David and Jonathan

[Wiccan_Child]

One in the same. Not to mean that they believe all the same things, but on this issue specifically.

What do the jews believe on the subject.
Well, if even the hebrews don't understand it that way...
The former implies modern Jews, the latter implies the Bronze-age Middle-Eastern Jews.

But I will assume you are talking of the latter.

So about what issue, specifically, do you want to know the ancient Hebrew's opinion? David and Bathsheba? David and Jonathan? Homosexuality in general? Homosexual sex in specific?

It was (there is no debate about that) a sin.

Sexual things are not really even related to love.

You made the comparison, not I. Do you retract it?

Besides, it is between to men. That cannot possibly be romantic. Just sexual. Not to say that they were.

I hope you're prepared to back this up. Demonstrate how two men cannot be romantically in love.

Indeed, in the context of the Bible:
1) In the English, David and Jonathan 'loved' each other.
2) In the Hebrew, David and Jonathan 'אהבה-ed' each other.
3) 'אהבה' is only used in the Bible to describe what we in the anglosphere call romantic love.
4) Therefore, David and Jonathan romantically loved each other.

(You clearly missed this the last time I posted it).

 

[RMDY]

While the traditional English translations create confusion with the multiple meanings of 'love', the Hebrew word used (אהבה, or 'ahavah) is only ever used in the Bible to mean romantic, sexual love (Genesis 29:20; 2 Samuel 13:15; Proverbs 5:19; Song-of-songs 2:4-7, 3:5-10, 5:8; etc).

I looked up ahavah and it doesn't just mean only those things, nor it is only used in the bible to describe only sexual love.

"God created the world with love and sustains the world with love.

The love of God for Israel.the love of Israel for God (the origin of this pair of loves is referred to as ahavah rabbah, the "great [and infinite] love").

the love of a master for his disciple.
the love of a disciple for his master. The love between disciples (the origin of these three loves is the love of the Torah).
The love between friends (the origin of these three loves is the love of Israel).
The love of a parent for his/her child.
The love of a child for his/her parent.
The love between siblings (the origin of these three loves is the love of the land of Israel, the eternal physical link between generations).
the love of a king for his subjects."
http://www.inner.org/powers/powahava.htm

Furthermore, another Hebrew website describes such love between Jonathan and David as a deep, abiding friendship.
http://www.hebrew4christians.com/Glossary/Word_of_the_Week/Archived/Ahavah/ahavah.html

 

[WashedBytheSon]

I am aware of the different types of love. I love my friends differently to how I love my mother, for example.
But my point was that Jonathan and David were sexually attracted to each other. This is the definition of homosexuality: sexual attraction to one's own sex.
That they romantically loved each other is another point altogether.

Homosexuality is condemned by God, so David and Jonathan weren't homosexual. They would have been killed were they homosexual. Not only that, but there are no homosexual heroes in the bible. So, sorry, but no, David and Jonathan were not gay. They loved each other like brothers, that doesn't make them gay.

 

[david_x]

What do the jews believe on the subject.
Well, if even the hebrews don't understand it that way...
The former implies modern Jews, the latter implies the Bronze-age Middle-Eastern Jews.

But I will assume you are talking of the latter.

So about what issue, specifically, do you want to know the ancient Hebrew's opinion? David and Bathsheba? David and Jonathan? Homosexuality in general? Homosexual sex in specific?

David and Jonathan.

Both the Hebrews and the Jews.

You made the comparison, not I. Do you retract it?

You must be kidding! You continue to compare the two, "sexually/ romantic".

 

[RMDY]

3) 'אהבה' is only used in the Bible to describe what we in the anglosphere call romantic love.
4) Therefore, David and Jonathan romantically loved each other.

