Wow! That's a lot of hostility for no reason.

If you had better reading skills you would know that I am aware that "Not all gay guys want to be with an effeminate lover."

Go back and read my comment again, this time slowly. What I said was, "My impression is that homosexuals, however effeminate, prefer ultra masculine men." Read that several times if you need to. No one will notice if your lips move.

 

A component that you can't seem to provide proof of...

 

Before you even open your mouth about what others prefer you would need to walk in their shoes. I know for a fact that some gay guys want a very effeminate lover while some want masculine, some also do not want anyone. You still do not know the first thing about homosexuals yet you keep running your fucking yap about them. Like your idiotic post in a thread that is for and about people that are gay or bi and not you. You seem to have this need to interject your ideals into everything especially when you have no basis to speak from. You slab that moniker of "master of facts" like it means anything to anyone but you, yet you only cherry pick the very parts that fit your pseudo intellectual bullshit. Here's a tip, try going and reading real facts and not a wiki page to find the real facts and then mull them over before you embarrass yourself again.

 

If you had bothered to click on the links I use to document the facts I use to substantiate my arguments you would know that my erudition far exceeds Wikipedia.

 

I have gone to many of the links you dolt, that is how I know that you are full of shit in almost everything that you profess to know. Your basic argument for everything comes from a book by a discredited idiot that still believes that using the IQ is the basis for denying certain people equality. Have you ever bothered to read that book? Have you ever read Mein Kompf? I would bet that you read Hitlers books but never the one that you claim is the most correct. And do you still wonder why everyone calls you a jackass?

 

Some of them are just blogs, which contain no factual information just the opinion of the blogger, yet you have refused to accept information posted by the BBC.

Some of your links are out-dated by at least FIVE years, yet you dismiss ALL links containing information that differs from your position.

 

If you had any personal contact, either social or work related, with homosexual men, then you would understand just how wrong your impression is.
Basically your impression is dictated by what the media thinks and NOT your own mind.
Those homosexual men who try to follow the stereotypical behaviour patterns that they feel society demands, are generally known as "Media Gays" and they stick out like sore thumbs. Most homosexual men do NOT advertise their sexuality in such a blatant manner.

 

The solar panels on your roof generate electricity at a multiple of the cost of the power plant down the street, but that doesn't mean they have to pay YOU six times as much for it. And it doesn't mean the presence of your solar panels gives them free license to charge everyone more, because they paid you six times as much for the electricity. The impact is less direct than that. The more solar panel and wind systems there are in an area, the harder it is for power companies to maintain capacity. Electricity can't be stored long-term. It must be used. So the fluctuations in capacity mean that the cost to produce is higher, and this is the cost that is being passed on.

The capacity problem is more prevalent in Europe, where alternative energy production is more common.

In Spain, so many people have bought into "low cost solar" that the government has imposed excise taxes on solar power production, to prevent the real power companies from going out of business. Something along those lines will have to be done here, too, if the government persists in distorting the economics of solar power.

As for incentives being ratcheted back, GOOD, if it is true. Because they can't go on forever.

Then again, your claims don't jibe with the literature.

Typical costs and Incentives as of March 2015:

http://energyinformative.org/solar-panels-cost/

 

No one is reading anything on here anymore, and you still want me to post walls of text that you could find in ten seconds.

Now they're all arguing about whether homosexuality is a choice or genetic.

And I must say, YOU are contributing to how it's veered off, by cherrypicking words like bestiality and pedophilia just to get your yucks.

That alone tells me you don't really give a damn about the proof that you keep asking for.

 

Leftists really do think money is simply imaginary.

Through the entire six year "economic recovery" the federal government printed $80 billion per month in worthless paper and injected it into the banking system. Janet Yellen has been trying to close that spigot. She's been dancing around a raise in interest rates for the past year and she can't pull the trigger. And we're not talking about a rise in the basis from 0% to 5%, or 0% to 2%. All she wants to do is raise it one quarter of one percent. And she's afraid to do it.

