Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.

Fox News Host: ‘There are some indications that Jesus may have been gay’

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. And may there have been indications that Mary wasn’t even a virgin !! Something really astonishing, the idea that perhaps the Bible is wrong !!! Yeah, I know, unbelievable, the Bible wrong.

    1. There is less indication that he ever existed. How many angels fit on the head of a pin?

    2. Not wrong, any more than Shakespeare is wrong. It’s simply not fact. The bible is literature, not history (albeit with a hefty slug of dubious oral history). The problem arrives when people get the two mixed up.

  2. If Jesus would have been gay he would have been a better dresser!

    1. Hey, cut him some slack – look where he hung out. Harrods was all the way over in London!

  3. 32 year old unmarried bachelor, hangs around with another group of unmarried bachelors, in an era for it to be unheard of for men not to be married by their late teens?
    Nah, definitely not gay!
    Then again, so what if he was?
    Even with factual evidence, would the Christians believe it?
    Man, that would be something I’d pay to see, haha.

    1. Peter was married [JC healed his wife’s mother]!! Just sayin’

      1. Probably Bi! (Just sayin’ ;-) )

    2. Grannieannie 4 Apr 2013, 2:44pm

      The Talibangelists still believe that Jesus, Joseph and Mary were Christians and that they were as white as milk, and most of all, that they spoke English.

  4. I am a Christian queer and must say this is sooo not true its as untrue as Jesus married and had kids that is also being spun by the masons! He did allow his disciple to lie on His Chest but He was not gay .

    1. Where is the evidence he actually existed? No one even wrote about him until 300 years after he was supposed to have existed.

      Then again it is all about “faith” therefore no evidence needed.

      1. Spanner1960 9 Apr 2013, 2:02pm

        I think you will find there is a lot of evidence that he existed, although possibly the character is a merger of a number of people, much like the Robin Hood legend.
        There are too many ancient books, (including the Koran), that mention him. However, prophet he might have been, but son of God is an entirely different kettle of loaves and fishes.

        1. Actually there’s remarkably little evidence, and none at all that’s conclusive (certainly no contemporary accounts, Josephus and Tacitus were writing decades after the purported Jesus died). Adam is also mentioned in the bible and the Koran, as is the Archangel Gabriel: that isn’t evidence either of them existed.

    2. Thinking that a guy lying on another guy’s chest is gay is due to the cultural background.
      We should remember that the culture back then was so different. We cannot look at something happened more than 2000 years ago with the eyes of someone living in a secular country in the 21st century.
      The reason I said that is that even nowadays, these points of view are influenced by the cultural backgrounds.
      I have an American friend who lives here (in Tunisia) and she was so surprised to see two guys riding a motorcycle together (holding each other and all) and she thought they were gay. Then she saw many others (they’re all straight of course) and knew it was normal around here, and that no one would think of that as gay.

      1. A man laying with a man, isn’t that against the rules in Leviticus?

      2. The lying on the chest bit is due to the fact the event described was a Greek-style meal, where the participants lay in pairs on couches propped up on their left elbows, the younger one in front of the other. It’s perfectly natural, if tired, to rest against the man you have your back to and nod off.

        You’re right, it doesn’t signify anything about sexuality one way or another – but then we have no proof of the sexuality of the person referred to as Jesus of Nazareth at all, let alone of his existence in the first place.

    3. I’m a christian too, and even if I think that believing every letter in the Bible is downright blasphemy, I have no problem to read the passages about the beloved disciple as an indication that Jesus indeed might have been gay, or why not bisexual, it seems more including. He was a human being and denying him a love life seems somewhat begrudging, or a little like being convinced that your parents never have had sex. Wether or not these texts say anything about himself, I do believe that in the beginning many of those who read it really saw it as a romantic relationship, “greek love” was still mostly highly regarded (even though they might have thought of it as platonic which seems to have been in fashion among philosophes at the time), just look at all the strictly traditional pictures of John as a young beardless beauty, the ideal of how a beloved should look like.

    4. This is irony, right?

    5. that is right it was a cultural thing. Jesus couldn’t have been gay despite the Gay and masonic biggots which includes the Pharisees & Sadducees, of which i note on this page there are man of the Gay biggotted kind … BECOS He would not have been the perfect Lamb of God if He had been and His offering to save our sorry arses would have been in vain. He was spotless and had to comply with the Old Testament . IT DOES NOT MEAN that HE didnt die for the Queer and Transfolk – HE DID bcos He Loves us.

