OMG! LOL! TiFC! (That is fucking crazy!) Whats next? Ralph has red pubes!?!?!?

Hey, J.K. Rowling, why was that fact never mentioned in the books? Not that I really care that the character Dumbledore was conceived to be gay, I wonder what was the point of acknowledging this trivia now, after the series of books has been retired. Seems to me to be some kind of slap in the faces of gays.

WTF? Explain yourself.

Although the idea of DD being gay had occurred to me, I always kind of thought he and McGonagall had a relationship that nobody knew about. I have also speculated that Sirius could be gay; I don't remember any references to him being with a woman. It would be really cool if they could work this into the next two movies without changing too much of the story.

This is cool.

Rowling is way ahead of her time (or, perhaps, right along with it).

She's also got huge balls. Way to go, JK.

-A straight guy

I just hope there isn't a sex tape.

I don't get it. I thought Dumbledore was killed in the next-to-last book. Does he come back to life in the last book?

Oh good, now all the fictional, closeted gay wizards of the world have a role model.

Oi, now Harry will 'ave someone to help him out'a the closet, eh?

Please tell me Larry Craig is not fictional.

How is that an answer to the question she was asked? Gays can't find true love?

@10-
The full quote shows that he did fall in love--with his best friend turned arch rival, Grindelwald. JK Rowling specifically said, "falling in love can blind us to an extent," so she certainly believes that gay people can find love. And, apparently, gay wizards can also save the world and be one of the greatest wizards in the world.

Course, it would've been nice if she'd made that point IN THE BOOKS.

She still didn't answer the question.

I don't see why sexual orientation is necessary in children's books.

@13
because default sexual orientation is hetero. OF COURSE there are no gay people. they're excessive. you know, just like in the real world.

next!

@ #13; If knowing that a major charcter in the series is gay helps just one little reader ignore parental or church homophobia, then I say good for Rowling.

Ria, it isn't necessary and thus was never included. However, the books have a universal appeal, and the world of Harry Potter extends much further than just 7 years of HP's life.

And to Lawrence Clark, it has been said that she first corrected a script where they tried to have a flashback where Dumbledore is dating a woman or some similar situation. Regardless, Dumbledore's character was not about a gay chief Wizard; he was a father-figure, a hero, and a mentor. If it is now revealed that he happened to also be gay, and a reader sheds even the slightest bit of homophobia, then I as a bisexual man will feel not the slightest bit of sting.

I'm glad she outed Dumbledore. I don't care when, where or how. And honestly, I wouldn't have minded if she never did. Dumbledore, though fictional, will always be remembered for his dedication, devotion and love, not who he had feelings for. What does it matter really that he is gay?

Jesus, another creepy old gay man.
See you in Lynnwood kids. Bring cameras.

@13, because children's books talk about adults, and many adults are in relationships with people of the opposite sex. I suppose everyone could be single, but that might confuse the kids.

Oh, you meant gay people. Well they don't exist, and if they did the only thing they'd do in a book is bugger the hell out of the little kids right?

Admittedly, I've been going a little Anglo in my tastes lately - Greenaway films, Agatha Christie paperback, not so stupid blog-o-anglicans, V is for Vendetta dot dot dot -yet I can say I've never cracked through a paragraph of this Harry Potter phenom.

So to top of this morning, at 10am, tix for From The Jam reunion go on sale. I'm ordering two, and to keep in tow with the "= Gay" theme, I propose to one Josh Feit, for I know not near these parts a more "out" Jam fan than he, to accept a seat on my Right or Left (let's keep politics on the downlow).

C'mon, Beat Surrender, dude. Who needs Weller when Seattle has The Stranger Boy Wonder News of the World right here in Seattle (i'll even make a special effort to talk to Bruce and Rick about you doing some Santa Karaoke).

haha that's cool that Dumblddore is gay.. I have no problem with that. I think that if you're a true HP fan, you'll still love the HP series no matter what.

@ the people who are questioning why this wasn't included in the book.

Can any of you actually think of a way that it could pop into dialogue, "oh ya, dumbledore's gay, btw."

Plus, if you know the character, it's obvious that he wouldn't announce it to people. The closest we get to finding anything about his past/personal life is in the last book.

Oh and (sorry for the double post but) Dumbledore's in a position of authority and is constantly under the spotlight.

He is responsible for lots of children.

Where his friends wouldn't mind that he "likes a bit of wand", the media and parents of pupils would twist it.

You know it's common for people to incorrectly associate homosexuality with paedophilia.

Who the Hell is Dumbledore? Is he some relation to Gargamel?

@21 She could've made it more explicit without actually saying the word "gay". For example, she could've more heavily implied that he was in love with Grindelwald. Or perhaps Umbridge could've made an offhand comment about his homosexuality when trying to replace him as headmaster - a comment that would completely go over the heads of children of course.

Dumbledore was always fabulous. I thought that Lupin would be the outed one though...

Do you think he could cast a spell on himself to make him straight?

99% of the books are written from Harry's point of view.

Were you privy to the romantic lives of all your mentors? Even ones that were as reclusive as Dumbledore?

@20
What the fuck is that supposed to mean? "You'll still love the series no matter what"?

I'm a little bummed at the whole "expanding the series by press conference" that JKR has been doing since book 7 came out. It seems to diminish both the authority of the books and Ms. Rowlings' skills as an author.

In this case, for instance, she spends a LOT of time talking about Dumbledore and Grindelwald in book 7. It would have been *trivial* for her to put in a *sentence* that allowed adult readers (or smart teens) to understand that Dumbledore's feelings (which were very complicated) included a romantic angle. But she didn't.

Also, it's a bummer for readers because we all have our person "afterstories" that we've woven for the characters, thinking that we were free to given the reiterated and reiterated finality of book 7. I, for instance, imagined that Neville and Luna wound up together eventually- the two loyal outcasts together. So when JKR gave her "big reveal" press conference a few months ago, and said that Luna married some non-character, it took a smidgen of the fun out for me.

