h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Did Jesus say being gay was wrong? I rather thought that was more old testement fire and brimstone stuff, but I'm no expert.


However:

In some of the earliest versions of the gospel of Mark there was some hanky panky in the Lazarus story with with a young man.

See also John 13:23.

King James said 'You may be sure that I love the Earl of Buckingham more than anyone else...Jesus Christ did the same, and therefore I cannot be blamed. Christ had his son John, and I have my George.'

And while we're at it, lets not forget Ruth and Niomi (around about Ruth:16, if memory serves) A very beautiful passage and popular in lesbian commitment ceremonies.

I'm not trying to wind you up, I'm making a point. Saying Jesus was gay is only an insult to you because you see it as such, and it is a rather good illustration of the point of this conversation.

God doesn't belong to you and the Christian church isn't the same as Christian faith. The church isn't always right, nor are you.

The suggestion that Jesus was gay has been around for many long hundreds of years. They didn't say they thought so, just put it up for discussion. I think a repetition of this in no way represents a disbelief or otherwise in the teachings of Christ. In fact, from above, you may even be dealing with a gay Christian.

Me, I am not. Love, I believe, was the message of Jesus Christ. That I believe in. I don't feel like a sinner. Not for being queer, anyway

Fatty

i wouldn't say it is a matter of fire and brimstone stuff. To be honest i would be considered a catholic, but i don't follow to the letter and don't quote the bible. It is a book after all, revised time and again. To me that is the reason jesus taught with stories. A way to pass morals without relying on man to carry it. Lines can be taken out of context, the entire book can and has been rewritten. Really it seems a bit daft to me to say i am christian. My culture leads me to catholicism, my beliefs say moses, jesus and mohammad were all sent by the same god. Why call ourselves christian, jewish, or muslim? we are branches of the same tree. And we all believe in family. Gods message is passed from parent to child, life in all forms only continues because of parenthood. If god approved of homosexuality same sex conception would be possible, it is not. Homosexuality does not serve nature or god. his message is love we should all strive to love everyone, but love and approval are not the same thing. To say jesus was gay is meaningless, as is saying he is heterosexual. he did not partake in sexual pleasures, he served a higher purpose.

And why do you qute a king? to live well by trampaling others should be wrong by any moral standards.

"If god approved of homosexuality same sex conception would be possible, it is not."

This only makes sense if you think that sex is only for procreation. What about animals that form homosexual pair bonds ?

Anyway, haven't you heard of parthenogenesis?


And to say that Jesus was either asexual or celibate is a bit bizaare. Sex and spirituality are not mutually exclusive. There are plenty of cultures that practice spiritual forms of sex eg the eastern tantric sects.


In terms of defamation, it's unfortunate that amongst teenagers the term 'gay' is now used in a general sense to say that something is naf or bad.

Nothing is defamatory until a judge/jury say it is. Until then it's merely potentially defamatory.

Member, I'd love to live in the idyllic world you describe where being dismissed because of your sexuality would be a win-win situation. In the real world, however, people's career do sometimes suffer because they're gay, if you did sue for wrongful dismissal because of your sexuality it would be extremely difficult to prove and even if you did prove it, no company wants to hire someone who they perceive to be litiguous. A lot of people (and employers are people too!) are uncomfortable enough about homosexuality as it is without giving them reason to think that if they say or do the wrong thing, you're going to sue them!

Personally, I work in a small office (about 30 people) and I have chosen carefully who to tell about my sexuality because there are people in the office who probably can't damage my career but they could make my work life miserable if they chose to. As it turns out in my case, my managing director is actually one of the people I've told.

fathead, you claim not to be bigoted but what you are describing is a personalised system of faith where you have essentially made your own religion and decided, arbitarily as far as I can see, what is right and wrong. I'm sorry if I missed something, but do you have a direct line to God? Has the Holy Spirit been communicating with you? How else do you justify a faith with no supporting structure of evidence or even consistancy. Parenthood as sacrament doesn't strike me as the most stable and trustworthy basis, after all my parents are atheist. If they had passed that on to me would it still be so sacrosanct?

You say that Jesus 'did not partake in sexual pleasures, he served a higher purpose.' none of the historical evidence available on the lif of Christ supports this assertion. None of it claims that he was celibate, quite the opposite. Before you make claims such as that you should really make sure you know what you are talking about.

