Was King David Gay ?

bob x said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
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
 
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 said:
It's not "implied", it's rather explicit. Michal says he "uncovered himself, like the shameless do."
Click to expand...
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: :)

large_04.jpg
 


gay   –adjective

1.having or showing a merry, lively mood: gay spirits; gay music.

2.bright or showy: gay colors; gay ornaments.

3.given to or abounding in social or other pleasures: a gay social season.

4.licentious; dissipated; wanton: The baron is a gay old rogue with an eye for the ladies.





[Middle English gai, lighthearted, brightly colored, from Old French, possibly of Germanic origin.]
gay

1178, "full of joy or mirth," from O.Fr. gai "gay, merry," perhaps from Frank. *gahi (cf. O.H.G. wahi "pretty"). Meaning "brilliant, showy" is from c.1300.


gay
adjective

1. bright and pleasant; promoting a feeling of cheer;

2. full of or showing high-spirited merriment; "when hearts were young and gay"; "a poet could not but be gay, in such a jocund company"- Wordsworth;

3. given to social pleasures often including dissipation; "led a gay Bohemian life"; "a gay old rogue with an eye for the ladies"

4. brightly colored and showy; "girls decked out in brave new dresses"; "brave banners flying"; "'braw' is a Scottish word"; "a dress a bit too gay for her years"; "birds with gay plumage" [syn: brave]

5. offering fun and gaiety; "a festive (or festal) occasion"; "gay and exciting night life"; "a merry evening"

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

Was King David gay? Certainly.

A pervert? No.

A man after God's heart? Yes.

I expect that soon some will set out to prove Adam and Eve were meant to be homosexuals, and became perverted by assuming licentious* heterosexual roles.

Learner

--------------------------------------
*licentious

1.sexually unrestrained; lascivious; libertine; lewd.

2.unrestrained by law or general morality; lawless; immoral.

3.going beyond customary or proper bounds or limits; disregarding rules.


All definitions from Dictionary.com
 
Netti-Netti said:
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.
Click to expand...
The old testament also defines adultery as only involving a married woman having sex with a man who is not her husband. A married man having sex with an unmarried woman would not be considered as adultery. (Go figure.)
 
Just so everyone knows, there are a number of other lines in the the story of David and Jonathan that might lead a reader to see there relationship as something more:

Jonathan declares to David: “Tomorrow is the new moon, and you will be missed, because your seat will be empty.”

“David arose out of the place…and fell on his face to the ground, and bowed three times; and they kissed one another, and wept one with another, until David exceeded.” (exceeded is the nice translation most people see in their bible, but the direct hebrew translation is enlarged, take it as you will)

"O, Jonathan, slain upon the high places, I am distressed for thee, my brother Jonathan; Very pleasant hast thou been unto me: Thy love to me was wonderful, surpassing the love of women."

Whether or not they were gay lovers, I think the important part of their story is their deep and loyal friendship through all of their struggles. Including Saul, who actually tried to kill David our of anger over their relationship.
 
bananabrain said:
interesting - how does the text imply that?


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.


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
Click to expand...


It is a really well written and honest book. He acknowledges both sides to all of his arguments and generally just asks for the readers to promote tolerance.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top