Paul, as a historical figure and a Roman, probably engaged in same-sex encounters, and was likely submissive and ashamed about being submissive, thus the reason it wasn't addressed in his letters. It wasn't socially taboo at the time, so why even mention it? Again, this is only conjecture on my part. No, I don't have proof or any specific verses to quote, but I feel that it does explain his attitude toward sex and how it should only be in a committed marriage, etc.

That brings us to Jesus. Paul never mentioned a physical, living Jesus.The gospels were written after Paul's letters and were certainly influenced by them to a certain extent, as they tried to graft a historical god-man onto the mystical spirituality that Paul preached about. Jesus was definitely into other men. Why, on the night of his betrayal were twelve men in a garden after dark in nothing but loincloths? Why was there mention elsewhere about the man that Jesus loved written in such a context that this was more specific than merely a platonic thing? THE man? IThere's no proof, because the Council of Nicea sought to start regulating such things.

I really can't understand the argument about a persons sexuality especially if said person is imaginary anyway .

First what must be understood while the Jewish law forbade men from having sex with men that is all that the word that is translated to homosexual ment. It had nothing to do with a person's identity.
In the Roman society of the time it was not possible to be homosexual or lesbian as the idea of sexual identity did not exist in that culture. People were simply sexual. That is they recognized they had sexual needs and desires. They often fulfilled those wishes (I'm primary speaking of the Romans, but at least Jews despite their laws did also) however they wished. There was no stigma or orientation even considered.

The only time anyone was made fun of is if they were in a position of power and thought to have been submissive. As much sex was about dominance not orientation.

In the non canonical gospels there is some hint that their may have been unusually close relationships with Jesus. This is projecting our speculation and sexual stereotypes into the past out of context. We really can not call someone gay when at the time sexual identity as we understand it did not exist. So even if they were having hard core porno sex they may have just been having sex without any thought of sexuality or gender.

I voted no way to know. Paul spoke of homosexuality as being unnatural and sinful, but I don't see anything (except perhaps his celibacy) to indicate he was a self-hating homosexual. Jesus is even more of a mystery. If Jesus had an opinion one way or the other on the moral status of homosexuality it is lost to history, although some see in the story of his healing of the centurion's servant a strong hint that he had no problem with it. The argument goes like this: centurions often had young men as their lovers, and this, they believe, was the case here. I think such an interpretation is indeed plausible, although it's by no means the only way someone could see this relationship.

Not sure I see why it matters.

Well, who knows? However, there is that little-known Dead Sea Scroll, the one with the badly-damaged text which some scholars have suggested may translate as "He did look fabulous on the dancefloor, giving it some to Abba and the Pet Shop Boys, which caught the eye of a couple of Nubian leatherboys who enticed Him into the backroom."

I think that Jesus bedded Mary, made her pregnant and had babies - at least one. Paul was clearly gay, and a woman hater to boot. But, Paul was also completely insane.

Paul was totally gay. Jesus never existed, as we have already established. Not that there is anything wrong with that.

trying to define an sexual inclination to an supposed son of god, is like asking if Pinocchio was gay , ITS FUCKING IRRELEVANT

Psychologically, if Paul was a self-loathing homosexual, he probably would have talked about it and condemned it much, much more than he actually does. Preachers tend to focus the most on the traits they hate about themselves.

(And not all of "Paul's letters" were actually from Paul... so that always has to be factored in, as well).

Depending on which letters are accepted, Paul's singleness and ability to control himself sexually are points of pride for him, not shame. See 1 Corinthians 7:1-9, with this concluding remark: "So I say to those who aren’t married and to widows—it’s better to stay unmarried, just as I am. 9But if they can’t control themselves, they should go ahead and marry. It’s better to marry than to burn with lust." Verses 32-38 are also relevant.

Total flamer