In April's Details, Dominick Wimple basically says it's okay to use the word Gay to describe "an object or an action that signifies profound inner uncoolness."
In a weird way, he almost convinced me. When I saw the headline in the magazine I got all fired up thinking it would be bad, but the article was pretty neutral, and it could actually be positive in the future, when society has less of a problem with the gays. Not now though.
The article is supposed to discuss the usage of gay for uncool stuff, but most of what is labeled as uncool in the article is not actually bad or uncool for most people, maybe uncool for the magazine editors. And that's not that much. For instance, Seattle Seahawks uniforms are deemed gay. Monograms are gay. A lot of the stuff is indeed really gay, but not uncool or whatever, just gay. The list goes on and on. Emoticons, gay (agree). Colored iPod protectors, gay (agree). The J in Michael J. Fox (agree).
In summary, the article sort of goes with their monthly anthropology section "Gay or (fill in the blank)," the most famous of which was probably that Gay or Asian piece (which I did not think was offensive at all -- being offended by that is the actual homophobia I thought, but whatever).
All right, we know Details is the gayest magazine that ever gayed. It's kind of in the closet but out there at the same time, so it tries to create a little bit of fuss avec uncertainties. The gay article I discuss here fits perfectly with their whole plot.
Others seemed to agree with Dominick's take on the word gay. So it appears nothing too bad may come out of Dominick's article, but still, I would prefer if people didn't use the word gay to describe uncoolness. No matter how young or immature.