As for a lack of reproduction as condemnation from on high, would you say that couples with fertility problems are equally immoral then, would you condemn them? How about same sex relationships with the intensity of love, where the people in question identify as gay, but where there is no physical componant. How does that strike you? Still immoral? Someone else pointed out that homosexuality is not exclusive to humans, how do you answer that? I couldn't help noticing that you hadn't. There are many shades of grey involved in sexuality. Your black and white view is entirely unrealistic, since it doesn't allow for any possibilities outside of a simplistic right or wrong dynamic. Might I also point out that a significant proportion of humanity is gay and there is firm evidence that sexuality has a deterministic genetic element. I would say that god made me this way, so I ask again, on what grounds do you condemn homosexuality?

All in all your claim that you aren't bigoted is starting to look a bit hollow.

Unfortunately in certain professions (here in the UK) it can be extremely damaging to be 'outed', I'm thinking of teaching and child care in particular. For some people homosexuality = perversity with all the 'mob hysteria' attached. Thus it would be harmful to suggest that a member of one of these professions was homosexual and so defamatory, whether they were or not.

One day please (insert deity of choice) one day............

I think part of the reason for that is because to a certain type of mind being gay means that they will see your whole identity as being about sex. That is all they can see you as. If you are all about sex you must be having losts of sex...

Jealousy can do strange things to some people.

Not that I'm saying that is the only reason, but it does play a part.

If I were in any type of teaching job I would be very wary of coming out.

Further to Kea's comments: Fathead, would you be similarly upset if someone suggested you had engaged in non-penetrative sex?

As to the original question I think it depends on the view of the person it's being suggested about; if they consider it to be something they would never do (for whatever reason) then it would be upsetting to them. Whether their reasons stem from religion, concern about the opinions of others, or homophobic attitude, any distress or annoyance caused is valid.
It's a rare person who is completely unruffled when someone states an untruth about them. To different degrees, perhaps, but even if the
suggestion is a piddling one you'd prefer to set it straight.
As it were...

Your restrictions make positive answers meaningless. I shall therefore ignore the restrictions that we consider 'right-minded' individuals.

I argue that both possibilities could be the case.

If you say that bigots don't count (and you define 'bigots' as those who think homosexuality is wrong), then you automatically exclude that portion of the population that would find it offensive, or would react badly to someome considered gay.

For example, if I called you a cheat or a thief, most people would consider it derogatory. Consider that the remark is made with derrogatory intent (i.e. to give others a negative impression of you), and would be considered an insult by a significant portion of the population, we see that this is defamation regardless of how you take the remark, or how another section of the population might see it.

What matters, therefore, is not who /doesn't/ take offense so much as who does. If a remark is made with the explicit intent of giving a section of the population a negative perception of you, it is a defamatory remark. Thus, if I said that you were gay without trying to give others a negative perception of you, I wouldn't be defaming you (regardless of how others take the remark) because I didn't mean for any harm to come to you because of it.

And a second demonstration of how the remark is considered defamatory in many circles was shown above. Words which previously had negative connotations slowly lose their real meanings and become simply negative labels, applied without regards for semantics. Thus, 'whanking' is considered an acceptable activity in many circles, though the word 'whanker' is considered by the same individuals as an insult. The same process has happened to the word 'gay'.

The problem with this, as I see it, is that people still use the word 'gay' in its original sense, and thus there is a negative connotation applied to homosexuality by virtue of mere linguistics.

Oh, and the person who thought up the question 'was (is?) Jesus gay' - a masterstroke. It demonstrated my first point beautifully - the remark was interpreted as defamatory by fathead, when no negative meaning was (most likely) intended. Thus, the remark was not defamation, but we see how the phrase could equally be considered defamation in today's world.

- Jordan

Are you referring to the Lazarus who was resurrected, or the illustration of 'the rich man and Lazarus'?


The word there translated 'loved' is 'agapa', a form of 'agape', which carries no sexual connotations. It is the same sense in which God loves the world, and in which all christians must love everyone, including their enemies.


An expression of Ruth's loyalty to her mother-in-law. What is your point?


Jesus said he was the Son of God, Mohammed apparently said Jesus was just a prophet. Which of them was telling the truth? And why did the other one lie, if he was from God?


What about them? Some animals kill and eat each other. Would you consider this as evidence that God wants humans to do the same? Animals are irrelevant. They are not designed to consider the morality of their actions and try to obey God, as are humans.


I'm sure I've seen a scripture somewhere in the epistles that states quite clearly that Jesus wasn't married, but unfortunately I can't find it at the moment. In any case, nothing in the Bible suggests that he was married, and it would be quite illogical for him to be, given his role in God's purpose and the tasks that he knew lay before him.


