Melissa,

Simple in principle, but sure it is hard in practice to see someone do something that you think is wrong. Still, you can love them. Are you really saying that it is impossible to love someone with whom you disagree strongly? I would think that your Catholic background would instruct you differently: God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son – even when the world was in rebellion against Him, and even when He knew the world would murder His Son. And yet He came anyway. That’s the best example of love in the face of disagreement!

For a more down to earth example, I have (heterosexual) relatives who live with their “significant other” out of wedlock. I think that’s tremendously wrong, too, but I don’t hate them for it, and I hope they’ll get married and rectify the situation (I think both parties deserve better!). Love is wanting the best for people. The difference between you and I is that we disagree about what is actually best for them. We have a factual disagreement. But I don’t go around saying that you hate people or are intolerant of them because of what homosexuality is going to do to them, which I could do, but think that would be an illegitimate and uncharitable move on my part.

You still, I think, haven’t squarely faced my question about negatively labeling people without understanding why they believe what they do. When you proceed to do so from ignorance and broadbrush people like you’ve shown in this forum, that sure seems to fit the definition of bigotry.

Regards,

Steve

I’m so totally happy that Dumbledore is gay because in fact, it makes a lot of sense that he is and was in love with Grindelwald. His eccentric actions and personality aside, in DH, young Albus seemed completely smitten with young Gellert. It was in the way he raptly paid attention to Gellert, how even his thinking moulded Dumbledore’s own despite how different they were. In a way, if someone against gay people would read that part in the book they would just see someone with a fixation that meant more like idol worship than anything romantic-like so I guess it really depends on who’s reading.

And actually, there was a need for JK to reveal his sexual orientation. Reading the article itself would make that reason very clear. Someone asked JK if Dumbledore ever loved someone else thus JK had to give a reply. And she replied that basically yes, Ablus had loved someone and surprisingly, it’s not a girl but a guy since she would also obviously divulge a bit more of information about it.

So yeah. I’m kind of a little irked at people who think that this announcement was completely pointless because you know, JK was answering a question.

Again, Dumbledore rocks harder now.

MusicJunky—Out of curiosity, why does Dumbledore’s orientation lessen your affection for the character? On paper, is he not the exact same character that you’ve loved and admired for a decade?

I guess I’m just trying to figure out why she has been picturing (of all the characters in the storyline) this one, single character as gay? Maybe it’s just coincidence, but I have to think that her picturing him as gay was done to somehow write him in that certain way. My initial reaction when I read the news was a recognition that Dumbledore is the quinesential protagonist – he’s the most powerful mentally and physically and he seems morally superior to everyone else as well. I suppose JKR could simply be trying to say that this character could just as likely been gay as not been gay, but the fact is she’s been writing him as gay from day one (by her admission, right?). But since we don’t see any blatant or allusions to sexual encounters, there must be a reason that visualizing him gay helped her develop the character into who he is, right?

I’m thinking through this as I write it and don’t mind being wrong – just trying to figure out what the point was I suppose. Why the man’s sexuality was decided one way or the other from the beginning just seems odd to me. This is children’s literature afterall, right? Gay/Straight/whatever: it just seems an odd decision to even make one way or another about a children’s character.

I suppose it could simply be that she’s trying to persuade her young readers that gay people deserve to be treated equally and that they are just like everyone else (personally, the way I would phrase it is that all people are image-bearers of God and thus on equal footing with each other when it comes to their importance as people). Making someone that everyone can’t help but love, be a gay man certain goes to convincing those young readers that maybe they should treat gay people better (even if this particular gay person is not only dead, but never really existed in the first place ;-).

I love to see that she had so much back-story worked out on the various characters.

Steve, So in your post about how you hope that your unmarried couple relatives who live together will get married is just you “looking out” for their best interests. But honestly, some people are uncomfortable with marriage but are in loving and devoted relationships nonetheless.

In that sense, are you hoping that your gay friends will “turn straight” since you believe that being gay is a negative part of their lives? Because that sounds like you’re hoping they will become something they’re not, which is not something I would wish for anyone that I cared about. It just seems a little backhanded to say that you genuinely like and care about your gay friends, but imply that you hoped they weren’t gay because you think that would be better for them.

I don’t think people should have to change who they are because society gives them a hard time about it. Instead, I think it’s society that should change and should take a good lesson in tolerance.

Ann,

If this gets posted twice, my apologies. It’s not showing up for some reason.

