The evil virus upon us

[Warham]

David was interested in women, not men. In fact, he killed a man to get his woman.

Those verses prove no kind of homosexual relations.

[Warham]

The Gay 1090s B.C.
Were David and Jonathan Gay Lovers?
James Patrick Holding

Our subject here is a Web writer named Jeramy Townsley, but the arguments he offers on this subject are not unique to him, so while we will use his material as a basis, his name and identity is not of the highest relevance. The subject here is the question, "Were David and Jonathan gay lovers, according to the Bible?" Townsley says of arguments in this regard, "while not quite compelling, [they] leave open the strong possibility that they were involved in an homosexual marriage."

How is the case made? The first point is from 1 Samuel 18:21:

And Saul said, I will give him her, that she may be a snare to him, and that the hand of the Philistines may be against him. Wherefore Saul said to David, Thou shalt this day be my son in law in the one of the twain.
This verse, coming as it does after the following:

And Saul said to David, Behold my elder daughter Merab, her will I give thee to wife: only be thou valiant for me, and fight the LORD'S battles. For Saul said, Let not mine hand be upon him, but let the hand of the Philistines be upon him. And David said unto Saul, Who am I? and what is my life, or my father's family in Israel, that I should be son in law to the king? But it came to pass at the time when Merab Saul's daughter should have been given to David, that she was given unto Adriel the Meholathite to wife. And Michal Saul's daughter loved David: and they told Saul, and the thing pleased him.
...one would immediately suppose that the "twain" or two are Merab and Michal. The words "the one" are admittedly a KJV addition for clarity, but this is apparently all the door Townsley needs to let his case in:

The actual translation of this phrase is somewhat controversial, being literally translated "You will become my son-in-law through two." In this instance, the correct interpretation of this verse is crucial, because it radically shapes our view of David and Jonathan's relationship, since Scripture only indicates that David had any kind of relationship with two of Saul's children: Jonathan and Michal. Some translations interpret this verse as meaning that Saul "said for the second time," or that David has a "second opportunity" to become Saul's son-in-law. These interpretations, however, are strained, and the Hebrew does not easily lend itself to mean either of these. Most standard translations clearly interpret the verse to mean that David will become Saul's son-in-law for the second time...
Townsley hereafter takes a page from the Skeptical School of Quoting the English Versions to Prove Your Point, in the service of suggesting that it means that David "will become his son-in-law for the second time" (where Jonathan was the first). But there are a few social surds Townsley needs to consider before he gets too excited. To begin, had such a marriage indeed taken place between Jonathan and David, that means that Jonathan would have either become a member of David's house, or David would have become a member of Jonathan's house. Since Saul does not want David in power, as is quite clear, and would also presumably want Jonathan to have the throne after him, there is no way Saul would have permitted either scenario. There would be no threat if a daughter became part of David's house. So a marriage between these two is politically absurd to begin with.

Second, the passages after this tell a differing story: "And Saul commanded his servants, saying, Commune with David secretly, and say, Behold, the king hath delight in thee, and all his servants love thee: now therefore be the king's son in law. And Saul's servants spake those words in the ears of David. And David said, Seemeth it to you a light thing to be a king's son in law, seeing that I am a poor man, and lightly esteemed?" Would Saul need to send his servants to persuade David of this, or would David ask if it was a light thing to be the king's son-in-law, if he already was?

Finally, 18:21 itself, and the word "twain," can mean "in both" but can mean in a "second". It is in fact the Hebrew word for the numeral two. What Saul is saying here is that David will be his son-in-law in the second daughter offered. There is no call for an idea of a "first marriage" here, other than a wish to see something in the text that is not there.

Next in service, it is noted:

The first offer Saul made to David for a wife was Merab, but she married Adriel of Meholah instead (18:19). The only other covenant made between Saul's family and David was between David and Jonathan in 18:3, which is not a covenant of business or politics, but of friendship/love ("ahbh"). Moreover, this relationship is described in very strong emotive language, starting in 18:1.
We can stop right here and give Townsley an F in Ancient Near Eastern society, because "strong emotive language" is just par for the course for these people in all of their relationships. Townsley knows correctly that platonic relationships as such did not exist in this time, but he's either uninformed of, or ignoring, more relevant data. We present here material previously used in our item on the alleged homosexuality of Jesus:


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To put it bluntly, such arguments view intimate relationships through jaundiced Western eyes. Put your head on the breast of another man today here in America, and the jokes will fly. But in the ancient East, not so; and even today, such affectionate displays are typical on that side of the world, and well-publicized (remember all the news clips of Arab and Middle Eastern leaders kissing each other on the side of the face?), which is probably why we don't hear these sorts of verses brought up in service of homosexual Bible characters, except by the incredibly underinformed.