As for big D being gay: who cares. Because it wasn't mentioned in the books, and nobody had to deal with it or accept it or whatever, it's a nonevent/nonissue. The important point to me is that not only was Dumbledore in pain his whole life from the things that *were* discussed in book 7, now we have the extra sadness of knowing that the one love of his life turned into his most mortal enemy. Which leads us to:

Soo@12, yes she did answer the question. No, Dumbledore didn't find true love:

"Dumbledore's love, she observed, was his 'great tragedy.'"

If he had found true love later this statement wouldn't make sense.

COMTE@23: congratualations, you know nothing about Harry Potter. I thought the veterans around here generally didn't post "me too!" comments? (Except Poe, of course- he operates in a different universe.)

You know, before I answer any more questions there's something I wanted to say. Having received all your letters over the years, and I've spoken to many of you, and some of you have traveled... y'know... hundreds of miles to be here, I'd just like to say... GET A LIFE, will you people? I mean, for crying out loud, it's just a TV show! I mean, look at you, look at the way you're dressed! You've turned an enjoyable little job, that I did as a lark for a few years, into a COLOSSAL WASTE OF TIME!

Ugh.

Okay.

We don't know anything about the romantic relationships of any of the teachers (with the exception of Hagrid, who is basically just part time).

I also got a vibe in book 7 about Grindy and Dumbledore but I thought I was just exaggerating it. Plus, there's Rita Skeeter's "unnatural relationship" line.

Personally, I got this out of the last book - it wasn't stated outright, but it was a pretty strong subtext.

My favorite quote from the article, though, is:

"And explicit scenes with Dumbledore already have appeared in fan fiction."

Explicit scenes of EVERYONE have appeared in fanfiction. Heck, it doesn't even matter if the characters are in the same genre or not. Too bad a lot if it is really badly written, but I suppose that goes with the territory.

I was stunned when I found at that Dumbledore was gay. I don't mind about him being gay, but I was upset when I discovered who his partner was- it should be Elphias Doge! I'll bet he was gutted when he found out!

@29 - Regarding Luna and Neville - I wonder if it counts as canon if the author doesn't write it into the books? It's just the way they see the characters, but if they haven't written it down I think people get to make up their own minds. =)

If so many people have such an interest in witchcraft and other realms, why not read up on the real thing instead of some fantasy island fairy tale? If your children choose to follow through with the persuite of sorcery as they mature, do the study and find out where many are ending up. Find out who they begin to mimic. Aleister Crawley is just one name that comes to mind.

Wow. Does it even matter? It's a character. It's life ends when the book is closed.

Does this mean I have to change my myspace name (Dumbledore and McGonagall's Love Child)?

She could have easily written it into the last book...the Chapter "Kings Cross." It would have made sense.

In that last book we learned how largely tragic Dumbledore's life was...this adds to his sadness. Not the gay thing, but living a life without love and the fact that his big love was his worst enemy.

With this, Rowling has given a wonderful gift to her young gay readers. She's also given straight readers another reason to empathise with gays.

I'm not sure that all of you appreciate what this means to gay kids.

Thank you, J.K.!

One of the ways that gay men have been victimized is through discrimination of silence, i.e. ignoring their existence, removing cultural references to them. That's why some people say, it would be nice if this had been clearer in the book. Frankly, if not Dumbledore, hasn't anyone ever wondered why there were no gay students at Hogwarts? Every other group is there, why not students?

"why not read up on the real thing instead of some fantasy island fairy tale..."

Because some of us live in a world where magic and sorcery is a fantasy fairy tale. The power of suggestion's all very well, but it's not exactly magical.

And personally, I wouldn't be handing any kids Crowley to read until they at least hit puberty and have a good grasp on how to recognize a right bastard when they read about one. He was a sexist, racist, arrogant prick.

Oh brother, let's all jump on the "gay bandwagon." Rowlings and her big flapping mouth has finally managed to cheapen and trivialize the once-grand mystique of her series. This "outing" is pathetic, silly, and downright sophomoric; there was no mention of Dumbledore's aberrant sexuality in the books, and that's the way it shoulda stayed.

Rowlings, how stupid can you get? Prostituting your beloved characters to push some trendy political agenda.

I love how there's a load of BG stuff not mentioned in the books. (Besides, when would it have come up? There was no reason for something like that to be mentioned in the books, you have to think of the structure of the storyline.)

And I think this was a great way to out Dumbledore.. now that everyone already loves him and all. This'll undermine anti-gay brainwashing everywhere. XD;

@21
Any media that has ever been produced that has homosexual content, characters or the like, has never had to "Announce" or "Advertise" that the character is gay. Lets take the most common for example, Brokeback Mountain. Do Ennis and Jack (Heath Ledger and Jake Gyllenhaal) ever say to each other "Im gay!" no, that fact is made obvious by the fact that they have sex. Or, lets take Christopher Rice's literature, A Density of Souls, perhaps. Does Rice ever literate that any of his gay characters are actually gay? No, because its made obvious.
JK Rowling, You made one big mistake when you made that statement that Dumbledore is gay.
Dumbledore isnt gay.
Dumbledore isnt anything.
Dumbledore is not described to an extent to wich we can draw an opinion of sexual preference, and furthermore, sexual preference has absolutely nothing to do with the question "Does dumbledore find true love?"
As a gay man, I have found true love.
I assume that i speak for millions when I say that the reply that Rowling has made to the question she was asked is rather offensive.

"Anti-gay brainwashing"? LOL! You mean the "brainwashing" that instinctively tells people (who are honest with themselves) that two men "mating" is ridiculous, grotesque, and unnatural, and that urge to do so is an unwholesome acquirement? That the brainwashing you're talking about? If so, consider me, and billions like me, thoroughly brainwashed. On the other hand, perhaps it's the fear of God, and uprightness, and some glimpsing corner-of-the-eye perception of sublimity -- maybe it's those things, and not "brainwashing" -- that lead people to shun acceptance of homosexuality.

Rowlings has just seriously discounted her literary status in the eyes of millions of fans.

Another thing, I have to agree with some of the comments of the gay poster above (#44). If Rowlings is gonna assert a character's gayness, then write about it in the novel, turn it into interesting writing, touch on motivation, or turmoil, or life experiences; not this weaselly, oblique, chicken-crap mentioning of it months after the final book is published, in order to satisfy her "social conscience."

