As opposed to cheating on his wife and stealing money from NYC? His list of sins is long but his memory is not.

I disagree.

Rudy's much more LGBT-friendly than say, Mike Huckabee or Mitt Romney. Here's Huckabee's view:

“I’m convinced that the reason the homosexual movement has become strong is that the traditional family has become weak.”

Does Guilliani think our existence against straight families? No. Does he say that? No.

Instead Rudy says we're not "sinful" as both Mitt and Mike would claim. He affirms our right to exist and instead says that both straight and gay folks sin regularly in their daily lives. At no point does he say it's sexual sin - I took it to mean the regular day-in-day-out sins like gossiping, lying, adultry and coveting your neighbor's wife. (Okay, those last two are Rudy's own personal sins!)

Do I think he's the most pro-gay candidate? No. But is he the best Republican for our community? Hell yes.

Bil:
I agree with you that Guilianni does not say we are a threat to anyone's existance and that his comments are less insideous than those of other candidates. However, by separating orientation from sexual acts (which he does) I think he is saying that the sexual act is the sin that he is referring to. As a gay Catholic it has certainly been my experience: I've been told countless times,"It's ok if you're gay-- you can't help that. But sex between men-- or sex outside of heterosexual marriage-- is a sin and therefore, as a gay man you arer 'called to celibacy.'"

I agree, R. It is a rather slippery slope. However, I'd rather have a candidate who think my sexual acts are sinful (if he really does think that instead of just pandering) than one who stands by quaranting PWA's and condemns us for all of society's ills.

Bil, I know you took it that way, but he does specifically say that his opinion comes from Catholic doctrine. As R points out, that isn't that "everyone sins and gay relationships are OK", it's "everyone sins and gays have to stay celibate".

These comments are definitely pretty tame compared to some of the other candidates, but if we're going to say that he better than the others ones, then what policy do we think that we'll get through a Giuliani presidency that we wouldn't get through a McCain presidency?

His record on AIDS and his promises of conservative judges, as well as his under-the-table FMA promises betray his real intentions more than his cross-dressing or careful words here.

I also took his comment as implying sexual sin. The context simply makes this obvious. He's saying that his divorces, family problems, and other people's mistakes are equal to our sexual acts, which is a preposterous proposition. Then again, as an atheist I interpret the perspective of holy/sinful to be a pretty condescending one; you may be seeing it a different way.

Alex does make one salient point, though: Giuliani mentions his agreement with the Catholic Church's doctrine. The fact that he did not take the time to rebuke Benedict/John Paul's "intrinsically evil" mantra hints at the fact that he does see our interactions as inferior to his.

I also must share the irritation at the media's dishonest portrayal of Giuliani as "gay-friendly." Sure, he has a better record than others; but the record only makes him less gay-unfriendlier, not the other way around.

The fact that he's so willing to shamelessly screw over people who helped him, coupled with his familial issues, should already warn voters as to what kind of conniving, opportunistic, unscrupulous man he is.

As a former gay Catholic I still do not understand the sinfulness of loving someone of the same sex. It simply makes no sense to me which is the reason why I am no longer a Catholic. I rejected the Church's teaching on this issue ever since they decided to call us disordered and sinful. Of course if you look back at Catholic Church history much of what they did was disordered and sinful on how they treated those they disagreed with. This of course was not God's doing but self-righteous and sinful men that spoke for God.

I have a beef with people that claim our acts are sinful. Its so nice of them to reduce our loving someone of the same gender to acts like using the restroom or eating since they are both acts in and of themselves are they not? They go about and rant and rave against our loving someone and tell us how evil we are but then turn a blind eye on other sins which they themselves commit or comletely ignore like divorce/remarriage, wealth, stealing and lying. But God forbid! That homosexual sin is going to bring the world to an end. Its so laughable I may not be able to finish this post....*snicker*

While Rudy makes the distinction between "orientation" and "acts" many Christians do not. Our very "acts" are evil. What? Our gay lifestyle? Whatever the Hell that is. No one can tell me what the gay lifestyle is. The way some Christians go on about it if we marry the person we love all of civilization will crumble. Trust me, if the heterosexuals haven't brought civilazation down to its knees by now with their own sins how can, what...5%-10% of the world's population bring society down? Pleeeeeaze....