'I was disgusted by gays:' Cory Booker explains how he overcame his sheer hatred for homosexuality

Jan 10, 2013 Full story: www.dailymail.co.uk 325

Newark Mayor Cory Booker struggled with severe homophobia as a young man, a fact which he documented in great detail in an opinion piece for his college newspaper 20 years ago.

Full Story

“Luke laughs at hypocrites!”

Since: Sep 10

Palm Springs, California

#193 Jan 18, 2013
straight shooter wrote:
<quoted text>
I have said that MANY TIMES before, is it that you refused to read it since it would reduce your need to snark?
That is exactly why cu's are the right balance, the religious are not evil and you have needs that should be met...
HEY! I ALMOST apologized, be more humble.

To be honest? Some of your posts tend to be a bit long winded and way too ponderous for me to read through. I'm sure they are all scholarly tomes, but I watched MTV too much in the 80's and have the attention span of a hummingbird.

There's a couple outside my window now drinking up a storm from the feeder, but they tend to flit off now and then for no apparent reason.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#194 Jan 20, 2013
straight shooter wrote:
<quoted text>
I would say an attraction to ONLY the opposite sex. or so i thought, but I wonder what you guys think it is?
I would think a man who is attracted to other males for sex would be gay, but I am hearing that makes me something like a bigot...
That would certainly a suggestive manifestation of heteros, but I think you should take a week and go around asking WOMEN what THEY think the central identifying quality is for them. Listen and take notes.

DNF

“Religious Freedom to Marry”

Since: Apr 07

Newark OH / Baltimore MD

#195 Jan 23, 2013
straight shooter wrote:
<quoted text>
so again, they are attracted to men, but are not gay?
you guys' "rules" are just CRAZY...
Did I ever tell you guys how I have pulled a few supposed lesbians back to our side?
what does that mean?
Apparently the term bisexual is too confusing to you.
straight shooter

Montpelier, VT

#196 Jan 23, 2013
DNF wrote:
<quoted text>Apparently the term bisexual is too confusing to you.
apparently you couldn't follow the conversation as bisexual was already ruled out as the explanation, they were talking gay as in gay...

DNF

“Religious Freedom to Marry”

Since: Apr 07

Newark OH / Baltimore MD

#197 Jan 23, 2013
straight shooter wrote:
<quoted text>
I would say an attraction to ONLY the opposite sex. or so i thought, but I wonder what you guys think it is?
I would think a man who is attracted to other males for sex would be gay, but I am hearing that makes me something like a bigot...
Maybe bigot isn't the correct term. Ignorant or uninformed might be better.

People are attracted to other people for a variety of reasons. If you have no interest in having sex with an Asian or a black person does that make you a bigot? Of course not. It simply means you don't find them sexually arousing. Some have a thing for redheads, some like overweight people, some don't. Some people are turned off by people who wear glasses.

You said earlier you find the male body repulsive. I doubt that. But if you do it suggests you have issues with your own body. I'm sure you can name many men you think epitomize what a man should look like. You probably don't really find the male body repulsive. It's just that the idea of having sex with a man is repulsive.

I agree with you that heterosexuality means a sexual attraction to ONLY the opposite sex. But I believe very few people are exclusively hetero or homosexual or lesbian.

We see it all the time on daytime talk shows. If a man has a sexual encounter with another male, most people call him gay. To me that is an over simplification.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#198 Jan 23, 2013
I'd interject, but in this instance it would feel too much like a three-way.

Since: Mar 07

The entire US of A

#199 Jan 23, 2013
straight shooter wrote:
<quoted text>
apparently you couldn't follow the conversation as bisexual was already ruled out as the explanation, they were talking gay as in gay...
If you have the ABILITY to be attracted to both genders, you are bi-sexual regardless of the label you apply to yourself. Women seem to be more likey to fall into this category.

And, I suspect that a small majority of the population falls somewhere within that spectrum, whether they like to admit it or not.

Hard to prove, though, unless we hook every adult up to a meter to test the theory.

DNF

“Religious Freedom to Marry”

Since: Apr 07

Newark OH / Baltimore MD

#200 Jan 23, 2013
straight shooter wrote:
<quoted text>
okay, but your last line makes me think that i can argue that you don't understand straight relationships and therefore are not in a position to say they are the "same".
I would argue that because all of us are exposed to heterosexual relationships on a daily basis, it's silly to claim we can't understand or relate to them. Each relationship is unique, regardless of the sexual nature of it.
But that doesn't mean we "can't relate".

I was raised by a Mom and Dad. I was raised to believe marriage was a special relationship; a lifetime commitment. It wasn't just about sex.