    6. .....Paddyswurds 5 Apr 2013, 10:04pm

      How does it feel to be a member of a cult the considers you “an abomination in the eyes of the lawd and intrinsically disordered” Surely you must be aware that the whole sky daddy thing is a huge con and nothing more that a means of control and money making…?

  5. Neon Genesis 4 Apr 2013, 7:59am

    The gospel with the gay themes is The Secret Gospel of Mark, not The Gospel of Judas. But most scholars think the Secret Mark is a modern day forgery.

    1. Difficult to come up with a meaningful definition of “forgery” when discussing the bible.

      1. Nicely said!

  6. I’ve been saying this for a very long time. After all, Jesus had 12 men at his beck and call and Mary was the biggest fag hag!

    1. Twelve! Greedy pig!

  7. “…some indication that Jesus may have been gay”,
    He needs to start with some indication that Jesus actually existed first.

    1. Are you serious? There are almost no knowledgeable historians that dismiss the man Jesus as a myth. It’s his divinity that’s in question. And judging by the amount of likes on your post, I’m assuming most people really don’t realize that Jesus did exist, that’s a fact.

    2. A man named Jesus Bar-Joseph is mentioned in Roman records as having being executed in Judea. So yes, the central character existed.
      i am aware of no records, Roman or otherwise which corroborate the stories of miracles performed by him.

  8. Of course, all of this is completely irrelevant to the issue of modern day equality for all human beings.

    Still it’s good to give the pot a stir once in a while!

  9. He’s right though, there were plenty of other gospels which didn’t make it into the New Testament.

    You think the bishops who did decide what to include would have employed an editor, because between them the four gospels are littered with contradictions.

    They give different family trees for Jesus, different accounts of when he was born (was it during the reign of Herod, or was it during the first Roman census which happened 10 years after Herod died?), different accounts of the resurrection, conflicting accounts of the assumption etc etc. None of them were contemporary (eyewitness accounts).

    It’s like sitting down today and having to write the life story of JFK, without the benefit of the internet. The difference being JFK existed and there is historical evidence to that effect.

    Even what you think would be hugely momentous events, like the massacre of the innocents, didn’t earn a mention in historical records of the time.

  10. There there, just imagine what it would be like if you didn’t have Pink News to spend your time on, frothing. You might even become as bored as you are boring.

    1. Indeed, you will be happy to know your delusions provide much entertainment.

      By the way, given the frequency with which you stress it, wouldn’t you say you are also 100% defined by your [purported] sexuality? (Don’t worry sweetie, consistency is not expected of you, as objectivity is clearly an alien concept to you. I’ve taken the ex-gay aspect into account.)

      1. Bless. And what do you think your obsessive use of your clumsy and semi-literate neologism “heteronormal” is?

        Your post undermines your capacity to reason logically more thoroughly and more beautifully than any ridicule could: thanks for the laughs.

  11. Jock S. Trap 4 Apr 2013, 10:41am

    What’s striking is the complete ignorance at the possibility.

    Fact is, why do these people have to fear that Jesus may have been Gay?

    Because it means their lives will be turned upside down, because it means they could be proved to be so far from religion and that their discrimination and hatred would make them completely unjustifiable.

    Something most of us already know but hey, can’t go proving it, they don’t do facts, only assumptions.

    1. And of course, Jock, it would make straights less than Jesus-like – a kind of breeding second class.

  12. Jock S. Trap 4 Apr 2013, 10:44am

    like you then… People like You will find hatred in anything, whether justified or not.

    Least I’m happy and fulfilled with live… shame you’ll never be.

    1. Perhaps you could provide evidence regarding Jesus’s existence?

      No, thought not.

      1. Sorry, I pressed the report by mistake! Eating sarnies and typing at the same time – not good.

      2. Bless you my poor child, obviously you do care, otherwise you wouldn’t spend what appears to be most of your day posting relentlessly here about your bizarre ‘beliefs’ (or delusions, as grown-ups would say). And that despite the fact that everyone here (I think I can safely say that) would rather leave than take your views.

        As you’re well aware, Tacitus made one mention of an individual who was said to have lived decades before he was even born – you consider that ‘evidence’, do you? That reveals much. Josephus too wasn’t born in Jesus’s supposed lifetime and none of his references to Jesus are universally accepted as authentic or definitive. By comparison with what we know about, say, Julius Caesar, or indeed Tacitus and Josephus themselves, you will admit it hardly stands out as a serious body of evidence.

