The four letter conundrum

After a recent bout of unpleasant conversations, I feel compelled to clarify a few things on what seems to be the general thought process behind legalizing LGBT laws by the SCOTUS.

First off, to all those broad and open minded individuals who changed their display pictures to the vibgyor rainbow theme on FaceBook : Kudos Folks! You people have been true modernists in leading the propaganda for the LGBT community. But [There’s always a but], I just have one searching question for all you people: When you say you support LGBT, what exactly do you mean by that? Is it that you respect the sexual orientation of an individual? (or) Do you support the whole school of thought of being an L or a G or a B or a T? [I’m sure guys would be highly supportive of an L and a B, but that ain’t really my point] Mind you, there’s an obviously simple difference between the two. If your answer was YES to the first question, then you just respect an individual and NOT his school of thought, in which case, you don’t necessarily support LGBT. You don’t support the concept for what it truly is. Your apparently genuine concern to respect a person is clouding your judgement about what you truly support. Think about it for a second. We look at the societal stigma that surrounds being an LGBT, the oppression they face in the rigmarole of life, the way they’re ostracized from the society and somewhere deep down inside us we feel sorry for them and it’s precisely this feeling that takes the fore when we express our so-called “support” to them. To draw an analogy, you could be good friends with a person supporting a particular political ideology even though you’re disinclined to support the ideology itself.

Coming to my personal stance on this issue, I wonder what Charles Darwin, the proponent of the modern theory of evolution would have to say about Homo sapiens being homosexuals. One of the core principles of evolution is the survival of the fittest, something that ensures the sustenance of human race through the generations to come. Being an LGT completely defies evolution in that particular sense. Let’s face it, we can’t turn to the homosexuals in case the earth was struck by a meteorite and there’s a universal crisis to repopulate the earth. On the other hand, homosexuality probably should be encouraged just for the mere fact that it acts as a natural population control mechanism. Especially in countries like India and China where population grows by the minute. But I’m compelled to look at the other side of the coin too. Being gay is simply natural to some people. They cannot comprehend how it feels to be straight, much the same way we don’t comprehend the way it feels to be gay. And we can never fully support something we don’t understand. This is where the humanity that’s innate to humans comes to the fore. The least we could do is to be civil to people’s choices and liberties and to not view them with a judgmental eye. After all, that’s what being human is all about?