Why she didn't put it in the book? Because it has absolutely no bearing and is absolutely not appropriate for the audience. Therefore, her mentioning it as an aside, in public, is rather cheap, dishonest, and dishonorable.

Ummm... where did Yosemite Funn and Johnny come from? You boys taking a break for attending the Watchmen conference to check up on the Slog?

If JK Rowling started talking about Dumbledore's sex life in the book in any way, shape, or form, I'd have been grossed out. C'mon, he's a headmaster and he's like 150 years old. I'm glad she's brought it up as trivia, though... gives me faith that she'll be dropping more over the years :)

yeah, let's keep sexuality out of children's books. we should protect them from it.

shouldn't be too much of a problem, we'll just cut out:

petunia and vernon dursley
ron and hermione
cho and cedric
molly and arthur weasley
fleur and bill
tonks and lupin
hagrid and mme maxime
snape
lily and james potter
oh, and ginny
and harry

this is going to be the best harry potter book yet.

this is so awesome-props, jk.

I feel so sorry for you... how can you believe it's so wrong for one person to love another ...regardless of sexuality. It's not a perverse unnatural thing people do to be kinky! Some people are just born with an attraction to the same sex... to judge somebody based on that is purely ignorant. You, I'm sure are no one to judge.

And regarding Dumbledore's outing... it doesn't surprise me that much. He had some panache. I don't think it matters if JK didn't outwardly mention it in the book. Cheers to Harry Potter.

...that was a response to johnny at 2:45 by the way

Why are all the good ones gay?

Kudos to Rowling for having the tenacity to bring something like this to light. Regardless of bringing it out now, rather than during the series, I think she's doing exactly as someone suggests, satisfying her own moral compulsions.

Honestly, if she had incorporated this into the book somehow, many fewer people would have read it... Protests of harry potter would have gone through the roof as people would claim the books "encouraged homosexuality" or some such b/s.

Again, I say, congrats to Rowling.

What a way to srew harry potter success, it's a children book for christ sake, if i have children i will not let them read or watch any of that crap, that can confuse the kids, she was so irresponsable doing it.

@55:

screw harry potter success? i think harry potter's doing ok. and even if he stops, i think jk's doing ok.

can you explain what the kids will be confused about? i think they'll be a lot more confused when some of them start to have crushes on their same-sex friends and don't know what it means.

I can see why she wouldn't have just said it in the middle of the series. Look what's happening now, well after the final book release.

Actually, I quite like it. It just feels better (poorly thrown in or not) that there is a gay character--especially such a powerful, loved figure by fans. I know he's just a fictional character, but still.

This is a stupid ploy for even more publicity. There's nothing about Dumbledore in the books that would even suggest that he's gay (unless you count the "He never had a relationship with a woman" bit...and if that's the case, then there are a nearly infinite amount of 'gay' characters in literature).

I've lost any of the small amount of respect I'd ever given Rowling as a writer...she's a great marketer, but her marketing ploys are low and disgusting.

I think it was great that JK outed DD. Not only does it shed homophobia from the minds of real fans but also gives young gays/lesbians/bi's the sense that "it's ok to be gay."
-A gay man

@ all those who ask why she didn't say it in the books: She didn't have to go into every detail in the books; it didn't matter to the story, so she didn't put it in. However, characters have a way of growing in your mind, their personalities, idiosyncrasies, etc. It's like having other people living in your head. After a while, you know them inside and out, you hash out their stories to yourself, you know their pasts. Maybe she just wanted to let the public know a little more of what the characters are.

And thank goodness someone's gay. I was getting tired of the completely hetero relationships. Although I was sure it was going to be Remus/Sirius...

This is not a marketing ploy. It's not like she ordered a press conference and said "Dumbledore's GAY!" A fan asked a question, and she answered. Simple as that. How would she even come up with that idea to sporadically in the first place?! The sooner people can accept that homosexuality is something real, and true, and loving, the sooner we can move away from being to negative about it. Being gay doesn't hurt anybody, so why does it have to be considered so bad?

Johnny-You win! We all consider you brainwashed. Good job.

Me too!

When Remus and Tonks got together I was so confused. Though maybe Remus was just moving on after Sirius' death...

Come to think of it, I kind of thought Tonks was gay too.

As a gay man i think Rowling deserves every praise for this.

For someone in her position to have made this gesture will reach out to thousands of young gay people who make be confused or feel on their own.

For those who think it should have been made clearer in the books - why? It's not essential for people to know the heterosexuality or homosexuality of a character. Besides which, it would have caused too much controversy and would have made some parents "ban" their kids from reading the rest of the series.

The decision to "out" Dumbledore can only be described as a PR stunt by the most cynical of minds. For the most this is not a financially rewarding or good publicity for a childrens author...there are still many homophobic people in the world.

Rowling has a very unique position in this world to reach out to kids and teenagers in particular and to utilise her position in this way is highly commendable and speaks volumes of her evident belief in equality and open-mindedness.

@44 "...the reply that Rowling has made to the question she was asked is rather offensive."

I think you're over analyzing it. JK simply used the question as a relevant opening to reveal something about the character. She followed up by saying that Dumbledore's love was his "great tragedy." I think that's a pretty definitive answer to the question.

I think it's cool that she outed her character. It wasn't a marketing ploy. First of all, she has enough money and publicity. Second of all, she knew that outing her character would outrage a considerable amount of her fans. I think she was being gutsy by answering the question of a fan honestly. I also don't think that this was an afterthought that she made up to stir up the media: the subtext is right there in the books.

ahahahhahahah oh man,
i was RIGHT! when i read the 7th book i was like, "he was so with grindlewald" and ppl said i was nuts, ahha. pwned.

It just seemed so tacked on, like his being gay didn't play ANY role in the story but in real life it does effect you when you come out. And that brings up the fact that Dumbledore never came out to the people around him. He kept it hidden for his whole life. How is that a good message to gay people?

@55 Please, please, please, Willy W, do the world a favor and don't ever have children!!

