KBJ on gay marriage

In yet another post deriding homosexual marriage, conservative philosopher Dr. Keith Burgess-Jackson writes the following:

There are different conceptions of marriage. To some, it is nothing more (or less) than an emotional bond between two (or more?) people. Since homosexuals can bond, they’re capable of marrying. Since marriage is a package of rights and duties, it is valued. To deny homosexuals an opportunity to participate in this valued institution is to treat likes differently, which violates the principle of equality.

The problem with this reasoning is that it rests on an unduly narrow understanding of marriage. Marriage is more than an emotional bond between two or more individuals. It is a procreative union. Society so values its children that it creates an institution that encourages men and women to form lasting bonds. Children need both a mother and a father. They need resources, love, and care over a long period of time. Marriage is a legal structure designed to ensure, or at least increase the likelihood, that children are brought into loving homes with two parents (one of each sex) and ample resources. Specifically, it provides inducements for fathers to stay with their children. Men, you know, have a tendency to stray.

This is doublespeak. KBJ is arguing that the pro-gay-marriage notion of marriage is narrower, when in fact it's wider, because it's more inclusive. An "unduly narrow" definition of marriage is one that yokes marriage to procreation.

While I find much to admire on KBJ's blog, his attitude toward gay marriage is repugnant.


_