Don't know what to make of this. I'll process it and get back to you.
Later…Big discussion at Sword of Gryffindor. I'm still digesting.
Sunday, October 21: I'll be honest with you: I don't care about this. There's so much going on in my life right now, I can't summon the energy to say more than this: The fact that Rowling says character Dumbledore was attracted to men doesn't change how I feel about the Harry Potter series. I'm fond of the books, especially Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince, and I will always highly recommend the series to anyone who asks. I can say this for JKR: she's got her finger on the pulse of the publicity machine.
Maintained by La Shawn Barber, this site is not affiliated with Time Warner Entertainment Company, LP, Warner Brothers, The Walt Disney Company, Walden Media, Scholastic, Inc., or Bloomsbury Books. Copyrights and trademarks for books, films, articles, and other promotional materials are held by their respective owners. Their use is allowed under Fair Use.
Unless otherwise noted, site design modifications, original writing, and photography are copyrighted by LBC Media, All Rights Reserved.
Original WP theme Copyright Mike Little
October 20th, 2007 at 10:45 am
I'm speechless.
October 20th, 2007 at 12:38 pm
Is there really a need to? Does it change *anything* we know about the character, really? Certainly there are no overt signs of it in the book (although I always suspected it *might* be the case), and if anything, Dumbledore is someone whose personal life is never brought up.
October 20th, 2007 at 4:57 pm
I'm stunned too. Saddened that JKR felt it was necessary, and it acts as a spoiler to the series for me. I did not see any clips to put the quote into context, but unless things are really distorted, this seems pretty clear in what I saw on AOL.com when I logged into my e-mail this afternoon.
I can't imagine the mayhem this will create, and the banner waving of the Christians who will have the "I told you so mentality" and bash the books even more. The post-modern need for inclusion of the minority (thanks, John Granger for your clarification of this in your Unlocking the Secrets of Harry Potter Book on this) has made homosexuality a valued topic, and in the media, many TV shows now have their token gay to deomonstrate inclusivity. I think what puzzles me most are the many paralells non-Potter-book-bashing Christians have found between Dumbledore and God the Father, where sexuality is a non-issue. There have been some comments in the vein of non-issue on some of the postings I've seen, along with others I'd anticipate from both sides of the gay-rights agenda.
I just don't understand why that was necessary.
'Twill be interesting to see the blogs in the Christian community on this. Thanks for starting the discussion.
jm.
October 20th, 2007 at 5:56 pm
Umm—
Jean, isn't THIS a blog in the Christian community? And for all you may talk about book-bashing Christians, what I saw on that link was conservative-bashing and bigotry against American Christians.
But don't you see that that's the reason Rowling said it? I took a lot of flak for saying this before, but I still believe it's true: Rowling is deliberately stirring this stuff up for publicity purposes. It's sad, but a "Banned by the Big, Bad Christians!" label sells a lot of books. And after the explicit Christianity in Deathly Hallows, how could Rowling heat up the controversy again? This is how.
October 21st, 2007 at 9:01 am
Unfortunately, authors often talk too much. I prefer to ignore what the author says and adds to their books after a book is published. Their opinion on their books becomes irrelevant because the book takes up a life of it own and is no longer subject to the author. Dumbledore’s character was not develop with any focus on his sexuality or that he liked men so no matter what the author says now it simply does not exists in the books. Frankly, I still like the books but perhaps if this is direction J.K. Rowling is going to go in her future works it may be the last of J.K. Rowling that I read.
October 21st, 2007 at 9:31 am
Personally, I could care less if Professor Dumbledore was gay. Rowling is going to have a hard time stirring up controversy amongst "Bible-thumping" Christians if this is her method. Most of the intelligent ones are pretty quick to say that there is no sin in a homosexual orientation in itself, and that homosexuals are called to the same chastity as any unmarried person. Though not proven it seems that the character of Dumbledore lived out this chastity and devoted his life to Hogwarts. To me, it’s no different than the many gay men and women who have lived celibately and devoted their lives to God and service. I’m one of those, and I’d bet that most people know one or more like that, even if they don’t realize it.
