Will all due respect, you asked for opinions and that's what you get. They aren't going to come to your house and make you watch Davey and Goliath or anything. That's simply why they believe what they believe.
There is no real need for gay marriage except for the few who desire recognition to make themselves feel better. The government offers benefits to married hetero couples because the government views them as the most stable family unit. A same sex unit is not as stable nor does it need the benefits because it cannot produce children without outside interference. Children do not occur naturally to the relationship. Also those relationships are viewed as less than proper for obvious reasons. There is no NEED for government-sanctioned support for those relationships. When marriage was instituted eons ago, women needed men to care for them especially as they grow older. Stability helped women survive.
In the 21st century, there is only one debate: Marriage or no marriage. You cannot start creating "new" marriages to add on.
Well stated. That shoud be the end of the discussion!!
You are presenting personal opinions as though they were indisputable fact.
"The same sex unit is not as stable" as "married hetero couples"? How do we know that? Wouldn't we have to first permit legalized same-sex marriage and study the results over time to see if the "stability" is demonstrably different from hetero couples?
And what if the empirical evidence revealed that gay marriages were MORE stable than hetero marriages? You would still be opposed to same-sex marriages, right?
With respect to your comment "There is no real need for gay marriage except for the few who desire recognition to make themselves feel better." Perhaps you would care to amplify your statement. What PRINCIPLES underlie your argument? We should grant rights or equal protection of law based upon what rules?