Hi friend =)
Once again, thank you for your posts =)
I appreciate your comments. If it weren't for you, I wouldn't have known about the Hebrew word אהבה

"To demonstrate how serious he was about his covenant commitment, Jonathan "took off the robe he was wearing and gave it to David, along with his tunic, and even his sword, his bow and his belt" (18:4). As King Saul’s firstborn son, Jonathan was the heir apparent to Israel’s throne. By giving his robe (a symbol of the kingdom) to David, he was submitting to God’s will by affirming the Lord’s choice of David to become the next king (see 15:27-28).
Earlier, Saul had tried to dress David in his own tunic and armor to protect him from the warrior Goliath, but David "was not used to them" and so demurred (17:38-39). Now Jonathan gives David his tunic and armor, and David does not refuse. What David could not accept from Saul, he accepts from Saul’s son."
http://www.moodymagazine.com/articles.php?action=view_article&id=385

"A man that hath friends must shew himself friendly: and there is a friend that sticketh closer than a brother." – Proverbs 18:24

"Jesus and Peter loved each other and they were not homosexuals... and the love of Jesus to Peter was more wonderful than that of a woman!... it is the most you can say of a friend of the same or different sex, specially right after his death... and it does not indicate any homosexuality at all."
http://biblia.com/jesusbible/1samuel4b.html

 

[david_x]

Well, i think we have wasted a great deal of time. Turns out that all we need to unite us is a common enemy. Not trying to sound to Gengis Kahn but still.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

I looked up ahavah and it doesn't just mean only those things, nor it is only used in the bible to describe only sexual love.

"God created the world with love and sustains the world with love.

The love of God for Israel.the love of Israel for God (the origin of this pair of loves is referred to as ahavah rabbah, the "great [and infinite] love").

the love of a master for his disciple.
the love of a disciple for his master. The love between disciples (the origin of these three loves is the love of the Torah).
The love between friends (the origin of these three loves is the love of Israel).
The love of a parent for his/her child.
The love of a child for his/her parent.
The love between siblings (the origin of these three loves is the love of the land of Israel, the eternal physical link between generations).
the love of a king for his subjects."
http://www.inner.org/powers/powahava.htm

This article would beg to differ:
1) love
a) human love for human object
1) of man toward man
2) of man toward himself
3) between man and woman
4) sexual desire
2) God's love to His people

I.e., companionship, pride, romance, lust, and divine love. We are talking of love between two people, so it's neither pride nor divine love; romance and lust are distinct possibilities, especially in light of the whole of 1 Samuel.

Companionship, while possible, would not make sense in light of their actions and comments (Jonathan disrobing for David; referring to the nakedness of one's parents (a common Biblical euphamism for sex); 1S20:31 "Why, as long as the [David] lives upon the earth you cannot make good your claim to the kingship!" (i.e., Jonathan would not be able to produce an heir and ascend to the throne while he was still with David: he is in a homosexual relationship with him); etc).

That is, the actions and comments surrounding David and Jonathan belies a non-sexual / non-romantic friendship.

Thus, only a sexual and/or romantic relationship remains. Point made.

Furthermore, another Hebrew website describes such love between Jonathan and David as a deep, abiding friendship.
http://www.hebrew4christians.com/Glossary/Word_of_the_Week/Archived/Ahavah/ahavah.html

Perhaps, but their choice of meaning for 'ahavah' is just that: their choice.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Homosexuality is condemned by God,

Where?

so David and Jonathan weren't homosexual.

So sinners can't exist in the Bible?

Not only that, but there are no homosexual heroes in the bible.

Why not?

So, sorry, but no, David and Jonathan were not gay. They loved each other like brothers, that doesn't make them gay.

I suggest you read my posts after the one you quoted.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

David and Jonathan.

Both the Hebrews and the Jews.

I'm completely lost. What is your point?

You must be kidding! You continue to compare the two, "sexually/ romantic".

I was referring to the comparison between David & Bathsheba, and David & Jonathan.
But 'sexually/romantically' refers to either 'sexually', or 'romantically', or 'sexually and romantically'. I thought this was pretty clear. My point is that if they are either sexually attracted to one another, or romantically involved, or sexually attracted and romantically involved, then they are gay/bi.

 

[WashedBytheSon]

Where?



So sinners can't exist in the Bible?



Why not?


I suggest you read my posts after the one you quoted.