Abraham Rihbany (The Syrian Christ, 65), a native of the East early last century, bore with some patience the misinterpretations of modern Westerners (he named Robert Ingersoll particularly) who read the Bible through their eyes and tastes and missed certain points about what was being said and done. The particular instance of John 21:20 represents a custom "in perfect harmony with Syrian customs. How often have I seen men friends in such an attitude. There is not the slightest infringement of the rules of propriety; the act was as natural to us all as shaking hands. The practice is especially indulged in when intimate friends are about to part from one another, as on the eve of a journey, or when about the face a dangerous undertaking. Then they sit with their heads leaning against each other, or the one's head resting upon the other's shoulder or breast." By the same token, Easterners will use "terms of unbounded intimacy and unrestrained affection" to one another: "my soul," "my eyes," "my heart." Paul's holy kiss (Rom. 16:16, etc) is no more of a homosexual exchange.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

We therefore rank Townsley in the "underinformed" category any time he cites non-sexual, affectionate behavior as meaningful for his case. Yet this he does in spades, going back to 1 Samuel 18:1-4 and finding a "love at first sight" citation:

And it came to pass, when he had made an end of speaking unto Saul, that the soul of Jonathan was knit with the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul. And Saul took him that day, and would let him go no more home to his father's house. Then Jonathan and David made a covenant, because he loved him as his own soul. And Jonathan stripped himself of the robe that was upon him, and gave it to David, and his garments, even to his sword, and to his bow, and to his girdle.
Townsley admits that there is no linguistic similarity between this and language in Gen. 2 which refers to "becoming one flesh," but he insists that "there is a striking similarity in concepts between the son leaving the parents to join to a spouse, and the two becoming one." Is there? We ask, in whose imagination, other than Townsley's? As noted above, such a linkup would have been political suicide for Saul, David, and/or Jonathan, and this language is no different (indeed, far tamer) than that which Rihbany describes among close, non-homosexual friends. (We may note that commentators regard Jon here as passing over his royal insignia -- in effect, his right to the throne -- to David, and those who see a sexual encounter here may note that only one person seems to be getting undressed!) And lest anyone make much of that "loved" bit, it is the same word used to say that the Lord loved Israel (Deut. 7:8, 1 Kings 10:9, 2 Chr. 2:11, 9:8, Hosea 3;1), so that horse can go right back into the barn without even being saddled. The same word is often used, as Townsley notes, of relationships that would clearly have a sexual component (just look through Song of Songs!) but it implies, as agape does, a more practical concern. (Townlsey notes these cites, but does not tell us that the word is used of the relationship between God and Israel, which smacks rather of a cover-up!)

To his credit (and with better sport than Skeptics) Townsley admits that the evidence here is "persuasive" to him, but "not conclusive," also admitting that he knows of no "other extant Hebrew literature of that era that refers to a gay marriage," and whether "Saul would have seen David and Jonathan's covenant as one of legal marriage." (Not that all "covenants" were marriages anyway; it is the same word used to refer to God's promise not to destroy the world again after the Flood, and to God's agreement with Abraham.) On the lack of mention of sexual activity between the two, it is countered that "very few Old Testament relationships which are clearly marriage relationships have subsequent descriptions of sexual activity" (actually, they do, in the form of children!; and Townsley only says this, with no accounting at all) and suggests that 2 Samuel 1:26 ("I grieve for you, Jonathan my brother; you were very dear to me. Your love for me was wonderful, more wonderful than that of women.") may be just such a reference, which means that all of Rihbany's people must be having sex with each other as well. One might add that "love" is certainly not the same as sex, and one might suggest that a caring, non-sexual relationship can be immensely satisfying -- one wonders how much of our modern, sex-crazed mindset Townsley has absorbed and wrung out on the text!