      3. Jock S. Trap 4 Apr 2013, 3:08pm

        ” I could not care less whether you believe or not?”

        Funny that… so why do you spend all your time here, then?!

      4. Just as we have records of a “Robin Hode”, so there are Romans records of the crucifixion of a Jesus Bar-Joseph.
        All myths, it is said, have a kernel of truth, however deeply buried under centuries of elaboration, mistranslation and oral misinterpretation.

    2. Robert in S. Kensington 4 Apr 2013, 1:48pm

      Deuteronomy 22:13-21
      1 Corinthians 7:10-11
      Luke 16:18
      Deuteronomy 23:2
      Ephesians 5:22-24
      1 Timothy 2:12
      1 Corinthians 14:34-35
      1 Timothy 2:9
      Leviticus 25:44-45
      1 Peter 2:18
      Leviticus 21:17-21
      Matthew 6:5-6
      Leviticus 19:19
      Leviticus 19:28

      All these “rules” and more are forbidden in the Bible, but are widely accepted by society, but you choose to cast stones only at homosexuality. Apply all the “rules” evenly, or don’t. Otherwise you sound like a bigot.

      1. Where exactly is abortion mentioned in the bible? Surely, surely you wouldn’t be putting word’s into Jehovah’s mouth, Keith my pet?

    3. I can recommend [retired bishop] Richard Holloway’s Godless Morality.

  13. Tsk tsk, Keith old fruit, do try and remember some of us have jobs to do and other matters to see to. I know you’re desperate enough for attention to try and provoke a discussion on the main thread, but if you don’t see that abortion is actually irrelevant on a thread about an announcer’s remarks on Fox News, I do.

    (But, since you ask, if I were a freelance editor again I would certainly find the 4th commandment detrimental; indeed it would also piss me off considerably if neither I nor a male servant nor a female servant would be able to provide me with meals or tidy up one day a week. The inconvenience would be insupportable I tell you, insupportable.)

    Now, to get back to the subject at hand …

    1. Well sweetie-pie, unlike simpletons I don’t believe morals can be summarised in a line or two. And your ability to ‘support’ your claims is based solely on an, erm, individual and somewhat fanciful interpretation of a random collection of much-translated writings from the ancient Eastern Mediterranean world, writings that only exist today in their present form because of the religious organisations you claim to despise.

      So I think it’s fairly obvious where the hot air is coming from, my pet. And I note you evade acknowledgement of the answer to your other, equally irrelevant, question.

      1. Morals are simple yes and no questions only for the simple of mind. (For example, murder – premeditated killing – is generally considered acceptable in war, is it not?)

        Sorry to disappoint you old fruit, since I know you’re desperate to provoke a reaction, but I will not descend to further discussing complex issues in one-liners with the limited of intelligence.

  14. Where?

    1. That is your “proof”? If it weren’t so sad it’d be funny.

      I note the prospect of an unmarried woman being pregnant (let alone a woman’s capacity for consent – only violent accident is referred to) is not covered by in the relevant passage. You might not recognise the dangers of basing one’s “morality” on the ancient texts of a considerably different culture but, fortunately, most intelligent people in the world today do.

      1. BTW Keith, who’s Devia? Sounds rather camp for some reason…

        In the first place, you may base your “morality” on the “authority” of ancient much-translated texts of obscure origin; I – and pretty much everyone else here I’d guess – do not, and (rather evidently) consider the idea of doing so somewhat peculiar. You might not have noticed but the world we live in has changed a little from the Iron Age desert societies of the OT. In particular, you might note that women today are given rather more say in relation to their own bodies than in the patriarchal and misogynistic society you admire so much. Most of us think that is a good thing. You might also care to note that state-sanctioned murder – execution by firing squad or hanging – was approved of by most supposedly Christian societies until relatively recently: I take you agree they were all misguided?

  15. Oh, come now, people. Fox News? They’re nothing more than the counterpart of the National Enquirer, dealers in inflammatory sensationalism. Anything that comes out of the mouths of Fox’s reporters should be taken with a metric ton of salt.

  16. .....Paddyswurds 4 Apr 2013, 7:10pm

    I thoroughly detest all the Abrahamic cults and their so called “holy books”, As an inherently moral being, as all humans and indeed Apes and primates are proven to be , I say abortion, or murder of the unborn is wrong. Nothing to do with religion or “gawds” or any of that shyte, It just is and Humans are the only species to have made an industry of such killing. I also advocate a woman’s right to choose what she does with her own body, but I say and always have, that they should choose before there is an innocent third party involved and whose one in trillions chance to exist is snuffed out on a whim most of the time. I also know that there are circumstances where abortion is “unavoidable” but today it is widely used as contraception, which is unforgivable as we now have such things as the morning after pill. Worldwide more than 20 million children are murdered every year by their own mothers in what should be the Universe’s most safe place , a mothers womb…. ….. .. .

