Gay marriage...

[dalmations202]

Originally Posted by fluid.forty.one

Well yes, if you change the idea of my post it most likely won't make sense. My emphesis was on the relationship ITSELF being allowed at all. I don't have a problem with incestual marriages being outlawed because those types of relationships are not even allowed in the first place. I do have a problem with gay marriages being outlawed because gay couples ARE allowed.

As it is right now:

You CAN'T be involved in incest and an incest couple CAN'T get married. -- makes sense

You CAN be involved in a gay relationship but you CAN'T get married. -- doesn't make sense

There's a huge difference there.

You do realize that the law was just changed in Texas in 2003 right -- as far as it being legal to be in a gay relationship. You do realize that states all over the country are changing constitutions trying to make it illegal don't you. Here is an article from 2003.

LAW OF THE LAND
Court strikes down
Texas sodomy law
Seen as creation of right to 'gay' sex,
Scalia: Justices entered 'culture war'

Posted: June 26, 2003
10:55 am Eastern

By Art Moore
© 2008 WorldNetDaily.com



In a landmark decision regarded by many as establishment of a constitutional right
to "gay" sex, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected Texas' ban on same-sex sodomy.

Citing the 14th Amendment's Due Process Clause, the high court said in its 6-3 ruling that states cannot punish homosexual couples for engaging in sex acts that are legal for heterosexuals.


Tyron Garner and John Lawrence were arrested for violating Texas sodomy law

Critics of the decision differ on the legitimacy of the Texas sodomy law, but they agree the court has usurped the role of lawmakers, establishing a far-reaching precedent that threatens any law based on moral choices, including incest and polygamy.

"There is no constitutional right to engage in homosexual sodomy," said Kelly Shackelford, chief counsel of the Liberty Legal Institute, which filed an amicus brief on behalf of nearly 70 Texas legislators. "Read the Constitution as many times as you'd like. It's not there."

The ruling reverses a 1986 Supreme Court decision, Bowers v. Hardwick, which said individuals have no federal constitutional right to engage in homosexual acts. Until the 1960s, every state prohibited sodomy, but Texas was one of just 13 states in which a law exists and one of just four that banned same-sex sodomy only. The rarely enforced laws carry penalties ranging from fines to 10 years in prison.

Writing for the majority in today's ruling, Justice Anthony M. Kennedy said the Texas law "demeans the lives of homosexual persons."

"The state cannot demean their existence or control their destiny by making their private sexual conduct a crime," Kennedy wrote.

Defenders of the Texas law had contended the ultimate goal of Lawrence v. Texas is not to end sodomy laws, but to advance the "ambitious agenda" of homosexual activists.

"This case is all about a small group attempting to force their agenda on the rest of the country, since they could not win it through the democratic process," said Shackelford. "The Constitution does not change overnight on the whim of judges to legislate morality for the rest of the country. This decision is wrong and emphasizes the importance of having judicial-restraint justices on the court."

In a dissenting opinion, Justice Antonin Scalia essentially agreed with that assessment.

"The court has largely signed on to the so-called homosexual agenda," Scalia wrote.

"The court has taken sides in the culture war," Scalia said, noting he has "nothing against homosexuals, or any other group, promoting their agenda through normal democratic means."

Justice Thomas, in a separate dissenting opinion, said the Texas law before the court is "uncommonly silly" but as a judge he has no power to change it.

"If I were a member of the Texas legislature, I would vote to repeal it," Thomas wrote. "Punishing someone for expressing his sexual preference through noncommercial consensual conduct with another adult does not appear to be a worthy way to expend valuable law enforcement resources. Notwithstanding this, I recognize that as a member of this court I am not empowered to help petitioners and others similarly situated. My duty, rather, is to decide cases agreeably to the Constitution and laws of the United States."

Former presidential candidate Gary Bauer said the White House should take notice that four of the six justices making the decision were appointed by Republican presidents.

"This is a sad day for federalism and representative democracy," said Bauer, president of Virginia-based American Values. "And it is a most significant case for the president to consider as he ponders who to appoint to fill a future Supreme Court vacancy."

Justices John Paul Stevens, David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer agreed with Kennedy. Sandra Day O'Connor wrote a concurring opinion. Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist dissented along with Thomas and Scalia.

