A Direct Challenge To Those Who Oppose Same-Sex Marriage, PART II: THE SECULAR ARGUMENT (Thank God)

Previously, on MichaelNazSays...

In the wake of the November 4th passing of California's Proposition 8, I issued a few challenges (see PART I) to those who use the Bible as the basis for their opposition to same-sex marriage and homosexuality. Despite some readers' interpretations of my piece, the challenges were not intended to disprove, or disapprove of, the Bible or God or faith; they were meant to get those people who use the Word of God as the basis for this position to consider how they use - or don't use - that same Word of God in other aspects of their lives.

The responses I received ranged from bigoted missives (from both sides of the issue) to intellectual debate (also from both sides of the issue) to the typed equivalent of yelling the same thing over and over again. But even at its most heated, the rage only covered half of the debate.

(CUE THEME MUSIC)

My children have the benefit of satellite TV, something I didn't have at their age (like, among other things, MP3s and squeeze ketchup). Because of satellite TV, The Girls enjoy 24-hour educational programming. Me? I had to rely on daily doses of Sesame Street and The Electric Company; a weekly lesson in love, crime-solving, and asset management from Hart to Hart; and, on Saturdays, Schoolhouse Rock shorts.

Schoolhouse Rock shorts were like cartoon CLIFFS NOTES for every class in school. I'm Just a Bill showed me how ideas become laws, The Great American Melting Pot celebrated America's diverse cultural heritage, and Electricity, Electricity taught me about...well...electricity. But the mother of them all, the FIRST vignette, was a little ditty known as Three Is A Magic Number. The short's groovy tune extolled the unique virtues of the number three, citing its importance to tripods, tricycles, time (past, present, and future), and even spirituality (faith, hope, and charity). It also sang about the importance of the number to the traditional family unit:

A man and a woman had a little baby / Yes they did / They had three in the family / And that's a magic number.

But just as I'm Just a Bill failed to provide tips on how to handle those awkward airport bathroom situations, and The Great American Melting Pot never hinted how some people would rather the recipe be written in English only, and Electricity, Electricity didn't stop me from sticking a fork in the toaster, Three Is A Magic Number never pointed out that, as is the case with all magic, things are not always what they seem.

That lyric from Three Is A Magic Number neatly summarizes the foundation of the non-religious argument against same-sex marriage:

a) "A man and a woman..." represents love and marriage.

b) "...had a little baby" represents procreation.

c) "They had three in the family" represents what has come to be defined as a traditional family structure.

And it is within the context of these three things that you will find PART II's sole secular challenge. I welcome your dissent and your discourse, but please, I ask that you refrain from invoking God or His Word as it relates to this debate. That bus left last week. Let us proceed.

The other popular argument against same-sex marriage is that it defies nature and the natural progression of humans, their relationships, and the perpetuation of the human species. The argument states that the reason why nature gives men and women their unique plumbing is for the purpose of procreation (to keep humanity going), that love and marriage are natural steps toward that end-goal, and that homosexuals can never reach that end-goal. With thanks to someone with the screen name of "syscore" for taking me back, I'll leverage my childhood memory again and call this the "Rule of the O.P.S." (Old Playground Song), which says, "First comes love, second comes marriage, then comes baby in a baby carriage." Despite the obviousness of the rhyme - we fall in love, we marry, we procreate - humanity is nowhere near that simple, and it is foolish to think that this is the rule of nature as it applies to humans.

With that, I CHALLENGE YOU to refute my following argument:

Love, marriage, sex (as the mechanism for procreation), and procreation itself are all mutually exclusive; each can exist on its own without the other three, or in some combination thereof. Committed couples fall in love, have sex, and have children, but skip marriage. Single women get pregnant through artificial insemination, and bypass love, sex, and marriage. Whole cultures arrange marriages and force couples into relationships where love doesn't exist, but sex and children do. Folks fall in love, marry, and have sex, but use birth control to prevent conception. And then there are the people who have never married, who aren't in love, and who do not want children, but have healthy, active sex lives.

If you are so inclined, refute my argument and declare these people as being unnatural. But if you do, remember this: so prevalent are these scenarios that chances are good someone you know falls into one of them. Maybe it's your boss. Maybe it's one of the guys you tailgate with. Maybe it's your doctor. Maybe it's your child's teacher. Maybe it's your brother. Are they unnatural?

Maybe it's you. Are YOU unnatural?

Oh, and then there are the divorcees. I don't want to dwell on this, other than to ask you if you have ever seen any nature program on the Discovery Channel that talks about a chimpanzee demanding a prenup, or a lioness getting half-plus-alimony.

As for those who think that the traditional family structure of man/woman/child is also the law of nature and the only legitimate family environment, then I'm looking for a volunteer who is willing to lecture the president-elect on how woeful his life was having not had this type of childhood, and how this dearth of structure will lead to his social demise. Whether a single-parent, same-sex-parent, or adoptive-parent home, love is love, and I think most people would rather be in a loving and nurturing environment with a unique parental situation than have opposite-sex parents who exist in a cold, loveless marriage that they are keeping together - on paper, not in practice - "for the kids." The bottom line? You can't measure love with census data.

All of these possibilities are what separate humans from the rest of nature, and what makes the "defies nature" argument so feeble. Our intellect, our logic, and our decision-making abilities are only three examples of what separate us, greatly, from the rest of nature's pack. The "defies nature" argument simply cannot be applied to humans. We are too advanced and too different a species to be compared to the creatures of the wild.

Look, I followed the blueprint of the Old Playground Song - I fell in love with Baby, I married her, and we had The Girls. And if I had to do it all over again, I wouldn't change a thing. And maybe your path was the same, and others' paths were, too. But while you and I might have what many others have, that doesn't mean that Three (or Four, or more) is magic for everyone, nor does it mean that anyone is any more or less natural than the next person.