Last Friday a distinguished Anglican clergyman, the Rev Paul Oestreicher, told us that in his opinion Jesus Christ was probably gay because of his affection for his beloved apostle St John. Next day, however, the former Tory MP and Times columnist Matthew Parris challenged the very idea of an exclusive gay identity, saying "the categorisation of a whole section of males as homosexuals, in inverted commas, or indeed heterosexuals, ditto, was simply a mistake.So sexual orientation is a lot more fluid than we have supposed. Mr Parris who often writes bravely and honestly about his own sexuality could never be accused of homophobia. But if he's right, then the whole notion of clearly identifiable gayness is questionable. If the concept does not really exist, Paul Oestreicher cannot usefully apply it to Jesus.
上周五，一位杰出的英国国教牧师Paul Oestreicher说，根据耶稣对他的爱徒圣约翰的挚爱来看，耶稣很可能是个同性恋。第二天，前保守党下议院议员，Times专栏作家Matthew Parris对同性恋这一单一身份标签提出了质疑，说道：“将一大批男人单纯的区分为要么同性恋要么异性恋，这完全是个错误。”所以说，这性取向问题的变数比我们想象的要大的多。Parris先生经常畅谈自己的性事，所以我们不能认为他讨厌同性恋。但如果他是对的，那么存在明白无误、彻头彻尾的同性恋这个想法本身就相当值得商榷。如果这个概念并不存在，那么Paul Oestreicher也就能不能将之加诸于耶稣。
