct you to the old Western Canon of Moral and Spiritual Writers from which the inimitable Bishop Sheen derived a great part of his wisdom: +Boussuet, +Manning, de Maistre, Burke, +Bellarmine, +Goffine and the Prophets.

I’ve found it very interesting that in this age, people have left off ascribing God’s wrath to natural calamities. I see no reason for this other than, perhaps, that people no longer trust God’s providence as they once did. If their theodicy no longer includes natural disasters, it also seems to have abandoned man made disasters, or even the thought of condemning behavior which was considered reprehensible even by most people in educated society half a century ago.

[yefragetuwrabrumuy]

That was my argument. Cause and effect are not simple to determine. However, a few generations ago, the *assertion* would be that Rome fell due to its moral failings. But that was a conclusion based on questionable evidence. Rome was never a terribly moral place. But likewise, most of the immorality was for those that could afford it.

At one point, I’ll note that the Roman government had to ban a common weed from anywhere near Rome, as it was common knowledge that it made a fine poison, especially by housewives tired of their husbands.

Not what you would call the most moral of people.

[Larry Lucido]

And obviously blogging pushes their buttons.

I believe that's called "false witness," my dear.

That's like saying the cops arrested a shoplifter because they obviously don't like "shoppers."

Bloggers are fine, even if most are horrible. But that's not the problem. I say bring them on, and I can read the good ones and click off the bad ones. The good ones will get actual hits from me on their sites when I go there to get more.

But posting a teaser when the entire content could have been posted is not contributing. It is using.

If a blogger thinks he has something valuable to contribute, then let him contribute it, and not use FR as a base to post unnecessary teasers to force a redirect to an ad-ridden, and often cookie and flash-ridden, and sometimes virus-ridden site (and I am not bearing false witness here - it happens routinely).

[Larry Lucido]

and it gives me this governor limiting he length of my post

That's called "lying." One of the Big Ten. There is no such governor. It is all laziness. You CAN cut and paste your content, but you choose to tease it and force a redirect.

Are you an FR contributor, or an FR user?

[0beron]

That was my argument. Cause and effect are not simple to determine. However, a few generations ago, the *assertion* would be that Rome fell due to its moral failings. But that was a conclusion based on questionable evidence. Rome was never a terribly moral place. But likewise, most of the immorality was for those that could afford it. At one point, I’ll note that the Roman government had to ban a common weed from anywhere near Rome, as it was common knowledge that it made a fine poison, especially by housewives tired of their husbands. Not what you would call the most moral of people. Actually, Rome was a terribly moral place before it became powerful, it was a national characteristic, if you will, which was part of the foundation of family life and the customs of their society, backed by the unwavering objectivity of Roman Law itself which became the basis for our own legal systems in the West. Cause and effect is fairly simple to determine. It is so simple to determine that even the Soviet Union considered homosexuality to be a corrosive vice and sought to cultivate that malaise in Target societies by way of inflitration and demoralization. It wasn't only homosexuals, but encouraging liberals to promote a doctrine of moral relativism, to erode the educational system and the guarantors of moral stability, like churches. I've found Yuri Besmenov's description of this process very interesting. He was a KGB defector who was in charge of promoting this cause of demoralization in the West, and there are quite a few of his tapes and videos available. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=915448763957391352# There's something in the nature of homosexuality and immorality which is poisonous, even if you don't believe that God calls down fire and brimstone on Nations which have embraced it, you can see that the various life ways surrounding it and its large acceptance involve a major denigration of the moral certainty and wholesomeness without which a country can not survive. Of course, the Soviet Union hasn't really fallen, which it appears to have done, despite its own legal and cultural hostility to the bourgeois vice of homosexuality, but that's another story.

[Allegra]

So...any requests?

Like Partridge Family, Air Supply or maybe one of those awful one-hit wonder things from the 70s like "Wildfire?"

I mean...I'm at work now, but I feel a song coming on later...

[Cronos]

Rome did not fall because it adopted Christianity, nor that it lost its morals

you are wrong that they did not have morals. Their morals were based on pride in their position etc.

Rome, truly speaking, if you refer to the Empire, only fell in 1453 -- the "Byzantines" called themselves Romaoi (Romans)

Rome would have fallen after Septimus Severus and the disastrous 2nd century when it had a number of different emperors.

the roots go back to the end of the 5 good emperors, to the last, Marcus Aurelius who made the mistake of leaving the Princep position to his actual son instead of adopting a worthy heir as had done Nerva, Trajan, Hadrian and Antoninus Pius. Commodus was a disaster and when he was assasinated, then came the year of the 5 emperors. This set the position for Severus who bribed his way.

From 193 AD right up until 284 and the reign of Domitian, the Empire was divided, had invasions by Germanics, had numerous barracks emperors who never even entered Rome etc.

Add to this, the problem of the 1st century when the Han Empire of China attacked and pushed the Xiongnu (huns?), who pushed the Scyths/Sarmatians/Alans, who pushed the Slavs out of their lands in the Ukrain, who pushed the Germanics out of their lands in Eastern Germany and Poland, who pushed the Celts, knocking on the doors of the Roman Empire.

A united Rome under Domitian and Constantine were able to provide a formidable resistance, but Constantine didn't follow Domitian's perfect succession rule (of 2 Augustii and 2 Caesarii) and also moved the imperial capital to Constantinople. Slowly Rome became less important, and by the 400s was a backwater. The Germanics slowly moved in and in many cases were terrified of the ones following them (huns).

Rome the city fell due to the

1. lack of strong leadership,
2. Disunity
3. A tendency of later, weaker rulers to pay off the invaders (which only left them asking for more)
4. A tendency to move things to the East

[Hegewisch Dupa]

I would so love to hear something about a fine girl, maybe one who had eyes that could even steal a sailor from the sea.

[Hegewisch Dupa]

Childish, even by blog pimp standards