Is homosexuality nature's way of reducing our population?

Page 5 of 5 [ 67 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5

Nambo
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Aug 2007
Age: 62
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,882
Location: Prussia

31 Dec 2008, 6:47 pm

I read that its not natures way of reducing the population, but the Rockerfellers way of reducing the population, along with Feminism, encouraging the break-up of the family unit and Chemtrails.

Why should all us "useless eaters" spoil the quality of life for the ruling Elite.

Lets vote them in again and again untill we are all gone.



Magnus
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Jul 2008
Age: 45
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,372
Location: Claremont, California

31 Dec 2008, 9:01 pm

This thread went by too fast. I didn't read all the posts but I want to add my two cents.

Some species of fish will transform from male to female when the population gets low. There is some evidence in nature which shows that for some unknown reason, evolution has an intelligence.



Magnus
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Jul 2008
Age: 45
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,372
Location: Claremont, California

31 Dec 2008, 11:15 pm

Idahoaspie wrote:

Quote:
A brother or sister with a helpful homosexual brother or sister in the tribe will gather more meat and food for their children rather then competing for it with their children.

Homosexuals are not eunchs, or asexual, for two major reasons. They are practice for straight people that will mate with a member of the opposite sex, and backup if the straight males are unable to reproduce, they can, with effort, reproduce.

Today homosexuals pay high taxes and help offset the breeders taxes so they can better feed, house, and educate their children. Homosexuals are also good for practice for straight people.


How that sucks that all these great homos are homos. I would so prefer having a gay guy as a mate than a regular dude.
Life is so unfair... :cry: :lol: