Is it all nature with no element of nature ?

This is philosophical unless you mean nurture. Its all nature. At least that's what the doctor told me. Something to do with a chromosome that likes to tap dance.

Also you really haven't asked questions. It's unfair if you give me a bunch of data and ask me to frame my own questions. Next time after lamba rant, frame a question. Anyway I will frame them and answer them for I am feeling thoda nice today.

I have a mixed emotion about queers and queer expression.

1. I see all as equals with everyone living the way they want.

Good

2. Sometimes I feel that the gender fluidity discussion has been taken too far. E.g. i identify as abc...

Far from what? Why is there a benchmark? How did you set the bench mark? Why is nature so important if you are okay with choice? If choice exists, then the question of nature is irrelevant.

3. How much of being queer is nature ? Is there no element of nature ? I know it is going to be shot down but I believe there is definitely some element of nurture and surroundings which impact the development of a person's sexuality. Either is right. It's essentially a right to chose at the end of the day.

Talk to the scientists then. Do a study. Have it peer reviewed and publish it.

4. I don't know any lesbian. I have friends who are gay. A fairly high percentage of them were sexually abused as children- a percentage high enough to not make it seem as a co-incidence. Unless this was a very skewed sample- is there any co-relation? (Linking it to my question in nurture and surroundings).

Then please pitch a study to see if childhood sexual abuse results in queer identity. You can't determine this on legally India! Please be structured about how you go about things. You are or probably are a lawyer one day!

5. Queer people who have come out- a lot of them wear their sexuality on their sleeve? Is it that they are just more expressive or the.just the fact the fact that any kind of minority holds their identity very tightly ?

Well straight people wear it on their sleeves too. It's just that it doesn't appear different from the background. Go to marine drive. So many holding hands and hiding under umbrellas. They too wear it on their sleeves. Just cause someone is open, doesn't mean they wear it on their sleeves. Sexuality is one part of an identity, not all of it.

These are honest questions and at the risk of sounding ignorant, I'm taking refuge in anonymity to ask these questions.

These aren't honest questions. Cause you didn't ask anyway. I'm playing in good faith, why can't you? Just play in good faith. If you want to say bigoted things, just say it, don't couch it in false sociological studies ka language. I would much rather deal with open bigotry than hidden nonsense like this. Have honour.

I am a litigator. I know a "leading question" when I see one. OP here didn't ask a question cause they wanted to use the question framework to lay out an opinion. One that is largely unfounded. They want to say that being LGBT is a psychological disorder that is linked to how the individual was raised. I am fine with them saying that. I am not offended by the fact that they said that. I am irritated by the fact that they choose to couch it in "leading questions" instead of you know, directly saying it. Now thanks to the form of argument they took, the entire interaction was useless. Cause I still honestly can't tell what their question is apart from stating a hypothesis and letting the world figure it out. This is intellectually dishonest behaviour. I am happy to honestly deal with issues and have to an extent tried to frame issues on OPs post to deal with. But asking leading questions is just not on.

Responses to your simplified questions in next post.

Marriage is more about rights - ability to adopt, spousal benefits under various statutes and insurance policies, taking medical decisions and also tax structuring. I don't see why one's sexuality should play into these decisions. If 2 people want to get married so that they are legally considered a couple along with all the ramifications it brings, I don't know how that affects society.

Polygamy is fine where there are consenting adults not under duress or undue influence. But the same legal issues get murkier with multiple partners including inheritance rights, spousal benefits etc. Still, these issues could be ironed out if one were so inclined.

In light of recent events in the SC I feel an AMA may help people understand more things. I don’t get offended. Feel free to ask me what you want to know and I’ll answer if the best I can. This may be exhausting for me but I’m going to try and have fun while doing it. No question is too stupid and no question is too dumb.

Mod pls approve. Thanks :)