I'm not following you.

You accept the premise that Perry characterizes human rights in such a negative manner on one occasion, but reject it out of hand on another? What is the benefit to such naivete? If one is able to interpret multiple statements in the same manner, should we dismiss this because it is distasteful? Which set of words must be uttered before Perry's anti-homosexual rights approach is a plank of his political platform?

This is the discourse which Perry himself has provided - these quotes are not out of context, but part of his campaign structure. There is no accidental continuity between his remarks. It is not coincidental - in fact, it is an intentional abuse of the fact that public interpretation will occur - you personally contend that such rhetoric will provide a beneficial outcome in the Iowa primaries.

If we are not to accept the remarks at face-value, Perry is a liar and intends to deceive the populace for his own gain. If we do accept that he believes what he is presenting, he is opposed to the liberty on which America was founded.

In neither case is he a respectable candidate for the office.