I don’t really care either way. But it does explain why Dumbledore was so reluctant to agree with Harry when he praised him of his bravery when he didn’t have the courage to come out.
OK, I made it to the bottom of the 31st page, and I’m tired … but not too tired to add my two cents!
Was I surprised that DD turned out to be gay? Yes. Did it matter a jot? No. I had just never thought about his love life. Or Flitwick’s, or Sprout’s, or Hooch’s. It’s probably not something Harry would have spent a lot of time thinking about, either, and this IS Harry’s story. The people who are upset by this revelation, particularly those planning to banish or burn the books, are just plain sad. There is no more to be said about these intolerant folk. Those who are exclaiming, ‘I knew it!’ and citing ridiculous proof like purple suits or his exceptional kindness are exhibiting another odd sort of bigotry (all gays like to dress flamboyantly and are extremely sensitive?).
That said, I AM glad that we’ve had a gay character emerge in HP, precisely because it was not a big part of his identity. I told my ten-year-old daughter this tidbit today (along with all the other revelations Jo announced at the same event) and her response was, ‘Cool. I’ll tell my friends.’ IT’S NOT A BIG DEAL.
The tangents have been diverting … Scripture, semantics, linguistics, geography, pedophiles, etc. Just two things I must protest. First, the double and triple and quadruple posting. Figure it out, guys! Second, my previous incarnation as an English teacher is getting really tired of people protesting that they’re not homophobic because they’re ‘not afraid of gays’. That is a misconception, confusing the roots of the word with the definition. Surely you wouldn’t define ‘hydrophobia’ as ‘fear of water’, even if that is the etymology.
TOLERANCE. TOLERANCE. TOLERANCE.
Melissa M.-
Please do not speak for the Catholic Church if you are not familiar it’s current position on homosexuality. I understand that as a Catholic raised by Catholics you’ve been led to believe a certain perspective. The Catholic Church acknowledges that some people are homosexual in nature and that this is not in anyway sinful. It is acts of homosexuality that the Church instructs Catholics to not engage in. The Catholic Church is firm on the concept that sexual intimacy is for procreation. It’s not anti-anything. Many people disagree. Fair enough, but that doesn’t make the Catholic Church bigoted for having that belief. As the Church has no problem asking it’s priests and nuns to practice celibacy, it’s not out of line with their other teachings regarding personal choices for them to provide this instruction to homosexuals as well. Real love, does not have to be a sexual act.
As a Catholic, I see nothing that JKR revealed regarding DD that is inconsistent with the Church. So DD is a homosexual. It does not appear that he is actively pursuing intimate relationships. The Church is actually far more tolerant than most people understand. Perhaps to the casual observer, they assume that Catholics are the most conservative so that must equate to the most intolerant. It really isn’t the same thing. “God is Love” is Pope Benedict’s first encyclical. Real love is what Harry displayed for his fellow man.
I think JKR had 3 dimensional characters in all her books. That this is part of DD’s backstory is not a big surprise.
FUCK THE CATHOLICS!! LOL WHO CARES ABOUT THEIR POSITION ON TEH GAYS??!! NOT ME!
I don’t really care that Dumbledore is gay. He was still witty, and a good addition to the series. I just think that someone with so much influence and someone so looked up to in a time that the world has so many conflicting views about so many different things should have said that in such a way.
It’s not that I think anything is wrong with it, love is love… but look at how impressionable harry potter has been to so many young people. Does the homosexual community really want people to jump on for the sole purpose of ‘being like Dumbledore?’ I think that it’s going to cause problems for them as well.
I think people have the right to choose for themselves how the want to feel about their sexual orientation, because it’s something that defines a person. Should we really have to be influenced by one of the most well-known icons of this generation?
I know that this’ll help a lot of people feel comfortable with their homosexuality, but there’s always an opposite side, right? There’s always going to be diehard people that make choices because of impressions that were made on them in their youth.
I just wish.. that if it was going to be introduced, it would’ve been done so in a way that everyone could understand the aspect of sexuality better. I’m a straight male, I don’t know much about homosexuality, so reading the interview and the ‘oh by the way he’s gay’ doesn’t really help.
I think that if she really wanted to show that gay people can be just as impressionable and moral as straight people, she should’ve given more insight on it, because there are a lot of us who don’t really DISCUSS or KNOW how a gay person feels. I think the best way to help would have been to explore that side of sexuality just a tad bit more (in moderation, for the younger people – no erotica ;)) that way, the next time someone decides to make a generalisation, at least they’d be more informed. Just.. leaving it at the offhanded comment like she did… is just like.. opening the flood gates for more flaming against people who do nothing more than try to find happiness. Really? I feel bad about it, It’s already inspiring hate in these comments.