October 21st, 2007 at 3:20 pm
Jay–yes, of course.
However, I also think that Rowling was getting some flak from the left for her books' not being PC enough–everybody eats meat, Molly is a housewife, etc.–and this is a way for her to get back in their good graces.
She's said a lot of things about her books that she's later retracted or contradicted. I have the definite impression that she makes it up as she goes along.
However, Jay, it isn't Rowling or the so-called "Bible-thumping Christians" who are stirring up the publicity this time. It's those who are bigoted against Christians. Nearly all the discussion I've seen has been centered on how badly those awful Christians are going to take this news, and how hateful and narrow-minded Christians are, and on and on. That's the really disturbing part of the whole thing: the extreme prejudice against Christians.
October 21st, 2007 at 3:22 pm
P.S. Frankly, I think EVERYBODY'S sex life belongs in the closet. Strict need to know basis–and where's the need to know this?
October 21st, 2007 at 3:46 pm
Trish — Of course people are going to assume that "Bible-thumpers" will be angry. That's why it will be so fun to watch the leftists' reactions when nobody really ends up caring. She may make it up as she goes along, though do remember that someone had simply asked her if Dumbledore had ever been in "true love," and she answered. She also corrected the production of the HP6 movie when they had inserted a line where Dumbledore mentioned a past female love interest. So I'm guessing she's thought of it for a while.
As for sex life being totally in the closet, I agree. I'll only state that homosexuality, just like heterosexuality, isn't all about sex. Even chaste homosexuals can love and have relationships, though of a very different kind. There is no need to know this here, however, and on that I agree with you.
October 21st, 2007 at 4:50 pm
Thanks for commenting, guys.
October 21st, 2007 at 9:29 pm
Excellent points.
October 22nd, 2007 at 8:36 am
I'm less sanguine than many on this.
My main thought is, "The arrogance of wealth." I find Rowling's remarks, and their reported spirit, contemptible. It had nothing to do with the books' content, and never needed to be said.
But beyond that, here she's had Christian critics, some pinheaded and some very well-meaning and thoughtful. The last book has obvious and clear hearkening to Christ. So what does she go around doing? How is she using her soapbox? To point her millions of young, impressionable readers (who have given her a fabulous ilfestyle) towards Jesus Christ?
No. She keeps glorifying her "doubt" (because, to the world, the only "OK" Christian is a doubting Christian). And now she smugly reveals that one of her most beloved characters was a sexual pervert.
I grew to like and admire Rowling's writing, and especially her plotting. I wish she'd left this and that out (bad language in #7, especially), but remarked to my wife that I really appreciated that she hadn't even the slightest allusion to sexual matters.
And now this.
Guaranteeing that the media will be obsessed with Dumbledore's moral perversion. And not Christ's beauty.
Stupid, stupid, selfish woman.
And what a slap to her Christian defenders. I did one post on HP, and had regular readers earnestly taking me to task for having anything to do with the series. I can imagine how they'll read this, and I'm just bracing for the feedback. Well, it's simple. I can't defend it. It was stupid, smug, self-absorbed, morally/spiritually tone-deaf-as-a-rock, and harmful. Now the media and perversion-activists can trumpet a "beloved 'gay' children's lit character."
"Stupid" is the nicest thing I can say about it.
October 22nd, 2007 at 9:22 am
Wow.
October 22nd, 2007 at 9:42 am
Not that I have an opinion on that (or any other) subject, mind you.
(c;
October 22nd, 2007 at 9:44 am
Mr. Phillips,
I think it's a little irresponsible to call Dumbledore a "sexual pervert" simply because of his orientation. As another commenter as Sword of Gryffindor said, by all evidence, it seems that Dumbledore lived a chaste life devoted to his calling of being a teacher. His one homosexual relationship ended in disaster. Nothing really seems to be glorified. In fact, Dumbledore's life seems to be an example of what homosexuals are called to by the Church (i.e. celibacy and service). Calling someone a "pervert" simply because of their attractions is very unfounded. All Christians are perverts in some respects, of course, but many of us learn to live beyond our desires and serve the Lord with all tat we have (meager though that is). That includes homosexuals, too.