Two things real quick:

First, I think there should be more tolerance for gay people. I know that there have been abuses, people being beaten up, and sometimes killed over this, and I think that’s wrong. I think homosexuals should enjoy the same basic rights that heterosexuals do. But tolerance also presupposes disagreement, and need not mean advocacy for all circumstances (e.g. the definition of marriage).

Second, while the jury is still out on the precise causes of homosexuality, I’m open to genetic predisposition. That’s not the same as genetic determination, though. I think people can and often do conquer genetic or other physical predispositions. Most males are predisposed to desire sex outside of marriage, for example, but I’m not an advocate for encouraging adultery or premarital sex or enshrining them in law, either.

Who have you read on the other side of the issue, Ann?

Regards,

Steve

I’m ebaying my books purely because Rowling is a big marketing freak. She killed nice characters, made Harry a dull wizard with arrogance with no one to care and now this. It’s a plea for attention, it deprives the quality of books i have in my mind. I liked the way she presented the concept of death but not this, this is clearly a attention-seeking stunt.

I’ve stopped reading people’s posts. Theres just waaay too much self righteous people with too much free time who believe that THEIR belief is the only correct/normal/true way…and that anyone that believes differently…are just plain wrong.

STOP POSTING ON THESE COMMENTS AND GET ON WITH YOUR LIVES FOR GOD/ALLAH/JEHOVAHS/BUDDHAS SAKES!!!

DUMBLEDORE’S GAY…NOTHING YOU OR ANYBODY SAYS HERE IS GOING TO MATTER ONE TINY BIT…

Peace!

Ann & Melissa,

I think I’ve already stated my position over the last few pages. We could probably go back and forth all night on this. I’ll say this in closing. I don’t like this aspect of human society on an instinctive level. However, this is Rowling’s story, so if she wanted to write a main character as “gay” from the start, then that is fine. It is her story. However, if that was her intent, then she should have had the courage to place it directly the storyline at some point. Preferably, in Book One or Two. This would have allowed readers who are not comfortable with this concept to avoid any further investment in the series. She did not do this. She watched the money roll in until well after the last book was released and then she decided to “reveal” the big secret. That is dishonest and cowardly and she should not be commended for that behavior.

I just want to know this. The people who are saying they now can’t see the character the same, and don’t like him anymore just because he’s gay, I guess you turn your backs against your mother if she suddenly went out with a woman, or your son if he went out with a guy. Guess you are the kinds of people who loved your best friend, but the second he/she came out, you told every secret they ever told you and slandered their name. I guess your the kind of people that haven’t talked to your brother in years because he’s been in a happy relationship with a guy, while you can’t even get a woman to stay with you. If that’s the case, then you never liked the character, and you were never fans of the books. Love is suppose to be about rising above everything, every flaw or so called ‘sin’ and accepting everyone as they are. Guess you all can’t pratice what you preach.

I accept Roxy, the local street walker, and buy her coffee on cold nights, but don’t care too much for her lifestyle. This is not a black and white issue, there is gray area. Anyone who thinks otherwise needs to come off their pedastal.

steve… melissa and ann are just reacting to the “hateful” statements that a lot of people here saying…. they did not start this argument… they are simply reacting to a voice that is harmful to the feeling of gay people and their straight allys…. like a mother protecting her gay or straight child…..

they sprewed hate and ignorance by equating homosexuality with pedophillia… it wasn’t hate that they retaliated—but anger… don’t equate anger with bigotry.

steve – you are so eloquent.. and yours post so well made… and yet all i can feel from your words are hate (hate is a strong word but it is hate nonetheless)... under the guise of “concern” and “love” and “what’s best for them”....

please… mr. steve.. get off your moral high horse… the horse is tired and misused….

One of the first time my opinion of Rowling dropped. I feel that it is unnecessary, and too much information- we didn’t really to know about his sexuality.

Second what Ann and Melissa had to say.

Could not have put it better myself.

Ann and Mellisa’s comment:

I think I’ve already stated my position over the last few pages. We could probably go back and forth all night on this. I’ll say this in closing. I don’t like this aspect of human society on an instinctive level. However, this is Rowling’s story, so if she wanted to write a main character as “gay” from the start, then that is fine. It is her story. However, if that was her intent, then she should have had the courage to place it directly the storyline at some point. Preferably, in Book One or Two. This would have allowed readers who are not comfortable with this concept to avoid any further investment in the series. She did not do this. She watched the money roll in until well after the last book was released and then she decided to “reveal” the big secret. That is dishonest and cowardly and she should not be commended for that behavior.