All Boys

Re: # 35

The same way I decided that felonies and misdemeanors are not.

Re: # 34
Fair enough.How did you decide its appropriate?

Re: # 33

That's not what I said. I said that the state has all the right to legislate against the inappropriate.
And it is in defining homosexuality as not inappropriate that I argued that it's unfair to oppose it.

Re: # 30

If you want equal rights for 'Inappropriate' get your own funding from the coffer of Inappropriates .Its like fanatic Fascist party want funding from Democratic majority funds .no body is asking to police 'inappropriate' or even appropriate ideally .But i wouldnt aprove normally of repeated offender of drug abuse alcoholism debauchery gambler bums .Dont need to kill them just dont fund the misery brought upon them selves .Now this was not specifically for gays etc but 'ANY Inappropriates 'you included in your group

Re: # 31

Haha. No, my answer is not no.
My point is that you're grouping incorrectly.

If your question morphs to:
Does the state have the authority to regulate 'appropriate' social norms involving two consenting adults through legislation?

Then, my answer is no.

Re: # 30
So your answer to 27 is no ?

Re: # 29

I disagree with the social norm = widely practiced equation.
Social norms simply relate to the rules that a group uses to differentiate between the appropriate and the inappropriate.
The state is incorrect in legislating it in any which way due to the lack of the inappropriate.

Re: # 28
Are you saying that the state should not legislate against it because it is already the norm,as in widely practiced?
Would the state have been correct in legislating against it if it was not widely practiced?

Re: # 27
Wrt homosexuality, we're discussing changing social norms and making homosexuality as normal as heterosexuality. Don't drag me your way, man :)

Re: # 26
Let me ask you a general question - because after a couple of more checks you will end up there - Does the state have the authority to regulate social norms involving two consenting adults through legislation?

Re: # 25

haha. My premise, which I should have included, was that one's sexual orientation doesn't hurt another. Thanks for the check.

"Once that is agreed upon, then it is unfair to oppose it."
You should present a more comprehensive argument.Every illegal act is "natural".

Thanks all for your comments

Re: # 22
Cobra,
Firstly let's not pretend that nature is our homeboy. Claiming we perfectly understand how and why nature works the way it does and what it wants seems a tad bit presumptuous, doesn't it ?

Re: # 23
Rahul,
It is anyways ignorant to consider any sexual expression unnatural. You're resultantly saying that what so many people feel is rubbish and contrived. Once that is agreed upon, then it is unfair to oppose it.

Re: # 14
TOLKININ,
Give it time and hopefully all those inequalities will go away.

Re: # 10
devkant,
I can relate to your experience as my article probably lays it out.

Re: # 8
Those two are tough calls. Way tougher. I seriously wonder when.

Re: # 5
Agreed. But, legally speaking, it was not allowed to be in a relationship with someone of your own sex until now. I agree about the 'yaarana' feel of Indian guys that doesn't care for all the homophobia that exists here.

Wouldn't it be more logical to oppose homosexuality if it was natural? (I oppose it for that reason)
Why oppose something which is already unnatural?

Gay union is not a natural union otherwise it would have been productive. Nature developed system of copulation for procreation and not fulfill lust for body.

Tari. Where are you? Please post a third class I log. I am bored!!!