Thank you.

boy, laura mallory really is going to have a field day now..

This whole thing is really annoying me. I agree with #68 up there. It's about as significant as JK announcing to the world that Dumbledore didn't like pea soup. Now I'm angry. Every time I think of Dumbledore as a loving and a paternal man I now envision him undressing Harry in his mind. Thank you, JK, you have ruined this for me.

Was she trying to be liberal? Please honey, just donate or march in a gay rights parade or something.

From Urban Dictionary:

"fuck you money: A very large amount of money, which would enable an individual to do pretty much whatever the fuck he or she wants."

Rowling's got fuck you money. She's sold all her books, the checks for the film rights have been cashed, a mountain of merchandise the size of China has been sold. Burn books, boycott the films, melt down the cheap plastic toys. Won't do a thing.

I think that's what really enrages her critics this time -- they can't hurt her.

Also, it's really pissed off the zitty fatasses in the derivative works (sorry, "fan fiction") communities. Fuck win on so many levels.

'My truthful answer to you...I always thought of Dumbledore as gay.' J.K Rowling.

So what if she never said anything in the books? For anyone who writes, they'll know each character has a number of qualities and background stories that never make the paper, it's just who they become to the author and in the end help to shape the character we get to read...

So stop your belly-aching and get over it already - He IS just a fictional character after all.

uhm.

really? no one else picked up on it while reading the f'in book?

god, i feel smart.

@bbdd
Nice point.

And personally, I think that all this really does is give more insight into Dumbledore's character. And it's not much of a surprise that JKR didn't talk about it in the HP books--after all, any decent author knows waay more about his/her characters than is ever shown.

I KNEW IT! it was glaringly obvious in the book 7.the way she wrote about grindlevald and DD and DD's extraordinary guilt about what happened. he was head over hells in love and blind to GG's faults. put into that context, the story of their final battle takes on much deeper layers.
real smart of jkr to do it now, after the last book has long been out, put a new spin in the air all over again.

The ONLY reason she did not release this earlier is because she knew she wouldn't make the money she did, and then after her pockets are fat, she exposes her own political beliefs at no loss to herself financially. Coward and sellout.

@71
I can' believe you stated, "Every time I think of Dumbledore as a loving and a paternal man I now envision him undressing Harry in his mind." I have to ask, so up to this point, you thought dumbledore was undressing little Ginny's robes every time he looked at her???
Statistically, gay men are less likely to molest than straight men. For the sake of the magical world, they need to invent a Queer Felicis potion. For the Children!!!

This has no significant effect on getting people to sympathize with gay people. The group of people who believe gay people are awful and deserve to be killed almost entirely overlaps the group of people who believe that Harry Potter teaches kids to practice the Occult.

It's basically a silly move by a bad writer. Enjoying the books is fine and all, but what's with everyone hanging on for every bit of extra trivia she might drop? The characters are nearly all as flat as can be while maintaining the pace of the plot.

@71

What the fuck?

"Every time I think of Dumbledore as a loving and a paternal man I now envision him undressing Harry in his mind."

You're pretty much saying that just because he's gay,
he's a perveted, child molesting freak.
As a bisexual woman,
I can safely say that I don't undress young girls with my eyes.
How is calling all homosexuals pedophiles any better a message for gay people than JK Rowling keeping him in the closet?
Its not healthy,
but at least shes not calling them child molesters.

Also, the announcement may or may not be important to the story,
and it is most likely a cash grab,
but who cares?
Homosexuality is still a huge issue in todays society,
and if saying that Dumbledore is gay will help open that topic up for the yonger generation,
then so be it.

Well, one of the only really amazing things about the HP books was the way that pre-teen/teens across America became enthralled with a romantic notion of life in British Public Schools, never understanding how enmeshed homosexuality was/is to the culture of BPS. Nary a whiff appears in the HP books as to how homosexuality might have a place in Hogwarts (not to mention how it might thrive there). Except that none of the teachers are married....

Hmmm.

Now methinks that Snapes and Dumbledore had "matched wands" more than a few times. And what pray tell did they do during those long summer vacations when all the pesky students had gone home. Hogwarts as Fire Island! Now THIS offers up some real possibilities for FAN FICTION!!!! Just think what the parties would have been like with all the little nooks and crannies and places to "get lost" for a few minutes, a few hours, or a few days!

And the Sorting Hat could no doubt be called upon to match people up in the most delightful ways...

Props to Bryan for the amazing use of logic and literary knowledge. Dumbledore isn't anything; how right that is. If she really wanted him to be gay, she should have said so in the books.

Props to Johnny for being honest and having no fear of being ridiculed for his Christian beliefs. Shame on all of you who called him a brainwashed bigot. When are you going to understand that real Christians don't hate gay people? The Bible says being gay is harmful. Most Christians believe the Bible, and when they speak up against homosexuality, they are exhibiting concern for your welfare.

I know that sounds crazy if you are homosexual, or not a Christian, but please try to understand... God has said "no" to the practice of homosexuality because He is trying to help you avoid pain. And Christians (myself included) are trying to do the same. By the way, when Christians get insulting and mean, they are not exhibiting the right spirit, and I apologize for those people. But please don't judge us all based on what you have heard from a few loudmouths.

Props to Natalie for being downright funny.

Props to Bryan for the amazing use of logic and literary knowledge. Dumbledore isn't anything; how right that is. If she really wanted him to be gay, she should have said so in the books.

Props to Johnny for being honest and having no fear of being ridiculed for his Christian beliefs. Shame on all of you who called him a brainwashed bigot. When are you going to understand that real Christians don't hate gay people? The Bible says being gay is harmful. Most Christians believe the Bible, and when they speak up against homosexuality, they are exhibiting concern for your welfare.

I know that sounds crazy if you are homosexual, or not a Christian, but please try to understand... God has said "no" to the practice of homosexuality because He is trying to help you avoid pain. And Christians (myself included) are trying to do the same. By the way, when Christians get insulting and mean, they are not exhibiting the right spirit, and I apologize for those people. But please don't judge us all based on what you have heard from a few loudmouths.

Props to Natalie for being downright funny.