It is condemned in Leviticus 18:22, Romans 1:26, 27, Jude 7, and (this one is vague, I suppose, but I will use it anyway) 1 Corinthians 6:9

Sinners exist in the bible. That has nothing to do with it. Homosexuality is wrong, David would have been rebuked for it just like he was rebuked by God for all of his other sins, and there is nothing in the Bible about David being rebuked by God for being homosexual. That and, people in the bible are not glorified for their sins. They would not be described as 'homosexual heroes' as if being homosexual is a good thing, when it is quite the opposite according to scripture.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

It is condemned in Leviticus 18:22, Romans 1:26, 27, Jude 7, and (this one is vague, I suppose, but I will use it anyway) 1 Corinthians 6:9

Leviticus 18:22, besides translating to a direct condemnation of male-male sex, can also be translated with equal accuracy to a condemnation of male-male sex in a woman's marital bed. Indeed, the latter conforms with the pattern observed in the rest of Leviticus: seperating that which should not be mixed.

Romans 1 contains a letter from Paul to the Christians in Rome, detailing the effects of reverting to Pagan idolatry. Indeed, the verse you quote only indirectly condemns going against one's nature (straight men having sex with each other, gay men having sex with women, etc). It is not a condemnation of homosexuality in and of itself, in the same way that it is not a condemnation of heterosexuality in and of itself.

Jude 7 uses the term 'σαρκος ετερας' ('strange flesh', 'perverted sensuality', 'unnatural lust', etc), which, in light of it's prior reference to Sodom, is traditionally interpreted as a condemnation of homosexuality. However, the sin of Sodom is never shown to be homosexuality itself, but rather inhospitality and ignoring the needs of the poor. 'σαρκος ετερας' is never defined, and translators takes much liberty in interpreting this verse to their personal bias.

1 Corinthians 6:9 is Paul's condemnation of prostitution, general immorality, and defiling a marital bed, nothing more. It is an instance of the commonly mistranslated 'malakoi oyte arsenokoitai' verses.

Sorry, try again.

Sinners exist in the bible. That has nothing to do with it. Homosexuality is wrong, David would have been rebuked for it just like he was rebuked by God for all of his other sins, and there is nothing in the Bible about David being rebuked by God for being homosexual.

Of course, this only holds up if you can demonstrate that the Bible holds homosexuality as a sin.

That and, people in the bible are not glorified for their sins. They would not be described as 'homosexual heroes' as if being homosexual is a good thing, when it is quite the opposite according to scripture.

The Bible does not hold them as heroes for their homosexuality. Your point is moot.

 

[DMagoh]

Leviticus 18:22, besides translating to a direct condemnation of male-male sex, can also be translated with equal accuracy to a condemnation of male-male sex in a woman's marital bed. Indeed, the latter conforms with the pattern observed in the rest of Leviticus: seperating that which should not be mixed.

Romans 1 contains a letter from Paul to the Christians in Rome, detailing the effects of reverting to Pagan idolatry. Indeed, the verse you quote only indirectly condemns going against one's nature (straight men having sex with each other, gay men having sex with women, etc). It is not a condemnation of homosexuality in and of itself, in the same way that it is not a condemnation of heterosexuality in and of itself.

Jude 7 uses the term 'σαρκος ετερας' ('strange flesh', 'perverted sensuality', 'unnatural lust', etc), which, in light of it's prior reference to Sodom, is traditionally interpreted as a condemnation of homosexuality. However, the sin of Sodom is never shown to be homosexuality itself, but rather inhospitality and ignoring the needs of the poor. 'σαρκος ετερας' is never defined, and translators takes much liberty in interpreting this verse to their personal bias.

1 Corinthians 6:9 is Paul's condemnation of prostitution, general immorality, and defiling a marital bed, nothing more. It is an instance of the commonly mistranslated 'malakoi oyte arsenokoitai' verses.

Sorry, try again.

Paul warned Timothy about "itching ears" hearing what they wanted to hear, so they could go after their lusts...

3 For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. 4 They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths.
2 Timothy 4:3-4 (NIV)


The King James says "For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts..."


For the time will come when men will:

• not put up with sound doctrine
• gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear (to suit their own desires)
• turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths.

 

[RMDY]

This article would beg to differ:
[/size][/size][/font]1) love
a) human love for human object
1) of man toward man
2) of man toward himself
3) between man and woman
4) sexual desire
2) God's love to His people

I.e., companionship, pride, romance, lust, and divine love. We are talking of love between two people, so it's neither pride nor divine love; romance and lust are distinct possibilities, especially in light of the whole of 1 Samuel.

