Comments on Dumbledore = Gay

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 are also mentioned in Leviticus. AND God wouldn't send someone to hell for love.

@141

Well put.

But maybe the concept of "the universe" isn't all that clear to us. If God is indeed the creator, He (the uncreated by definition) simply doesn't have to be restricted by the rules of this created universe. Bit like a programmer and the program he created. They simply cannot be united. But this is not to say he doesn't exist.

@127

[QUOTE]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.[\QOUTE]

Good point, actually.

Well, I have to say I enjoy the amplification of the story. I know that on occasion when I reread the stories, I will now think of Dumbledore in a slightly different way, but it won't change my enjoyment of the book. Instead of having horrible images of Dumbledore and McGonagal, I'll have horrible images of Dumbledore and Grindelwald. I DO think she has ruined the books for the homo-intolerant who will no doubt do the same thing and get righteously upset each time he comes into the story. THAT is sad, whether due to their intolerance, or her dropping this (to some) unacceptable bomb.
And as an aside, you don't need to be a scientist to prove fallibility in the Bible. If you don't believe me, do a little research. I'm not knocking it, but it's silly to say it's absolute truth.

Ok. For one, she did answer the question. Dumbledore did find true love. In Grindelwald. So just stop saying that she didn't answer the question.

For two, it wasn't necessary to say in the books that Dumbledore was gay. There is loads of stuff not mentioned in the book. Don't be idiots and believe that there isn't more to each character. She didn't need to say that Dumbledore was gay, but i bet she based a lot of his past actions on the fact that he was. He didn't kill Grindelwald did he?

Three, who cares? So you're not going to read the books because Dumbledore's gay? Please. Spare us. We DONT CARE. Whatever, that just sucksss for you because you're missing out due to your ingnorance and intolerability. Love is love, and Dumbledore knows love more than most of us.

As for the question of faith, believe what you want to believe. That's one of the beauties of being human. But yeah, people have disproven the bible. It's a book, people, and if you want to believe that it's been unchanged throughout the years, whatever. Live with your head in the sand. But Harry Potter shouldn't be judged by one character who happens to be gay. And an amazing man. Grow up.

Also, STOP saying little kids dont need to know this. Little kids need to grow up eventualy, one step at a time. There are gays in this world, and none of your fanatic 'religious' escapades will stop that. What do you want to do about people who are gay? Kill them? Go against your religion? Because theyre not going to change their sexuality for you. I just so happen to be 'just a kid' and i think i'm already a lot more savvy than many of you.

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

And for this ^^^ dude...ok eddie, go live in your little box. Terrible books? Yeah. I'm sure a lot of people are with you on that. Fiction is bad? Ohhh yeah. It's terrible.

For all you people who believe that she didnt say this earlier so she could make more money...I'm sure you know JK really well. Oh yeah. Youre totally bffs, right?

Stop trying to say why she didnt do this earlier. You DONT know. So shut up :)

and for my last statement:
Read what you preach people.
Harry Potter and Jk Rowling are awesome.

WHAT!?!?!?!? WHOA WHOA WHOA BACK UP!!!!!! WHAT omg the very foundations of the earth have been shaken!!! DUMBLEDORE?!?!? I'm sorry but i refuse to believe that this was the original intention for the character. Being a Christian, I believe homosexuality is wrong, but I also believe God wants us to love our neighbors. So all you haters out there STOP JUDGING!!! That's God's job, not yours.
Anyways, I think that though some passages in the 7th book could be interpreted that way, from the very start, there has been NO implication or even any reason to think that Dumbledore is gay. NONE WHATSOEVER!! And to throw in that he loved Grindelwald is simply preposterous!!! Can men no longer have a close friendship without eyebrows raising?! Though this may be the new perspective, i highly doubt that this was the original intention for poor Albus Dumbledore.

