Well Johnny –
Yes I’ve seen an American Rainbow Alliance website page that breezily gives the passages from Kings about the love of David and Jonathan as incontrovertible proof that they were a gay couple (presumably in the modern sense). I speak as a complete non-expert, but think like you that I can safely say that this is pressing things a bit too far.
However, from the Wiki article that I posted I note that the contrary argument is that David and Jonathan’s love was ‘purely Platonic’. This is to use the term ‘Platonic love’ very loosely. The term comes from Plato’s Symposium where the Eros/desire born of ‘poverty and hunger’ that is celebrated is homoerotic. It begins in the love of one man for the physical beauty of another and then the desire transcends it immediate object as it awakens a desire for the Eternal Form of Beauty in a Platonic heaven. Now the desire that David and Jonathan express for each other certainly seems of an intensity that is rooted in erotic longing – whether or not it was physically consummated or not is impossible to say; but its erotic basis seems clear to me and this does not seem to embarrass the author of Kings. As far as I know the only sin of the flesh for which David is really held accountable is the indirect murder of Uriah the Hittite so that he can have access to Uriah’s wife. Otherwise David’s sensuality is not censured, including the tragic-comic detail of Abishag the Shulamite maid snuggling up to the ageing King to revivify him – although sadly he is impotent and near death. Of course, in the rewrite of this history, in the Book of Chronicles, David’s sensual abandon is toned down (and Abishag is written out of the story).
It seems to me that the author of Kings is not embarrassed to speak of homoerotic passions that centre on honour and the loyalty of comrades in arms (that are not hard to come by in the poetry of warriors in most cultures). I can’t imagine any puritan fundamentalist today celebrating the love of comrades in such terms – because they would fear being in breach of Leviticus and of standing under the judgement of Sodom.
Some will argue that this is to misunderstand the cultural context – in these times men were far more comfortable showing emotion together. Well that’s true in a way, and it’s still true in the middle east today (and in other cultures that are strong on machismo)– where men kiss each other full on the mouth as a greeting in some countries, and walk down the road hand in hand together without thinking they are gay. But in cultures where women are confined to the private sphere – as David’s wives and concubines would have been – the whole concept of homosexuality is different it seems. Men who do have physical relationships don’t necessarily consider they are gay – so long as they are married (and don’t consider themselves in breach of Divine command, so long as they don’t have full sex – everything else is OK).
I once read an essay by James Alison in which he claimed that the modern concept of the gay man – out of the closet –has much to do with the feminisation of the work place. Now women are in the public sphere they use their ‘gaydar’ intuition to discern men’s sexuality by weighing up the response of individual men to them as women. Perhaps he’s got a point – this may well be a big reason for the shift towards openness and emotional intelligence regarding gay relationships.
Yes, I can see why gay men could see the love of David and Jonathan as affirmation of the love they have together (however different the context may be). I can see that the fact that the love of David and Jonathan is bonded in loyalty and honour might also be important as an affirmation.
Any thoughts? (and hope you are feeling a bit less groggy)
Dick
at the moment so want to go easy on them 
). Will return soon and wish you and all here (Bret, Eric, Sass, Andy, Anthony etc - in no particular order - a wonderful summer (I do have some more stuff to post here later which may get the conversation started again)