Gay voter grills Romney on marriage rights

MANCHESTER, N.H. -- Republican presidential candidate picked up the endorsement of Manchester Mayor Ted Gatsas on Monday, adding to a nearly clean sweep of top New Hampshire political names. But stumping at a diner here, he clearly did not win over one potential voter concerned with his position on gay rights.

Gatsas appeared with Romney at the Chez Vachon and praised him as a candidate who could fix everything from chronic joblessness to the nation's crumbling infrastructure. To date, most of New Hampshire's Republican political establishment has endorsed Romney, except for Rep. Frank Guinta, who has not said who he is supporting in the state's pivotal first-in-the-nation primary next month.

As he was greeting diners at random, Romney difted over to speak with a middle-aged man in a booth at the diner, apparently not realizing the man was there dining with his gay partner. During a polite but awkward exchange, Bob Garon, 63, asked Romney whether he would support the repeal of state laws allowing same-sex marriage. As he has on the campaign trail, Romney said he believed marriage should be between a man and a woman.

His press spokesman tried to cut off the conversation, and Garon said mockingly, "Ohhh, I guess the question was too hot." Romney shot back, "You said you wanted a yes or no answer, and I gave you the answer."

Garon replied, "You did, and I appreciate your answer. And I learned something. New Hampshire is right, you have to look a man in the eye to get a good answer, and you know what governor, good luck. You're going to need it."

Garon later told reporters that he served in the Army, including more than a year in Vietnam during the war, and believes his partner is entitled to "the same benefits than if I was married to a woman. What the hell is the difference?"

[MeBubbleHead]

BOTTOM LINE ON GAY RIGHTS

The debate and study on homosexuality as a disease is for all practical purposes a resolved one. It is obvious that there is a cause for the existence of homosexuality, and that it must be one of two options. They are born gay or they learn to be gay after birth. The latter theory was created by Freudian era soft science and insinuated that because homosexuality was a learned behavior then it is also a mental defect. Many people refused to accept gays as mentally defective because of evidence proving they are capable of working and living in peace and harmony within society. We are left with only the theory that homosexuality is a birth defect.

Since 1973 when the scientific community removed homosexuality from the list of mental diseases there has been a great deal of new research on the subject. The two most important studies are in genetics and prenatal hormones. It appears that many people agree with the theory that a prenatal hormone deficiency or unbalance is the reason we are born male or female and if the defect is not as pronounced then it only alters gender identity.

However there is another way to address this subject that is perhaps a simple answer to the problem. By taking this subject to the next level of recognizing it as a birth disorder then we can also suggest a treatment and cure. When we do that then the next question would logically be, "how many parents would submit their unborn fetus to a therapy if it was considered reliable and safe to administer"? In return the family would have a healthy normal heterosexual child and not be burdened with homosexuality in the family.

Of course the answer isn't available because we don't have such a cure yet and I have yet to see any survey and polls on the subject. I have seen in our health food stores and even in grocery and pharmacies in America a new supplement that advertises as a prenatal support. Are we already seeing Americas answer to the question? Educated young couples versed in rudimentary science are already taking precautions so that their child will not be born homosexual. If so then there is only one question remaining.
Our third option which isn't really an option but more or less an addendum is the belief that homosexuals are born gay and then they learn to be gayer. This option takes us back to the question on how many parents would cure their child's homosexuality if they could. We already know there is a culture shrouding the gay community and gay pride stands as a pillar and foundation that is pushing gay rights into the mainstream. I have already heard in blog sites the voice of dissent on gay cures.
Some homosexuals would refuse any cure for themselves and that leaves the problem of them having new born and even adopted children. Personally I would view it as a crime for a parent to refuse the cure for an infant and knowing full well that the treatment is 100% safe and reliable. The bottom line is we can't allow homosexual rights to go beyond the basic necessities of being able to live and work in peace and harmony. We are at the door of proof that will declare homosexuality a disease again. As with all diseases we seek the cure and we may see very soon the result of prenatal nutritional supplementation. Homosexuality as a birth defect may be one of the easiest diseases to cure but the social disease and culture that has developed after birth may prove to be the real challenge, at least until the next generation matures. Homosexuality as a culture must be aborted!

[SpittinBullitz]

While Romney and the Mormon "collective" have issues with gays, they sure don't seem to mind corrupt polygamists. Mormons spend countless millions fighting gay marriage yet turn a blind-eye to tens of thousands of innocent women and children systematically abused behind their secret Zion Curtain. There are over 300 polygamous cults thriving in Mormon communities where Mormons simply pretend nothing is wrong. Game over if Obama tells Americans to watch the documentary film, "Banking On Heaven". I mean, how can you trust people who ignore pain and suffering in their own backyard? The film shows how women and children suffer at the hands of brutal polygamists, how they're forced to live on welfare so their children don't starve, and how powerful Mormon legislatures, law enforcement, and millions of churchgoers do NOTHING to stop it. I would never vote for a Mormon.

[laureenmillarholt]

This 63-y/o man doesn't understand what the "difference" is when his partner in egregious sin isn't "entitled" to the "same" benefits as hetero- couples are.

The "difference" is that homosexuals like to think of their behavior as "normal" & "natural" as heterosexuals,' when it absolutely is not. It's perverted--2 men or 2 women were NEVER meant to be together, & therfore, shouldn't be. Homosexuals want to change the definition of marriage to include them, & I will never agree to that, & I have a lot of company in that belief. I would hate to have a prez who supports gay "marriage." There isn't a candidate that does, & Obummer--our failed prez--doesn't either, & he's about as radical & far-left wing as you can get.

[In2theDark]

Frankly your approval is not needed. Whats perverted is that your a straight woman thinking about homosexual sex.