Laz Logic

Mrs. Laz and I were having an intellectual debate that was fascinating. Well, fascinating to me that I am alive and able to write about it. One could say I was being a bit controversial or “having fuzzy logic,” but I prefer to believe I was thinking outside the box, engaging in intellectual discourse or perhaps breaking down barriers of all thought. And still I am fascinated that my fingers are free to type and free of hairline fractures that usually occur following such intellectual wanderings that begin with, “Dear, I was thinking …”

I can’t lay claim to the general thesis of the theory I presented to Mrs. Laz; that belongs to someone else. However, I took the premise to a more practical use by attempting to put it in motion – as all pioneers feel the urge to do. And it was the very same “urge” part that drew a bare-knuckled beat-down by the Mrs. And in the sanctity of my home own too!

In the interest of science I will present my research to you, dear readers, and hopefully this will help Mankind (or at least one man).

We begin with two key facts:

Fact No. 1: The definition of marriage is a union of two people, a man and a woman.

Fact No 2: Gay, Lesbian and Transgender activists don’t like the part of Fact. No. 1 that limits their options regarding the two sexes. And so they rallied and rumbled and bullied cowering politicians (not a difficult task, mind you), went to court, yelled a little more, stomped their feet, held their breath, and had a number of jurisdictions agree with them: marriage should not be so exclusive as to be just between men and women. What’s wrong with two men, or two women, or two sexually confused humans, they asked? In fact I believe the final demands of Gays, Lesbians and Transgender people were to define marriage as just between two mammals -- and I think they’re pretty flexible on that point, too.

And so they largely got their way by declaring their definition of marriage to be a right. I still like Kinky Friedman’s comment that gays should be able to marry so they can have the same right to be as miserable as the rest of us. But that was before I was spraying Bactine on the heavy cuts about my head and neck as I was, apparently, taking this theorem to its next logical conclusion. Naturally all men of Science and High Thought have had to suffer for being ahead of their time and I am no different. Unfortunately for Newton and Socrates Bactine wasn’t invented, as Newton may have needed it to salve a bump on his head and Socrates, well, actually, Socrates may have had to drink it. I’m glad I had Bactine at the ready, but it still stings!

Which leads us to Fact No. 3: If marriage is no longer defined as that between a man and a woman, we should no longer be bound by the union of “two people” either. If we’re breaking down half the equation and have gotten over the “man and women” thing, then we should have no problem declaring the random number of two as no longer “operative.” (Ohhhhh, funny story about that. When President Clinton’s first press secretary Dee Dee Myers was asked about a statement she had made a day earlier regarding Hillary’s cattle future’s problem that had proven to be a lie, Dee Dee was questioned about it by the press. She simply said the answer she had given the day before “was no longer operative.” That’s much better than saying it was a lie, don’t you think?).

OK, keep your focus fellow scientists. We’re back to the Multiple Party Marriages or MPM as I like to now call them. Aside from the ungrateful swipe by my hostile bookkeeper that I couldn’t “handle” more than one woman (first we kill all the accountants!), you can’t debate the logic that one breakdown of the marriage equations leads to a breakdown of the other. Well, to be fair, you can only debate this theory if you’re wearing protective head gear and a padded jock strap.

I have come to find that men, in general, are out front of women in accepting this new paradigm. Men have supported my radical thinking while women have cast scorn on the idea and, I might add, cast more than a few household items at me. But all such shifts in great thinking begin this way: with a few believers before the other, slower people come around.

The only part of my theory that isn’t working out is the part about women not being too keen on the whole more than one spouse part. Why, what would happen if my logic is sound but no women were willing to participate? I don’t think I calculated this divergence of opinion when I ran my chaos theories, at least in the context of behavior of certain nonlinear dynamical systems (e.g. women). It’s the Butterfly Effect all over again. I guess it’s back to the drawing board and my studies. I’ll need books and tools and volunteers for study, but where do I find them?