October 22nd, 2007 at 10:01 am
Call me "Dan." (c:
Well, I could respond on many levels, but let's keep it simple. Is that what she said? "Dumbledore has homosexual desires, but he knows they're evil and perverse, he never indulged them, and no one should make any inferences about his relationship with Harry"? Did she say, "I'm sorry to say Dumbledore was tempted to sexually perverse behavior that would have ravaged him spiritually, psychically, and physically if he had indulged them"?
Or did she just make this offhand remark, and then snigger at the reaction, as if it was this amusing little giggler? "If I'd known how much you'd like it, I'd have told you sooner"?
If all the reports I've read are accurate, I pick "B."
So now read this, and tell me it isn't being perceived and used precisely as I said.
Anticipating the response "Gee, how could she have known?" — would anyone really suggest that Rowling is that clueless? Then it's worse than even I suggested.
It was dumb and irresponsible, and that's the nicest thing I can say about it.
October 22nd, 2007 at 12:45 pm
I do see your point, Dan. No doubt Ms. Rowling is a more "liberal Christian," and that she intended for Dumbledore to be a positive example of a gay character. No doubt that misguided, gay-affirming Christians and other liberals will use Dumbledore as an example. However, like with all literature, characters and stories exist outside of their authors. Though Rowling may have meant Dumbledore's sexuality to be taken a certain way, she also left ample room for Bible-believing Christians to take it another way (and, if I may say, the correct way). Dumbledore was a character that was honestly devoted to goodness, mercy, and justice. From all the evidence in the text he lived a chaste life and was devoted to teaching and fighting evil. Rowling may not have meant it this way, but as a chaste gay Christian and a teacher, Dumbledore is actually quite an inspiration for me–now more than before. Surely mine is a minority view, but so is the view that Harry Potter is a Christian allegory.
Dumb, yes. Irresponsible, yes. But there is still good that can be reaped from it, so long as Christians keep their heads abou thtem and don't get all into a tizzy about the word "gay."
October 22nd, 2007 at 1:08 pm
I am reminded of how Miss Manners advised to introduce a gay couple:
This is Tom and this is Bob. The rest of the info is superfluous.
October 22nd, 2007 at 1:48 pm
First, it is irrelevant if a person who never existed, a fictional character such as Dumbledore was a homosexual or not. It does make for a dreary unpleasantness, though, to have a world famous "children's author" extol the "virtues" of sodomy, but is par for the course of our degenerate culture to do so. She is, in fact, doing what Liberal Christians are wont to do, follow the Spirit of the World rather than God's Word.
Rowling is a faux Christian, one who believes not in God (if she did, she would obey what God says) but, instead, believes as many atheists, non-Christians, and Christians do - in herself.
J.K. Rowling is god to J.K. Rowling.
October 22nd, 2007 at 2:44 pm
Well, as to your first point, are you suggesting that characters in the stories children are read (or themselves read) have no impact on their character-formation and worldview? So parents really need not fuss over story-selection?
October 22nd, 2007 at 5:35 pm
"Risky" and "controversial" my a$$.
If Rowling REALLY wanted to take a risk she'd declare Dumbledore a depiction of the Prophet Muhammad.
Now THAT would be brave … especially since Dumbledore's gay.
Throw in a bag of pork rinds and she'd have to go find all Salman Rushdie's old hideouts.
October 22nd, 2007 at 8:07 pm
I'm still trying to wonder what the point was of her announcement. Except for publicity purposes (as if she needs it!)
I'm also curious to know when, exactly, she decided that Dumbledore was gay. More than any other character, it just seems (to me, anyway) that she made some late-series changes to Dumbledore's character that may have advanced the plot, or filled in some plot holes, but seem to contradict the character and nature he displayed at the beginning of the series. Personally, I always thought he had a thing with/for Madam Pomfrey, based on the comment he made in the first chapter of SS, about blushing profusely when she complimented him on something.