Sorry for the double post. I'm done now.

jk rowling is mad.

@71: You're a fucking pervert in need of a pre-emptive sex offender registry entry.

@ all those people who are saying there was no dialogue/subtext in the books and that she's mentioning now is absolutely outrageous...

Harry Potter has become an international phenomenon. Like Star Wars and its numerous 'expanded' novellas, JK has started to influence the continuation of the HP world in her own way. To many adoring fans, HP isn't just a series, it's a world, and to JK also it's more more than just 'some books she wrote'.

As someone mentioned, the books are written from the perspective of Harry Potter. If Harry Potter didn't know D was gay... well then the reader doesn't know D was gay. There's no reason for the subtext to be included in the books. This is part of the 'expanded' universe of Harry Potter.

What people need to understand that HP is no longer just a series, it's a world. Perhaps someone will write a book acccounting Dumbledore's tragic loss? Just because it wasn't (or was hardly) noted at in the books doesn't mean it reduces its veracity.

And guess what? She's the author - she can do what she wants :-)

But personally, I would have rathered the subtext included in the books. I agree with people who comment that children have some knowledge of the existence of homosexuality - like it or not, some kids will be born gay, there is no choice factor involved. And it is for those children that having queer characters is such a good thing. Some kids might be confused, but they WOULDN'T be if the media discourse included a realistic amount and realistic portrayal of homosexuality.

-Mother of two

P.S - Thanks Johnny for noting that 'billions' of people in the world think homosexuality is an abomination... there are only 6 billion people in the world. And studies show that homosexuality is at about 75% acceptance (and rising every day as the older conservative generation dies out, stubborn and stuck in their old ways). Ignoring of course fundamentalist, extremest and authoritarian countries where it is illegal to have free will and have a mind of your own, I think these figures put your statement a LITTLE out of whack. Keep fighting though - I'm sure God will come one day and smite all the gays off the earth to help you out.

Dear Felix,

As a rationalist, I'm exhibiting concern for your welfare and trying to help you avoid pain when I tell you that your religion is demonstrably wrong, and you're wasting your life by following it(or the parts of it you choose to believe in, anyway). Please stop, and think about what other 2000 year old practices you still participate in. Medicine? Diet?

I'm only looking out for you, buddy.

Dear Chris in Tampa,

Thank you for your concern. I am curious why you think that Christianity is "demonstrably wrong." Can you back that statement up with proof?

p.s. There is a gigantic difference between practice and faith. Love was around 2000 years ago, as well as family, the desire for peace, and many other good things that have stood the test of time.

p.p.s. I'm female. But if you want to call me buddy, that's okay. ;)

Proof? Do you know what constitutes proof?

I have a number of proofs:

The Bible is the inerrant word of the infallible Christian God. In order for it to be inerrant, there would have to be no inconsistencies, or downright falsehoods in it. Therefore, if there was at least one inconsistency or falsehood in the Bible, it would not be the inerrant word of God, and that God would by definition, be fallible.

I won't bore you with the list of the demonstrably false information in the bible.

This proof is entirely valid and sound, albeit crudely shaped. The problem is, that you don't believe in Christianity, you only say you do. You pick and choose what you would like to believe in, and call it Christianity, because that's what someone told you it was called. So naturally, you deny that the bible necessarily has to be accurate in order for it to prove God's existence, which is categorically false.

Another proof, not for Christianity alone, is the omnipotence paradox. The key component to this is understanding that science presupposes that all things in the universe operate to a set group of laws, and that things will always react the same way according to these laws.
You've heard this before, I'm sure, but God cannot create a [something] so [something] that he can't [something] it. Omnipotent beings cannot coexist with the laws of the universe, because they would undermine them. They usurp cause and effect. Now, you can still believe in God at this point, but not if you're using a computer, because to use a computer necessarily places faith in the fact that it will operate according to how it is designed because it has been proven to work based on Scientific laws, and not on whimsy of some omnipotent being.

I could go into more depth, or even phrase these arguments in a more cohesive and altogether more proof-like fashion, but like I said, you'll basically evade it all with a "nuh-uh" no matter what I say, because you believe in magic, and there's not one thing in the world that could convince you otherwise.

@ felix

Have you ever read the bible?
The bible is something that is not to be read literally.
Seeing as how you do,
you must then also believe the following:

"For everyone who curses his father or his mother shall surely be put to death. He has cursed his father or his mother. His blood shall be upon him." (Leviticus 20:9)

"Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property." (Leviticus 25:44-45)

"Do not cut the hair at the sides of your head or clip off the edges of your beard." (Leviticus 19:27)

"...do not plant your field with two kinds of seed. Do not wear material woven of two kinds of material." (Leviticus 19:19)

Stop being such a fucking hypocrite.

Those homophobic "loudmouths" may hate us,
but at least they have the balls to admit it,
instead of hiding behind their religion
and a bullshit facade of pity.
I would rather be told I was sick and disgusting because someone outright hates me,
than to be told it so that you can feel better about yourself.

Oh, and just so you know,
being gay is definately not painful...
in fact, when I'm engaged in those blasphemous activities,
I can honestly say that pain is the last thing on my mind.

Sure was a beautiful afternoon. I went outside and raked some leaves, talked to my neighbors, went to the gym, then headed down to Stumptown for a cup of coffee, did some grocery shopping, and got a couple loads of laundry in before house managing for my theatre company's show tonight.

So, what did the rest of you do today?

WTF!!! and i was thinking to go to hogwarts, i guess i'll never put my step where a bloody gay was headmaster, i love potter series, but this is f**king disapointing, you'll burn in hell rowling!!

HAVEN'T YOU EVER READ THE FUCKING BIBLE???

"YOU MUST NOT ACCEPT THOSE FREAKS, THOSE BASTARDS, THOSE BLOODY SO-CALLED GAYS, OR GOD WILL COME TO STUCK A SWORD UPON YOUR ASS AND SMASH YOUR EGGS TO A FIREWALL, AND CUT YOUR HEAD AND OFFER IT TO THE PIGS,YOU SHALL NOT ACCEPT GAYS" (APOCOLIPS 2:18)

guess the brother with the thing for goats took some of the pressure off...

