With Jonathan there was no punishment to David and it wasn't condemned.
What do you call Saul's rant where he called Jonathan the "son of a perverse and rebellious woman", said he was choosing David due to his own confusion and the confusion of his mothers nakedness, then tried to kill him? If Saul was only thinking about preserving the kingdom for Jonathan by wanting to kill David, he wouldn't have tried to kill Jonathan, that doesn't make any sense. I doubt that someone would try to kill their own son, their heir, just because that son asked why he wanted to kill his friend. That's not how you preserve the kingdom for your heir. David and Jonathan were doing something that made Saul furious enough to not only curse his own son and say he was confused, but to try to kill him.
Why would Jonathan be "confused" if they were just friends, why would Saul feel the need to mention that Jonathan's mom was perverse, and why would Saul try to kill Jonathan, his heir?
Also, just because something wasn't specifically condemned immediately doesn't mean anything... the guy who killed and butchered up his concubine wasn't condemned, the practice of taking multiple wives and concubines was never condemned, etc. Are these things ok since they weren't condemned?