[fluid.forty.one]

I don't live in Texas so no I was not aware that Texas was still that ignorant.

[dalmations202]

Originally Posted by fluid.forty.one

For those of you using the God defense, why is it okay for Gay people to even be together then. God doesn't think they should marry.. so a lot of Christians vote against it on this belief.. but God doesn't want them to be together at all and we don't do a damn thing about it.

If we are good Christians we would stop this madness.

I have never said it was okay for Gay people to be together. I have said that I shouldn't judge them for their sin, when I am the chief of sinners.

That doesn't mean I should condone it either though.

And how do you propose to stop this madness?

[dalmations202]

Originally Posted by fluid.forty.one

I don't live in Texas so no I was not aware that Texas was still that ignorant.

Maybe it isn't Texas who is ignorant.

[Underdog]

Originally Posted by dalmations202

I believe that is me and not KG that has used it "often".

KG tends to make legal logical arguments, although he shows himself to be Christian quite often.

I know - I'm pointing out that just because he doesn't see gay marriage as a religious issue doesn't mean that a lot of people who oppose it (like yourself) don't...

Frankly, I think religious beliefs are the only valid argument against gays getting married at this point...

[kg_veteran]

Originally Posted by jthig32

I woudl love to see them. It's an intriguing issue to me.

I don't want to post the whole thing because it is lengthy, but I think this article very clearly outlines non-religious reasons for supporting a ban on gay marriage.

http://www.nationalreview.com/kurtz/kurtz043003.asp

[kg_veteran]

Originally Posted by fluid.forty.one

Well yes, if you change the idea of my post it most likely won't make sense. My emphesis was on the relationship ITSELF being allowed at all. I don't have a problem with incestual marriages being outlawed because those types of relationships are not even allowed in the first place. I do have a problem with gay marriages being outlawed because gay couples ARE allowed.

As it is right now:

You CAN'T be involved in incest and an incest couple CAN'T get married. -- makes sense

You CAN be involved in a gay relationship but you CAN'T get married. -- doesn't make sense

There's a huge difference there.

I don't see how that changes my point. The reason you "can't" be involved in incest right now is because societal standards/morals say that it is wrong and we have laws reflecting that. If societal standards/morals say that homosexual marriage (as opposed to homosexual sex) is wrong, why shouldn't we be able to have laws reflecting that?

You either believe that society should be able to impose its standards/morals, or you don't. You can't say that it's okay to impose some standards/morals, but not others.

[Underdog]

Originally Posted by kg_veteran

I don't want to post the whole thing because it is lengthy, but I think this article very clearly outlines non-religious reasons for supporting a ban on gay marriage.

http://www.nationalreview.com/kurtz/kurtz043003.asp

HOW is that not based on religion???

Calling homosexuality a "taboo" stems from religious beliefs...

Claiming that the only purpose for sex is reproduction rather than pleasure also stems from religious beliefs (because a married heterosexual couple on birth control is no different...)


This article is 100% based on a religious outlook...

[kg_veteran]

Originally Posted by Underdog

HOW is that not based on religion???

Calling homosexuality a "taboo" stems from religious beliefs...

Claiming that the only purpose for sex is reproduction rather than pleasure also stems from religious beliefs (because a married heterosexual couple on birth control is no different...)


This article is 100% based on a religious outlook...

No, you're wrong. Even atheists have things that they consider taboo (morally unacceptable).

[Underdog]

Originally Posted by kg_veteran

No, you're wrong. Even atheists have things that they consider taboo (morally unacceptable).

Nice baseless statement that can't be either proven or disproven...


100% of all Eskimos, Red Sox fans, and people whose names start with the letter "Q" disagree with you...

[kg_veteran]

Originally Posted by Underdog

Nice baseless statement that can't be either proven or disproven...


100% of all Eskimos, Red Sox fans, and people whose names start with the letter "Q" disagree with you...

I don't think you really read the whole article.

Societal taboos are sometimes based upon religious beliefs, but not always and usually not entirely.

[Underdog]

Originally Posted by kg_veteran

I don't think you really read the whole article.

Societal taboos are sometimes based upon religious beliefs, but not always and usually not entirely.

No, I didn't read the whole article - just the part concerning homosexual marriage (the only topic at hand...)