STEVEN:
You're creating satire right?
Kind of like Ann Coulter
I know people like you just can't exist.
Because a character with your intelligence level just cannot possibly know how to work a keyboard.
Brilliant character though.
You actually got me for sec.

I thought a brother with a thing for goats was interesting. Having just read all 7 books in a row the goat reference crops up a few times.

I also assumed DD was gay, don't know why. The thing is there were lots of characters and she could not include detailed back plots for all of them and it has been mentioned it was all from HP point of view.

What might be better than letting out this info via press conferences, another book letting us know what happened next (if you don't like the idea then don't read it)

I want to know if Umbridge got "I must not tacitly support the Dark Lord" etched into her forehead. Did HP walk straight into the Head Aurors office and say "I have survived the killing curse at least 3 times and defeated the most evil wizard of all time, I want a job, 6 figure salary and a company broom!"

It's not too late for the movie version of DD to get a gay scene. Especially since they will likely have a young DD in the 7th movie in the form of memory flashbacks. It would be awesome if they made it know that DD was gay in the 7th movie! That would really explode the brains of xtian parents!

You people are fucking retarded.

As if everything connects with the gay, bi..., it will be famous.

Checked a site http//www.bicupid.com. All are fasion people, fasion lifestyle.

It's really, really weid to me that this topic has brought out all the asshole homophobes and judgemental christians. WTF?

@93, I went to my doctor and got checked for possible ADHD.

She may as well have said Dumbledore was a cyborg. There was no allusion to it in the books therefore its a total non-sequitor.

Or was he in love with Grindelwald?... interesting

um...@71, I didn't say that at all...I just sayed it wasn't helpful to gay teens, like people had been saying, because Dumbledore never came out and just hid it for his whole life.

*said* Bah I need coffee...

This is a cheap trick to make her fans believe that she is a champion of gay rights as she chose the most respected, noble and senior character in Harry Potter to portray a gay man. Maybe she wants to include gays in her fan club or does she have plans to run for primeminister after her career since we do know that views about gay rights, mercy killings, abortions and other trivial issues are more important election issues rather than racism, development, employment etc?

Sick, sick, sick! Homosexuality is a sexual addiction where conditioning usually starts at an early age. Young children are often the victims of older homosexuals and begin connecting sexual pleasure with the private parts of their own sex. Further experiences and experimentation slowly develop into a full blown lust for homosexual partners leading to other children being introduced to this filthy lifestyle. Love is replaced with lust. Degenerate sex for relationship.

So is the love that Dumbledore has for Harry a father/son type of love or a man/boy lust relationship? Will Harry end up shocking us about all of Dumbledore's unwanted physical advances and molestation? Will we be able to now see all their sexual escapades in the pensive?

What I thought was a pure and in some respects Christlike figure is now suddenly something that makes my stomach sick. Thank you J. K. Rowling for this revelation. All of my enthusiasm for the Potter series has in one stroke disappeared. A Christian classic it will now never become. Rowling is obviously not the genius I once thought she was. Just a degenerate wolf in sheep's clothing.

I'm sure that I'm missing something, but where did this story come from? I didn't see a link to the original story anywhere in the post. Just curious.

I think JKR has with this comment made some positive PR and reached a new audience, yes the homosexual ones, and definitely alienated others. I have sung her praises for years with the greatness of what HP conveys, and DD being outed as homosexual, a character looked upto my many people especially kids, is shocking, being homosexual is a choice and not natural and is induced, shame on JKR for turning more of the world homosexual through poisoning the minds of the very young and impressionable.

Oh yes by all means class me as a homphobe, do I care? Not realy, I would rather be a homophobe any day than a homophile.

@ Ryan, the story can be found at http://www.the-leaky-cauldron.org/2007/10/20/j-k-rowling-at-carnegie-hall-reveals-dumbledore-is-gay-neville-marries-hannah-abbott-and-scores-more

To the rest of you, it's a book...a fictional story.

For those of you who think it's awful a fictional character was a closet case and *gasp* had a job which brought him in contact with children, grow up. You are more likely to be a pervert than any gay person. Most children who are molested are girls. By straight men.

For those of you who are horrified he was a closetcase and a cheap PR stunt by the auther, grow up. Dumbledore may have been more overtly gay in the British version of HP, but had most mention of it edited out by American publishers. They did that with stuff that was "too British", because they felt a more Americanized book would sell better in this market.

But then again, Dumbledore isn't real so it doesn't really matter.

I love that nothing any of you people say actually matters. As a writer, she reserves the right to say anything about her characters that she wishes. She basically just flipped off all the people who hate her books. I love J.K. for this.
And I'm a Christian teenager; anybody who thinks these books are about witchcraft is a complete moron. Have you ever READ the books?
And the fact that the Headmaster of the school is homosexual and yet he's the hero of millions all over the world. That's pretty damn cool, I'm not going to lie.
Last time I checked, the Ten Commandments stated not to take the name of the lord in vain. Doesn't vanity mean believing you are better than other people? Just a thought, maybe God doesn't like it when you judge other people, because "all have sinned and come short of the glory of God"?
I wish you people would read what you preach.

Yay, Kasey! You said it so well. .

Whatever. This is a total cop-out. If the character was gay, it should have been mentioned in the book... otherwise, it's just pointless (any cynical) grandstanding on JKR's part.

I was there when she said it. She told us that is a prequisite to telling us that he and grindlewald were "together." That is why she felt the need to say it. She waited til now because no one ever asked her til now. She also said that she has had to tell the people who write the movie scripts before because they had dumbledore making a comment about "a girl he once knew with hair that shone." It's not a ploy to sell books it's just the way she has percieved the character SHE wrote.

Who cares? Terrible books. It's fiction. Fiction is bad for you. Fiction makes you have unrealistic expectations of the world. True story.

@29 actually for your information she said he did find love. Just because it was his "great tragedy," that was only because it was with grindlewald who later turned evil!

@29 actually for your information she said he did find love. Just because it was his "great tragedy," that was only because it was with grindlewald who later turned evil!

RIDICULOUS.

