Marriage vs. "Gay" Marriage

(Still getting caught up on episodes so forgive the lateness of this post)

Although I agree with most of the argument presented by the Doubtcasters against George's argument for "real" marriage, I realized about half-way through the discussion that they were letting George control the discussion. It seems to me that it is up to George to show that "marriage" is, indeed, a part of Natural Law.

Since humans are the only living organisms that, to my knowledge, engage in the practice of marriage, the burden of proof must rest on the party arguing that the single exception (human marriage) is "written" into Natual Law and not simply a human invention. If it is a human invention, then the definition of marriage is what we say it it and George's arguments hold only for his definition of "marriage". At this point, "marriage" becomes a concensus opinion of whatever group is defining it.

Of course, even at that, as pointed out by the Doubtcasters, George's definition has several glaring internal inconsistancies. I would like to add to those inconsistencies a biological one that I enjoy pointing out in these arguments. Medical history has shown repeatedly that the development of genitalia (as opposed to reproductive organs) is more subject to epigenetics than genetics. The genes for both "types" of genitalia are retained by both sexes. Their development is controlled by which genes are turned off or on and that only generally follows the genetic sex of the individual. Hence, it is not unheard of for genetic males to develop female rather than male genetalia and vice-versa. There are also a range of developments in-between. In addition, there are several genetic conditions that can cause a switch between genetalia expression after birth. The most developed instance of this is recorded in South America and called Huevos Dolces (or some similar) in which genetically male children are born with female genetalia but develop their male genetalia by puberty and spend the rest of their lives as normal and functioning males.

This doesn't even begin to address the issue of the genetic and epigenetic control of sexual orientation which has been repeatedly demonstrated to be more of a continuum than absolute and even an advantage to species survival throughout numerous mammalian species.

The end result, in my opinion, is that George's Natual Law philosophy is fundamentally-flawed in this area and probably in many other areas as well. It sounds as though George is a bright, articulate man. It would be interesting to see what he could do if he applied a little intellectual (and biological) honesty to his Natural Law philosophy.