I've had a couple of e-mails from people who want my opinion as to how they should break the news to their fundamentalist Christian parents that they don't believe in God. Well, the obvious answer is tell them you're gay. And then when they've recovered from the fainting fit, and you've administered the smelling salts, you can tell them you're only joking, you're not gay, you're just an atheist, and they'll be so relieved they'll sing hallelujah. Religion doesn't much like gay people, does it? But then of course religion doesn't much like anything, and if we listed all the things religion disapproves of we'd probably still be here next Tuesday. However, it does seem to hold a special place of condemnation in its hard little heart for homosexuals. To the religious mind, if you're gay then you've got something wrong with you. Whereas, to my mind, if you think it's some kind of insult to call somebody gay, that's when you've actually got something wrong with you. It is one of the most common insults that I get, and it's also one of the most puzzling, because if I was gay I wouldn't think it was anything to be ashamed of. And even though I'm not, I don't feel in the least bit insulted at being called gay. So what the hell, go ahead and knock yourselves out. I realise that this is a sensitive subect to some people. Here in the UK we recently had Catholic adoption agencies actually threatening to close themselves down rather than place children with gay parents. Although, given the Catholic church's record with children, I'd have thought gay parents would be the least of the kids' worries. The Anglican church is on the verge of splitting over this issue because some people don't want gay clergy. I can understand that. I don't want them either, but then I don't want any kind of clergy. In America there's a well known televangelist who apparently hates gay people so much he couldn't wait to get his hands on one of them, even paying money for the privilege. Of course he kept it quiet for as long as he could because Christianity and homosexuality make uneasy bedfellows, if you'll pardon the expression, You wouldn't call that an abomination, would you? A laughable parody of Christ's message, perhaps, and a tasteless burlesque of everything he ever stood for, certainly. But an abomination? Oh all right, you've talked me into it; it's an abomination. I was just trying to be nice. I've heard it suggested from some people that Christians are so irrationally obsesssed with this subject 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. Keep an open mind, that's what I always say? What do you always say? To be fair, according to some accounts like the gospels of Philip or Thomas, it's probable that Jesus wasn't gay because he got married and had a child. But unfortunately those gospels never actually made it into the New Testament, so they can't possibly be true. 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 over his naked body, and he 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. So if you are a closet homosexual family man with your own ministry, as I know some of you are, don't be ashamed. God knows you've got enough to be ashamed of without adding imaginary crimes to the list. It's not a sin to be gay. It's a sin, if anything, to be a liar and a hypocrite about it. So why not do yourself and everyone around you a favour, step out of that closet and show a little pride in who you really are. Some people won't like it, of course they won't. But you know how bigoted they are. You know that better than anybody. And anyway, you can ignore their opinion because now you'll have the kind of strength that only comes from being true to yourself. And who knows, it might even help to enhance your faith, if you take comfort from the real possibility that your Messiah, Mr Jesus Christ, was a normal healthy homosexual, just like you. Everyone's a winner. Peace to all Christians, especially the secretly queer ones.