Companionship, while possible, would not make sense in light of their actions and comments (Jonathan disrobing for David; referring to the nakedness of one's parents (a common Biblical euphamism for sex); 1S20:31 "Why, as long as the [David] lives upon the earth you cannot make good your claim to the kingship!" (i.e., Jonathan would not be able to produce an heir and ascend to the throne while he was still with David: he is in a homosexual relationship with him); etc).

That is, the actions and comments surrounding David and Jonathan belies a non-sexual / non-romantic friendship.

Thus, only a sexual and/or romantic relationship remains. Point made.



Perhaps, but their choice of meaning for 'ahavah' is just that: their choice.

I left out "sexual desire" because I desired to show other meanings of the hebrew word for love. I have given examples how a person kissing another person and giving up their robes is not acts of a homosexual relationship, especially in the video of Yasser Arafat that I had posted. Furthermore, Peter loved Jesus more than women and Judas betrayed Jesus with a kiss.

I love Jesus more than I love my girlfriend. I can weap over him, kiss him, give him my robes and belongings to honor him, and say I love him with all my soul. This does not make me gay or homosexual.

I don't know what pagens teach, not to offend you =)
But as a christian, I have come to terms over the word "love."
I believe love has nothing to do with sex but has been perverted into a slang to mean that. Note: "make love" "lovin'"
1 Corinthians 12 and 13 are good examples of love.
In a relationship between two christians, sex is not the source of their love but only an expression of it through a physical act of bliss. But this is not what love is defined to be.
I've seen parents kiss their children on the lips and men with other men, but this is not homosexual. I personally am not customed to such things but it does not mean it is just because I am not customed to it.

Jonathan was the King's son. By Jonathan giving up all his weapons and armour and making a covenant with David, and not the other way around, he was affirming not only his friendship, but David as future king, not not Jonathan himself. Jonathan was humbling himself before David and giving him honor.

Of course Saul would get upset at David! He is protecting Saul's enemy! How would you feel if your own son protected your enemy! You'd be [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]ed off too wouldn't you and perverse is not to be confused with perverted, which I pointed out earlier by giving the actual definition of it.

I don't want to....accuse you or judge you of anything, but I have good ground to believe that Jonathan and David were not gay and were expressing a deep loving friendship. I also have grounds to believe that David, exposing himself to people, especially Saul, has nothing to do with an erection.

*sigh*

I used two websites that give a broader expression of what the hebrew word for love meant. Man to man love is a friendship, not a sexual one.

In fact, love in a way for sex would be lust, which is not the kind of love Jonathan and David had. They did not lust for one another nor did they fornicate with one another. Jonathan and David did not marry either. There was no sexual intercourse or relationship between David and Jonathan.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Paul warned Timothy about "itching ears" hearing what they wanted to hear, so they could go after their lusts...

3 For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. 4 They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths.
2 Timothy 4:3-4 (NIV)


The King James says "For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts..."


For the time will come when men will:

• not put up with sound doctrine
• gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear (to suit their own desires)
• turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths.

You're using the Bible's internal narrative to counter external critique? Do you have any idea what circular logic is?

 

[brightmorningstar]

Dear Wiccan-Child,

You're using the Bible's internal narrative to counter external critique? Do you have any idea what circular logic is?

Of course Christians use the Bible's internal narrative to counter external critique because we believe the Bible is the inspired word of God. To non believers it is not a benchmark that they would trust, but for Christians it is our benchmark.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Of course Christians use the Bible's internal narrative to counter external critique because we believe the Bible is the inspired word of God. To non believers it is not a benchmark that they would trust, but for Christians it is our benchmark.

My point is that it is not a valid counter. It is not a question of belief, but of logical debate.

 

[brightmorningstar]

Dear Wiccan_child,
Its logical enough to us to assume the benchmark we do, all you are doing is merely reject our benchmark as untrustworthy.
It is only a question of logical debate if one doesnt believe the Bible. Rememeber we think human reasoning is foolish compared to God's wisdom.

