Does Giuliani Believe That Engaging in Homosexual Acts Is Sinful?
A number of things that Rudy Giuliani said in his appearance on Meet the Press Sunday are attracting attention, but so far I haven't see anyone comment on this part of the interview:
Though Russert was eager to move on to other questions, maybe some other reporter can seek some clarification on this point. Is physical intimacy between a committed gay couple sinful? Like the acts of adultery Giuliani implicitly compares it to? If Giuliani is professing to believe that, that seems newsworthy to me.
Giuliani still enjoys a reputation as a moderate, despite the fact that his views are decidedly immoderate on most issues. He enjoys this reputation because he is supposedly "liberal" on social issues. But he's pledged to appoint only Federalist Society approved judges, has taken a hard line on immigration, and is now, apparently, professing to believe that all gay couples are engaged in a sinful lifestyle. Is this what counts as moderate now?
MR. RUSSERT: And we’re back. Our remaining minutes with Rudy Giuliani.Maybe I'm misunderstanding him here, but it sure sounds like Giuliani is endorsing the Catholic Church's view of homosexuality, i.e., that being attracted to someone of the same sex isn't sinful in and of itself, but that acting on that attraction is. Is there any other way of interpreting this?
Mike Huckabee, leading the field in Iowa, told the Associated Press back in the ‘90s that AIDS patients should be quarantined and that “homosexuality was aberrant, unnatural and a sinful lifestyle.” What’s your reaction?
MR. GIULIANI: My reaction is that I haven’t seen—on the second of that, I haven’t seen Mike’s comment. The first one I think he says that he didn’t have the information, that he’s changed his mind about it, it’s not his current position. Look, I got enough of my own statements and issues, as we’ve seen, that I have to deal with. I think Mike has to...
MR. RUSSERT: But you don’t believe homosexuality is aberrant...
MR. GIULIANI: Oh, no, no, no.
MR. RUSSERT: ...unnatural or sinful.
MR. GIULIANI: My, my, my—no, I don’t believe it’s sinful. My, my moral views on this come from the, you know, from the Catholic Church, and I believe that homosexuality, heterosexuality as a, as a way that somebody leads their life is not—isn’t sinful. It’s the acts, it’s the various acts that people perform that are sinful, not the—not the orientation that they have.
MR. RUSSERT: The Congress is discussing and...
MR. GIULIANI: Which includes me, by the way. I mean, you know, unfortunately, I’ve had my own sins that I’ve had to confess and had to deal with and try to overcome and so I’m very, very empathetic with people, and that we’re all, we’re all imperfect human beings struggling to, to try to be better.
Though Russert was eager to move on to other questions, maybe some other reporter can seek some clarification on this point. Is physical intimacy between a committed gay couple sinful? Like the acts of adultery Giuliani implicitly compares it to? If Giuliani is professing to believe that, that seems newsworthy to me.
Giuliani still enjoys a reputation as a moderate, despite the fact that his views are decidedly immoderate on most issues. He enjoys this reputation because he is supposedly "liberal" on social issues. But he's pledged to appoint only Federalist Society approved judges, has taken a hard line on immigration, and is now, apparently, professing to believe that all gay couples are engaged in a sinful lifestyle. Is this what counts as moderate now?
14 Comments:
That's certainly how I understood it AL. While I doubt Giuliani's current statements sincerely reflect his thinking on the subject, the position he's cynically willing to espouse is that homosexual acts and 'lifestyle' (as opposed to orientation) are "sinful". That makes his position virtually identical to Huckabee's central premise that homosexuality is a "sinful lifestyle". I'm sure if pressed Huckabee would similarly offer the ever-reliable "love the sinner, hate the sin" pseudo-compassionate qualifier to his homophobia.