Ah, what do I know…
October 22nd, 2007 at 10:49 pm
Trish–
Yes, of course this is a Christian blog on HP. It's one of several, and all have pretty much had the same thoughts as we wrestle with it. Folks wonder if JKR did this to stir up the controversy pot and sell more books, (expert marketing theme), the let's just accept everybody as is–I'm ok, you're ok, they're ok too—thinking of post modernism, or the evil perpetuated on another level, which I thought I'd see, but it really hasn't come out. Like you said, it's more of a tsk, tsk, look at those Evangelicals at it again. I wonder if it isn't a moral issue, but the post modern cultural idea that JKR has bought into: the notion that homosexuality is just an alternate lifestyle and doesn't see it as a moral issue as many of us do.
Jay's comment of Dumbledore's living out life in chastity is a good one, and it leaves him to be orientation-neutral for those of us who aren't going to read into anything to figure his preference out. Since these are in essence, children's books, we don't have sleeping around in them, an equally sinful experience, but one that's more "acceptable" in our culture. We'd be up in arms if she crossed that boundry and had teachers snogging in the hallways and beyond. If this gay comment dies away, as I hope it does, it will have no impact on the books, since they will be read without these additional thoughts. As Jaimie asked, I too wonder when she decided to make Dumbledore gay. He's a role model in the books of exemplary behavior. He's a leader. He's the sagacious, wizened one with the answers and broader perspective. This gay bit is a weird twist. I don't like it, which is my preference.
I am reminded though, that the enemy comes to steal and destroy, with a chief MO of separating people from God in whatever ways he can. I wonder if this wasn't an attempt to steal, destroy and dilute something that had a powerful opportunity to parallel the gospel. I've used the books as discussion starters with the parallels to Christ, and have loved analyzing them through the lenses of the thoughts of folks on blogs like this one and HogwartsProfessor.com, seeing things I'd never considered. They have been iron-sharpens-iron experiences for me, and I have enjoyed the journey. Is this barb the thorn in the lion's paw or the pin that pops the balloon? I don't want to let the enemy steal my joy.
October 22nd, 2007 at 11:08 pm
Eugene Levitzky says, "Rowling is a faux Christian, one who believes not in God (if she did, she would obey what God says)…"
This line of thinking really irks me. Are you saying that Christians cannot sin? That is such an absurd idea that I just don't know where to begin.
October 22nd, 2007 at 11:16 pm
Some great balance here on this whole agenda from John Granger at Hogwarts Professor:
http://hogwartsprofessor.com/?p=198
I especially like his parallels to the media's Skeeteresque treatment fo this whole thing.
October 22nd, 2007 at 11:45 pm
I must say I was surprised to read the news of this. Not surprised with anger or delight, but surprised with bewilderment, the whole things just seems to come out of no where. Now it may well be that this revelation is in fact something that has always existed in JKR mind since the inception of the character and stories, I would hate to argue with an author about their own work. But, what I find strange is that in reading the passages where the relationship between dumbeldor and grindewald is explained I never for once imagined any kind of sexual attraction between the two of them, or even just on dumbeldor's part. What I did notice and what I must say in retrospect with these thoughts in my mind I see is this. Dumbeldor certainly had strong feelings for Grindewald, of respect admiration, and yes love. But, love in what sense? Love of a friend, or love even greater? But need the two be seen as divergent and incompatible. Dumbeldor could have developed a great love of Grindewald which surpassed a level that we may say normaly exist between two friends and approaches that which we expect between to lovers. But, does that love necessarily need to be considered homosexual love. Homosexuality I would argue is not a type of love but a physical manifestation of desires. So that a man can love another man without any homosexual desires. But, in our society love and sex are slowly merging into the same thing, and great confusion arises because of this, and this confusion could be acting in JKR mind. So that she envisioned this great love that Dumbledor had for Grindewald and then interpreted that as homosexuality, when in fact it need not be. Now if Dumbeldor had sex with other men (and there is no indication that he has) then he would be homosexual or could at least be called that.
