Gfs, nof trying to get into your dispute with others. However, I did not respond earlier to your Michael Glatze article.

While the Michael Glatze article you posted was interesting, if would hardly meet the rigour of a research test of any type. You have always seemed to be a fellow seeking truth through facts. One case hardly builds a solid case, one way or the other on one less than scientifically researched case.

Firstly, we don t know much about the fellow nor his actual motives.
My understanding is he was knce just as stong as an "in the limelight" advocate for the homosexual community, as he seems now to take the extreme opposite position- and, he is now again "in the limelight", as the "poster child" for those seeking one to hold one up high. This alone makes me question his character and reasoning. My understanding he has sought the movie route to document his to date (sexual orientation) life plight-again, this adds to my suspicion of his character and actual motives.

In addition, we don t really know whether he was/is a homosexual or a bisexual, at home with either sex.