Santorum, Romney challenged on gay rights in debate

AP Photo/Charles Krupa

MANCHESTER, N.H. -- In a Sunday morning debate, Republican presidential contenders Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum, the top finishers in the Iowa caucuses last week, were questioned about gay rights - for very different reasons.

Romney, the former governor of Massachusetts, has been plagued in the GOP primary by his record as a moderate. In the debate, hosted by NBC, Facebook and the New Hampshire Union Leader, Romney was asked about a quote he gave years ago to a gay publication in Massachusetts: "I think the gay community needs more support from the Republican party," he said at the time.

When asked how he has supported the gay community, Romney responded that as governor, he hired and appointed people to various positions regardless of sexuality. However, Romney said he has consistently opposed same-sex marriage.

Gingrich to Romney: Drop the "pious baloney"
Gingrich, Romney continue war over super PAC ads
Huntsman fires back at Romney for knocking his service as ambassador to China

"But if people are looking for someone who will discriminate against gays... or say they don't have full rights in this country, they won't find that from me," he said.

Asked when was the last time he spoke out for gay rights, Romney said, "Right now."

Santorum, meanwhile, is a staunch social conservative known for making controversial statements regarding gays. Asked whether he would support gay rights, the former Pennsylvania said all Americans, gay or straight, deserve "equality of opportunity."

Santorum has repeatedly been confronted on the campaign trail for his positions on gay rights issues, and in Sunday's debate, he said he's listened respectfully to people's varying opinions.

Asked how he would respond if his own son came out as gay, Santorum responded, "I would love him as much as I did the second before he said it."

[starving1968-3]

by NologyV January 9, 2012 3:34 PM EST
You cherry pick things out of the Bible that you think make your case for sodomy and perversion yet you don't even know what it is really saying or has nothing to do with this boring and non-important topic unless you are a sodomite trying to deceive the public.
Suddenly gays and atheists think they are the experts on the Bible. Like everything else you touch you corrupt and defile.
You only prove yourself to be fools trying to falsely interpet the Bible.
You are out of you league like an ignorant child trying to understand Quantum Mechanics.







The most significant difference between atheists and christians is that atheists have actually READ the bible, where most christians haven't. And I'm not trying to "make the case for sodomy and perversion"; your bible does that just fine by itself. But tell me how I "falsely interpreted" these verses:

Genesis 19:30 And Lot went up out of Zoar, and dwelt in the mountain, and his two daughters with him; for he feared to dwell in Zoar: and he dwelt in a cave, he and his two daughters.
19:31 And the firstborn said unto the younger, Our father is old, and there is not a man in the earth to come in unto us after the manner of all the earth:
19:32 Come, let us make our father drink wine, and we will lie with him, that we may preserve seed of our father.
19:33 And they made their father drink wine that night: and the firstborn went in, and lay with her father; and he perceived not when she lay down, nor when she arose.
19:34 And it came to pass on the morrow, that the firstborn said unto the younger, Behold, I lay yesternight with my father: let us make him drink wine this night also; and go thou in, and lie with him, that we may preserve seed of our father.
19:35 And they made their father drink wine that night also: and the younger arose, and lay with him; and he perceived not when she lay down, nor when she arose.
19:36 Thus were both the daughters of Lot with child by their father.



Lot got drunk, had sex with his OWN DAUGHTERS and IMPREGNATED THEM BOTH, and that's not your book of "morals" problem, but rather ME "corrupting and defiling" the bible by "trying to falsely interpret it"?!?!?

Wow.

Just..... WOW.

[richardt4723]

Separation of church and state. That is a basic precept in our constitution. That gives you the personal right to interpret the Bible and decide NOT to be gay however you wish, but it does NOT give you the right to dictate to others what is moral. Period.

[VaModerate12]

so, according to richard, it IS okay to decide to have sex with your daughters, but it is NOT okay to be gay. Another fine example of the christian mind. Maybe he is offended at this passage because he partakes in the bible's tolerance of incest.

[noloyalisti]

At least Obama has done some good things for the middle class. He saved the American automobile industry and millions of jobs. His stimulus plan, though only about 1/10 of what we needed to The New Deal #2, saved millions of jobs. His tax cuts for the middle class have also saved millions of jobs.

Of course the government is corrupt, they are owned and run by the Top 1% and giant corporations. That is why we need a second political party starting this year.

[noloyalisti]

Since the Republicons have no plans for stimulating the economy for anyone else but their top 1% corporate handlers, what else can they talk about. Since they hate most Americans, especially the workers, they have no plan for creating jobs anywhere but overseas. So what else can they talk about but wedge and fringe issues?

[noloyalisti]

SO what's your point? To point out our corporation run corrupt and fake democracy?

[starving1968-3]

by JV1970 January 9, 2012 1:59 AM EST

You've also never apparently really read Genesis 19: 1 - 24 especially verse 5. These men were not wanting just a casual acquaintance with the angels. They wanted to know them in the carnal sense.