If you're one of the people who thinks an $18 trillion debt doesn't matter, it is probably kind of perplexing, why Janet Yellen and the Fed are scared shitless over making that decision. But we pay interest on that debt. And if the Fed raises the rates, that interest goes up. It is generally recognized that a rise to 2% would knock us into full-blown depression. A quarter of one percent? Might work. Might not. No one knows.

 

Great, remember that when you go to buy groceries, pull out your wallet and pretend to pull money out, then pretend to count out enough to cover the tab. Be sure to count your imaginary change.

Or you could pull out your imaginary credit card and use it.

But remember, when they come to get you for sending imaginary checks to pay your bills, that the judge probably will want gold bullion from you.

 

The gold standard was eliminated in 1933 idiot

 

No shit??? Guess gold is now worthless, right?

Is it okay if I pick up yours tomorrow?

 

Now you cannot put all the blame at Anon's door, as you brought up the subject of pedophilia in your original essay, which could have been easily condensed down to this very simple question:
Is it right that a same sex marriage should enjoy the same benefits that are available to a heterosexual marriage?

But then if you had done that, we would not have been blessed with your talent for producing fluff and padding.
Why call a spade 'an implement for digging and removing earth' when you can call it 'a fucking shovel' and still mean the same thing.

 

What the fuck are you talking about

 

You implied that the judge wouldn't take gold from you, when you said the gold standard was extinct. So you must think that gold is worthless.

Go back to your websites and check out why the dollar actually does buy gold, how can that be, according to you our money is imaginary.

 

I object to gay marriage, however, I do not object to gay civil unions.

I also object to placing individuals into ''classifications'', but that is what the overbearing federal fucking government has done to the individual over the past 70 years, eliminating individualism.

If any non heterosexual couple wants to be unionized, fine with me, do it at a State level, not at a fucking federal level, gay unionization is a civil issue, the federal fucking government has no business sticking it's snotty nose into civil issues, that was intended to left at a State level.

If a gay couple want to be unionized with their golden retriever, fine do it at a State level.

There is overwhelming evidence that a non-traditional family, children from a broken home, rarely has solid footings and foundations, and end up broken citizens, that cost society tax funds, prison, drug abuse, so on and so on.

Families need 2 parents, that are of the opposite sex, and gay marriage will never provide that, even on the level of adoption, a father is incapable of providing the essential raising needs for a/his daughter. . . a mother is also just as incapable of providing the essential raising needs for a/her son, a mother figure, and a father figure is necessary to raise a family.

Federal fucking Government . . . . . this is none of your fucking business, it's a State by State issue.

 

I agree. Children need for their biological parents to be married. Children are more likely to be mistreated by step parents. Teenage girls are vulnerable to sexual abuse by step fathers, and the boy friends of their mothers.

Even liberals (and I am generally conservative on social issues) are coming to recognize that children raised by single mothers are more likely to have problems in life than children raised by both biological parents living together in matrimony.

I believe that homosexuality is a genetic predisposition. Repressing homosexuality prolongs the predisposition, because it pressures homosexuals to pass as straight by getting married and having children.

The real problem in the United States is not that a small number of homosexuals want to get married, but that a much larger number of heterosexuals do not want to get married or to stay married by the parents of their children.

 

I would say that it is none of the court's business. I am always opposed to courts overturning popular legislation that has been in effect for a long time. I do not care if that popular legislation was liberal or conservative. If it should be changed, I want the voters to change it.

 

I agree with 50% of what you say, not the genetics of it, some fellas like to taste a dick, some gals like to lick on a clit, so what, I know that I certainly have nothing against anyone that wants to lick a clit for a spell.

Children need a happy home, with a father, and a mother.

Marriage is tough at times, been there for 20 years, hopefully 20+ more, it is easy to give up, and throw it all away, in the minds of some of those that are shallow and superficial, so be it, it is what it is.

The courts are the last place marriage needs to be defined, especially federal fucking courts.

Yet, you dont mind overturning the oldest laws of this nation do you?. . . . United States Constitution.