In sum: The idea that Jon and Dave are homosexual partners is little but a fantasy composed by those desiring to find justifications in the text to "do their own thing".

http://www.tektonics.org/gk/gaydavid.html

[Keeyth]

Originally posted by Cathedral
You keep saying it isn't a choice yet you never step up and prove that conclusively.
I state that I think it's a choice and that it is wrong, that is what i believe.
History tends to support my opinion and it appears the scripture does too, but as with any scripture, it can be twisted to mean something quite different indeed.

But until i see proof that cannot be debunked that clearly states gay-ism is genetic, i won't accept it as an acceptable lifestyle.
It would never become a topic of discussion unless a gay person makes it one and then i will freely express my views and what i believe on the matter.

Referring to someone who is gay as a virus is retarded, as retarded as claiming it's in the DNA when you have absolutely no proof or evidence to support that pretty drastic and arrogant non-scientific conclusion.

One thing i have noticed about most liberal thinkers is that they have zero ability to keep an open mind on anything. I ask for proof, that means i am willing to examine the facts, but there never seems to be any, just conclusions and damn anyone who questions them, lol.

To make a statement, again, that it is not a choice, Dude....Show me evidence of that will you please?
I'd like to see what it is that has you so 100% convicted that it is not a choice.
And the idea that it isn't an abomination to God and the ability to explain away clear references to how it is seen as vile in the eyes of God doesn't cut it.
First, to make me believe otherwise means you have to show me where it is written anywhere that God approves of that lifestyle "choice".

You argue the scripture and Jesus never preached against it, ok, fine, show me where they preached for it then.

Show me something, anything, that supports your stand that it 100% "IS NOT" a choice. Prove to me that God thinks it's a fine and dandy thing to be a homosexual.

Or just call me a homophobe and end the debate so you can get off the hot seat.

Well Cat, I would submit to you that it is definitely NOT a choice. My reasoning behind this is simple. If I decided today that I wanted to 'choose' that lifestyle I couldn't do it. The act of sex with a male, and even the thought of it, absolutely repulses me. The same instinct that makes me attracted to the female body, is the same instinct that repulses me from any though of physical attraction to a male body, and I'm sure you agree with me and feel exactly the same. Right?
Therefore, even if you wanted to choose to do it with a male, you could not bring yourself to do it for the same reason I couldn't. It would be instinctively against the very fabric of your nature, am I right? It is not a 'choice' I could make myself choose and actually enjoy or willingly go through with.

I have nothing against gay people, in fact I have a friend who I have known since the '80's, who I did not know was gay for the first 4 years I knew him. He's a big tough looking Mexican guy you would never believe was gay just by looking at him or hanging out with him. He doesn't act gay at all, he's just like a normal guy, and most of his friends that he hangs out with are straight too. He says he prefers to hang out with straight guys, as he doesn't like the feminine way some gays act. He's a really cool guy and a musicain too. But he is sexually attracted to guys. By the time I found out he was gay, we had been friends so long it was very difficult to justify throwing away the friendship over something that has obviously nothing to do with me or our friendship. He's a good guy, and we're friends and that's all there is too it. I admit it was tough to come to grips with at first, but it made me grow up about my views on the subject. As long as you're secure in your own sexuality its really no big deal. He's still a good friend and has told me that it wasn't something he chose. He knew from a very young age he had different feelings for boys than what other boys did.
I don't know how at that age it would really be a choice.

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Keeyth
Well Cat, I would submit to you that it is definitely NOT a choice. My reasoning behind this is simple. If I decided today that I wanted to 'choose' that lifestyle I couldn't do it. The act of sex with a male, and even the thought of it, absolutely repulses me. The same instinct that makes me attracted to the female body, is the same instinct that repulses me from any though of physical attraction to a male body, and I'm sure you agree with me and feel exactly the same. Right?
Therefore, even if you wanted to choose to do it with a male, you could not bring yourself to do it for the same reason I couldn't. It would be instinctively against the very fabric of your nature, am I right? It is not a 'choice' I could make myself choose and actually enjoy or willingly go through with.

I have nothing against gay people, in fact I have a friend who I have known since the '80's, who I did not know was gay for the first 4 years I knew him. He's a big tough looking Mexican guy you would never believe was gay just by looking at him or hanging out with him. He doesn't act gay at all, he's just like a normal guy, and most of his friends that he hangs out with are straight too. He says he prefers to hang out with straight guys, as he doesn't like the feminine way some gays act. He's a really cool guy and a musicain too. But he is sexually attracted to guys. By the time I found out he was gay, we had been friends so long it was very difficult to justify throwing away the friendship over something that has obviously nothing to do with me or our friendship. He's a good guy, and we're friends and that's all there is too it. I admit it was tough to come to grips with at first, but it made me grow up about my views on the subject. As long as you're secure in your own sexuality its really no big deal. He's still a good friend and has told me that it wasn't something he chose. He knew from a very young age he had different feelings for boys than what other boys did.
I don't know how at that age it would really be a choice.