ms. sueb… so what do you suggest that homosexual people do? stay celibate? so to be part of the catholic church… it’s okay to be gay just as long you don’t comsumate… so if i were gay and i have a male partner i would just love him with all my heart…. and what do you suggest we do in the private of our own homes? knit? i agree this is not ignorance by the catholic church… it’s hypocricy… i am a catholic man. i went to a catholic school.. even went to a catholic college – not just a catholic college – a pontifical college – The University of Santo Tomas. i know my catholicsm… i am still a catholic… and always will be… but this rule of not engaging in homosexual act is preposterous…. it’s hypocrisy at the very least…
It has been interesting to note the reaction to this news worldwide. Whatever the backstory to the characters in the world of Harry Potter, whether you’re for or against what JK has recently said – or ever said – here’s a thought for those who are so quick to criticize:
Ultimately the Harry Potter series is JK’s work and books. She’s the one who spent 17 years creating, researching and writing these characters and this world. As a result, she has the right to decide what each character does, feels, believes and experiences. That’s the joy and pain of being an author.
If you don’t agree with her, then don’t read the books or, better still, go write your own.
Kudos to her for not only creating a fantastic series of stories and characters as well as promoting such a strong and welcome set of values (among which is the philosophy that bravery, valour and honesty will always win the day – hear, hear!!), but also for being true to herself and her characters.
I’m reading some of these comments and there are people who are saying things like JK went too far by saying that Dumbledore is gay. Some people are saying that she shouldn’t have said what orientation he was at all. The fact of the matter is that if Dumbledore had been paired with a women then there would be NONE of this controversy. The complainers are basically taking a ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ stance. They’ve said things like ‘she should have just said it was great love. Now that she’s said that he’s gay then she’s made it about sex.’ So basically what you’re saying is that if JK couldn’t have just left him straight then she just shouldn’t have clearly defined him as ‘gay’. Is that so that you could keep on envisioning him as straight so that you would like him more? It sounds like you were perfectly fine with this character until it was stated outright that he was attracted to men and not women. And that’s all you can say by this bit of news. You assumed that this character was probably straight and now that you know differently, you’re just upset and just plain don’t like this development. I think that you should take a look at yourself and ask yourself why you inherently have dislike for character over a personal aspect of themselves that doesn’t affect you. Sounds like a personal problem to me.
Oh, and one more thing. The reason that JK didn’t announce this earlier or include this in the books was probably because other than Grindelwald, his sexuality didn’t affect the storyline. We were never told McGonagall whether was or wasn’t gay. We were never told whether Dumbledore was or wasn’t gay. UNTIL someone brought up a question regarding it. And only then was it revealed, because SHE ANSWERED A QUESTION. Thank you.
Thanks for the support muggle. I didn’t really think they would delete my first post, but they apparently did. Most of the rest won’t make much sense to people without that first one. Must have offended the powers that be. lol. :-)
NEVILLE MARRIED HANNAH?! No way! I can undertand why there’s over 1,700 replies here, by golly! I too am outraged that Neville didn’t marry Luna, because that was clearly a match made in Heaven, and…um…
...oh, this is about Dumbledore being gay? Huh, weird. Homosexuality has been around for thousands of years. I rather thought we’d be used to it by now.
We should put all the gays (and Dumbledore) onto a secluded island in the south Pacific where they can perform all of their depraved sinful acts where we don’t have to hear about it. T
I’M SO HAPPY RIGHT NOW. Oh my god. JK actually turned one of her characters gay….. I love her, she’d my hero :’D
Just in case Leaky’s censors accidently deleted my first post from page 41, here it is again! :-)
“This was a completely unnecessary move and it has only put a black stain on an otherwise delightful series. Many people read fantasy for brief escapes from the “real world.” Rowling has rewarded her loyal readers by slapping them across the face with one of the most divisive issues of our time. There was absolutely no need to ascribe Dumbledore a sexual orientation. I find it interesting that Rowling never mentioned this before. The first book was published in the mid 90’s and nothing was ever said about Dumbledore and this issue during the years between Book One and Book Seven. I suspect that Rowling knows this would hurt book sales…oh wait…she “postponed” this “revelation” until well after the release of the last book. A “revelation” that is sure to ruin the entire series for millions of readers. That is, millions of readers who have already bought every Harry Potter book. I would say that this is a horribly disrespectful move to the fans that made her obscenely rich, but “Disrespect” is not nearly a strong enough word. Shady? Slimy? Disdainful? Hateful? Well, it will come to me eventually. This announcement wouldn’t nearly have been as bad if Rowling had mentioned it early on in order to allow people a choice as to whether they wanted to continue to read and buy her books. As for me, I’m glad I waited so long to buy into the series. I have read the entire series, but the only book I’ve actually purchased is Book One. I was planning on buying the entire hardcover gift set for Christmas, but now I will be returning The Sorcerer’s Stone to get my money back. I would encourage others to reward Rowling’s arrogance by NOT buying Harry Potter merchandise. Though, at this point, she is so wealthy that it would make little difference to her. Rowling, this was so unnecessary…”
If Dumbledore was gay then I think Malfoy,Crabb,and Goyle are diffently gay. Draco hung out with Pansy Parkinson.Who were Crabb and Goyles love interest?