It is humans who are trying to play the intelligent designer and question the existence of alternate sexuality, writes Gaurav Deka
Many great men have questioned the concept of “intelligent design” N number of times. Do we have a maker? Or are we products of self origination? This takes me back to the concept of Oroboros, which is a mythical creature created by Plato. The creature looks like a snake or a dragon eating its own tail. In many Greek, Egyptian and Indian philosophies this has been a symbolic representation of the cycle of life and death and immortality. But why a being who eats his own tail? It wouldn’t need food to be searched, like our animal and human race does in this age, nor would it need to defecate. It doesn’t need anyone from the outer world to communicate or limbs to move from one place to the other. Neither there is any beginning nor does it represent any end. Least of all it doesn’t even procreate, because the purpose of its existence is served in its very making.
Speaking specifically of humans, when we look back at the age old concept of the Oroboros which is again a myth, but powerful enough to instigate questions of existence, why do we exist?
To eat, to defecate, to go around the cycle of life and death till we reach eternity and the most important of all- to procreate. Procreation has been gifted to all of us including animals as the tool to carry our legacy or produce generations so that we leave parts of ourselves on this earth and in a way not die—an excuse for immortality. Along with this we are also gifted with the mind, that among its countless dimensions follows love as one of the primary goals. Love’s creation or rather metamorphosis has extrapolated its primary goal of procreation long back. Love stories true and false, have not ended up with procreation always, subjectively speaking, most of the times.
Even to love we evolved organs that could be the media to transfer love from one individual to the other. Eyes, faces, physicality, genitals are a few examples. But who specifies love’s norms? Are there ways to love or are there hard bound rules to make love to a person?
If we do not consider us as products of creation but self realization then there has to be a purpose behind this love that doesn’t lead to procreation.
There comes Alternate Sexuality!
According to Darwin’s Law of Natural selection, only the best of the lot are selected. If procreation was the only goal of Nature then nature certainly wouldn’t have created Gays, Lesbians or Transgender who cannot procreate, but fascinatingly can fall in Love.
There are numerous catastrophes that keep on occurring one after the other in today’s world, be it the natural Tsunami or the man-made World Trade Centre massacre. Lives are lost like falling meteors—thousands and thousands of them. Yet when we look at the demographic graph of the world, it gives us a logarithmic exponential graph. Why so? People die and are born like the phoenix bursting out its ashes, and we find that slowly and gradually the population is still growing more and more.
Nature’s plan is too intrinsic and mystical to understand in its entirety. When we use the word “abnormal” for people belonging to alternate sexuality, don’t we actually question Nature, the purpose of their evolution or rather selection?
Whatever exists or can be perceived and is a product of nature cannot be classified into abnormal or normal. It just exists because nature has selected them.
Going back to the existence of these so called other kind of beings, who choose to love but are unable to reproduce, we can come to a subtle conclusion that it is one of the manifold plans of nature to help itself. If everyone were to be successful in love and thus procreation then the world would have blasted by now. Alternate Sexualities give a way to put a comma, if not a full stop, to at least a certain number of generations that would have again populated this world. They are representations of the Oroboros with a single difference and that is love. However the question of love’s purpose remains unanswered. Existence is just—normal or abnormal. One cannot judge the nature of existence. But we can certainly question ourselves, when we classify and name stratus of sexuality into heterosexual or homosexual. At the end of the story it is just love that melts down, not to procreation but to a purpose still unknown.
Consciousness as I had mentioned has many layers. It is a universe within this Universe. And when one reaches the highest point of consciousness, he or she is said to have reached the omega point. We as the human race are far away from reaching the omega point. The omega point shall make it clear one day, not the question of procreation as the important one but the ever lingering shadow of love that our mind has still not been able to realize. But that is again hypothetical. We are so limited as products of nature in our senses as well as roots that breaking the shackles would be next to impossible. Perhaps that is why “Alternative Sexuality” is given the trademark of taboo.
No one is ready to look at the scientific and logical side of this part of the population who are very much a part of others and are products of nature as any heterosexual individual is. When nature can lead to the existence of bacteria which is asexual, cannot fall in love, yet reproduce then why not a paradoxical clone—homosexuals—who can fall in love but cannot reproduce? Reproduction due to the majority has become the subject of prime importance, but who gave the criteria for it to be chosen as an important event? It is none other than ourselves—Humans. And then follows love, whose norms are again set by us even without knowing its purpose in nature. To make things even more complicated we have acquired tendencies of classification of anything, be it animals, plants, social cultures, geographical locations, gender or S\sexuality! Sometimes de-perception helps in analysing facts that goes beyond human made classification. It is we who are designing. We are actually trying to play the intelligent designer. But there exists no such thing. When we ourselves are products of evolution how can we try to prove ourselves intelligent designer by rules, norms, classification, etcetera etcetera . We have to go deeper and still deeper to find out the meaning of not only our existence but the existence of whatever does in this macrocosm.