Excellent post, dead on.

It's funny that most people paranoid of gays think that you can accidently "turn gay" if you don't 'watch it' or something. That sounds like the gayest thing of all. I know I couldn't just "turn gay," you're either attracted to something or you're not. It's not some learned behavior...Unless maybe you're in prison, but even then most of those guys are inherently straight, but have no access to women. I watched something on prisons one time, and one gay guy interviewed said it was the worst thing that could happen to a meek little gay dude, they get passed around and raped virtually to death...

[knuckleboner]

Originally posted by thome
Useing your Cock for anything other than, the mutual pleasure
betweena Male and a Female or Procreation with a Female is Devieant Sexual Behavior

presumably you're completely opposed to oral sex between (opposite sex) married people, right?

[Keeyth]

Originally posted by thome
"Other than mutuall pleasure and procreation"

However, strictly speaking for pleasure is not the most important
reason for sex so (babies are not a useless by product of the sex act)
being that Human Females are fertile every 22/24 days seems to me
they can't have a child every 22 days(9 month gestation) so pleasure is -In The Design of Human Sexuality.

YES/NO.?

Ever hear of a complete sentence? Grammar? Proper punctuation? Any of it???
It would be a lot easier to respond to you if you could handle the skill of written English...

[BigBadBrian]

Originally posted by Keeyth
Ever hear of a complete sentence? Grammar? Proper punctuation? Any of it???
It would be a lot easier to respond to you if you could handle the skill of written English...

Quoting Keeyth above:

"Ever hear of a complete sentence?"
(Actually, a better sentence would be, grammatically speaking, that is: Did you ever hear of a complete sentence? ....but I digress )

Than look at his sentences above.

Isn't that some funny, hypocritical stuff?



Quit being the Fourth-grade English teacher, Keeyth.

[Guitar Shark]

Originally posted by Keeyth
Well Cat, I would submit to you that it is definitely NOT a choice. My reasoning behind this is simple. If I decided today that I wanted to 'choose' that lifestyle I couldn't do it. The act of sex with a male, and even the thought of it, absolutely repulses me. The same instinct that makes me attracted to the female body, is the same instinct that repulses me from any though of physical attraction to a male body, and I'm sure you agree with me and feel exactly the same. Right?
Therefore, even if you wanted to choose to do it with a male, you could not bring yourself to do it for the same reason I couldn't. It would be instinctively against the very fabric of your nature, am I right? It is not a 'choice' I could make myself choose and actually enjoy or willingly go through with.

Well said. The "it's a lifestyle choice" argument makes absolutely no sense. Who, in their right mind, would choose the gay lifestyle in our society?

"Well, I guess it's time to make a choice. I can choose to be straight, and live a normal life. Or, I can choose to be gay, and experience a lifetime of ostracism, hatred, bigotry, and ridicule. Hmm... let's see... it's GAY FOR ME BABY!!!"



Preposterous. Being gay has GOT to be something you are born with. Nothing else makes sense.

[BigBadBrian]

Originally posted by Keeyth
Well Cat, I would submit to you that it is definitely NOT a choice. My reasoning behind this is simple. If I decided today that I wanted to 'choose' that lifestyle I couldn't do it. The act of sex with a male, and even the thought of it, absolutely repulses me. The same instinct that makes me attracted to the female body, is the same instinct that repulses me from any though of physical attraction to a male body, and I'm sure you agree with me and feel exactly the same. Right?
Therefore, even if you wanted to choose to do it with a male, you could not bring yourself to do it for the same reason I couldn't. It would be instinctively against the very fabric of your nature, am I right? It is not a 'choice' I could make myself choose and actually enjoy or willingly go through with.

