Streamer Asmongold Defends So-Called Gay Marriage: "I Think That Gay People Should Be Able To Get Married."
Streamer Asmongold aka Zack Hoyt recently defended gay marriage in a recent stream.
Asmongold stated, “I think that gay people should be able to get married. I don’t think that churches should have to officiate gay marriages. So like basically if you’re a mosque, a synagogue, a church, a f***ing, I don’t know, a monastery, or anything like that, churches should in no way, shape, or form be given any sort of obligation to officiate or recognize gay marriage.”
“But what does need to be acknowledged is the state because marriage is a legal concept between two people. And fundamentally, I don’t really see there being a problem-. It’s for tax reasons, right? Now, if you wanted to do something where- ‘Cause civil unions. You could say civil unions. Civil unions do not have the same rules as a marriage. If you wanted to make civil unions for all intents and purposes and in every single circumstance with literally zero exceptions they are just simply the gay version of marriage I would be fine with that,” he continued. “But right now, as it stands, they’re not. They’re not the same especially with certain types of end of rights, end of life rights, and end of life privileges. Civil unions do not fully cover that in a way that marriage does. And it’s also true in certain types of inheritances etc… It should just be recognized by the government.”
READ: The Sydney Sweeney Jeans Debate Is The Epitome Of The Devil Sending Two Errors
First off, marriage is not “a legal concept between two people” as Asmongold claims. Rather it is a “covenant by which a man and a woman establish between themselves a partnership of the whole of life, is by its nature ordered toward the good of the spouses and the procreation and education of offspring; this covenant between baptized persons has been raised by Christ the Lord to the dignity of a sacrament."
As Catholic apologist Jimmy Akin noted back in 2013, “To claim that a man can marry another man (or a woman another woman) is just playing games with words, as would be claiming that a man can marry an animal or a vegetable or an inanimate object.”
Furthermore, in 2004, he pointed out that “given the fact that marriage is a reality of human nature, we cannot change it. We don’t have the ability to alter human nature.”
Given Asmongold’s comments, he’s bought into the lie that marriage can be changed when it cannot. Akin predicted this in 2004 describing what Asmongold is now advocating for as a “legal fiction.” He explained:
That is to say, we could create laws requiring those in society to treat those in homosexual unions as if they were married. People could be required to refer to homosexual unions as ‘marriages,’ to refer to people in such unions as ‘spouses,’ to alter forms so that people in such unions can present themselves as such, and to give them the status of married people regarding adoption, housing, taxes, insurance, divorce, and inheritance.
But while the law could be rewritten to coerce society into treating people in homosexual unions as if they were married, this would not give them the reality of marriage. It would not change the nature of their union to correspond to what marriage actually is.
Second, providing a state endorsement as well as benefits and subsidies to these disordered and sinful relationships would encourage more of such activity and lead others down into destruction. It also brings about other forms of destruction such as depriving children of their right to both a mother and a father and the proliferation of purchasing your fellow man through surrogacy.
Additionally, there are a plethora of examples of the state persecuting those who are opposed to this degeneracy including florists, bakers, photographers, and even town clerks. Not to mention the resurgence in diseases such as syphilis and increases in suicide and mental health problems.
What do you make of Asmongold’s defense of so-called “gay marriage?”
He's a center-left libertarian type that occasionally says based things. He's wrong here, but this is both predictable and not shocking.
"But what does need to be acknowledged is the state because marriage is a legal concept between two people."
Ah, no, marriage was not just a concept but an important practice way before any legal system existed. You know, even Hammurabi in his codex eighteen centuries BC described marriage as a long-established institution of which he merely provided in writing some first legal definitions and rules.
But what would one expect from an average streamer spewing false platitudes? Education? Nah...