    1. .....Paddyswurds 5 Apr 2013, 12:41am

      I don’t need an imaginary authority to sanction my inherent morals. As an intelligent, reasoning and rational being I just know what is right and wrong. it is wrong to murder any creature for nefarious reasons, never mind the innocent unborn. Before the morons on this thread jump on me about food animals, you should remember that human beings like a lot of other animals on this planet are carnivorous, but we make sure our food animals are reared with compassion and care and killed without fear or pain…. unless you are a Muslim that is. Inherent morals do not need a sanctioning authority; an intelligent being knows in his heart what is right or wrong and doesn’t need advice from an old book compiled from the oral tradition of bronze age desert goat herds who thought the Sun drowned every night in the ocean or that the Earth was only 4000 years old……

  17. .....Paddyswurds 5 Apr 2013, 12:51am

    Why are theists so unbelievably ignorant? Is it a requirement of theism that one be completely bereft of intellect or intelligence of any kind? Killing is wrong whether legally sanctioned by Governments or not. World War 2 was a “legal” war. Would you say that one of the proponents in that war, Adolph Hitler, was right to kill almost 20 million people and attempt the extermination or Jews, Gypsies and Gays and many other minorities….?

    1. Jock S. Trap 5 Apr 2013, 12:30pm

      I don’t see what relevance this is to this story!

      Your clearly here to spew you vile vomit.

      1. You mean, like ‘heteronormal’ is a word? Oh bless.

  18. .....Paddyswurds 5 Apr 2013, 1:03am

    I wrote above ” I also know that there are circumstances where abortion is “unavoidable” ” Rape would be one of those unavoidable circumstances obviously, but I notice you ignored this line in my comment because it did not fit with your bigoted agenda…..Such omissions and bigotry make a mockery of your comments , were that at all possible….

    1. .....Paddyswurds 5 Apr 2013, 9:57pm

      As I said before THERE IS NO HIGHER AUTHORITY THAN ONES OWN MORALITY….

  19. “Killing in war is lawful” – oh, so law outweighs your “divine” morality then, does it? Good-oh: as abortion is lawful in many parts of the world, then it’s obviously OK then, isn’t it?

    Thanks for that splendid demonstration of your capacity to reason, Keith my love. Now run along back to your translated texts, the rest of us have lives to get on with.

    1. But Keith my pet, while I should perhaps be flattered that you are so interested in my views and morals, it is of supreme indifference to me what you think of ‘em – the way you ricochet from one stance to another and then fall back on “Bible is best” when out-argued doesn’t give me any respect for your opinion and it’s only useful for amusement value (and then only in limited quantities).

      You can be reassured that I’m not in the judiciary (yet – never say never). But you also fail to observe that, unlike you, I have explicitly and repeatedly stated that it is not desirable to reduce complex issues like morality to glib black-and-white one-liners. Therefore I’m equally reassured that you wouldn’t have a snowball’s chance in hell of being in the judiciary yourself.

      1. Poor dear sweet Keith, the case is nowhere near as closed as your mind. Do please be kind enough to remind me: where did I say I was against all killing?

      2. Can’t answer, can you Keith. Never mind, we didn’t really need further proof of the characteristic inaccuracy of your statements.

    2. Spanner1960 9 Apr 2013, 2:13pm

      “Killing in war is lawful” apparently so the woman from Devia proclaims.
      But isn’t that in direct conflict with the ten commandments?

      I don’t remember seeing Charlton Heston coming down from Mount Arrarat with a tablet saying “Thou shalt not kill”*

      *Excluding wars, civil unrest, performing ones duty as an authorised law enforcment officer, abortions (rapes only), euthanasia.. (contd. on next tablet…)

      1. The Keith(-Devia)s of this world try to get round that by saying that it’s Thou shalt not murder as opposed to kill. Which is of course sophistry, but actually it’s not made easy by the original Hebrew words that encompass actions like murder or killing having no direct equivalents in English.

These comments are un-moderated and do not necessarily represent the views of PinkNews.co.uk. If you believe that a comment is inappropriate or libellous, please contact us.

Top commenters this week

Latest stories

See all