The crucial difference I see between them is that Huckabee is at least genuine in his bigotry & arguably doesn't know any better. Giuliani, on the other hand has long befriended and at one stage cohabited with gay men engaged in what he's now willing to denounce as a sinful lifestyle. Given the choice between a sincere bigot and a bigot of political convenience, I'd vote for neither but prefer the former. Giuliani and Obama both know better but have been willing to betray both their knowledge and a blameless minority that has simply become politically inconvenient.
at first blush, I'm going to have to disagree with you. Seems pretty clear to me that he's condemning the specific acts of homosexuality -- i.e. the fellatio and the anal sex -- while affirming that homosexuality "as a way that somebody leads there life is not sinful." In other words, take the partner of your heart's choice, just know that a lot of the stuff you'll be wanting to do together is an abomination in the eyes of God.
It's a fascinatingly split hair. In some ways more absurd than Huckabee's, in some ways less. Frankly seems very "Jesuitical," which is his background, isn't it?
Ask yourself this. Is fellatio and anal sex the essential expression of the homosexual orientation? If you say no - and I would suspect you do say no - then presumably such acts could be renounced even within a homosexual relationship, particularly if the partners were of the mind that such acts were inherently offensive to God.
A sizeable percentage of heterosexual couples throughout history have adopted a similar atitude towards fellatio - have they not?
brux -
No single sexual act is the "essential expression of the homosexual orientation". However, sexual acts with a member of the same sex ARE a fairly central component of that orientation.
The Catholic Church expressly forbids all such acts, not just oral and anal sex. This is not a "fascinatingly split hair", it's a blanket prohibition on any sex between members of the same sex. Giuliani echoes this prohibition by describing all homosexual acts as "sinful". In other words, for the Catholic Church and Giuliani it's ok to be homosexual as long as you're celibate. And we all know how well that's worked out for Catholic priests...
AL, I agree with your take on this. And once again would agree with your characterization that Giuliani is indeed more moderate on some social issues than most of the GOP field, even while being frighteningly radical in other (constitutional; foriegn relations) areas.
Giuliani's view on homosexuality appears to be parallel to what his view on murder might be. In that it is not a crime to have muderous thoughts, but it is a crime to act on them.
This whole growing phenomenon of asking presidential candidates, governors, others running for major office, about their religious and social beliefs is unhealthy. Behind it, I believe, is a fervent wish on the part of some for our own, homeland-grown form of American Sharia.
Actually, Casual Observer, I don’t think that you do agree with AL on this. You decry the trend of asking politicians about their religious and social beliefs and suggest (as I interpret your comment) that it shouldn’t matter what politicians think is or is not sinful. Thus, I assume that you do not think that the presidential candidates should be required to go on the record as to whether they think homosexuality or homosexual acts are sinful.
AL, on the other hand, seems to think that it is very important to know what the candidates think is sinful, at least with respect to this particular candidate and this particular issue. So much so that he takes Giuliani’s ambiguous remarks, which if anything imply the exact opposite, and interprets them as saying that “all gay couples are engaged in a sinful lifestyle.” AL even suggests that reporters follow up to get further clarification of Giuliani’s views on the subject.
I think a lot of social conservatives would read Giuliani’s remarks as indicating that there is nothing sinful at all about a homosexual lifestyle. After all, he says “I believe that homosexuality, heterosexuality as a, as a way that somebody leads their life is not—isn’t sinful.” I think this interpretation would be out of context, but it is more consistent with Giuliani’s actual words than AL’s interpretation.
I would think that a fairer interpretation of Giuliani’s remarks would be as follows: He begins by flatly denying that homosexuality is sinful. Perhaps then realizing that it would not be a good idea to appear to be either contradicting the teachings of his own church or to be endorsing homosexuality, he indicates that his views on this are consistent with those of the Catholic Church, which does not view sexual orientation as sinful. He notes that acts (apparently referring to either homosexual or heterosexual acts) can be sinful, but says nothing about which acts he views as sinful (apart from acknowledging that he himself has sinned).
If AL wants to criticize Giuliani for ducking the question, fine. It seems to me that is exactly what he was trying (perhaps inartfully) to do. However, if one believes, as Casual Observer does, that questions of religious and social beliefs are generally inappropriate for political campaigns, I would think that one would applaud Giuliani for this.