Yet now that SSM is being discussed, some of those who claim to support the traditional sanctity of marriage seem to be reducing it to nothing more than "bless us father so we can knock boots without feeling guilty".

How would you and your wife feel if most people saw your marriage as nothing more than a long term hook-up for sex? My guess is you'd both be as offended by that attitude as those of us who support SSM.

You may not be attracted to other males, but when the subject is marriage, it shouldn't be that hard for you to relate to the desire to have a marriage, regardless of whether it's a man and woman, or two people of the same sex.

DNF

“Religious Freedom to Marry”

Since: Apr 07

Newark OH / Baltimore MD

#201 Jan 23, 2013
straight shooter wrote:
<quoted text>
not to me given that you WERE gay... meaning there was a connection you did not have the opposite sex person...
so it was not a fully "firing" straight relationship...
same as a straight man having a little fun cannot say he understands being gay....
Let me ask you a few very important question at this point.
Would you define your relationships with other males as heterosexual? What definition would you give to the relationship you had with women that didn't involve a sexual attraction?

I get the feeling you want to define every relationship in terms of it's sexual nature. Just remember PEOPLE (gay,lesbian or straight) have lots of relationships with other people that aren't based on sexual attraction.
straight shooter

Montpelier, VT

#202 Jan 23, 2013
DNF wrote:
<quoted text>I would argue that because all of us are exposed to heterosexual relationships on a daily basis, it's silly to claim we can't understand or relate to them..
right, and next you will claim a straight can never understand what its like to be gay or have a a gay relationship...
both sides of you mouth must be tired...

again, we can be friends with people, but does that relat ein any way to being married?

in short, your lady friends are not the same as having a wife...
your male friends is not the same as having a husband...

DNF

“Religious Freedom to Marry”

Since: Apr 07

Newark OH / Baltimore MD

#203 Jan 23, 2013
straight shooter wrote:
<quoted text>
I hate to do this, but wasn't this whole thing started by suggesting a little fun is nothing like being gay?
so, let me change tacks to something I raised before (and was nearly crucified on this board for suggesting) but what if all marriages were civil partnerships, straights, gays everyone...the only thing a govt would "recognize" is civil partnerships.
Leave "marriage" to the "ceremonial" ( I learned last time not to use "religious") and civically (I think I made that word up) its ALL partnerships?
What you seem to ignore is the fact that all legally recognized marriages are "civil partnerships".
straight shooter wrote:
<quoted text>To me its a new COMPROMISE...
It's not new. It's the same old BS. Marriage is marriage regardless of the sex of the two people involved.
straight shooter wrote:
<quoted text>
but as we have discussed that's become a bad word in this issue now...
To me central to this issue is two sides believing they are totally right and the other side is just evil...
Agreed.
straight shooter wrote:
<quoted text>if we all respected beliefs we did not agree with, we would all have to look to compromise...
If there is true respect then a compromise is UN-necessary.
straight shooter wrote:
<quoted text>to both sides, you are not selling out YOUR beliefs, you are merely acknowledging others regardless of your agreement with it...
I think casting all opposition to gay marriage as evil bigotry is a mistake, as is denying the humanity in and reality of gay relationships...
good point
straight shooter

Montpelier, VT

#204 Jan 23, 2013
DNF wrote:
<quoted text>Let me ask you a few very important question at this point.
Would you define your relationships with other males as heterosexual? What definition would you give to the relationship you had with women that didn't involve a sexual attraction?
I get the feeling you want to define every relationship in terms of it's sexual nature. Just remember PEOPLE (gay,lesbian or straight) have lots of relationships with other people that aren't based on sexual attraction.
DNF, you came in late, but this started with someone's suggestion that all the straight men they knew made good bottoms...

I suggested they couldn't be straight and be taking it in the rear...
I was told they could...

so your dividing a line that was already danced across...

BTW, What definition would you give to the relationship you had with women that didn't involve a sexual attraction?

Platonic.

DNF

“Religious Freedom to Marry”

Since: Apr 07

Newark OH / Baltimore MD

#205 Jan 23, 2013
straight shooter wrote:
<quoted text>
I have said that MANY TIMES before, is it that you refused to read it since it would reduce your need to snark?
That is exactly why cu's are the right balance, the religious are not evil and you have needs that should be met...
regardless of whether the ceremony is conducted by a priest, minister or someone else, the fact remains two people aren't married until the marriage license is signed, witnessed and registered. Every marriage is actually a "civil union".

So why are you insisting we call our marriages something else?

DNF

“Religious Freedom to Marry”

Since: Apr 07

Newark OH / Baltimore MD

#206 Jan 23, 2013
straight shooter wrote:
<quoted text>
apparently you couldn't follow the conversation as bisexual was already ruled out as the explanation, they were talking gay as in gay...
Or perhaps my computer died and it's been two weeks replacing it.