And yeah - taboos aren't always based on religious beliefs, but in America the topic of homosexuality certainly is (or at least it's based on Victorian puritanism, which stems directly from Christianity...)

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by kg_veteran

I don't want to post the whole thing because it is lengthy, but I think this article very clearly outlines non-religious reasons for supporting a ban on gay marriage.

http://www.nationalreview.com/kurtz/kurtz043003.asp

first, there are health reasons to outlaw incest. the fact is that reproduction by closely relatted family causes genetic defects.

as for the reasons for gays to be free to marry, it is about equal rights. there are legal benefits to a recognized marriage and those benefits should be extended to all adults who wish to enter into a consenual committment.

kurtz writes "The taboo on homosexuality protects marriage". that is a circular argument and is not logical.

he also concludes "And it's not surprising that, as a consequence of our changed understanding of sexuality, the rates of divorce and out of wedlock birth have dramatically risen." no, the rates of divorce and out of wedlock births have risen due to the relaxation of the laws allowing for easier divorce, and women being able to support themselves and not rely upon the husband as the sole breadwinner.

kurtz concludes with "Gay marriage would set in motion a series of threats to the ethos of monogamy from which the institution of marriage may never recover." however, while it is difficult to say with assurance as the timeframes and number are low, there is the same incidence of monogamy in homosexual couples as there are in heterosexual couples.

imo there are no reasons outside of religious doctrine to prohibit homosexual marriages. if one agrees that our laws should not be solely based on religious laws, that person should also conclude that the ban on homosexual marriage should be removed.

[Murphy3]

madape once had an interesting idea....

[Underdog]

Originally Posted by Murphy3

madape once had an interesting idea....

Did he think of it after he rolled out of Nellie's bed?

[Murphy3]

I've got to say that I 100% disagree with this post. But, it is an interesting idea brought up by Madape a few years back. It's definitely something to think about.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I've got the solution - Instead of letting gays marry each other and have sex and stuff right here in God's country, we should instead just send them back home to where they came from - errr.. I mean, lets give them their own country where they can rule themselves. Maybe that can be part of the peace process in Liberia. We can install a gay ruled government (homogarcy?) and rename the country "Liberia Her Way". They can marry each other there, perform sodomy in public, maybe even adopt kids if they can find any orphaned ones left over from the rebellion. If they can't find any at the very least they can throw a bib and bonnet on a baboon or some other type of indigenous monkey. Gay mothers don't produce breast milk that I'm aware of, so it's probably better off they get monkeys instead of real humans. I read an article that claimed breast milk was essential to the early stages of human child development. I've never read anything claiming the same about baboons and breast milk. You know, when you think about it, this may be the most efficient way to handle the surplus of baboon orphans and the surplus of childless gay couples. It sounds like fate if you ask me. Lets bring them together.


Baboons aside, at least we know that in two hundred years Liberia wouldn't be in the midst of another bloody civil war. Perhaps in the midst of a Vegas-style dance performance with fabulous music and delicious Cher impersonators... but never a bloody civil war. If they include the baboons, the performance just might be entertaining enough for straight people. Liberia tourism would quadruple!

Just a random thought. Probably not a good one. But what's not to like? Honest, hard working, Americans wouldn't have to share space with wierd gay people who have sex with each other in ways God does not intend. Gays on the other hand would get to live in a place where they can frolic freely among people of their own kind without the fear of persecution. It sounds like a win-win situation.

But gays have rights you say? They may actually WANT to live here? They are true, blue blooded Americans who deserve to be given the same opportunities and to experience the same things you or I take for granted? OK, I suppose you have a point. On second thought, forget I mentioned anything.

[fluid.forty.one]

religion in general is hilarious in my humble opinion. It, for the most part, breeds close-mindedness. And yes I understand the irony in me making that close-minded statement.

[Underdog]

Originally Posted by Murphy3

I've got to say that I 100% disagree with this post. But, it is an interesting idea brought up by Madape a few years back.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I've got the solution - Instead of letting gays marry each other and have sex and stuff right here in God's country, we should instead just send them back home to where they came from - errr.. I mean, lets give them their own country where they can rule themselves.

Someone said that about black people once too...

