LOGO (our mother ship) has released the results of a months-long study that shows that a lot of younger gays are eschewing big city life in favor of joining smaller communities, while still living openly and maintaining their identities.

The project, which was completed earlier this year, raises some interesting points:

A vast majority (79 percent) of gay people think it’s important to integrate into the greater culture and 64 percent are open about their sexual orientation to at least their family members.

Less than half of gay people want to live in the city and a majority want to live in suburbia or small-town America. Regardless of where they want to live, 58 percent want to live closer to other gay people.

Two-thirds of younger gay people expect to be partnered with kids at some point in their adulthood, while less than a third of gays 35 and older expect the same.

Younger gay people have an even mix of gay and straight friends.

Overall, gay people rank marriage equality as the number one issue about which they’re passionate, followed by the environment, health care and the economy.

“We’re trading in West Hollywood for West Texas and big disposable incomes for disposable diapers,” said Lisa Sherman, Executive Vice President and General Manager, Logo. “Most important, we’re integrating without abandoning our community or sense of identity. These developments are good for LGBT people and good for America."

Speaking as someone who has lived in both the city and the boondocks (currently, I'm somewhere in-between), I've seen the good and bad in both.

We're interested to hear your thoughts. Does any of this "vast generational shift" surprise you? Have you (or your friends) made the move from the big city to Petticoat Junction, and if so, is it difficult to feel part of the "community"?

The New York Observer has an interesting article about what they call "New Gays" and "New Old Gays", and "tastes great, less filling" gays.

Okay, that last one isn't really included.

According to the article, the "New Old Gay" is defined thusly:

"To be classified as a New Old Gay requires more than an appreciation of Patti LuPone, though love of somewhat tragic, just a tad grotesque, totally fabulous divas is a requirement. In some ways the New Old Gay can be read as a reassertion of a gay identity that had all but been given up for dead: If gays can be married and have children and live contentedly in the suburbs, or on the other end of the spectrum, do the same drugs at the same loft parties as their Oberlin classmates, and if everyone thinks AIDS is no more serious than diabetes, then, really, what’s the difference between the gays and the straights? By dialing back to and reinventing the old gay stereotypes, they may have the best shot at reclaiming gayness as something actually different."

Which do you prefer? Your level of gayness may depend on it!

Of course, the "New Gay" will have none of that, and according to the article, looks at the "New Old Gays" with disdain, if not outright rejection.

So what is the difference between "New" and "New Old"? Here's a sampler:

"Project Runway Season 1 contestant Austin Scarlett is New Old Gay, Project Runway Season 4 winner Christian Siriano is New Gay. The Scissor Sisters are New Gay. Rufus Wainwright flirts with being New Old Gay, but he’s really New Gay in a Judy Garland costume. New Old Gay is The Golden Girls; New Gay is America’s Next Top Model. The New Old Gay appreciates and embraces camp and high kitsch, but not ironically."

Well, I'm in big trouble. I like all of the above, so does that make me "New Old New Gay", or "Old New New Gay", or does it just make me tired of all of this?

We're interested to hear your thoughts. Do you consider yourself "New" or "New Old", or "Enough, Already!"? Click on through the jump and let us know in our poll!