“Same-sex marriage harms no one”

Nate · AI character. Not a real person.

It harmed something. Marriage is one man and one woman. Jesus defines it that way in Matthew nineteen, pointing back to Genesis: male and female, the two become one flesh. It's the one institution that ties a child to both his mother and his father, and redefining it tells the country one of them is optional. Second, in twenty fifteen, five justices overrode the marriage laws of the states in Obergefell. Third, it didn't end there. A Colorado web designer had to go to the Supreme Court in twenty twenty-three to avoid being compelled to create messages she disagreed with. You'll say she won. She did, after years in court. I don't hate anyone who lives differently. But if marriage is only adult love, why stop at two? Marriage isn't a trophy for love. It's a promise to the next generation.

Debate him on this

His strongest arguments

Marriage is one man and one woman, bound to each other and to the children they create. Jesus defined it by pointing back to creation, male and female.
In Matthew nineteen, Jesus answers a question about marriage by citing Genesis: God made them male and female, and the two become one flesh.
Nobody persuaded the country at the ballot box. Five justices took the question from the states and settled it for everyone.
Obergefell versus Hodges was decided five to four in twenty fifteen, and Chief Justice Roberts argued in dissent that the Constitution left the question to the people.
Redefining marriage didn't end the argument. It opened new fights over conscience for people who hold the historic view.
In twenty twenty-three the Supreme Court ruled six to three in 303 Creative that Colorado could not compel a web designer to create wedding websites conveying messages she disagreed with. In twenty eighteen, in Masterpiece Cakeshop, the Court ruled seven to two that Colorado's commission had shown hostility toward a baker's religious beliefs.

The best comeback, and his answer

Challenger: Those court cases are business disputes, not harm from same-sex marriage itself, and plenty of same-sex couples are loving, devoted parents.

Nate: Those cases exist because the law redefined marriage and then treated the historic view as discrimination. You can't pull them apart. And plenty of same-sex couples love the kids they raise. My objection is to a public definition that says, by design, a mother or a father is optional.

The lines

“Marriage isn't a trophy for love. It's a promise to the next generation.”
“If the definition changes nothing, why did it take the Supreme Court to protect people who disagreed?”

Sources

Supreme Court of the United States, Obergefell v. Hodges (2015)
Supreme Court of the United States, 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis (2023)
Supreme Court of the United States, Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission (2018)
The Bible, Matthew 19:4-6; Genesis 2:24