Since you're quoting Genesis chapter 19, why don't you scroll down to verses 30 - 36 and read how the drunk Lot impregnated his own daughters.

You Christians and your "morals".......

[VaModerate12]

Funny how "christians" can cherry pick a tale of two cities that had nothing to do with homosexuals; yet when confronted of a blatant example of incest, they dance around and try to change the subject. I guess if the bible is perfect in every way, drunk fathers should be off impregnating their daughters, huh?

[Tired_of_liars]

by economicterror January 9, 2012 6:33 AM EST
by slownewsday2012 January 8, 2012 9:26 PM EST
Well, the 1st Amendment guarantees that there will be no official religion. But it was a letter from Thomas Jefferson to a church which first mentioned "separation of church and state".

by Tired_of_liars January 8, 2012 10:07 PM EST
who died and made the Democrats GOD? You seem to think that the Democrats are GOd
==================================================================

Apparently, DJ thinks anyone who understands the Constitution, is smart enough to spell God properly, bathes regularly, is a Patriot, and can put together a well sourced, intellectually honest rebuttal, must be a Democrat.
He is correct.
All others are physically, and intellectually inferior as they rant against the government that provides their welfare checks and Medicaid.
--------------------------------
Vet,

Well now we know you are not smart. Let me explain the difference between SS and Welfare, and Medicaid and medicare.

Social Security - Is a program that the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT provides to people who are over 65, Blind or Disabled. There checks come from the United States Dept of Treasury.

Welfare is a program provided by your local state governments, depending on the state that you are in will depend on the requirements that you have meet.

MEDICARE is a program that again is provided to the Seniors from the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT for people who are 65 or older, Blind or Disabled.

Medicare is a program that is provided by the STATE GOVERNMENT and again depending on the state will depend on the Requirements.

Now, I am on Social Security and Medicare. These are from the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.

Now I want you to listen to me very carefully, because I don't want you to get confused. In fact I am going to copy and paste this so everyone knows what I said and when I said it.

1. I have Cerebral Palsy. I DO NOT take seizure medications because I DO NOT have seizures.

2. I DO NOT run my own business.

3. I AM going to a university to get a college degree.

4. I AM NOT a bikini model and never have been

5. I HAVE been married for 8 (EIGHT) years.

Now, do you have any questions about the above?

[billholahan]

It seems as though Romney's brain has one loose wire.He says that in his presidency no one will be deprived of their civil rights, and yet says he is against gay marriage. He is almost at the point of educating his Repulican party and taking them to a higher level of intelligence, but his message is mixed. At least he is going in the right direction.

As for Santorum, he is making progress when he says he will love his hypotheticaly gay son. But he did not go the next step to say that he would want his son to have a committed relationship that could lead to marriage.

[Reaganer]

And your president still hides the fact that he is gay. It is the only thing about him that I admire.

[RobAla]

It does not take a genius to note that a life long commitment to a sexual relationship between a man and woman and a commitment between a man and a man are very different. This has been recognized for thousands of years by many many cultures. It only takes a brief examination of the make up of male and female bodies to understand they compliment one an other sexually. Nature has seen to that, so a sexual relationship between a man and a woman is a "natural" biological one - a sexual relationship between a man and man is not a natural biological relationship.

In the English language, the term used for that lifelong commitment between a man and woman is "marriage". Gays and lesbians are free to make a life long commitment, but it should not be called "marriage". Call it something else, because it is not the same. People can pretend that they two types of relationships are the same, but it does not make it so. Stating that the term "marriage" should be reserved for that natural life long sexual commitment between a man and woman, does not in any way attack gays and lesbians. The two types of relationships are very different, and we should not confuse the terminology.

[Zann-Zel]

The basis of that arguement is that marriage is ONLY for making children. There are some heterosexual couples that get married and by choice NEVER have kids! Should they be allowed to marry if they do not intend to have kids? What about those who can't have children? Should they be told they can't marry?

[slownewsday2012]

by JV1970 January 9, 2012 1:19 AM EST


VaModerate12 You've apparently never read Leviticus 18: 21 or Leviticus 20: 13 or the last half of Romans chapter one from about verse 17 through verse 32 or 1 Corinthians 6: 9 - 10. The Bible has plenty to say about homosexuality in both the Old and New Testaments and NONE of it is in favor of it!

====

Who cares what the Bible says, if you don't? It says you aren't to judge others, yet we all see you do it regularly.

Jesus talking about your type:

Luke 6:46 "Why do you call me 'Lord, Lord,' and not do what I tell you?"

Matthew 5:18 "'These people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me."

[JV1970]

I DO care what the Bible says and I don't judge them! I let the Bible do that! I'm only one of God's messengers! I spread the Word of God and that's all! If you can't take it that's too bad!

