Oh my, such a simple question on its surface and yet so complex when peeling back the layers. I can only briefly tell you that both young women are extremely confused and screwed up in their heads about which way to go.
That's pretty much what being a teenager is like these days, regardless of parental situation. I was pretty confused myself as a teenager, and understand, for me "being a teenager" only ended about a year ago - I remember the whole thing quite well. And both of my parents are heterosexual.
One of their mothers is a devout fundamentalist christian, lesbian who ran a "pleasure shop" in a nearby town selling dildos and sex toys.
Now there's something you don't see every day.
Her dyke lover was more of a man than most men I know. Which makes me wonder why the lipstick lesbian/christian found her attractive if she was supposed to be more attracted to women...
The term "sexual preference" has a different meaning for each of us.
My theory is that the one twin emulated the mannish dyke and the other the lipstick one. And since the lipstick dyke mother was obviously attracted more to a man (ish woman) then that twin adopted heterosexuality...
It's possible. Exactly what childhood factors lead to the development of homosexuality as a disposition are presently unknown; but bear in mind, homosexuals have heterosexuals for parents an overwhelming percentage of the time, so emulation of parents isn't a necessary factor in the development of homosexuality.
"Confused" is a word I would use to describe each member of that quartet. And none of them moreso than I am about the situation.
Anyone who thinks he or she isn't confused about anything is obviously a lot more confused than he or she knows.
Which brings me back to my point of if some type of relationship isn't fully understood, and may have its roots in dysfunction (in their case: hyper-sexual), AND we know that primates (humans) learn and model their societies by example and copying "aping" behavior of the adults in their group, then what are we doing holding up that behavior as "normal". True, no one has a monopoly on the word "normal". What normal really means is "what today's society has, by majority, determined to be acceptable". And I'm a big fan of pushing the envelope, don't get me wrong. It's just that sexuality is one of the most potent elements of human behavior and it underlies nearlly the whole fabric of adult human interaction, excepting perhaps the elderly, and so we must look very carefully at how we model sexuality because it can invade every nook and cranny of society.
Homosexuality isn't necessarily hyper-sexual in nature. Like I said above, "sexual preference" has a different meaning for everyone. "Gender preference" would probably be a better term for dispositional homosexuality, since the disposition is to be attracted, sexually and/or romantically, to the opposite sex, not simply sexually.
Are there hypersexual homosexuals? Certainly. Are all homosexuals hypersexual? No. Most of the homosexuals I know are no more sexually active than most of the heterosexuals I know - the one difference I've noticed is that the homosexuals I know are more expressive about their sexual activities (ie, they're more willing to discuss their sex lives in casual conversation). I'd say that's probably an expression of newly-acquired expressive social freedom - where once it would have been unthinkable for gay people to talk about their sexual exploits in conversation with heterosexuals, it's more generally accepted now (or at least it is where I'm from). As a result, they're taking advantage of that new freedom.
I'm not in favor, BTW, of descriminating against gays and sexual deviants of all types as long as their behavior doesn't include trying to predate youngsters or "sway" them to their slant on sexuality. Why did I choose the word "deviants" to describe anything other than sex between men and women? Because sex evolved millions and millions of years ago to beget children via a mechanism that relies on male and female DNA allowing for diversity and the ability to evolve and adapt faster than asexual reproduction. So for mammals, hetero is normal sexual behavior and anything else is not. Using the sexual reproductive organs for anything else and trying to call it "normal" would be like trying to walk on your hands and write with your feet. Sure, we could learn to accept people who did that habitually, by choice at the onset, but we couldn't call it normal.
Is it "normal" to eat cotton candy at a carnival? Remember, "eating" developed biologically as a means of gaining sustenance, and "cotton candy" has zero nutritional value. And whereas eating is necessary both for individual survival and as a necessary corollary for propagation of the species, while sexuality is only necessary for the latter, this issue of letting people know it's okay to eat cotton candy (or anything else that isn't nutritional) is far more serious than allowing homosexuals to marry.
You have to be careful with "logic." Sometimes its great; sometimes it'll knock you on your ass. Remember, one of the great aspects of the human race is that we've evolved beyond simple biological function - the ability to think, reason, and emote have changed the whole score for us. Sexuality in particular has evolved significantly - its not just about reproduction anymore. Hell, for most of the couples I know, it's specifically not about reproduction. If we were simple biological creatures, that mindset would be a cataclysmic setback - but instead, we've adapted, creating contraceptive pills and condoms. Not to mention abortion. Birth control keeps getting more effective, and someday it'll be one hundred percent - or as close as doesn't make a difference for the greater majority of people who use it. And as for acceptance of birth control as normal, you can see the level of acceptance as a generational thing - older folks generally find it less appealing, the middle aged generation probably wish it had been more prevalent when they were younger but are too embarrassed to admit it, and my generation sees it as normal. Homosexuality could be the same way some day.
So, did Californians make a mistake upholding what they consider to be a "normal" marriage arrangement to model before impressionable youth? I say they did not. Marriage and the implied "sex for begetting children" should be only an arrangement between two beings where at least in theory that begetting is possible. I know some couples are sterile etc. etc. etc. The important thing is that it conform with the male/female partnership as a modeling example so other fertile young people model themselves along those lines.
Personally, I don't think the future of marital equality lies in legalizing gay marriage; I believe it lies in deregulating marriage entirely and allowing it to be what it really is: a social institution.
Why is it such a necessity that we keep encouraging "fertile young people" to have kids? We're still a hair above the Replacement Rate when it comes to the USA's TFR (total fertility rate). As a result, our population increases. As a First-World industrially-developed nation, we don't really need to keep swelling our population. In fact, we could probably do with it dropping a bit. Rather than taking the Thomas Malthus approach to "decreasing the surplus population," we could just stop encouraging "fertile young people" to be heterosexual and let them make up their own minds on a level playing field. Maybe that way, rather than making more babies, which as a society we don't need, we'd have more couples in stable relationships who, if they want to have kids, must necessarily adopt, decreasing the number of children in foster care - which is good for the kids, since it is statistically proven that kids in foster care fare worse in society than kids who get adopted, and is good for the state, which then has to expend less money caring for them every year.