But since AL considers candidates’ views on sin to be important, I propose sending the following questionnaire to all of the candidates: (1) what does the concept of sin mean to you?; (2) do you believe in the concept of sin?; (3) do you believe that the Bible is the ultimate authority on what is or is not sinful?; (4) do you follow the teachings of your own church with respect to what is or is not sinful?; and (5) please identify any other sources or information, other than those referenced in (3) or (4), on which you rely to determine what is or is not sinful.
Now personally I don’t know how informative or relevant the responses to these questions would be. But they sure would be entertaining.
mls,
and 5) (if I may), what is the relationship between sinfulness and legality, if there is any. In that regard, while I'm no fan of Giuliani, I don't think we (liberals) have much to fear on this score. The fact that he appears to accept church doctrine that certain acts are inherently sinful, and acknowledges that he himself is a sinner, suggests that he sees a clear distinction between that which is condemned by God and that which is condemned by the law (since he's not throwing himself in jail).
And to be clear, when I say that his position is a fascinatingly split hair, that is not to suggest that I think it's practicable, or even moral; simply to distinguish it from Huckabee's, which I think poses a far greater threat, legally, to homosexuals.
MLS,
If you'll reread my post, you'll see that I didn't claim that Giuliani's remarks necessary were intended to have the meaning I interpreted them to have, which is why I wanted some clarification from his campaign. You're explanation of his comments is not very convincing. Do you really think that he wasn't drawing a distinction between homosexual orientation and homosexual acts?
And spare me the speech about not wanting this stuff to be a part of politics. This isn't an issue because I made it one. And Giuliani could have refused to answer Russert's question or said that this kind of stuff was irrelevant to politics, but he didn't. He gave what appears to be a highly cynical answer. Maybe we're misinterpreting what he said, but if we are, it's pretty hard to blame us. If Giuliani doesn't want us to think he meant what he seemed to mean, he should clarify.
Finally, while I agree that it would be preferrable if there was a greater divide between religion and politics, I think it's perfectly fair for people to seek answers on this point. After all, don't gay Americans deserve to know whether their leaders think they are living an inherently sinful life.
danjoaquinoz,
as to Giulinai's position being a "blanket prohibition" against all homosexual acts, I'll admit I'm not 100% up-to-speed on current doctrine, but hasn't the Catholic Church traditionally expressed a blanket prohibition against ALL sexual acts - homosexual or heterosexual - that aren't undertaken for specifically procreative purposes? That may strike us here as a little prudish, sure, but the Catholic Church gets to think that (if not them, who?), and Giuliani gets to be a Catholic. He just doesn't get to legislate or govern on that basis, and there is nothing in what he has said that suggests to me that he would.
NOT that I'm endorsing him in any way. I'm just saying I can think of thirty other good reasons to try to stop him.
I was as precise as I could be about what I thought Giuliani was doing and why. I suspect that Giuliani’s actual view on the homosexual lifestyle is either (a) he thinks it is perfectly fine or (b) he could care less one way or the other. But it is also possible that he believes some or all homosexual acts are sinful (whether he thinks that has any bearing on law or public policy is, as Brux points out, an entirely different question). My point is that he did not say one way or the other in his answer.
Now if Giuliani phrased his answer in the way that he did in order to avoid offending religious conservatives (which I think is the most likely, but not the only possible, explanation for what he said), you can certainly describe that as “highly cynical” if you like. But compared to what? Remember the debate in which Bill Richardson said that he thought people were not born gay, but became gay by choice? And how the next day (after his staff presumably explained that this was not the right answer), he “clarified” that his views were the opposite of what he had said? Some uncharitable types might call that “highly cynical,” but I prefer to think of it as an honest mistake. It must be hard to remember all the pandering rules for every interest group.