If you want to discuss same-sex attraction with regards scientific evidence, or lack of it, we can do, but the account of David and Johnathan is in the Bible, if you don't trust the Bible what does it matter to you about the account?

 

[WashedBytheSon]

Leviticus 18:22, besides translating to a direct condemnation of male-male sex, can also be translated with equal accuracy to a condemnation of male-male sex in a woman's marital bed. Indeed, the latter conforms with the pattern observed in the rest of Leviticus: seperating that which should not be mixed.

Romans 1 contains a letter from Paul to the Christians in Rome, detailing the effects of reverting to Pagan idolatry. Indeed, the verse you quote only indirectly condemns going against one's nature (straight men having sex with each other, gay men having sex with women, etc). It is not a condemnation of homosexuality in and of itself, in the same way that it is not a condemnation of heterosexuality in and of itself.

Jude 7 uses the term 'σαρκος ετερας' ('strange flesh', 'perverted sensuality', 'unnatural lust', etc), which, in light of it's prior reference to Sodom, is traditionally interpreted as a condemnation of homosexuality. However, the sin of Sodom is never shown to be homosexuality itself, but rather inhospitality and ignoring the needs of the poor. 'σαρκος ετερας' is never defined, and translators takes much liberty in interpreting this verse to their personal bias.

1 Corinthians 6:9 is Paul's condemnation of prostitution, general immorality, and defiling a marital bed, nothing more. It is an instance of the commonly mistranslated 'malakoi oyte arsenokoitai' verses.

Sorry, try again.


Of course, this only holds up if you can demonstrate that the Bible holds homosexuality as a sin.


The Bible does not hold them as heroes for their homosexuality. Your point is moot.

I find it interesting that you are proving my points. "separating what should not be mixed." That would mean men should not be sleeping with other men, and the same for women.

Paul did not write to the Roman church rebuking them for practicing pagan idolatry. The Roman church was actually doctrinally sound, and Paul was giving them more doctrinal and practical instructions (as all churches need). Romans 1:26, 27 does condemn homosexuality, as you admitted. It directly condemns homosexual behavior. If you read it in context, the theme of Romans is the righteousness the comes from God: the truth that God justifies guilty, condemned sinners by grace alone and through faith alone. 1:18-32 is specifically talking about God's wrath on sinful mankind, just as 1:8-15 detail the principles of spiritual leadership. Romans 1:26, 27 does not condemn heterosexuality, nothing close to it, since heterosexuality is the natural use (the rest of the bible doesn't condemn heterosexuality either). However, the Bible does condemn homosexuality in this passage, as I have said, and as you agreed although tried to argue otherwise.

Are you one of those people who believe homosexuality today is not the same as it was back then?

Jude 7 is condemning homosexuality. In the telling of what happened to Sodom and Gomorrah, the men of that city tried to rape the angels who were posing as men, who came to the city (going after strange flesh). There is really no way around it, sorry.

I don't really want to get into a debate on 1 Corinthians 6:9 since there is already a thread for it, but I will say this: the Greek word may refer to catamites, which is young boys kept for the purpose of prostitution, a common practice in the Greeco-Roman world. The term translated into Sodomites refers to the adult males who have homosexual sex with the boys (meaning homosexuality is wrong, as well as pedophilia).

I demonstrated it, you actually indirectly agreed with what I said. You tried to take the verses out of context, I left them in context and went off what they clearly say.

You cannot prove a homosexual relationship between David and Jonathan. You can speculate, and again that is only your speculation. If they were homosexual, they would have been rebuked for it. No sin is hidden from God. Anyway, you aren't even a Christian so your opinion on scripture would undoubtedly be skewed.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

I find it interesting that you are proving my points. "separating what should not be mixed." That would mean men should not be sleeping with other men, and the same for women.

On the contrary, your interpretation is an outright condemnation of a specific act, rather than condemning two simultaneous acts.

