...[T]here is at least a partial correlation between societies that permit legal and open homosexuality and societies that are in a steep demographic decline. This correlation doesn't mean the relationship is causal, of course; I tend to believe that [the head of Russia's committee for family, women, and children, Yelena] Mizulina is correct in seeing homosexuality as a symptom of the larger problem, which is the abandonment of traditional values and moralities.The population bomb has been defused by the realization that human populations are largely self-regulating, unlike populations of animals. At present we expect the human population to peak somewhere around nine billion, which is (strangely enough) an easily sustainable number, and at six billion people in the world we are not taxing the biosphere's ability to provide food, water, and oxygen. All scarcities are political at this point, rather than physical, and there is absolutely nothing that suggests this will change as world population increases. (Evidence: in the United States we pay farmers not to grow food lest they depress the world markets for cereal grains.)
This self-regulation is both a blessing and a curse. Yes, it keeps us from outbreeding our food supply; as societies get richer there are disincentives to having huge piles of children. Large families are for redundancy: if you have ten children you can lose one or two (to disease or whatever) and remain in the gene pool. Large families are also cheap labor: once they are old enough they can help in the fields or wherever extra hands are needed and they work for three hots and a cot.
But when child mortality is pared way the hell back (by vaccinations, clean drinking water, etcetera) having ten children becomes much less important. Redundancy is less necessary, and it becomes a problem to care for many kids--and better living conditions means better education, which means people have more options on what to do with their time. (Sex is cheap recreation when you have nothing else to do, can't read, and can't afford entertainment other than what you can provide yourself. But it inevitably leads to babies.)
...and what happens when plenty leads to excess? The sexual revolution changed a lot of things, and it's led to an abandonment of a lot of traditional values. Those traditional values worked fine for an agrarian society, and (in fact) worked very well in an industrial society; a generation wearied by war and privation failed to rein in its progeny, and the result was a near-wholesale abandonment of values that had withstood the test of time--and they were abandoned simply because it got in the way of young people having a good time.
(There is a sinister undercurrent to all of this--the rise of leftist politics in the 20th century--and leftism encourages the abandonment of tradition because it cannot seize power over a society with strong traditions. It requires a nihilist vacuum. But I'm not going to comment on that right now.)
Japan provides an extreme example. We're 101 years from the end of the Meiji Restoration, and Japan's demographic collapse is probably the worst in the industrialized world. 101 years after Japan's industrial revolution, their birthrate is far below replacement and their government is struggling to find ways to entice women to have children.
You can expect to see a lot more of that in the coming decades; it won't just be Japan. The US has--so far--avoided that fate only because we let people stay who have managed the mean feat of walking across an unguarded border, and those people have children at third world rates. The rest of the "first world" is not doing as well because the only immigrants they get are muslims, and the muslims are not interested in assimilating to their new homes. They'd much rather their new homes change to suit them.
So getting back to Vox Day--he's right in that liberalizing the limits on homosexuality is not a cause but a symptom; traditional values lead to higher birthrates and those self-same traditional values limit the acceptability of homosexual behavior. A society which is debating the wisdom of allowing homosexual marriage is a society which has already abandoned enough tradition that its birthrate is in perilous territory.
Typically, the people who favor homosexual "rights" are those who also support a vastly reduced human population; it doesn't bother them that they are pushing for things that will reduce the birth rate.
Problem: there are plenty of societies in the world which don't give a rat's ass about what you think is "fairness" and continue to breed at old-world rates. Eventually they will outbreed the progressive multiculturalist (promult) societies and the latter will go extinct (the scientific term for this is "natural selection"). This also does not bother the promult folks because they think Western Civilization is evil...but they only think that because they don't realize that the alternatives are worse.
Islam, for example, specifies that homosexuals are to be killed, not just shamed into hiding; if you think this is an exaggeration I invite you to read the koran. This is the case even though pederasty is condoned by the self-same book (Mohammed was a pedophile) and men who sexually abuse boys are given a pass. If you're a man who has sex with boys, you're okay, but if you're a man who has sex with men you are to be executed. (No, it doesn't make sense, but then again very little about that death cult does.)
I don't believe I need to reiterate islam's strictures on the behavior of women. (Do I?)
If you look at history, you'll see that it's replete with societies which disappeared simply because they were out-bred. Their birth rates dropped below replacement and stayed there, and they disappeared while other societies which remained above the replacement rate did not.
So, ultimately, what's happening in Russia will happen elsewhere. The places that it doesn't are doomed.