I have nothing against gay people, in fact I have a friend who I have known since the '80's, who I did not know was gay for the first 4 years I knew him. He's a big tough looking Mexican guy you would never believe was gay just by looking at him or hanging out with him. He doesn't act gay at all, he's just like a normal guy, and most of his "friends that he hangs out with are straight too. He says he prefers to hang out with straight guys, as he doesn't like the feminine way some gays act. He's a really cool guy and a musicain too. But he is sexually attracted to guys. By the time I found out he was gay, we had been friends so long it was very difficult to justify throwing away the friendship over something that has obviously nothing to do with me or our friendship. He's a good guy, and we're friends and that's all there is too it. I admit it was tough to come to grips with at first, but it made me grow up about my views on the subject. As long as you're secure in your own sexuality its really no big deal. He's still a good friend and has told me that it wasn't something he chose. He knew from a very young age he had different feelings for boys than what other boys did.
I don't know how at that age it would really be a choice.

Choice, perhaps, is not the correct term.

"Sickness" or "sin" may be more correct.

Take your pick.

[FORD]

[Hardrock69]

Originally posted by Warham
People are allowed to have opinions.

Just because you are against the gay lifestyle doesn't mean you are a homophobe or a bigot. I'm sure there are many people who have friends or relatives who are gay, and yet, are against the lifestyle. I'm not sure we could call them homophobes.

Personally, I've talked to a few gay people (have some next door) and have always been kind and treated them with respect. I still disagree with their lifestyle choice.

It is one thing to "disagree" with a lifestyle choice by simply saying "it is not my preference for how I want to live MY life". It is quite another to say that how they live their life is "wrong".

That is the "opinion" of a bigot.

It is not up to you to determine if it is wrong for anyone else but yourself,
(or dependent kids who are not old enough to be able to determine for themselves what their "lifestyle" is going to be).

Teaching tolerance is an admirable and worthy cause.

But you always have some idiots out there like the trailer-trash bitch who is raising two twin teen-age girls as racists.

I myself am bigoted, and can admit it.

However, I am only bigoted against racists and other fucks who discriminate against people based upon the color of their skin, the name of the god they worship, or the sexual orientation they choose. Basaically meaning I have no tolerance for assholes.


I have some lesbian friends. Think I am gonna disagree with how they live their life? Hell NO!

As long as people are not harming other people, how they live their lives is up to them.


And that includes Republicans.

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by BigBadBrian
Quoting Keeyth above:

"Ever hear of a complete sentence?"
(Actually, a better sentence would be, grammatically speaking, that is: Did you ever hear of a complete sentence? ....but I digress )

Than look at his sentences above.

Interrogatives (questions) don't have to be phrased in complete sentences moron, in fact Keey is correct in putting question marks behind every question fragment.

And his point is valid. People can get by ignoring the "rules" of standard written English as long as they communicate effectively...But I'll be damned if I can understand half of his posts.

Isn't that some funny, hypocritical stuff?



Quit being the Fourth-grade English teacher, Keeyth.

Most of the crap you post is "funny, hypocritical" stuff.

You know, sort of like when you complain about BOBGNOTE?

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by BigBadBrian
Choice, perhaps, is not the correct term.

"Sickness" or "sin" may be more correct.

Take your pick.

A "sin" you seem to spend a lot of time worrying about.

[Keeyth]

Originally posted by BigBadBrian
Quoting Keeyth above:

"Ever hear of a complete sentence?"
(Actually, a better sentence would be, grammatically speaking, that is: Did you ever hear of a complete sentence? ....but I digress )

Than look at his sentences above.

Isn't that some funny, hypocritical stuff?



Quit being the Fourth-grade English teacher, Keeyth.

Are you saying you couldn't understand what I was saying? I'll admit, I could have put "Did you" in front of the first sentence(but that's being pretty picky), but the rest is all correct.
Are you actually defending that morons way of writing????

Is that a right wing thing?? Defending a moron and making yourself into one in the process.... ....oh, wait, I guess it is. Look at your President.

[BigBadBrian]

Originally posted by Keeyth
Are you saying you couldn't understand what I was saying? I'll admit, I could have put "Did you" in front of the first sentence(but that's being pretty picky), but the rest is all correct.
Are you actually defending that morons way of writing????

Is that a right wing thing?? Defending a moron and making yourself into one in the process.... ....oh, wait, I guess it is. Look at your President.

Geez.

I wasn't defending him, Keeyth, I'm just saying it's petty to get into all that grammar crap.

When I'm on here I'm typing as fast as I can, I don't use SpellCheck, and I'm not worrying about turning in my work to a boss or a teacher. Minor mistakes are common from everyone are common on here.