Whose jealousy? Towards whom?
I don’t think the survival of the family is in jeopardy at all. Family is what holds us all together despite all the sickness and dysfunction and evil.
Jealousy of one person suspecting infidelity of their spouse if the spouse is hanging out with another person.
As I stated above, with the current system where homosexuals are defined as defective, men can hang out with other men without raising suspicion of adultery, and women can hang out with other women without raising suspicion.
This also tends to set a pattern of men’s and women’s roles in society which we still see today.
But if homosexuality was normal, and again our natural state is casual bisexual, then men hanging out with other men can cause suspicion of adultery, and women hanging out with other women also can cause suspicious of adultery.
Jealousy can cause the dissolving of the marriage or a spouse choosing not to associate with anyone that may cause the appearance of adultery leading to isolation.
It probably isn’t any one thing in particular that does this.
It wasn’t homosexuality alone that caused the destruction of Sodom & Gomorrah.
I’m not sure our natural state is “casual bisexual.” That implies that full-on heterosexuals are actually outside the norm. I think full-on heterosexuality is the norm from which other sexualities deviate.
I’m not sure either, but also not sure monogamy is our natural state, which would make marriage a unnatural ‘forced’ state. Forced unnatural states need something to keep things from reverting back to the natural state.
Marriage as we know it is very enforced by state and religious practices.
It is a jump however that since marriage is not a natural state that our natural state is casual bisexual.
I’m certain of it because I can tell you what happened to every extinct civilization whose cause-of-death is known. And none ever fell from a decline in family values.
It wasn’t anything we know about that caused the destruction of Sodom & Gomorrah, assuming they ever existed.
Huh? The OP was
Where are you seeing a starting premise that people are causally bisexual?
No point in getting sidetracked. My point was that even in a society in which heterosexuality and homosexuality were viewed as equal, you’d still have a heterosexual majority. So any argument which is based on the argument that homosexuality needs to be repressed in order to prevent a predominantly homosexual society is flawed on that basis alone.
It was the premise that IF people are naturally (by nature) casual bisexual, and society is built around a forced (learned) artificial state of monogamous heterosexuality that may require the stigmatizing of homosexuality to sustain society (preserve the learned behavior).
Any such society, including Roman, would face significant challenges in trying to accept homosexuality to the point that the society may collapse.
The question remains what is human’s natural sexual condition.
Horny.
But in older cultures (and probably some to this day), same-sex sexual activity for married persons was not considered adultery.
In older cultures (and probably some to this day), nothing a husband did was considered adultery, unless he messed around with another man’s wife; but he had no obligation whatsoever of sexual fidelity to his own.
I was not aware of this.
Well, then, the sicko state called “jealousy” must be recognized as as especially destructive form of paranoid psychosis and cast out of society.
Gibbon was wrong.
Homosexuality and /or the advent of Christainiaty had nothing to do with the decline of Rome.
What caused the decline was:
-the descent into serfdom of the roman citizenry (as small farmers were displaced by big estates)
-the pressure of the barbarians, goths, germans, who were pressing into the borders of the empire
-the inability to fund the army (basically, the rich evaded taxation)
-the hyperinflation caused by the debasement of the currency
The idea that the romans were enfeebled by riotous living, sexual excess, christian piety, etc. is rejected by modern historians.
So how did the Eastern Empire manage to survive all that for a thousand years after the Western fell?
A lot of it had to do with the fact that the Eastern Empire had more money and could pay of the barbarians to attack the Western Empire instead.
I suppose it might also have had to do with the East having been highly civilized long before the Romans conquered it. Roman civilization in the West was rather thin on the ground, outside Italy.