It was so easy to feel like you knew JK's characters, and i just cannot see Dumbledore as gay.

Kudos to Rowling for including gay people in her literary world. I only wish we had a culture that would have allowed her to actually include this in the book.

So this revelation raises more questions in my mind. What was the Dumbledore / Grindlewald romance like? Rowling never gets into wizard
sex, but you know they must have some wicked spells for the boudoir.

And then, who else might be gay?

My top list -- Voldemort himself. There was something about the connection between Dumbledore and Voldemort that could read gay. The young, troubled prodigy rescued from the muggle orphanage. A successor to Grindlewald in every way?

And I have a sneaking suspicion about Horace Slughorn -- a drinker who cultivates celebrities and throws great parties. Harry remarks that his house looks like that of a fussy old lady.

Oh, and Professor Grubbly-Plank, who fills in for Hagrid teaching care of magical creatures. She always struck me as a big ol' country dyke
who was great with horses.

That's it.

Wow, seeing DumbleDore porn would be frickin bomb-diggity.

I bet he could take a massive wang, anyday.

Delicioso!

What always gets me about people who, in this day and age spout any one of what are increasingly preset, recorded lines condemning gays and being gay, is that they act as if they have:

1. Never, ever, EVER, talked to a real live gay person for more than a few seconds, or from behind a shouting match between sides at a mutually assured hate rally,

or,

2. Place their own beliefs - and beliefs which frequently fall under more than a little reasonable suspicion of being biased by their own insecurity, disgust, or fear - above the existence of another real life human being, turning gays - in their minds - into sub-human creatures - or - "charitably" think of them as poor, broken individuals who just need to "get better" or be told kindly how "wrong" they are when there is nothing inherently, demonstrably, wrong.*

So on one hand, you have those who engage in the fundamental reasoning that has been the foundation of all discrimination in human history, and on the other, you have those who engage in the reason that has been the foundation of all cultural imperialism. Good going.

* This sort of point will, of course, inspire a litany of ways in which being gay hurts both you and, gasp, The Children, but nothing anyone has come up with can truly stand up to reality itself, and is merely either: cherry picks specific situations where something bad has happened to someone due to specific circumstances; or puts for vague condemnations about how something will kill us all without any real, legitimate indication that it might besides somebody, somewhere, having issues and being afraid of it. There is zero difference here between homophobes and racists who have, at various times, listed a litany of reasons why Coloured Folk marrying Pretty White Girls or Drinking From the Same Fountains would result in the damnation and destruction of man upon the face of the Earth.

Whitey's marri'n Blacky and we're still here.

People are living, loving, laughing, and going to bed at night with a clean conscience as both "gay" and "straight" couples, and we're still here.

Dumbledore is gay, and we're still here.

Jesus Christ people - and I do not invoke that as irony - get /over/ yourselves. Just move on.

How great is that. Now the people who wantet to burn the books in the first place will explode with rage :) Always good to annoy religious people and surprise everyone else!!

Would all of you people getting on JKR's case please stop? She expanded and developed the character in her mind, and he turned out gay. BIG DEAL. It's not like it matters. It's not a PR stunt- she was asked a question, and answered it honestly. Dumbledore found true love with Grindelwald. Therefore, he can be classified as gay. Your point? Yes, it's a bit startling. Yes, it wasn't really mentioned in the books, but so what? It's not like any of that MATTERS! Some people here have said this really well, while others are simply being ridiculous and immature. I agree- Grow up.

The number of people here equating homosexuality with pedophilia makes me physically ill.

Did Molly Weasley just want to see Harry naked? Did Hagrid secretly want to bang Hermione? Those of you who are straight adults, when you see a kid of the opposite sex, are you nice to them just so you can get into their pants?

And as for 109 -- I have a healthier sexuality than most people I know. I was never molested and neither were the majority of queer people I know. (A really heartbreaking number of straight women were though.) And no, Harry will not shock us about anything, because the books are over. Did you miss that?

You people are bigoted morons. You make me want to hurl the entire series at you one after another.

I'm glad the issue's brought up. I've been reading all these comments and.. I dunno. Some hate it but most are completely elated. Does anybody take a little time off and start thinking what homosexuality implies?

I mean.. it used to be illegal, now it's all very proper and admirable to accept homosexuality. I guess a real HP fan would follow JKR when she asked them to "question authority."

It just seems like governments and society as a whole are just busy rubbing off old lines and drawing new ones. Has anybody raised a better question than "How can it be wrong/right when in my opinion it's so obviously right/wrong?"

Think about it. If it is perfectly acceptable for two men to be in love/each other, what gives us the moral authority to suddenly look down upon people who have "inappropriate" relationships within the family?

Imagine this plot: Dumbledore was madly in love with his sister (in a sexually oriented way), and after what Grindelwald did to her, DD got really mad and decided to bring him down.

This would've been quite shocking for that audience. I doubt anyone would've applauded. But that's only because our society hasn't yet reached a point where such relations are thought of as "natural" or "ethical." Same thing homosexuality is going/went through. The best guess anyone can come up with will involve the words "freedom" or "mutual" a lot, but honestly, does anybody really have anything better to go by than their gut feeling?

The fact that I'll immediately be labeled as a homophobe is exactly what I'm elaborating here. For all you know, I might be gay/straight/in love with my sister. I'm just doing the same thing JKR told her fans to do: question.

BTW, my favorite character in the book is Dumbledore. Or maybe Ron. Either was brilliantly portrayed. That is, in my opinion. And unless I find someone whose arguments I simply cannot refute, I'm sticking to it.

l.chicago@yahoo.com

...Get over it already. So he was gay. Does it matter? Not really.

It would have been nice if his feelings for Grindelwald were made clearer, so as to add more development to that part of the story, but that wasn't about to happen in the books because if she had added it she would have had to deal with the hoards of protests and the like about a *gasp* gay man being the headmaster of a school with *gasp* children.

If she had outed Dumbledore earlier, he would have been 'the gay character' to many people reading the books. He would have not been appreciated for the character he was by the public, because of the prevelance of twisted and missguided views about homosexuality.