October 22nd, 2007 at 11:59 pm
Regardless of my opinion of the series, given the timing and the content of her revelation about the character, it really stinks of cheap publicity stunt.
October 23rd, 2007 at 12:51 am
Frankly, I don't think she truly made Dumbledore gay at any point in the books and is only bringing it up now for shock value and publicity. It's a stunt, pure and simple and really is a shame that Rowling is willing to do something this cheap and trashy.
October 23rd, 2007 at 1:02 am
This vindicates my decision to avoid the series. I did attempt to read the first book (which I borrowed from my neice),
but quit after finishing about 2/3 of it because (A) the characters were less than one-dimensional, and the plot
line was dull and predictable, and (B) parts of it too closely resembled "Lord of the Rings" and "The Wizard of Oz"
for my tastes. The ficticious Dumbledore seems to be little more than a clumsy and obvious rip-off of Gandalf.
For these reasons, I won't play along with J.K. Rowling's corny stunt about Dumbledore's sexuality. Controversy is no
substitute for creativity. Wake me when she gets some original ideas.
October 23rd, 2007 at 9:00 am
I read Granger (John, not Hermione) and his links. It was helpful and thought-provoking, and I have found him so many times.
However, it did confirm my impression that, if Rowling were to say "I am a practicing Satanist Hindu Buddhist lesbian atheist witch who sacrifices children to Molech," Granger would say he knew it all along, and it just proved what a robust Christian faith Rowling had in the grace of God, and what a wonderful communicator she was of that grace.
October 23rd, 2007 at 9:21 am
Personally, I write the whole thing off to Rowling's eccentricity. She's made several very odd statements in public over the years and this is just another in a long line of head scratchers from her, IMO. For example, when she said several people died in the final book that she "didn't intend to die." That's one of the more idiotic statements I've ever heard for reasons that should be obvious to anyone capable of rational thought (hint: she's the author and, hence, in complete control of the outcome). The woman is a brilliant author, but she's also really weird, let it go.
October 23rd, 2007 at 5:06 pm
#30 - LOl!
Good point. I know of a few names I could plug into that knowing position.
October 23rd, 2007 at 5:26 pm
Actually, Chris, most authors describe the writing process as something that frequently happens outside the author's direct control. The author of Babylon 5, for example, wrote that he had originally intended one character to assasinate his world's version of Caligula, only to have another character "come up behind me, clear his throat, and tell me that this was something he needed to do."
October 24th, 2007 at 1:52 am
"the … idea that … homosexuality is just an alternate lifestyle and doesn't see it as a moral issue …"
Geez you people can be really weird sometimes.
Is "missionary" or "reverse cowgirl" either lifestyle choice or moral issue? Or is it a personal choice of bedroom behavior that's none of your business?
I'm straight and find the idea of guy-on-guy repulsive, but then there are a few things straight couples do which I also find equally repulsive. That doesn't mean that either group is making a "lifestyle choice", they just get off on different things than me, and it's really none of my business.
It's none of your business, either. If you're not into bondage, don't let anyone tie you up. If you're not into gay sex, don't be gay. Problem solved. Can't you people think of more important things to worry about?
October 24th, 2007 at 8:49 am
So, Laika, are you saying it's immoral to say that immorality is immoral? Interesting.
Jay, you deserved interaction, and I'm sorry I've been slow to do so.
I think you make a number of good points, and make them well, and I have no quibble with them.
You're waiting for the "howevers," and here they are.