WHAT!?!?!?!? WHOA WHOA WHOA BACK UP!!!!!! WHAT omg the very foundations of the earth have been shaken!!! DUMBLEDORE?!?!? I'm sorry but i refuse to believe that this was the original intention for the character. Being a Christian, I believe homosexuality is wrong, but I also believe God wants us to love our neighbors. So all you haters out there STOP JUDGING!!! That's God's job, not yours.
Anyways, I think that though some passages in the 7th book could be interpreted that way, from the very start, there has been NO implication or even any reason to think that Dumbledore is gay. NONE WHATSOEVER!! And to throw in that he loved Grindelwald is simply preposterous!!! Can men no longer have a close friendship without eyebrows raising?! Though this may be the new perspective, i highly doubt that this was the original intention for poor Albus Dumbledore.

I nominate this as worst Slog thread ever.

Least logic in the postings, least articulate postings, fewest veteran posts, etc etc etc.

I will be sooooo happy when this falls off the front page.

heheh, I really can't believe such a statement, even if it was by the author of the story. I don't think any self respecting author of a book would make such an outrageous and tacked-on statement on the most beloved character of the story. I also suspect that J.K Rowling has had a few screws loosened since after the 2nd or third book. I suspect burnout.

Well Big Sven, I have now posted my second comment. How many do I need to belong to this august group of veteran posters? I would second your nomination, but I fear I may not have the standing to do so.
That being said, it is a book of fiction, and entirely the authors creation. I think criticizing the content is logical, acceptable, and part and parcel with living an examined life, but critiquing the author herself is a bit silly. I mean, are you going to criticize me for having my dreams and fantasies? Thank the author for having the courage to share hers with you, don't denigrate her for having them.

Maybe she'll develop the theme more in a prequel.

In response to # 63

Ok, wtf are you talking about? I'm guessing that being in prison and then on the run makes it hard to have a romantic life and being a werewolf doesn't help either as Lupin explained to Tonks! WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?? Plus I always got the feeling Sirius was like a womanizer at Hogwarts

In fact, I can see it now: Bertie Botts' Every Flavour Tea and Sympathy...

The series was not about a gay headmaster, or a gay teacher or a gay mentor. The series was about a boy. The books have enough complicated sub-plots as it was without dominating the story with Harry's teacher's sexuality. There was no strong necessity for bringing it out to advance the plot (in the course of the books), especially when you consider how the furor over it would have overshadowed the story she was telling. It would have distracted from her major plots and themes (and made the damn books even longer).

But having said that, she's the kind of author who just knows all sorts of unecessary facts about all her characters. They inform her writing and her perception of the characters but not nearly all of it is needed to advance the main plot. She's already told her fans lots of trivia during the course of her writing that she knew she'd never have an excuse to work in. THat's just how she operates.

Dumbledore's sexuality makes damn little difference to the plot or to his character. But what does make a difference is knowing what his choice tell us about him. He loved deeply, but chose to oppose the man he loved for ethical reasons. He chooses justice over his own desires. That tells us a lot about him. The gender of his love interest is really immaterial.

Dumbledore is gay? You DO understand that this is simply Benny Hill, speaking from beyond the grave, right? I mean, properly decoded, the Message is:
Gumbeldoris Day! (which is so utterly unorthodox it shox my sox off... heavens!) ^..^

I was always an LOTR fan..tried reading HP once and hated it. I sure am going to give it another shot now. So, she'll lose some sales and has most certainly gained some. Homophobes, in my opinion, greatly underestimate the number of gays that actually exist (which is why they're so ashamed of themselves being gay, usually)

As I've been lead to believe, the story is told in the first person in Harry's POV. If Dumbledore never told Harry he was gay, it won't be in the book.

I don't understand...if you read the book and truly loved it, doesn't that mean that you bought into the whole fantasy aspect? Every character in the series has their own lives lived til their death with many events inbetween. Just cause it hasn't been written about doesn't mean it didn't/couldn't happen.

I agree that his sexuality is something that should never have been brought up due to the context. The only way to end homophobia is to let our presence be known. However, it usually ends up with people who are truly ignorant just assuming that gays are insane and cannot be trusted. If another straight person (Rowling) sticks up for gays, it's much more effective because you can no longer assume that they're insane, and you can trust them.

