"I've heard it suggested from some people that Christians are so irrationally obsessed with [homosexuality] because deep down they're terrified that Jesus himself might have been gay. There's no real evidence for it, but then there's no real evidence for anything to do with religion. So yeah, I'll buy it. Well, keep an open mind, that's what I always say. … If we take the actual Gospels as gospel then what we've got is a man in his thirties, unmarried in a culture where it's almost unheard of for a man of thirty to be unmarried. Plus, come on, you can't ignore the twelve boyfriends, especially when there's a missing passage from the Gospel of Mark that actually describes Jesus spending a night with a naked youth. We're told that the youth came to Jesus wearing a linen cloth over his naked body, and stayed with him that night, 'for Jesus taught him the mystery of the kingdom of God.' I bet he did. Along with one or two other little mysteries while he was at it. Well, why not? He was only human. The apostle John repeatedly refers to himself as the one who Jesus specially loved. I don't know whether he meant it "in the Greek manner", so to speak, but what would it matter if he did? This is the point. If Jesus was gay, would it negate the teachings and the parables? Would the Sermon on the Mount lose its authority if preached by the queen of queens rather than the king of kings? And if somebody could prove historically, beyond all doubt, that Jesus was in fact homosexual, would Christians then reject Jesus, or would they reject the evidence as usual? Your guess is as good as mine. From what I've read in the Gospels, I think Jesus was a pretty common sense sort of person, and I don't think he would have had a problem with anybody being who they are. I do think, though, that he had a problem with people who pretend to be one thing while being another."