First, I don't love the way that you say "the Church" calls homosexuals to be celibate and to serve. Christ calls sinners to repent and believe. A person with homosexual desires — anymore than a person with desires to rape, murder, commit theft, or molest children or animals — will not respond with "I have these beautiful and mysterious passions as a God-given gift bubbling within me, like a well-seasoned stew, but I'll be noble and abstain from these good things with a martyr's air. That's how noble I am." He will seek God's grace to see these (and other) passions as God sees them: as foul and befouling, as shameful and as destroyers. If he does not, he does not agree with God, and thus he has not "repented" (changed his worldview).
Further, he will not simply seek to abstain from these quaint little notions, he will repent of them and seek to put on genuinely holy and whole affections that befit a new creature in Christ. There must be a putting off, and a putting on. Romans 6, Ephesians 4, Colossians 3.
Does that mean (s)he'll become "straight"? Paul says he can; I'm sure you know the passage. Holy and content (not martyred) celibacy is another option.
But I'd not expect to see a repentant homosexual/liar/rapist/proud/murderer/etc. speak fondly and neutrally (much less positively) of these abominable passions from whose thralldom he has been delivered buy the grace, the death, the blood of Jesus. Anymore than I should be expected to reminisce fondly about blasphemy, bitterness, arrogance, hatred, etc.
Having said all that:
I think we agree, Rowling just drops the bomb. "This beloved and noble character I've led your children to love — he had perverted passions!" Uncle Bob, your babysitter for these last ten years, is ______! She doesn't say "was," or "was tempted to be," or "was afflicted with."
One last thought: "gay" is a behavior. To say he "is/was 'gay'" is to say he committed sodomy. If we're just talking about passing (or recurrent) and resisted temptations (which all experience), then the statement is just stupid. (Well, obviously, I think it was stupid, anyway; and again I don't think we disagree.) If that is all she meant, then she could as well have said, "…and Harry and Neville are both serial killers, Ron is a rapist, Molly an adulteress," and so forth.
But with this astounding soapbox her books have granted her, she chooses — not to exalt the beauties of Christ, but — to throw out this bomb.
October 24th, 2007 at 9:38 am
Dan, I have a feeling we could have a wonderful conversation about this topic, but it would get dramatically off the topic at hand.
Perhaps I should respond in an e-mail. Is that okay with you?
October 24th, 2007 at 9:52 am
Sure. Do we leave the public aspect of the topic agreed that Rowling's announcement was, at best, irresponsible?
October 24th, 2007 at 11:47 am
Oh, absolutely. Like you said, she's not stupid. She knew this would cause an uproar and it really wasn't that crucial to the question being asked. She did not need to reveal it (even if she had planned it from the beginning, which I doubt).
October 24th, 2007 at 2:08 pm
"So, Laika, are you saying it's immoral to say that immorality is immoral? Interesting."
You should write up some kind of instruction manual for which carnal acts are "moral" and "immoral", a sort of Kama Sutra for prudes. It would take the Christian bookstores by storm.
To even mention things like murder and molestation in the same breath as something two consenting but kinky adults do in privacy shows your complete lack of moral perspective. Religion at work, I guess.
October 24th, 2007 at 5:25 pm
"You should write up some kind of instruction manual for which carnal acts are 'moral' and 'immoral'"
Say, that's a great idea! I could call it "The Bible"!
Oh, wait. Been done.
So have you actually never, ever talked with someone who took Jesus seriously before? Or do those snipes usually work for you?
October 24th, 2007 at 5:48 pm
I've never met a Christian who put homosexuality on the same moral level as murder or child molestation.
I've never met a gay person who made excuses for NAMBLA, either.
I guess I've been lucky so far.
October 24th, 2007 at 7:00 pm
Really? That's very surprising. Well, let's make sure that's no longer the case. Here's the story, briefly:
A Christian believes in Christ. The rest flows from that.
Here's the story, less briefly. Christ preached and affirmed a specific worldview. It wasn't the "do whatever feels good, just leave others alone" vapors that so many default to. His worldview had a universe created, defined, and ruled by a holy, sovereign God. This God revealed His will in what we call the Old Testament; and now was speaking through Him, Jesus, who was God the Son.