JK Rowling is a HERO for more people than you realize. I've never read more than a few pages of the first book, either.

i really think rowling made a huge mistake by catagorizing Dumbledore as gay.I was always very comfortable with the depiction of Dumbledore as a celibate person with no love life.Dumbledore knows the power of love but doesn't fall in romantic love himself because romantic love is only possible amongst equals and Dumbledore never had any equals, so he never had a romantic relationship with another man or woman.

Then in book #7 we find out about dumbledore and griendelwald's brief but deep friendship.This friendship took the form of Love for Dumbledore because for the first time he communed with a mind as brilliant as his own.I don't think the question of gender really arose here as Dumbledore would have fallen for griendelwald regardless of whether he was man ,woman or transgender;because what he loved about griendelwald was his ingenuity and brilliance that was so much like his own and which equalled and challenged his own.If Dumbledore had found this same brilliance in a woman,he would have fallen for her too.So it would be wrong to categorise DD as gay as essentially he would have fallen for Griendelwald and only griendelwald regardless of his gender; as DD loved him as a human being,as a person.The romantic feelings would have flowed from that.

So it really not that DD is gay or straight as i don't think he could have been attracted to any other man or woman except Griendelwald and since his love for him never turned physical,DD remained celibate for life.It fits his character and his greatness that he never found a worthy equal to Love.It's sad but it makes sense.

i really think rowling made a huge mistake by catagorizing Dumbledore as gay.I was always very comfortable with the depiction of Dumbledore as a celibate person with no love life.Dumbledore knows the power of love but doesn't fall in romantic love himself because romantic love is only possible amongst equals and Dumbledore never had any equals, so he never had a romantic relationship with another man or woman.

Then in book #7 we find out about dumbledore and griendelwald's brief but deep friendship.This friendship took the form of Love for Dumbledore because for the first time he communed with a mind as brilliant as his own.I don't think the question of gender really arose here as Dumbledore would have fallen for griendelwald regardless of whether he was man ,woman or transgender;because what he loved about griendelwald was his ingenuity and brilliance that was so much like his own and which equalled and challenged his own.If Dumbledore had found this same brilliance in a woman,he would have fallen for her too.So it would be wrong to categorise DD as gay as essentially he would have fallen for Griendelwald and only griendelwald regardless of his gender; as DD loved him as a human being,as a person.The romantic feelings would have flowed from that.

So it really not that DD is gay or straight as i don't think he could have been attracted to any other man or woman except Griendelwald and since his love for him never turned physical,DD remained celibate for life.It fits his character and his greatness that he never found a worthy equal to Love.It's sad but it makes sense.

i really think rowling made a huge mistake by catagorizing Dumbledore as gay.I was always very comfortable with the depiction of Dumbledore as a celibate person with no love life.Dumbledore knows the power of love but doesn't fall in romantic love himself because romantic love is only possible amongst equals and Dumbledore never had any equals, so he never had a romantic relationship with another man or woman.

Then in book #7 we find out about dumbledore and griendelwald's brief but deep friendship.This friendship took the form of Love for Dumbledore because for the first time he communed with a mind as brilliant as his own.I don't think the question of gender really arose here as Dumbledore would have fallen for griendelwald regardless of whether he was man ,woman or transgender;because what he loved about griendelwald was his ingenuity and brilliance that was so much like his own and which equalled and challenged his own.If Dumbledore had found this same brilliance in a woman,he would have fallen for her too.So it would be wrong to categorise DD as gay as essentially he would have fallen for Griendelwald and only griendelwald regardless of his gender; as DD loved him as a human being,as a person.The romantic feelings would have flowed from that.

So it really not that DD is gay or straight as i don't think he could have been attracted to any other man or woman except Griendelwald and since his love for him never turned physical,DD remained celibate for life.It fits his character and his greatness that he never found a worthy equal to Love.It's sad but it makes sense.

i really think rowling made a huge mistake by catagorizing Dumbledore as gay.I was always very comfortable with the depiction of Dumbledore as a celibate person with no love life.Dumbledore knows the power of love but doesn't fall in romantic love himself because romantic love is only possible amongst equals and Dumbledore never had any equals, so he never had a romantic relationship with another man or woman.

