“Phil, read your posts, “homophobe”“bigots”, etc. It’s not necessary to resort to name-calling. Posted by Frank on October 21, 2007 @ 10:26 AM “

Explain to me how that is name-calling?

I wrote: //“Because the root of the problem is deeper than just the Harry Potter books. It goes into the root of society: the bigotry stemming from homophobia. The ignorance of homosexuals, transexuals, bisexuals, etc is clear when you read these messages.”//

You wrote: //Here we go again, every time a divergent view is expressed the name-calling starts. I had sincerely hoped for an intelligent dialogue on this forum.// Posted by Frank on October 21, 2007 @ 10:17 AM

You quoted something where I did not call anyone a “bigot”, or a “homophobe”. At least quote something RELEVANT.

Dear Jeremy,

It makes me sad to read you think homosexuality is all about sex. I feel like a broken record here, but I’ll just repeat myself again. Homosexuality is something you are born with. I didn’t wake up one day, snapped my fingers, and decided I’ll become a homosexual and have sex with men today just for the sake of sex.

Just like you are (I assume) a heterosexual. I doubt you woke up one day and decided you were one. You just are.

I also don’t really understand your quote about “I suppose that’s why they call it homosexuality”. Could you perhaps elaborate a bit more? Are you trying to insinuate because the word sex is in it, it’s all about sex? Wouldn’t heterosexuality be the same, then?

Because there is no hint that it was sexual and there is no reason to consider it as being such, that if they were homosexual then they would have received the death penalty at that time, because David claimed to love ‘the law of God’, which involved strict regulations against homosexuality, because it was never interpreted as homosexuality by any of the commentators (until perhaps recently)...

This comment board wouldnt even have 49 pages if she said he was happily married and had 3 children with a woman. Thats what makes this so wrong.

And Frank its not name calling. If I wanted to name call then I would have used something way more offensive than Bigot. Bigot – definition = someone who is predjudice towards someone else who does not have the same views, morals, ect

Ah Phil, such a politician, twisting your words when it fits you.

Do you have any evidence that indicates that it was?

Nope frank I don’t and you don’t have any evidence it WASN’T

And that my friends is the point.

“Because there is no hint that it was sexual and there is no reason to consider it as being such, that if they were homosexual then they would have received the death penalty at that time, because David claimed to love ‘the law of God’, which involved strict regulations against homosexuality, because it was never interpreted as homosexuality by any of the commentators (until perhaps recently)...”

Now we are bringing religion into this. Well done! (mockingly)

It’s funny that you have trouble understanding why I think that homosexuality is all about sex. I’ve had male friendships; I’ve even had strong affectionate feelings for male friends. But I’ve never had sex with any of them. The point at which homosexuality crosses the line is precisely the point at which it says, ‘males should be able to have sex with other males’.

Frank, show me the evidence where I name called. I am interested.

First, in a fictional universe full of diversity, with almost every ethnic group imaginable included – black people (Kingsley, Lee, Angelina, Dean, Blaise), Asian (Cho), Indian (the Patil twins), Eastern European (Krum and Karkaroff), Jews (Anthony Goldstein), Arabs (Moustaffa) etc. – I have always found the lack of gay people to be a conspicuous and alarming omission. It saddened me to miss such an oppurtunity to broaden accepptance and foster understanding. This is, after all, the central theme of the entire series – tolerance of all diversity. So, BRAVO JK!! To those who think having a differece of opinion on this topic does not make them a bigot, you are sadly mistaken and have obviously missed the entire point of the books. It is tantamount to having the different opinion that, because he was black, Kingsley should not be Minister of Magic, or that Harry should not have dated an Asian girl. Finally, to those who argue they see absolutely no evidence that this is true, read with a broader mind. Oh, and how’s this for evidence – JK created him, so if she says he’s gay, he’s gay!

Contrary to popular belief, being religious does not immediately make something irrelevent.

“Rather I was pointing out that this ‘revelation’ does, like it or not in today’s society, take on the question of sex. Blame the Skeeters for this one too, but there it is.”

I agree, Professor, and do blame the Skeeters and Death Eaters. But I definitely do not blame Jo. She’s not the one that goes there, it’s the Death Eaters of the world who do. Which is all the more reason for her to celebrate Albus completely as he was (including his gayness), just as she celebrated Harry or Hermione for who they were (including their straightness).

“Do you have any evidence that indicates that it was?

Nope frank I don’t and you don’t have any evidence it WASN’T

And that my friends is the point.”

What point did you make? You can’t prove a negative.

As far as the David and Jonathan relationship is concerned, there is no reason whatsoever to believe that their relationship was sexual, and several reasons, some of which I have mentioned, to believe that it was not.

In any case, even though I would not be at all ashamed to do so, I was not introducing religion to the discussion. What I was talking about might have involved a religious book, but it was historical in nature.

“Contrary to popular belief, being religious does not immediately make something irrelevent.”

You have no proof that your values are human. You only have faith that a supreme being was the root of all morality. There isnt even proof that homosexuality is forbidden in the Bible. It is your interpretation.