Paul did not write to the Roman church rebuking them for practicing pagan idolatry. The Roman church was actually doctrinally sound, and Paul was giving them more doctrinal and practical instructions (as all churches need). Romans 1:26, 27 does condemn homosexuality, as you admitted. It directly condemns homosexual behavior. If you read it in context, the theme of Romans is the righteousness the comes from God: the truth that God justifies guilty, condemned sinners by grace alone and through faith alone. 1:18-32 is specifically talking about God's wrath on sinful mankind, just as 1:8-15 detail the principles of spiritual leadership. Romans 1:26, 27 does not condemn heterosexuality, nothing close to it, since heterosexuality is the natural use (the rest of the bible doesn't condemn heterosexuality either). However, the Bible does condemn homosexuality in this passage, as I have said, and as you agreed although tried to argue otherwise.

First, I did not say that Paul was condemning the Romans for idolatry, I said he was warning them against it.
Second, I did not admit that Paul condemns homosexual behaviour, but rather behaviour against one's nature. For a straight man, this is indeed homosexuality. For a gay man, this is heterosexuality. The text does not exclude heterosexuality, and merely states that they went after 'strange flesh'. Incedental homosexual or heterosexual behaviour isn't condemned, but behaviour contrary to one's nature and caused by Pagan idolatry, is.

Are you one of those people who believe homosexuality today is not the same as it was back then?

Homosexuality is the sexual and/or romantic attraction to members of the same sex. Nothing in the human psyche has changed the prevalence of homosexuality in human culture. So no, I do not believe homosexuality has changed.

Jude 7 is condemning homosexuality. In the telling of what happened to Sodom and Gomorrah, the men of that city tried to rape the angels who were posing as men, who came to the city (going after strange flesh). There is really no way around it, sorry.

The attempted rape (which is debateable in itself) occured after God declared Sodom and Gomorrah to be sacked. The sin of Sodom is never stated to be one of homosexuality; indeed, other verses emphasise that the sin was primarily inhospitality and ignoring the needs of the poor. Given that one's life often depended on the hospitality of strangers, this was a grevious transgression on the part of the Sodomites.

I don't really want to get into a debate on 1 Corinthians 6:9 since there is already a thread for it, but I will say this: the Greek word may refer to catamites, which is young boys kept for the purpose of prostitution, a common practice in the Greeco-Roman world. The term translated into Sodomites refers to the adult males who have homosexual sex with the boys (meaning homosexuality is wrong, as well as pedophilia).

I disagree. It is only temple prostitution that is explicitly condemned. The fact that it was young boys being sought by older men is incedental, since this was widespread throughout Graceo-Rome.

I demonstrated it, you actually indirectly agreed with what I said. You tried to take the verses out of context, I left them in context and went off what they clearly say.

On the contrary, I clearly stayed in context, especially with Romans 1.

You cannot prove a homosexual relationship between David and Jonathan. You can speculate, and again that is only your speculation. If they were homosexual, they would have been rebuked for it. No sin is hidden from God.

Of course. I can neither disprove your position nor prove mine, and you can neither disprove my position nor prove yours. This is a semantics debate; our positions ultimately boil down to our interpretations.
That said, I disagree that they would have been rebuked for their homosexuality, since I still disgaree that the Bible condemns homosexuality at all. If my position is right, then your position on the rebuking of David and Jonathan is wrong.

Anyway, you aren't even a Christian so your opinion on scripture would undoubtedly be skewed.

On the contrary, my being unChristian would make me more unbiased than you, since I ultimately do not care what the Bible says on any topic. If it condemns homosexuality? That is unfortunate, but I'll get over it. If it does not? Then I will be pleased, insofar as one can be pleased with winning armchair philosophy.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Its logical enough to us to assume the benchmark we do, all you are doing is merely reject our benchmark as untrustworthy.
It is only a question of logical debate if one doesnt believe the Bible. Rememeber we think human reasoning is foolish compared to God's wisdom.

Not necessarily. The words of DMagoh, to whom I was initially replying, suggested that he believed that human rationality can be used to justify his theological position. I was demonstrating that this was false.

If you want to discuss same-sex attraction with regards scientific evidence, or lack of it, we can do, but the account of David and Johnathan is in the Bible, if you don't trust the Bible what does it matter to you about the account?

It matters to me because it affects my life. If it can be shown that two of the Bible's heroes were homosexual lovers, then those Christians who argue against homosexuality via the Bible will be disproven, and this is the vast majority of the anti-gay movement.