Originally posted by @divegeester
There is no literary evidence (as I’m aware) that this scripture is a reference by David to a homoerotic relationship between he and Jonathan, in fact the previous notations of “ love” between the two men are all indicative of a brotherly bond.
Nevertheless we can explore the point for purpose of debate and assume that one this occasion David was re ...[text shortened]... A similar contextual parallel would be David’s behaviour is the account of Uriah and Bathsheba.
True enough. So how about Matthew 19:11-12?
'Not everyone can accept this teaching, but only those to whom it is given. For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Let anyone accept this who can.”
'Here Jesus identifies three classes of men who should not marry women. Taking his categories in reverse order, first, there are those who have made themselves “eunuchs” for the kingdom of heaven, i.e., those who foreswear marriage to better serve God. Second, he mentions those who have been “made eunuchs by others,” an apparent reference to castrated males. But Jesus mentions a third category — eunuchs who were born that way. Some might argue that Jesus was referring to males born without testicles, but this would be extremely rare. Moreover, this interpretation ignores how the term “born eunuchs” was used in other literature of the time.
In the ancient world, including ancient Jewish culture (as reflected in the Talmud), “natural” or “born” eunuchs were not associated with missing testicles. Rather, they were associated with stereotypically effeminate characteristics and behavior (just like modern gay men), and were thought by Rabbi Eliezer to be subject to “cure” (just like modern gays). Moreover, as we have also seen, eunuchs were commonly associated with homosexual desire.'
http://wouldjesusdiscriminate.org/biblical_evidence.html (With thanks to ToO).