[Trapped]

From the article:

"Heterosexual, bisexual, homosexual: Jesus could have been any of these. There can be no certainty which. The homosexual option simply seems the most likely. The intimate relationship with the beloved disciple points in that direction. It would be so interpreted in any person today. Although there is no rabbinic tradition of celibacy, Jesus could well have chosen to refrain from sexual activity, whether he was gay or not. Many Christians will wish to assume it, but I see no theological need to. The physical expression of faithful love is godly. To suggest otherwise is to buy into a kind of puritanism that has long tainted the churches."

I think it's pretty understood that Jesus never married. To suggest that theologically it would have been fine for an unmarried, unblemished, sinless, spotless Son of God to have been involved in sexual activity (gay or straight regardless) outside of marriage is utter absurdity. All of us are eternally dead in our sins if this is the case, because then Jesus would have been a sinner and could never have been acceptable as the one who could lay His life down as a sacrifice for any of us.

I'm speechless that what seem to be professing Christians (zeek excluded, IIRC) on this thread are waving that article as anything remotely credible to point to. Do you even understand the implications of some of the things you are trying to pass off?!