Was King David Gay ?

[Netti-Netti]

Originally Posted by wil

All those who like to quote the favorite NoNo bits you are referring to should read the three paragraphs prior and the three paragraphs after in each case and see if you are ready to inforce those as well.

Any thoughts on why there is no reference to lesbian love in the OT?

[wil]

Originally Posted by Netti-Netti

Any thoughts on why there is no reference to lesbian love in the OT?

Women hardly exist in the old testament. When they say 5,000 from the family of X they are referring to 5,000 men of fighting age, they don't count the children, the women, or the old folk. Secondary folk they were, mostly for breeding and what they do amongst themselves doesn't account for much.

[Netti-Netti]

From the relevant Bible passages, do we get any sense that either King David or Jonathan were uncomfortable about the erotic interest? Was Kind David repelled by it? Was Jonathan ashamed or concerned about being faulted for it? What can we say about their attitudes? The reason I ask is, supposedly the Bible endorses disapproval of homosexuality.

Was the anti-homosexual view not operative at the time of King David and Jonathan?

When was the moral precept developed and why?

[Netti-Netti]

Originally Posted by wil

Women hardly exist in the old testament. When they say 5,000 from the family of X they are referring to 5,000 men of fighting age, they don't count the children, the women, or the old folk. Secondary folk they were, mostly for breeding and what they do amongst themselves doesn't account for much.

Leviticus is the source for the moral code that is cited in support of the Christian objection to gay sex. It talks about women quite a bit and at length. The first twenty out of twenty three precepts of sexual morality in Leviticus 18 focus on women. Leviticus talks about women, but not in relation to homosexuality.

It is true that Leviticus seems to be written from a hetero male point of view. Seems like if people saw homosexuality as intrinsically morally wrong, there should have been some mention of lesbian sex. Maybe something along the lines of: "Don't let your wife or female slave partake in lesbian sex because it is an abomination in the eyes of G-d, who created man and woman to be together." Or something like that.

The "oversight" would suggest that lesbian love was not an issue. This weakens the notion that the Bible supports a general anti-gay stance.

[Dream]

Originally Posted by Netti Netti

Any thoughts on why there is no reference to lesbian love in the OT?

Originally Posted by Wil

Women hardly exist in the old testament. When they say 5,000 from the family of X they are referring to 5,000 men of fighting age, they don't count the children, the women, or the old folk. Secondary folk they were, mostly for breeding and what they do amongst themselves doesn't account for much.

Some groups of women don't have proper names in OT, yet are very obviously present when you read the text. Others may not be obvious, but that doesn't mean they didn't exist. Agunah's are a good example:

'Agunah' is a word not written in Torah, however Agunah are included under the heading of 'Widows' (I think). That gives them protection and representation in the laws. If there were a separate word for Lesbians it would be strange, because neither Agunahs are specificially mentioned nor Divorced. (A woman in the Old Treasury is either a maid, a wife, or a widow.) Following suit: there's also no separate word in the New Treasury either for divorced women or chained women. I think that they also are referred to as widows. What term do you suppose would refer to Lesbians? Any of the three?

Agunah: The word 'Agunah' in Talmud refers to 'chained women', a concept emphasized repeatedly in OT -- especially Deuteronomy 24. Although the word 'Agunah' is not written, the concept is plainly present. This law, Deut 24, specially prevents the recurrence of what happened to Tamar the Adullamite, the wife of Judah, the mother of Hezron & Perez.(Genesis 38) Probably the first recorded chained woman.

[~estrella~]

Re: Was King David Gay ?

yeah based on the Jonathan thing

For example

Again, the roles in our society, we seem to see people in their roles, nothing else! Why is it not possible to really love somebody without that sexual or non-sexual thing? Why should it not be possible for a man to love a man without that sex-thing, a woman to love a woman without that sex-thing, a man to love a woman without that sex-thing, a woman to love a man without that sex-thing? Why these roles?
Roles of unique love between man-woman might be necessary for forming a functioning family etc... But this is concerning family, not concerning love going beyond family bounds. So what? Why think that Jonathan and David loved each other in sexual context? Why would they not be able to love each other without that bodily thing? I would also like that a man and a woman may be able to *really* love each other without being regarded as being "lovers" (=for the purpose of sex)!

[bob x]

Originally Posted by Netti-Netti

From the relevant Bible passages, do we get any sense that either King David or Jonathan were uncomfortable about the erotic interest?

No; as opposed to Saul, who was obviously distressed by it.

