Introduction. Here, in spite of the fact that my personal belief is that gay marriage is not a very important issue to the country, compared with many others that are of crisis proportions, I will give my opinion, because the issue is evidently important to gays. After I say what I have to say, I will feel justified in ignoring the issue for awhile, and I'm sure gays will be happy to hear less from me. So here goes: a semi-historical account of the reasons for my current opposition to gay marriage.

My opinion on gay marriage has been formed by a variety of inputs and occasional thought over a number of years. However, my view has solidified in the past couple of weeks, as a direct result of the activisim of gays in the aftermath of the passage of Prop 8 in California. Thus, I could now fairly be called a member of a "backlash" of the gay protests.

Earliest memories and initial attitudes. I think it's fair to say that I started with a blank slate-- at least apart from any possible genetic wiring. My first contact with the idea of homosexuality arose from peer interactions before I even knew very well what a heterosexual relationship was: remember when being called "queer" was one of the foul epithets at school? This vague feeling that there was something wrong or unnatural here was reinforced in my teen years by a traditional (not fundamentalist) religious education. Here, too, the impressions of wrongness preceded full understanding of the literal meaning of the words.

During college years, I understood more of the mechanics of hetero-sex and became gradually more aware by extension of the nature of homosexual relationships. Still a black box kind of knowledge, and still accompanied by a vague feeling that the behavior was not right.

Black Civil Rights Movement. Over this same period, the Black civil rights movement was huge, and clearly important. As a youth, I could easily grasp that slavery was bad, both intrinsically and in practice. Similarly, I had no trouble telling who were the "good guys" and who were the "bad guys" in the civil rights struggle. Dr. Martin Luther King and Bobby Kennedy were my civil rights heroes. When they were assassinated, things became even clearer. I've watched the civil rights of Blacks in Amerca become gradually wider, and the progress in that area has been a model for me of a successful way of overcoming evil in society. When things are terrible (slavery): war. When things are better (the 1960's) but still bad, activism. When things are reasonably fair, let the animosities and differences subside naturally.

A time of growing tolerance. For quite awhile I was increasingly sympathetic to the gay-rights movement. I agreed that gay bashing was wrong and supported the gay community's efforts to get out from under some of the more flagrant violations of their civil rights.

Years passed. My view hung in this intermediate stage for many years. Gay unions might not be "right" from my viewpoint but gays are people and have the right to their own lifestyle (still true).

Proposition 8. Before the election, I had hardly heard of California's Proposition 8. After the election, I felt for some time that the gay rights issue was just not worth much attention. Gays, however, seem to have other ideas.

My first reaction to the protests was, "What is the big deal?" It seemed to me that gay unions were not a civil rights problem, and if gays would just not quibble about the word "marriage", we could all go on about our lives. I also then (and since) have asked what list of current civil rights violations against gays was of comparable importance to slavery or serious repression. The only answers I got were minor, in my view.  Generally less significant than the widespread gay bashing of years past, and certainly not at the same level as the segregation and repression of Blacks in the 1960's. So I continued to feel that the gays were whining and quibbling.

iReports. However, the postings and protests continued. My cautious and quietly disapproving attitude towards gay marriage continued to be tested and reshaped. I returned in thought to, "This is not natural."  Then, recently, to, "This is not normal."

Connection with Polygamy. Eventually, I got into some online discussions in which gay people or gay advocates brought up and supported polygamy and other known socially undesirable (and illegal!) social arrangementsas viable alternatives. This connection made it obvious to me that not all forms of "marriage" are socially acceptable (i.e., legal), and that things can go wrong systematically in one kind of "family grouping" compared with others. I have no difficulty whatsoever in seeing the problems that are common in polygamous marriages. In these same discussions, consideration of polygamy led me to the conclusion that child rearing is a vital part of marriage. Also, in the context of polygamy, the conditions for children are often unacceptable.

Elevated caution: I began asking, "What is known about human relationships within gay unions?" "What effects might one expect adoption of kids in a gay union to have on children?" There are some obvious possibilities that give me pause. Only a single-sex role model. Only a homosexual relationship seen at first-hand. Possibly less permanent parenting relationships than in conventional marriages?. All kids adopted, not biological (not counting artificial insemination which is difficult, rare, and not at all possible with male-male pairs).

At this stage, I began having more questions than I could answer in the time that I could devote to the problem. I asked online what was known about child rearing within homosexual union. Useful information must be evidence from research and statistics. Anecdotal evidence doesn't count. I'm sure there are successful cases of children raised within same-sex unions. And I know very well that there are too many cases of failures within heterosexual marriages.  It's a question like, "Does smoking cause lung cancer?" So far, I have not seen any research that clearly identifies effects (positive or negative) of child rearing within a gay union. So, at this point, my view was, "Society needs to be careful here. This is unexplored territory. Gay unions are not the same as male-female marriages."

Gay posts and protests revisited.  Yesterday, I read a protest posting with more attention than previously. What I found appalled me. The gay protest in Washington, DC, on Nove. 15 is documented in this iReport:

http://www.ireport.com/docs/DOC-149283 .

This is probably the first post that really drew me in and focused my attention on what the wave of protests is "saying". If you are interested in details of the crystalization of my thoughts, you can see it in my comments on that post (reading bottom to top, and assuming they haven't been removed). First, I presented my then-current thoughts, calling for caution. Then, with each additional look at the messages being sent by protestors, I became more and more aware of a broad range of agendas that I strongly disagreed with. The (long stated) "anything we do is ok" agenda. There's the "anti-religious" agenda (see report referenced above, image #13 as you scroll down through the post). The "it's my life, don't vote on it" (same post, image #21) agenda. That exhausted my patience.  I don't need or want any more input.

My Bottom line, for now. In the past week, the gays have lost me completely. Sorry. In my opinion, now is not the time for gay "marriage".  I still do not see the urgency or the need to use the word "marriage".

Undoubtedly, in time, we as a society will learn more about gay unions.  I will learn more personally.  Both society's opinions and mine will probably change.  Right now, I'm not persuaded by the arguments that society must accept gay marriage, right now.  I see no big problem using the term "gay union" or a similar term as a legal equivalent of conventional marriage.