An Open Letter to the Vlogbrothers

Dear Hank and John,

The idea for this letter was originally conceived when Hank posted his video on May 11.  Since I lacked both the time and the technology to make a video response, I did the next best thing: write.  However, when John posted his own video that Tuesday, I had to do some extensive revisions.  So here it is finally, extremely belated, but hopefully still useful.

John, regarding what you said about marriage (at least, in the contemporary sense), I did agree with most of what you said.  However, there was something that went unaddressed in both your and Hank’s videos: an issue that is not only integral to marriage, but also, ultimately, the very thing which marriage is and always has been about.  I speak, of course, of childbearing.

When you gave your history/explanation of marriage, you did a marvelous job of giving us an idea of what marriage has been throughout the years; you described how most of the time, it was often just an intrinsically personal affair, and, not infrequently in ancient times, it was not monogamous at all.  However, in addition to the pledge of lifelong commitment, the primary purpose of marriage (especially in those times) was not political reasons, or emotional, or what-have-you, but having children and bringing new family members into the world to continue with family trade, noble/royal lineage, etc.  There was often much abuse toward this end, especially regarding the polygamy in those times, but the simple fact is that marriage - whether between a lower commoner and his one wife, or a king and his hundreds of wives - has always been about procreation.

Even King Solomon, whom you mentioned in your video, did not have his 700 wives and 300 concubines solely for the sex; it was also for the continuation of his line.  And, if you want to keep citing the Bible, even the most perverse stories (Lot's daughters committing incest with their own father; Jacob, Rachel and Leah using each other for their own ends; Abraham's ambiguous adultery) were toward the end of having children.  Depending on your tolerance/credibility for the Bible, it's not a coincidence that Lot's daughters (kind of) got away with their incest, and conversely, that Onan was zapped into oblivion for his masturbation, and Sodom and Gomorrah were incinerated for their citizens' homosexual acts.  Those latter two divorced the concept of childbearing from sex; Lot's daughters, perverse as they were, did the exact opposite.

However, all those cases represent that opposite extreme, of having children with absolutely no thought for the other person.  Of all the things that can be said about marriage, there is one that can positively be agreed upon: that it is supposed to be a voluntary and loving commitment to the other person.  Even when the thingmajigs and whoziwhats were married in the olden times, they stayed with each other and made things work because they had pledged themselves to each other, and had promised to love and care for the other person in a way that was exclusive to everyone else but them.  That’s why the traditional definition of marriage really has been monogamy; a person can’t really pledge himself wholly to another person if there’s a third party involved in the same way, or a fourth, or fifth, etc.

Things haven’t changed to this day: marriage still carries that aspect of selfless, lifelong love; it still places a high value on the other person’s welfare; and, above all, it’s still about starting a family.  It’s why men and women were joined in a lifelong union for generations, it’s why they still do it today, and yes, it’s also why gay couples adopt.

However, Hank, that is also precisely the reason why homosexual unions can never be considered “marriage.” Even if they do love each other, even if they do sincerely wish to pledge themselves to one another for life, gay people can never be considered “married,” because marriage is an indissoluble union between a man and a woman, from which a new person is then produced.  A gay couple can never start a family of their own; they don’t even have the potential to start a family of their own.  Even if they adopted (as many "traditional" families do), theirs would not truly be a family, because in one scenario the child would have no mother-figure, and in the other the child would have no father-figure.  What they would instead have is a woman pretending to be father, or a man pretending to be mother, which is not only a form of deception, but also just simply does not work.  Even overlooking all the technical difficulties that this would entail, there are some things that only a mom (being a woman) can teach and provide that a dad never could, just as a dad (being a man) is responsible for some part of a kid’s upbringing that a mom could never substitute for; I’m sure both of you could relate to this.  As much as the ACLU would probably disagree, a kid needs both the male and female influence of two genuinely loving parents in their lives; and to put them in any other environment would simply be depriving them of that. 

Hank and John, no matter how much “traditional” marriage may differ from what has happened over all the turbulent years of human history, it’s an undeniable fact that marriage has always been about the kids, and that procreation has always been brought about through the union of one man and one woman.  All family units have been based on this model since time immemorial, and for a gay couple to say or think that they can replicate it by “marrying” and then adopting is simply self-deception.  A man cannot play mother to a child, nor can a woman play father.  Even should the courts change the “traditional” definition and throw procreation out altogether, and just call marriage a loving and lifelong commitment, a union between a gay couple still wouldn’t be a proper marriage, because any real relationship off the street between any two people, married or unmarried, could be loving and lifelong.  What makes marriage so special is that something is produced from this particular union – and that’s something the courts can’t deny.

Conservative people (and the state of North Carolina) are not demonstrating hate or violating a civil right when they put a ban on gay marriage; they’re stating the fact that such a thing simply does not exist, and for them to change the definition of something that should be so concrete would be as absurd as changing the definition of the word “human.”  I understand that there have been some terrible atrocities and discrimination against gay people, and I wholeheartedly agree that any such thing directed toward another human being is wrong.  However, it is not discrimination to state the truth and live by it; and the truth is that there really is no such thing as gay marriage, and it is not a civil right to request an official legal change stating that there is.  Civil rights exist to protect a citizen’s dignity and freedom; they do not extend to the distortion of truth so that the citizen can live according to the dictations of their libido.

...and that, Hank, is not an invalid argument.

Sincerely,
Valkyrie

Welcome to the Lair of the Squirrel

Greetings, and welcome to all who enter here.  For all ye weary travelers, passive observers, or interested readers, these are but the humble communications of a winged squirrel warrior from another world, passed on by her alter-ego in this one.  This blog was created primarily to provide a response to Hank Green's recent video "Your Arguments Are Invalid: Gay Marriage" (previously titled "Legalizing HATE in America" - and yes, I do pay attention to that sort of thing).  However, after the starter editorial, the blog will consist of a series of articles, with the occasional movie or book review by my alter-ego, and (possibly) an infrequent update from me on the latest status of our efforts against the zombie invasion in my own world, should anyone be interested.  I realize it may be a bit difficult for the average reader to take seriously a blog written by a self-described warrior squirrel, but it seems to me that if the world is grim enough to warrant articles reinforcing the value of common sense, it could use a bit of lightness; why not have some fun while we're writing? :)

So have fun, and remember to always keep an active mind!