Originally Posted by Netti-Netti

Was the anti-homosexual view not operative at the time of King David and Jonathan?

The author of Samuel, who is very matter-of-fact, obviously does not share the attitudes of the author of Leviticus. There is no such thing as the "viewpoint of the Bible", which is a collection of books written by quite diverse authors.

Originally Posted by ~estrella~

Why think that Jonathan and David loved each other in sexual context?

Because the physicality of the relationship is emphasized every single time the relationship comes up. I think it requires a very strained reading of the text to miss the point.

[Dream]

Originally Posted by Estrella

Why should it not be possible for a man to love a man without that sex-thing,

Of course its possible, however sometimes a man would have to be a Eunuch. Hanging out alone together makes attraction stronger or weaker, so sometimes it certainly isn't possible. Why should it be any different for homosexuals? While I don't see the sexual tension Bobx sees between Dave & Jon, I realize that if it were present it probably would not have gone unnoticed. They were very close friends.

[Netti-Netti]

Originally Posted by ~estrella~

Again, the roles in our society, we seem to see people in their roles, nothing else! Why is it not possible to really love somebody without that sexual or non-sexual thing? Why should it not be possible for a man to love a man without that sex-thing, a woman to love a woman without that sex-thing, a man to love a woman without that sex-thing, a woman to love a man without that sex-thing? Why these roles?

I think it's natural - not strictly a socially defined thing. I think it may be socially elaborated, though, especially in patriarchal societies where male dominance and sexism prevail.

Why think that Jonathan and David loved each other in sexual context? Why would they not be able to love each other without that bodily thing? I would also like that a man and a woman may be able to *really* love each other without being regarded as being "lovers" (=for the purpose of sex)!

I'd say we don't necessarily love someone because we want to have sex with them. It's because we appreciate who they are, which includes their body. We are our bodies. The person's gender is part of their identity. If we are comfortable with who we are, we may be less likely to feel that we will be engulfed by another person wanting us, which potentially includes being wanted physically.

On the other hand, seeing a person only as a body is not seeing them for who they are and is therfore incompatible with truly loving them. So maybe it's the fear of not being loved and supported that can be scary.

[seattlegal]

Originally Posted by bob x

No; as opposed to Saul, who was obviously distressed by it.

The author of Samuel, who is very matter-of-fact, obviously does not share the attitudes of the author of Leviticus. There is no such thing as the "viewpoint of the Bible", which is a collection of books written by quite diverse authors.

Saul was not known for his even-mindedness.

[bananabrain]

Originally Posted by bob x

No, it was because he was dancing bare-butt. He did have an "ephod" (apron) covering his front, but he was showing off his beautiful booty, and Michal didn't think he should be doing that.

interesting - how does the text imply that?

When Jonathan first sees David, "his loins yearned for him". When they get together, Jonathan striips for David, and the text is specific that he took off everything. When Saul accuses Jonathan of an improper relationship with David, the accusation is "you have chosen him to the confusion of a mother's nakedness", which is a difficult idiom to interpret but I can hardly see how a sexual reading can be avoided.

when you put it like that, i find it quite convincing. but i'd want to know what someone like, say, ramban had to say about it.

when Jonathan dies, David says "most excellent was your love, surpassing the love of women". I do not see how the text could have been more explicit without veering into soft porn.

hehe. actually, if there is a way to read this as showing a somewhat (at least one-way) homosexual relationship without reference to "to'evah" it might well provide some support for r. steve greenberg's PoV, i expect he looks at this in his book "wrestling with G!D and men", not that i've read it, but i've heard him speak about how to construct a case that what is objected to in leviticus cannot be compared to a loving, monogamous homosexual relationship. and that is with my most traditional hat on. as you probably know, i strongly disapprove of religious discrimination against gay people, so if this could help, i'd be quite pleased.

"justice, justice, you must pursue", as the Torah tells us.

b'shalom

bananabrain

[Dream]

There's actually a pretty good limited preview of Greenberg's book on google right now. It really should be called a limitation-limited preview.

[bob x]

Originally Posted by bananabrain

interesting - how does the text imply that?

It's not "implied", it's rather explicit. Michal says he "uncovered himself, like the shameless do."

[Netti-Netti]

Originally Posted by bob x

It's not "implied", it's rather explicit. Michal says he "uncovered himself, like the shameless do."

The meaning is unclear. Shameless as compared to what standard? Certainly a King would be expected to behave differently from most anyone else - like keep more clothes on when dancing.

Try this in your tux:

[Netti-Netti]