[VaModerate12]

Leviticus 18:21 - And thou shalt not let any of thy seed pass through the fire to Molech, neither shalt thou profane the name of thy God: I am the LORD. (KJV)

I don't see what has to do with homosexuals.

Leviticus 20:13 - And a man who will lie down with a male in a woman's bed, both of them have made an abomination; dying they will be put to death, their blood is on them. (Direct translation from Hebrew to English)

This is the correct translation of Leviticus 20:13. It can be seen that, rather than forbidding male homosexuality, it simply forbids two males to lie down in a woman's bed, for whatever reason. Culturally, a woman's bed was her own. Other than the woman herself, only her husband was permitted in her bed, and there were even restrictions on when he was allowed in there. Any other use of her bed would have been considered defilement. Other verses in the Law will help clarify the acceptable use of the woman's bed. (Lev. 15.)

Romans 1:26-27 - "Through this, God gave them over to passions of dishonor; their women exchanged the natural use into one against nature, likewise also the men left the natural use of the female, burned in their lust for each other, men in men, committing an indecency, receiving in themselves the necessary reward for their error." (translated from Greek)

The ancient Greek and Roman concept of what was "normal" and what was moral was quite different from ours. Although such concepts as sexual orientation had not been studied or named, in behavior, both the Greek and Roman empires expected everyone to be bisexual. There were very specific cultural rules regarding how this worked. A woman, for example, had one husband, and was not permitted sexual contact with any other male. But sexual contact with other women was permitted and even expected. For men, the rules permitted him wives, and perhaps concubines, depending on his wealth. But an adult man would also be "attached" to an adolescent male, to whom he would be teacher, mentor and lover. Any man or women who had relations with only one gender would have been thought odd or even abnormal.

Romans chapter one, as a whole, deals with pagan Rome's attempts to turn the creation into a god, worshiping the things created rather than the One who created them, and their attempt to remake that creation in their own design, by ignoring the inborn sexual orientation of the people, and expecting them to live bisexually. This chapter is not about homosexuality vs. heterosexuality, but rather about the error of trying to change the way we are created. God has created each of us with a sexual orientation, and for us to attempt to change it into another orientation is, in effect, telling God that He created us wrong. But if it was wrong for heterosexuals and homosexuals in the first century to try to be bisexuals, then it is equally wrong, and for the same reasons, for homosexuals in the twenty-first century to try to be heterosexuals, or vice-versa.

[JV1970]

by VaModerate12 January 8, 2012 10:18 PM EST

The bible teaches nothing concerning the subject of homosexuality. The term "homosexual" was not even in existence until 1869.

There are over 600 individual "laws" in the Levitical code, the breaking of anyone of which would make the sinner unclean and unacceptable to God. It is an abomination to eat pork, etc. The law is no longer in effect and its purpose was to show that man could never follow it. The sins of Sodom and Gomorrah, likewise, have nothing to do with homosexuality.

I implore any bible thumping zealot on this page to tell me he or she has lived 100% to the Levitical Code of law.

________________________________


by JV1970 January 9, 2012 1:19 AM EST


VaModerate12 You've apparently never read Leviticus 18: 21 or Leviticus 20: 13 or the last half of Romans chapter one from about verse 17 through verse 32 or 1 Corinthians 6: 9 - 10. The Bible has plenty to say about homosexuality in both the Old and New Testaments and NONE of it is in favor of it!

________________________________


.by JV1970 January 9, 2012 1:45 AM EST


You've also never apparently really read Genesis 19: 1 - 24 especially verse 5. These men were not wanting just a casual acquaintance with the angels. They wanted to know them in the carnal sense.

[slownewsday2012]

Now, JV, isn't it true that you 1) have never been married, and 2) don't believe in sex outside of wedlock?

Is it possible you're the oldest virgin in the US?

[JV1970]

Yes, it's true that I've never been married and it's true that I don't believe in sex outside of wedlock.

[slownewsday2012]

by JV1970 January 9, 2012 12:44 AM EST
lgccac You are absolutely right! In fact the Holy Bible calls it an abomination!

===

Which part? I think you're treading into the Old Testament, aren't you?

Make sure you don't eat shellfish, nor wear mixed linens, nor enter a church without your head covered (and don't speak in there unless spoken to). As well, if you find any non-believers, be sure to kill them, their family and village, and their livestock, as well. Thank you, Deuteronomy!

[JV1970]

Actually BOTH parts condemn it although the Old Testament is the only one that uses the word abomination when talking about homosexuality.

In the New Testament the last half of the first chapter of Romans from verse 17 to verse 32 also condemns it and so does 1 Corinthians 6: 9 - 10. They just don't use the word abomination.

Also homosexuality is first condemned in Leviticus, not Deuteronomy!

[JV1970]

So, the nasty little pimple faced kid rises again!