[Underdog]

Originally Posted by fluid.forty.one

religion in general is hilarious in my humble opinion. It, for the most part, breeds close-mindedness. And yes I understand the irony in me making that close-minded statement.

I'd say religious dogma (politics) is more of a culprit than religion itself...

Religion has a lot of good to offer, but it tends to get lost when people use religion for political gain - see the old Catholic Church for reference (which is exactly why our forefathers wanted a separation of Church and State in this country - to keep religion unmolested by government...)

[fluid.forty.one]

Originally Posted by Underdog

Someone said that about black people once too...

seriously

you know how we look at slave owners in the past.. how clueless and ignorant they were? That's how THIS age in America is going to be looked at in the future.

[kg_veteran]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

first, there are health reasons to outlaw incest. the fact is that reproduction by closely relatted family causes genetic defects.

as for the reasons for gays to be free to marry, it is about equal rights. there are legal benefits to a recognized marriage and those benefits should be extended to all adults who wish to enter into a consenual committment.

kurtz writes "The taboo on homosexuality protects marriage". that is a circular argument and is not logical.

he also concludes "And it's not surprising that, as a consequence of our changed understanding of sexuality, the rates of divorce and out of wedlock birth have dramatically risen." no, the rates of divorce and out of wedlock births have risen due to the relaxation of the laws allowing for easier divorce, and women being able to support themselves and not rely upon the husband as the sole breadwinner.

kurtz concludes with "Gay marriage would set in motion a series of threats to the ethos of monogamy from which the institution of marriage may never recover." however, while it is difficult to say with assurance as the timeframes and number are low, there is the same incidence of monogamy in homosexual couples as there are in heterosexual couples.

imo there are no reasons outside of religious doctrine to prohibit homosexual marriages. if one agrees that our laws should not be solely based on religious laws, that person should also conclude that the ban on homosexual marriage should be removed.

I understand that you disagree with the article. The point was that there were non-religious reasons for opposing gay marriage. You may not agree with them, but that doesn't mean the reasons don't exist.

Your logic, however, also fails because it begs the question of whether gay marriage bans are based solely on religious beliefs.

Either government shouldn't be in the marriage business, or you have accept the fact that government can place limitations on it.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by kg_veteran

I understand that you disagree with the article. The point was that there were non-religious reasons for opposing gay marriage. You may not agree with them, but that doesn't mean the reasons don't exist.

Your logic, however, also fails because it begs the question of whether gay marriage bans are based solely on religious beliefs.

Either government shouldn't be in the marriage business, or you have accept the fact that government can place limitations on it.

you povided the article as showing why there are non-religious reasons for not allowing gay marriages, and my response was to show how those arguments don't hold water. the author does not establish that there are any valid reasons for denying the same benefits to same sex couples that are being provided to same sex couples, save for religious beliefs.

again, please share any basis to deny equal treatment to same sex couples that are currently provided to heterosexual couples that are not based on religious dogma. as far as I can see no legitimate reasons have been given.

there is no argument that government CAN place limitations, government is the body that recognizes marriage, and is the body that provides the benefits that are provided to married couples.

the fact that it can prohibit the practice does not however make the prohibition just and equitable.

[dalmations202]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

you povided the article as showing why there are non-religious reasons for not allowing gay marriages, and my response was to show how those arguments don't hold water. the author does not establish that there are any valid reasons for denying the same benefits to same sex couples that are being provided to same sex couples, save for religious beliefs.

again, please share any basis to deny equal treatment to same sex couples that are currently provided to heterosexual couples that are not based on religious dogma. as far as I can see no legitimate reasons have been given.

Who determines what a legitimate reason is?

there is no argument that government CAN place limitations, government is the body that recognizes marriage, and is the body that provides the benefits that are provided to married couples.

the fact that it can prohibit the practice does not however make the prohibition just and equitable.

just and equitable to whom?
Who determines "fair"?

[Underdog]

Originally Posted by dalmations202

just and equitable to whom?

That's an easy one - when you allow one group of people to do something while excluding another, that's unjust...

It's not like we're talking about "murder" - a rule that everyone must equally abide by...


This is a lot more like separate water fountains for blacks and whites...

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by dalmations202

Who determines what a legitimate reason is?

isn't that determined by logic and common sense?

just and equitable to whom?
Who determines "fair"?

don't we attempt as a society to provide just and equitable treatment to all citizens?

