The problem with this theory is that Nero killed himself in 68 AD. "Rome," the western empire, fell in 476, more than four centuries later. It's difficult to draw a logical effect from a cause more than 400 years earlier.
It's like blaming the collapse of the US on something King James I did.
The greatest days of the empire were well after Nero.
It should also be remembered that the Roman "historians" apparently made stuff up with great freedom. Nero was almost certainly a bad man and emperor, but it's unlikely he's guilty of everything he has been accused of.
BTW, King James was apparently a little light in the loafers himself, if you get my drift.
One man, Nero, being sinful doesn’t destroy the empire. When a large segment of the population is sinful and celebrates it, that is when the empire is falling.
We are at that latter stage
A good analogy to use in describing the fall of the Roman Empire would be the Southern Border. Picture those illegal immigrants armed to the teeth, highly trained and led by competent military leaders rampaging across the Rio Grande. That is what the Roman Empire faced for its last two hundred years of existence. The Rhine and Danube was their Rio Grande. The difference is that Rome’s invaders admired and adopted Roman civilization, while ours will not have any use for our civilization.
However, the "Romans" were a dying breed even then, and during the Silver Age that you refernce the Emporers were from the provinces, beginning w/ Trajan.
The population of true Romans had begun to decline even before Nero, hence Augustus' laws to reward marriage & childbirth via tax breaks--it didn't work.
Finally, Tacitus is a very respected historian, even among modern historians.
Solid, honest historians are a rare breed. Revisionists abound.
I don’t remember much about history class...but isn’t it possible that homosexuality persisted until the time the empire fell?