In this created, defined, sovereignly-ruled universe, attitudes and actions have moral significance, and they have consequences. Some consequences are wonderfully good, some are devastating and ruinous. One discerns set A from set B by what (if anything) God says about those attitudes and actions. Not by opinion polls, feelings, or rationalizations.
Sin is sin because God says it is sin, and all sin is abominable in God's eyes, whether it's lying or rape. Consequences may differ from sin to sin, but not the fact of their immorality.
To come straight to the point at hand, homosexual behavior is one of those behaviors about which God has spoken. It's ruinous to the individual who indulges in the depraved passions that drive it, as surely as rape and child molesting.
Now, one could be selfish and loveless, and say nothing about it. After all, if one speaks up, one is likelier than not to be mocked in our culture. No healthy soul enjoys being twitted.
The loving thing, however, is to take that risk, speak up in warning, and point everyone to the freedom and forgiveness that any sinner can find by repentance and faith in Christ.
And there you have it.
October 24th, 2007 at 9:33 pm
Laika–
I am very glad that you have never met a homosexual person who has made excuses for NAMBLA, but if so, the people you know are the exception. Even the nicest practicing homosexuals I've met have been quite vocally gung-ho to "get" anyone who criticizes anything about any homosexual lifestyle, including NAMBLA's.
And if you never met a Christian who put homosexual behavior on the same moral level with murder or child molestation, then you never met a Christian. Sin is sin. Stealing a stamp and stealing a million dollars are both stealing. From the secular viewpoint one may be worse than the other, but all sin is an affront to God.
(From my personal point of view, I believe that stealing a postage stamp is a greater secular crime than stealing a million dollars, because the temptation is so much less. Who wouldn't be tempted to steal if huge sums were put in front of them? But small amounts–that takes a mind attuned to stealing. This, again, as I said, is my personal viewpoint, and you can call me nuts for thinking so if you want to.)
But the Bible also says that only one sin is unforgivable, and that is rejection of the Holy Spirit. The problem here is that Christians are being condemned for not taking a secular viewpoint.
That's not reasonable.
Jay, I'm uncomfortable with calling people who have homosexual desires and do not act on them "homosexuals", any more than I would call someone who wants that hot fudge sundae but doesn't eat it a person who "is" fat but doesn't "do" fat. I don't think we are defined by our desires. We all–and I do mean ALL–have natural desires that are unacceptable, and which we should reject. I don't think we should define ourselves by them. I'm even (or especially) uncomfortable with the idea that my cousin, who is recovering from alcoholism, must always define himself as "an alcoholic". That's too limiting to me. We're all children of God.
And one thing I do is talk too much.
October 24th, 2007 at 10:01 pm
You make a good point, Trish. I guess you could say I still refer to myself as a homosexual because calling myself heterosexual would be a lie (I have virtually no opposite-sex attractions) and calling myself asexual would just be… weird.
Take priests and nuns for example. They have heterosexual desires (and some might have homosexual desires as well) but do not act on them. Are they all asexual then? It depends on who you ask, I assume, but just admitting that one has certain desires is not the same as defining oneself by desires. …And I'm off topic again. Sorry.
October 25th, 2007 at 7:41 am
Okaay … thanks for cluing me in, I guess.
You people are nuts. Somebody writes a book a couple thousand years ago and that makes two guys slipping into the boudoir just as bad as murderers … twisted.
It's also undemocratic, inasmuch as the Biblical Anti-Gay Act never went up for a vote and can never be repealed, but in the case of religion I've learned zealots consider that a feature rather than a bug.
"And if you never met a Christian who put homosexual behavior on the same moral level with murder or child molestation, then you never met a Christian."
In that case I want to meet a "real Christian" about as much as I want a member of NAMBLA to mistake me for an 8-year-old.
(As happened to Kenny's dad on South Park.)
October 25th, 2007 at 10:35 am
Gee, Laika, you're so intolerant.
Agreed, Trish, and well-put. That's why we should not call folks with vile passions they recognize and resist "homosexuals," any more than we call others who similarly mortify vile passions "rapists," "adulterers," or "serial murderers."