[ocelot_ark]

Originally Posted by kg_veteran

I don't want to post the whole thing because it is lengthy, but I think this article very clearly outlines non-religious reasons for supporting a ban on gay marriage.

http://www.nationalreview.com/kurtz/kurtz043003.asp

I took this article to mean strictly this:

The strength of a marriage is 100% correlated to the non-monogamous nature of gay couples. So whether or not you have a good marriage doesn't depend on your beliefs, values, or will power. We can't take responsibility for our own failures, so let's blame it on society.

Marriage has deteriorated to the point where the presence or absence of sexual perversions in society determines the success rate of a marriage. High levels of divorce and adultery are the responsibility of gays. Because society has accepted gays (for the most part), men have started leaving their wives. I don't see the correlation.

Perhaps these marriages, sanctioned by God, shouldn't have happened in the first place. Perhaps these couples weren't in LOVE in the first place. Perhaps women, having carved out a niche in the workplace, simply have more opportunities to cheat. Perhaps the advent of the INTERNET has allowed for more streamlined opportunities for "no strings attached" encounters.

[Murphy3]

anyone remember TheTicket drop...
You don't like gays.. I don't like um neither...

it was funny comical coming from some big time redneck.

[jthig32]

Yeah wasn't it some caller?

"Who cares if he don't like gays, I don't like 'em neither"

Something to that affect.

[dalmations202]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

isn't that determined by logic and common sense?

often emotion is involved, and logic is thrown out. As far as common sense goes -- I have a hard time finding many people below the age of 30 that have any of it (although there are a few).

don't we attempt as a society to provide just and equitable treatment to all citizens?

No, we attempt to make laws that seem just and right to the majority -- well most of the time.

Drinking age 21 -- voting age 18 -- age you can serve your country and get shot and killed 17.

Just? Fair?

No interpretations of what is right, but not necessarily fair.

[dalmations202]

Originally Posted by Underdog

That's an easy one - when you allow one group of people to do something while excluding another, that's unjust...

It's not like we're talking about "murder" - a rule that everyone must equally abide by...


This is a lot more like separate water fountains for blacks and whites...

How big does the group need to be?

I can find a group of men that believe men should be able to rape any woman any time. Does that mean we should end all the rape laws?

I can find a group of men that believe they should be able to marry multiple wives, and marriage is fair, so why shouldn't they be able to marry many women?

Finding groups that believe a way differing from yours is easy to find........should you always give in to them, and let them have there way?

The Taliban believe women have no rights -- should we go to that type of society?

Where do you draw the line?

[jthig32]

Originally Posted by dalmations202

How big does the group need to be?

I can find a group of men that believe men should be able to rape any woman any time. Does that mean we should end all the rape laws?

I can find a group of men that believe they should be able to marry multiple wives, and marriage is fair, so why shouldn't they be able to marry many women?

Finding groups that believe a way differing from yours is easy to find........should you always give in to them, and let them have there way?

The Taliban believe women have no rights -- should we go to that type of society?

Where do you draw the line?

The key is whether there are related laws or logical reasons to not let them have their way.

Cite a reason for me, beyond your belief that homosexuality is wrong (which btw, I agree with) that homosexuals should not be allowed to marry.

[Underdog]

Originally Posted by dalmations202

How big does the group need to be?

I can find a group of men that believe men should be able to rape any woman any time. Does that mean we should end all the rape laws?

I can find a group of men that believe they should be able to marry multiple wives, and marriage is fair, so why shouldn't they be able to marry many women?

Finding groups that believe a way differing from yours is easy to find........should you always give in to them, and let them have there way?

The Taliban believe women have no rights -- should we go to that type of society?

Where do you draw the line?

Other than your polygamy example, everything else you listed infringes upon another person's rights - homosexual marriage doesn't infringe on anybody's rights (because "not being grossed out" isn't a right...)

[and I have nothing against polygamy, legally, as long as everyone involved is consenting...]

[kg_veteran]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

you povided the article as showing why there are non-religious reasons for not allowing gay marriages, and my response was to show how those arguments don't hold water. the author does not establish that there are any valid reasons for denying the same benefits to same sex couples that are being provided to same sex couples, save for religious beliefs.

