My piece on science of LGBT led me into a debate that made me aware of not just the emotional side of the issue but also scientific confusions that have engulfed it. I could feel that LGBT community has emerged out of the closet with a hope for better understanding in this age of science, but it is getting caught in defensive and explanatory arguments that are diverting the attention from their need of being allowed peaceful and non-discriminatory existence within society.
LGBT debate is an interesting mix of biology, ethology, sociology and jurisprudence, making it a technically complex issue to debate; but, with society vs. individual freedom becoming the central theme in modern discourse; it is now badly entwined with fuzzy concepts like morality and freedom-of-choice, especially in connection with homosexuality.
As those attacking homosexuality prefer to call it “unnatural” based on their claim that it is not found in any other species, those defending it have opted to accept it as one of the critical bones of contention. This has turned the subject into a raging debate of the irrelevant.
In reality, same-sex coitus is very difficult to find in nature as, even if it exists, it is a rare exception and not the norm. The real problem is that, by trying to lean on the thin branch of questionable evidence, homosexuality sympathizers are allowing this point of argument to be relevant to their cause. What neither side appears to notice is that, apart from homosexuality, humanity also indulges in a million other things that no other animal does. Hence, not-finding-it-in-nature is surely not a deciding issue in LGBT debate.
As nature is all about discovering new ways of living, homosexuality is as natural as anything else, like cycling or spitting tobacco on road or donating kidney to a stranger. Even if no other animal does either, each is as human an act as any. LGBT owe no justification for their way of being or living to human society. By trying to do that, they are shifting focus from the real issue.
While LGBT community argues for unnecessary justification of their way of life, they refuse to accept existence of a natural and very innate feeling of discomfort that exists for homosexuality across cultures and the need of resolving it for people at large. They are trying to wish away a million year old collective/social opinion on the assumption that new-age man must relate to the bigger issue, the issue of freedom of choice that should supersede this bias.
The LGBT demand for decriminalization of homosexuality is founded on it being a private aspect of their life that is not harming others. What they fail to notice is that, the contention of it not harming others implies existence of others that must get a right to decide upon the harmfulness of their action. They fail to see that, as a new arrival in the mainstream of human behavior, homosexuality requires a period of absorption and stabilization within the society. It now requires proving its harmlessness for people at large to make them accept it. Once people will find it benign, they will have no need to carry a stigma against it. The entire issue will dissipate from the collective consciousness.
What LGBT community must realize is that the worst is over. They are out of the closet and have survived. They need to become more positive and less defending. Like all large systems, Human society is also very plastic system that can absorb all that is harmless, but it also takes time to change its biases.
Science is a process of emotionless debate to arrive at truth, but life is about living it happily. What humans instinctively chose is happiness and not scientific truth to form a bias. If LGBT community accepts what is happening right now as a process and relaxes its guards, the LGBT debate will become nonexistent.