You mentioned someone else being snarky earlier. Look in the mirror.

DNF

“Religious Freedom to Marry”

Since: Apr 07

Newark OH / Baltimore MD

#207 Jan 23, 2013
straight shooter wrote:
<quoted text>
right, and next you will claim a straight can never understand what its like to be gay or have a a gay relationship...
And you'd be incorrect. My brother and sister in law both understand it very well. In fact most straight people I know don't have the hang ups you display here.
straight shooter wrote:
<quoted text>both sides of you mouth must be tired...
No more so than your legs are from jumping back and forth over the fences you construct for this issue.
straight shooter wrote:
<quoted text>again, we can be friends with people, but does that relat ein any way to being married?
You actually ask such a stupid question? Of course it relates, because those relationships don't give you the same rights, benefits, responsibilities, problems and privileges that marriage does. Answer this. Why did you get married? Now ask why someone else would want to be married. Chances are the reasons are identical.
straight shooter wrote:
<quoted text>in short, your lady friends are not the same as having a wife...
your male friends is not the same as having a husband...
brilliant. Maybe now you can see why we find the idea of calling our marriages something else so offensive.
straight shooter

Montpelier, VT

#208 Jan 23, 2013
DNF wrote:
<quoted text>regardless of whether the ceremony is conducted by a priest, minister or someone else, the fact remains two people aren't married until the marriage license is signed, witnessed and registered. Every marriage is actually a "civil union".
So why are you insisting we call our marriages something else?
I am not going to waste the time to explain it AGAIN...
you want to hate, so go for it...
straight shooter

Montpelier, VT

#209 Jan 23, 2013
DNF wrote:
<quoted text>Or perhaps my computer died and it's been two weeks replacing it.
You mentioned someone else being snarky earlier. Look in the mirror.
so it wont let you go back and read the thread before you make comments?
straight shooter

Montpelier, VT

#210 Jan 23, 2013
DNF wrote:
<quoted text>A You actually ask such a stupid question? Of course it relates, because those relationships don't give you the same rights, benefits, responsibilities, problems and privileges that marriage does. Answer this. Why did you get married? Now ask why someone else would want to be married. Chances are the reasons are identical.
<quoted text>brilliant. Maybe now you can see why we find the idea of calling our marriages something else so offensive.
if being friends is the same as being married, then just have a gay friendship...

being friends with someone is far below being married to them...
you wouldn't understand.

different relationships have different names, if that offends you, grow up...

DNF

“Religious Freedom to Marry”

Since: Apr 07

Newark OH / Baltimore MD

#211 Jan 23, 2013
straight shooter wrote:
<quoted text>
DNF, you came in late, but this started with someone's suggestion that all the straight men they knew made good bottoms...
I suggested they couldn't be straight and be taking it in the rear...
I was told they could...
so your dividing a line that was already danced across...
BTW, What definition would you give to the relationship you had with women that didn't involve a sexual attraction?
Platonic.
"pegging" is when a man enjoys anal stimulation. Yes, they can be straight.

DNF

“Religious Freedom to Marry”

Since: Apr 07

Newark OH / Baltimore MD

#212 Jan 23, 2013
straight shooter wrote:
<quoted text>
DNF, you came in late, but this started with someone's suggestion that all the straight men they knew made good bottoms...
I suggested they couldn't be straight and be taking it in the rear...
I was told they could...
so your dividing a line that was already danced across...
BTW, What definition would you give to the relationship you had with women that didn't involve a sexual attraction?
Platonic.
And I'd wager you like it when your wife pats your fanny. Does that mean you're gay?

Of course not.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Gay/Lesbian Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Community concerns over ice use among gay men i... 9 min Professor Jumper 7
Is Polygamy the Next Gay Marriage? 10 min Frankie Rizzo 452
No gridlock for gay marriage, legal marijuana 14 min Professor Jumper 4
Stay issued in Indiana gay marriage ban case 16 min Concerned Browser 10
Los Angeles doctor asks feds to study why menin... 22 min Evilgelicalling 4
Arkansas AG asks court to uphold gay marriage ban 25 min Evilgelicalling 4
Gay marriage cases await early Supreme Court de... 28 min TomInElPaso 352
US judge upholds state same-sex marriage ban, r... 46 min Evilgelicalling 728
Gay marriage (Mar '13) 1 hr Cali Girl 2014 55,852
Biggest Gay Lies 7 hr Phobos 1,996
•••
Enter and win $5000
•••

Gay/Lesbian People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••