Again, I know what your opinion is. I doubt I'm likely to change it, just as I doubt you're likely to change mine.

there is no argument that government CAN place limitations, government is the body that recognizes marriage, and is the body that provides the benefits that are provided to married couples.

the fact that it can prohibit the practice does not however make the prohibition just and equitable.

Just and equitable is a matter of opinion.

[kg_veteran]

Originally Posted by ocelot_ark

I took this article to mean strictly this:

The strength of a marriage is 100% correlated to the non-monogamous nature of gay couples. So whether or not you have a good marriage doesn't depend on your beliefs, values, or will power. We can't take responsibility for our own failures, so let's blame it on society.

Marriage has deteriorated to the point where the presence or absence of sexual perversions in society determines the success rate of a marriage. High levels of divorce and adultery are the responsibility of gays. Because society has accepted gays (for the most part), men have started leaving their wives. I don't see the correlation.

Perhaps these marriages, sanctioned by God, shouldn't have happened in the first place. Perhaps these couples weren't in LOVE in the first place. Perhaps women, having carved out a niche in the workplace, simply have more opportunities to cheat. Perhaps the advent of the INTERNET has allowed for more streamlined opportunities for "no strings attached" encounters.

You're distorting what the article says. It doesn't say "100% correlated" or "100% responsible".

[ocelot_ark]

Originally Posted by kg_veteran

You're distorting what the article says. It doesn't say "100% correlated" or "100% responsible".

Right. But it does attempt to scare people into believing that gay marriage will basically cause their marriages to fail. If outside influences, such as gay marriage, have THAT large of an affect on anyone's marriage - they've got much larger issues to worry about. The actions of other couples should have no bearing on a marriage. If gay neighbors entice a husband over to play back yard tug of war, the husband didn't really love his wife ANYWAY.

[dalmations202]

Originally Posted by Underdog

Other than your polygamy example, everything else you listed infringes upon another person's rights - homosexual marriage doesn't infringe on anybody's rights (because "not being grossed out" isn't a right...)

[and I have nothing against polygamy, legally, as long as everyone involved is consenting...]

Why is prostitution illegal again?

It doesn't infringe on anyone else either, well, not directly anyway.
In fact, we can publish "swingers" stuff all over the internet, yet most state laws prohibit prostitution.

Should government be in the game of setting morality or not?

Jane Doe, marrying a pig doesn't infringe on others either.
John Doe marrying his 12 year old neice doesn't either.
Jack Doe marrying multiple women doesn't either.
Watching kiddy porn in the privacy of my home doesn't infringe on others either.
Me walking bare a$$ naked through the streets doesn't infringe upon other rights either, although many might lose their lunch.

Where are you going to draw the line?

States presently are drawing the lines -- you may or may not agree with them.

[fluid.forty.one]

Originally Posted by dalmations202

Jane Doe, marrying a pig doesn't infringe on others either.
John Doe marrying his 12 year old neice doesn't either.
Jack Doe marrying multiple women doesn't either.
Watching kiddy porn in the privacy of my home doesn't infringe on others either.
Me walking bare a$$ naked through the streets doesn't infringe upon other rights either, although many might lose their lunch.

I'm guessing most of us here have friends who are gay. I'm guessing NONE of us have friends that match your list. Gays have become socially "acceptable".. the things you listed aren't, at this moment. So they are different, at this moment.

[fluid.forty.one]

If we were to go back in time and read a debate between people who think we should free slaves, or let blacks vote, or let women vote... it would look similar to this thread.

Free blacks?? What's next.. letting them vote?? Run for President??!? Man and pig united in unholy matrimony?

[ocelot_ark]

Originally Posted by fluid.forty.one

If we were to go back in time and read a debate between people who think we should free slaves, or let blacks vote, or let women vote... it would look similar to this thread.

Free blacks?? What's next.. letting them vote?? Run for President??!? Man and pig united in unholy matrimony?

Nice!

[Flacolaco]

I'm guessing most of us here have friends who are gay.

I think that is a pretty bold statement. And I'm sure by friends, you mean even just acquaintances? Because I gotta tell you, I don't even know OF anyone in my life or the periphery of my life who might be gay.

Well that's not entirely true. I do know a couple of people who thought they were gay back in college, but have since realized that they were slaves to a trend.