Don't you see the difference between a individual's physical deficiency and something completely left out of the design of the human species?

>> Words which previously had negative connotations slowly lose their real meanings... The same process has happened to the word 'gay'. <<

In the tabloid press of a hundred years ago, 'Gay' used to mean 'wantonly sexually active' in a bohemian, liberal and probably an alcohol and drug infused way. Before the boozy high-rollers and the cocaine snorting jet-setters of our day, there used to be those who engaged life with 'gay abandon' thumbing their noses at convention.

'Gay' was used by the press (and society) in a mildly derogatory way (but perhaps intended only as euphemism) throughout the Victorian era (and well into the 20th century) to describe the society of artists, writers, lay-abouts and playboys of London, New York and Paris. But these people were not exclusively homosexual, just 'party animals'.

These anti-social rebels followed the model established by the poets, musicians, actors and artists of the Romantic movement a century earlier. They partied wildly and rejected normal society and the work ethic. Their travels and adventures were often hosted by richer patrons whose social position attracted much gossip. They travelled widely whenever possible (or necessary ) and made a grand show of their lifestyle like rock stars and Hollywood celebs do today.

Among them however was the much misunderstood Oscar Wilde. His very public difficulties with the laws (in both the US and UK) which prohibit homosexual activity, somehow drew the focus of the word upon his particular notorious behaviours.

Because the type of people he socialised with had been known as the 'gay crowd' the word came to mean what it does today. But up until then it had been a synonym for:

>> merry; gleeful; blithe; airy; lively; sprightly, sportive; light-hearted; frolicsome; jolly; jovial; joyous; joyful; glad; showy; splendid; vivacious <<

It is a shame the word has become so confined. I harbour a similar grudge about holocaust which also has been co-opted out of any real context.


~jwf~ (not gay, not even very happy)

I question and object to your use of "Bohemian" as a description of a hedonistic or promiscuous lifestyle. JWF I have not heard that use of the word before.

Bohemian simply means unusual with sort of trendy, chilled-out connotations, as far as I know.

Thanks for that fascinating history, jwf! I never knew quite how much the word had changed throughout history!

- Jordan (not gay, not straight, not anything...)

Yes that is my understanding Jordan. Indo-European or Romany or "gypsy like" but not sexually promiscuous. I suppose could be consequential of a secular culture. May be?

'In any case, nothing in the Bible suggests that he was married, and it would be quite illogical for him to be, given his role in God's purpose and the tasks that he knew lay before him.'

I heard somewhere that to earn the title 'rabbi,' or teacher, Jesus must have been married, as was the standard in those days.

Though I'm not certain, having not had time to look into the matter.

- Jordan

Bohemia was in fact one of their trendy destinations. It is in the southeast of Europe right next door to Transylvania. Easy access to various 'Turkish delights' and away from the prying eyes of western European conventions and Victorian moralities.

Ironically, Transylvanian myths inspire much of the current trend in 'goth' make-up and dress even though it is not technically part of the old Germanic areas where the original Goths came from.

The more closely associated a word is with 'lifestyle' issues, the more likely it will be rendered meaningless or out of fashion very quickly. When the sense of a word is tied directly to trends and fads it will pass from view as quickly as the fashion. The 20th century saw flappers and hipsters and hippies come and go. Today hippy is a derogatory term.

Or take 'conservative' for example. I have had several people here-about hurl that one at me in an obviously defamatory and hostile way as if the label said it all. It just never occurs to them that anyone could have conservative pride or that a relaxed and cautious form of intellectualism would ever prevail over their more radical and trendy philosophies. History will prove them wrong even if I cannot be bothered.


~jwf~ (not conservative, a hippy actually, now better informed by a long life of experience)

BOHEMIA
capital: Prague
borders: Moravia, Austria, Prussia and Bavaria
language: slavic czech and german

just for the record folks...personal matters.

Hello, Insight! Excellent answers in my view, you put things succinctly.
>> nothing in the Bible suggests that he was married, and it would be quite illogical for him to be, given his role in God's purpose and the tasks that he knew lay before him.<<
I first learned that when I was 12 or so, and I was really impressed (that was before I was a Christian.) I was just coming up to the age where boyfriends and all... well, you know - and I was impressed that people could choose not to have that in their life.
Since then, I have met many celibate people, and I realise it's not odd at all!