Rowling's latest comments seem to me to indicate that that was not her intent in re. Dumbledore, however. She speaks of it only positively. So, so much for that "take."
October 26th, 2007 at 6:11 am
"Tolerance" is blaming Salman Rushdie for the Fatwah.
Heck with tolerance. There are more important principles to stand for.
To be fair it isn't Christians threatening novelists, assassinating filmmakers, and rioting over cartoons. Your preoccupation with stamping out gayness may be obsessive and weird, but at least you're not flying planes into buildings.
October 26th, 2007 at 9:19 am
Hm. And your preoccupation with discouraging Christians from actually practicing their faith is… wholesome and healthy?
October 26th, 2007 at 2:27 pm
"Necessary" is the word I'd use. It's the broken window theory: push back against potentially dangerous religious movements before they become completely out-of-control.
Fred Phelps, Osama bin Laden, the Taleban, the names change but the basic pathology is the same.
It starts with sexual hangups then progresses to branding people "sinners" for innocuous bedroom behavior … the next thing you know you're putting diapers on sheep and blowing up buildings.
We won two great victories against medieval Christianity with the 30 Years' War and the First Amendment, but while those might've been the nails in the coffin of the Dark Ages, Christians have this thing about coming back from the dead …
As the key to winning the War on Terror is advancing the cause of the moderate Muslim by crushing the extremists so the key to retaining our domestic tranquility here at home is to encourage moderate Christians and discourage the wackos. If that's not "wholesome and healthy", it's at least healthy.
October 29th, 2007 at 1:00 am
I think JK mentioning that Dumbledore is a homosexual is purely an afterthought. Sadly, I think it also shows a sad lack of artistic integrity. As an author, the meaning should be in the work itself. She should not have to tell her readers what to think. If she truly wanted Dumbledore to be a poster-boy for gay rights, she would have made it obvious from the start. But instead, she wrote a loving, caring, good person without an agenda and then tacked on some revolutionary label after the fact. I think it was cowardly, artistically. Because she knows if she had written him as gay from the start, her sales would have been paltry to say the least. Not very many parents want to subject their little ones to those kinds of issues at such a young age–before sex, much less sexuality, is even addressed.
I'm more curious to see how they will portray Dumbledore in the upcoming movies. They've shown him as a simple man throughout, but will Hollywood give him those tell-tale, steroetypical gay features that they love to give gay characters? Will he be a metrosexual? Will he talk effeminately? Will he suddenly have a lisp? No matter how accepting Hollywood wants to be, they love stereotypes and labels and cookie-cutting people. They want all Christians to be fanatics, all artists to be goth, and all gay men to act like women. We'll see.
October 29th, 2007 at 11:47 am
I agree with Ms. Jeffries that JK has shown "a sad lack of artistic
integrity" be ex post facto making Dumbledore a homosexual. In effect,
JK has betrayed kids and us by adding the homosexual agenda to her HP
series. Because the world is the way it is now and virtue is called
evil and evil is called virtue, and because we have been engaged for
decades in "defining deviancy down," it is now considered "good" to
engage in sodomy and those who criticize, nay, those who don't applaud
and/or support homosexuality (and, soon, S&M and bestiality) are themselves
considered deviant and intolerant. I would not criticize J. K. Rowling
about her homosexualization of Dumbledore if (1) the Harry Potter series
was not (at least initially) aimed at children, and (2) if J.K. Rowling
did not claim to be a Christian. Christians are not to judge or rebuke
those who are "of the world," but Christians certainly are called to
take to task those of the body of Christ who are wholly of the Spirit
of the World and the Spirit of Satan.
May God bless J.K. Rowling for any/all good works she does but may God
also rebuke her for corrupting the "little ones." May her faith in Christ
grow strong and true and may she forever forsake the silliness of
making a character in a "dead and over with" series a homosexual, a
sadomasochist, or whatever deviancy is our culture's soup de jour.