I wouldn't have outed him until later either. That way people got to enjoy the books, get to know the character, and then learn this minor detail about his life. Because it is just that. a MINOR detail.

im still very pissed at this. Its just a big cry for attention. I respected dumbledore [i still do] but somethings changed. i just think she could have done without this rumor

I'm still not sure why Rowling decided to reveal this information now, but it is known that she had created Dumbledore as a gay character and didn't just make up the answer on the spot.

I'm just concerned by the fact that so many people react like 'OMG, Dumbledore is GAY!' as if 'GAY' meant something like, I don't know, 'disgusting pedophile that wanted to rape everyone in Hogwarts'.

Get over it. He was Hogwarts Headmaster, one of the greatest wizards of all times, and the fact that he was attracted to another Wizard doesn't change anything about who he was or why we admire him.

http://omareduardo13.wordpress.com/

I Believe JK shouldn't have displayed this information. Imagine the little kids that are reading the books

Dang.. this almost further lowers my opinion of Dumbledore. As if the mutilation of his character in the last several books wasn't enough.

She should've revealed this little tid-bit in the books themselves so it could've gotten a more proper reaction :)

I think all of this angsting is ridiculous. JK Rowling lived and worked with these characters for a very large portion of her adult life. They are more real and expanded to her than what just shows up on the pages of those 7 books. If she chooses to tell the world how she saw the characters in ways that didn't quite fit into the plot, what's wrong with that? Whether or not she's liberal or a neo-con, or whether this is a money grab, or whatever is not the point. She's describing how she views the characters she created.

Get over yourselves. This isn't about you.

The JK Rowling quote in the Guardian (http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,2196020,00.html) is

'My truthful answer to you...I always thought of Dumbledore as gay.'

and then after this preamble she continues with her answer.

Why didn't she put this in the book directly? I can only guess, but my guess would be because it would be superfluous. It was enough that it guided her conception and development of the character. Like maybe she thought of Luna Lovegood as a Mac user, but didn't need to come right out and say so; what would have been the point?

Idiots, and Chris from Tampa:

The cornerstone of Christianity is FAITH. Faith is trusting that something you cannot see our touch is real. To discuss an omnipotent being's relation and standing within the scientific communities structure totally disregards the fact that this being's omnipotence puts him outside of our rules. It's idiocy to persue that course of deduction.
There have NEVER been any scientists who could disprove anything in the bible. Many have tried. Never happened. CS Lewis made it his goal after university, and ended up becoming a christian.
I'm no fanatic, I just know what I believe and it's the only absolute truth there is. If I don't subscribe to the fact that it is what it is, then I am essentially making it some other type of belief outside of Christianity.

Or you could care about and even discuss an imaginary character's sexual preference.

Idiots.

Hahahahahaha!

Dumbledore likes backdoor fun? Gives a whole new meaning to him being 'the only wizard that Voldemort ever feared.'

Puts a damper on the story though.

Rebecca #116 god damn I'm jealous. I would have loved to have been there. I was in the process of rereading the book when this revelation came out and have to say JK does definitly hint at this throughout. I love hearing her tales later that help to add to our knowledge of these characters we love so dearly. And all you fundies out there who have a problem with this, we gay people are everywhere and we ain't goin away so get used to 'xplainin to your kids cause I'm gonna kiss my partner whenever I feel like it and I hardly care if your kid sees. We're legal here in Jersey and many other places and acceptance only going to spread. So learn to deal.

To me, this whole thing just seems silly. So she said he's gay. That makes some happy, good for you. That makes some upset, get over it, it's a book.

My problem is with the people that want this out in the book, that believe we need to be exposed to it, that kids need role models who are gay. I think kids need to learn about sexuality, and that we are all different, and to accept those differences, but role models?

This would mean that for every fictional character, we need to know EVERYTHING. Favorite color, favorite food, favorite clothing manufacturer, etc. I think it's just as relevant for a kid to have a role model that "also likes the color green best" as it is to base a role model on what said "role model" chooses to do with his or her genitalia.

I know it's not all about physical sexuality, homo or hetero, but seriously, I want my kids to look up to people based upon their accomplishments and their character, and not where they have been genetically, or otherwise, predisposed to stick their willy. I have taught my kids that the world is full of different people, and that we are accepting as parents wherever they end up in life, as long as they show good character and work hard.

If we teach tolerance and understanding, it simply DOES NOT MATTER whether some fictional character is gay or straight, as sexuality becomes irrelevant.

Ok. I don't think this is a slap in the face to gays at all. I am personally gay, and all we want is to be seen as equal, because in my eyes, we are all equal. So her not putting the fact that he is gay, is actually respectful because there would be no reason to mention it. Would she have stated he was heterosexual? No, because its not needed.

Tolerant, that is all well and good and understandable but think if you kid is gay and has no-one who is like him/her to look up to. Gay is hardly about where you (how'd you put it?) "stick your willy". Lets face it we need to see ourselves reflected in literture or media, gays, blacks, women, etc. You can't just say "we just need to see nice worthy people" you know it more complex than that.

@135

The excuse that omnipotent beings fall "outside our rules" is invalid and ridiculous. Every religion's mythology purports that their god created the universe. How could it create a universe in which it clearly cannot exist or tamper with?

Also, the flood and Genesis stories have both been disproven. Also, the earth isn't 6000 years old. Also, the earth is not the center of the universe.

Also, absolute truth requires absolute proof, and not faith.

Same sexual has so fascination？
-http://www.findbilover.com-

Ok well I'm just gonna do kind of a general response here. The whole thing about sexuality being innapropriate for children um newsflash all the straight relationships mentioned in harry potter are sexuality. Some people seem to think that gay relationships are more perverted than straight relationships because gay men have kinky sex constantly or something. As to J.K. Rowling being irresponsible outing Dumbledore now, and how it didn't answer the question, you might want to read the rest of the interview. She went on to talk about how Dumbledore was in love with Grindelwald. The question was answered. Oh and one specific response @ #45. The fear of God is brainwashing done by the church. It is NOT a sin to be gay. If you think it is, then you must also not eat shellfish and must sacrifice lambs to make a pleasing aroma for the lord, as both of those