At the risk of getting into an argument that I probably should not … what do you have against ND30′s bi-identity ? It appears that if he is bi, then he has moved beyond using physiological gender as a ‘ love / not love ‘ criteria ? Upon that frame of reference, you may percieve it as “flip flopping”, but upon his, it appears not.

You also note that he ‘chooses to be gay’ … Then hypotheticaly consider everyone makes choices. He chooses to follow his instincts and his heart. You state he doesn’t have to make a choice. You also choose to follow your heart. You can choose not to, if you wish. I can go through life in the ‘appropriate’ gender based upon my birth certificate, or I can choose to become who I feel I should have been for the start. Based upon this hypothesis, it appears we a just making choices, nothing more.

I do not believe ND30 and yourself feel you are just exercising choices. I know for myself the only choice I have is I want to alive instead of mearly breathing. I propose this idea: we cannot choose who we are, but only if we are going allow ourselves to live our lives, or let others set the rules.

ND30,

I am not looking to get into your disagreements with QP, but I thought this aspect was important to bring up. If I am out of line, I apologize.

And, sweetie, don’t talk to me about “flip flopping” — you’re the avowed bi-sexual.

Why? Afraid it’s going to give some rights to people who heretofore have been denied them? That would make sense, coming from a conservative. Or, are you afraid the “traditional concept” will somehow be damaged by gay marriage?

And the second link, which is even better:

In No. 10, V The K, in his enthusiasm for covering for anti-gay-marriage Republicans, dismisses the need for marriage equality with this extraordinary comment: “The marriage argument is much more about SYMBOLISM than substance; sticking it to the “Religious Right,” shocking the normals. Both sides play up the issue to rile the base, but at the end of the day, it’s REALLY ABOUT A WORD and A HANDFUL OF LEGAL CONVENIENCES.”

A “word” and “a handful of legal conveniences…” Amazing. Now, there’s a presumably gay man (and, from his past comments, one in a partnership with children) who doesn’t even know (or perhaps doesn’t want to know) that there are 1,049 Federal laws related to marriage that have been identified by the Government Accountability Office at…

Actually, what I find hilarious is how your views flip-flop. V the K is much closer to you than he is to me, but your hate blinds you to the obvious. When he starts talking about rewording, you scream for marriage. When I start pointing out that you have no problem with banning gay marriage and depriving gays of marriage rights by state constitutional amendment and based on traditional views and religion as long as Democrats do it, you suddenly start babbling that civil unions are good enough.

Of course, you’d rather eat your own entrails than admit you agree with either me or V the K, so…..

Perhaps he was finally embarrassed enough to realize that the candidates he supported on the Democratic side refuse to grant gays full equality; therefore, he had to tone down his rhetoric.

http://www.gao.gov/archive/1997/og97016.pdf

…I think you might be rather surprised at how substantial those rights are. As just one example of 1,049: when you die, your Social Security earnings go automatically to your wife (assuming you have one); when I die, MY Social Security earnings ALSO go to YOU/YOUR WIFE and other SS recipients — but not to my life-long partner. For that and 1,048 other Federal reasons, I’d welcome the granting of equal rights under any name.

My huh, comes from I don’t have kids, so I’ve never encountered that. I’ll check with my friend here, see if she had to do those kind of hoops.

Who’s birth certificate? The kids? And why is this so cataclysmic?

May I take your lack of couterarguement as agreement on the issue of wills and POA?

27: I can marry any (well almost any) woman I want. You can marry any (opposite sex) partner you want. If you change that to allow same sex partners, you change the definition of marriage. If all you want (which is what I infer from the tone of your posts, correct me if I’m wrong) is the ‘benies’ then what’s the issue with it being called something different, say, ‘fred’.

In short, in your view, had Bush only supported Federal law or state constitutional amendments banning gay rights, he wouldn’t be an antigay bigot.

I simply call a spade a spade, regardless of level.

HE QUOTED QP: “Thirty, in No. 34, you say yet again say that I (QP) “support the banning of gay marriage and stripping rights from gays”. After all I’ve written on the subject here, how stupid can you be? Very stupid AND hypocritical, apparently, considering that you, Thirty, even today persist in your support of GOP politicians who have tried to enshrine anti-gay bigotry into the U.S. Constitution and who regularly vote as a majority against gay marriage and civil unions in every legislature where it has come up for a vote.”

AND THEN THIRTY RESPONDED: “Actually, I call Republican politicians whose actions qualify as such out as antigay bigots. You call the identical actions of Democrats “pro-gay” and “gay-supportive”.”

QP: How could I have? No Democratic President ever tried to enshrine anti-gay bigotry into the U.S. Constitution.

Like the fella in another thread just wrote about you — you’ve gotten yourself twisted up into a partisan pretzel here this morning with your flailings. Take a break, go get yourself some coffee.

Actually, I call Republican politicians whose actions qualify as such out as antigay bigots. You call the identical actions of Democrats “pro-gay” and “gay-supportive”.

The only thing you have demonstrated in your writings, Queer Patriot, is that you prefer being a second-class citizen forever barred from equality if Democrats do it. All of your rhetoric and care for your partner goes out the window if doing so would embarass your Democratic masters like John Kerry and Inez Tenenbaum.

See Thirty, one good paste deserves another, complete with quote tweaks.

Actually, I think the shills here are Monty and Queer Patriot….notice how they can’t even say that it was wrong and antigay for Democrats to support doing so?

If I wasn’t clear, I apologise …

I was never speaking against extending the contract benefits to all couples, regardless of their gender(s). I was railing against making marriage just a contract (or ‘notorized dating’ as I heard it once, source forgotten).

I would love to see marriage for all if marriage actually ment something more than sharing a photo album and matching rings.