As for the question of what should be relevant to presidential politics, I made no speech. I am merely pointing out that if you think it fair for gays to ask candidates their views on theological questions such as the sinfulness of homosexuality, you will have little standing to complain when religious conservatives demand answers to the same types of questions. You may complain anyway, but you will have little standing to do so.
mls,
Thanks for kindly explaining my position to me. In the future, perhaps I should run my posts by you before putting them up. Just to make sure I have it right.
mls
"...if you think it fair for gays to ask candidates their views on theological questions such as the sinfulness of homosexuality, you will have little standing to complain when religious conservatives demand answers to the same types of questions. You may complain anyway, but you will have little standing to do so."
I actually think that this is leading to a good point, which is that, as liberals, we are not essentially concerned with Giuliani's views on homosexuality except as they will inform his policies as president. For instance, in his famous speech concerning his Catholicism JFK (unlike current Republican hopeful Romney) made it clear that he believed strongly in the separation of church and state, and hence his presidential decisions would not be dictated by the views of his church.
The question put to Giuliani is fair in that it reveals his views on a subject that will almost certainly affect his policies as president. This is absolutely and unequivocally different from any form of religious test that one is required to submit to and pass in order to be reach public office (something that is unconstitutional).
It is (obviously) not unconstitutional for people to make their personal decisions about who should be President on the basis of their faith alone. However, I'm sure that many liberals would agree with my own view that this practice is abhorrent.
I personally think that Giuliani probably does not think that homosexuality is wrong or sinful - he has, after all, marched in the annual Pride Parade before. However, in a sense it does not matter, because his response seems to indicate that he is willing to "tow the party line" in order to further his chance of being nominated by the primarily anti-gay Republican base. And if he is willing to compromise his own views in the matter to get nominated, there is nothing to say that if he were elected, he would not be willing to further anti-gay policies while in office in order to appease that same base.
brux - Catholic doctrine prohibits sex outside of marriage, but does not prohibit non-procreative sex within marriage. It actually advocates the rhythm system as a sin-free form of birth control. Infertile & elderly married couples are not prohibited from having sex. Marriage, not viability for procreation, is the Church's basis for approved hetrosexual sex. As such, since the Church vehemently opposes same-sex marriage, all homosexual acts are further prohibited by being, necessarily, outside marriage.
danjoaquinoz,
i appreciate your research here. points well taken. There is a slight implied conflation in your post between non-procreative sex within a marriage (okay with the church) and non-procreative sex within, say, a committed gay relationship (not okay with the church). The two are not the same. The former is presumably intercourse. The latter is presumably anal intercourse. I'd be willing to bet the church does not approve of anal intercourse, even within a marriage.
The point being, finding certain sexual acts (adultery, anal sex) to be inherently sinful has clear precedent outside of homosexual relationships. As such, adopting the position that it's the acts that are sinful - which is the position I think Giuliani is adopting - is not necessarily homophobic; that is, it leaves (deliberately) ample room for one to legislate non-homophobically, as I expect Giuliani would.
I would repeat, however, I feel odd defending the guy. I just don't read the same signal from that MTP clip that you and A.L. do.
Brux, you are correct that many religious institutions draw a line between non-procreative sex and sodomy (technically, any form of non-vaginal sex). In fact, sodomy is illegal in certain states, such as Alabama. (Yes, even between heterosexual married couples.)
However, I think that it's clear from context that Giuliani is not trying to make such a distinction. If he is, it will be interesting to hear which specific acts he thinks should be made illegal - for instance, does he think that masturbation and oral-sex should be illegal, or just anal-penetration? If he is all right with oral-sex, then he should have no problem with men going down on other men, right?
If he is against any sexual act between two men (or women), but not against sodomy between heterosexuals, how is this functionally different from an anti-gay stance? If he were advocating a prohibition on sex between heterosexual partners, would that somehow not be discriminatory to heterosexuals?
I'm sorry, but I think it's clear which one of us is bending over backwards in their interpretation of Giuliani's remarks.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home