Then in book #7 we find out about dumbledore and griendelwald's brief but deep friendship.This friendship took the form of Love for Dumbledore because for the first time he communed with a mind as brilliant as his own.I don't think the question of gender really arose here as Dumbledore would have fallen for griendelwald regardless of whether he was man ,woman or transgender;because what he loved about griendelwald was his ingenuity and brilliance that was so much like his own and which equalled and challenged his own.If Dumbledore had found this same brilliance in a woman,he would have fallen for her too.So it would be wrong to categorise DD as gay as essentially he would have fallen for Griendelwald and only griendelwald regardless of his gender; as DD loved him as a human being,as a person.The romantic feelings would have flowed from that.

So it really not that DD is gay or straight as i don't think he could have been attracted to any other man or woman except Griendelwald and since his love for him never turned physical,DD remained celibate for life.It fits his character and his greatness that he never found a worthy equal to Love.It's sad but it makes sense.

i really think rowling made a huge mistake by catagorizing Dumbledore as gay.I was always very comfortable with the depiction of Dumbledore as a celibate person with no love life.Dumbledore knows the power of love but doesn't fall in romantic love himself because romantic love is only possible amongst equals and Dumbledore never had any equals, so he never had a romantic relationship with another man or woman.

Then in book #7 we find out about dumbledore and griendelwald's brief but deep friendship.This friendship took the form of Love for Dumbledore because for the first time he communed with a mind as brilliant as his own.I don't think the question of gender really arose here as Dumbledore would have fallen for griendelwald regardless of whether he was man ,woman or transgender;because what he loved about griendelwald was his ingenuity and brilliance that was so much like his own and which equalled and challenged his own.If Dumbledore had found this same brilliance in a woman,he would have fallen for her too.So it would be wrong to categorise DD as gay as essentially he would have fallen for Griendelwald and only griendelwald regardless of his gender; as DD loved him as a human being,as a person.The romantic feelings would have flowed from that.

So it really not that DD is gay or straight as i don't think he could have been attracted to any other man or woman except Griendelwald and since his love for him never turned physical,DD remained celibate for life.It fits his character and his greatness that he never found a worthy equal to Love.It's sad but it makes sense.

i really think rowling made a huge mistake by catagorizing Dumbledore as gay.I was always very comfortable with the depiction of Dumbledore as a celibate person with no love life.Dumbledore knows the power of love but doesn't fall in romantic love himself because romantic love is only possible amongst equals and Dumbledore never had any equals, so he never had a romantic relationship with another man or woman.

Then in book #7 we find out about dumbledore and griendelwald's brief but deep friendship.This friendship took the form of Love for Dumbledore because for the first time he communed with a mind as brilliant as his own.I don't think the question of gender really arose here as Dumbledore would have fallen for griendelwald regardless of whether he was man ,woman or transgender;because what he loved about griendelwald was his ingenuity and brilliance that was so much like his own and which equalled and challenged his own.If Dumbledore had found this same brilliance in a woman,he would have fallen for her too.So it would be wrong to categorise DD as gay as essentially he would have fallen for Griendelwald and only griendelwald regardless of his gender; as DD loved him as a human being,as a person.The romantic feelings would have flowed from that.

So it really not that DD is gay or straight as i don't think he could have been attracted to any other man or woman except Griendelwald and since his love for him never turned physical,DD remained celibate for life.It fits his character and his greatness that he never found a worthy equal to Love.It's sad but it makes sense.

i really think rowling made a huge mistake by catagorizing Dumbledore as gay.I was always very comfortable with the depiction of Dumbledore as a celibate person with no love life.Dumbledore knows the power of love but doesn't fall in romantic love himself because romantic love is only possible amongst equals and Dumbledore never had any equals, so he never had a romantic relationship with another man or woman.

Then in book #7 we find out about dumbledore and griendelwald's brief but deep friendship.This friendship took the form of Love for Dumbledore because for the first time he communed with a mind as brilliant as his own.I don't think the question of gender really arose here as Dumbledore would have fallen for griendelwald regardless of whether he was man ,woman or transgender;because what he loved about griendelwald was his ingenuity and brilliance that was so much like his own and which equalled and challenged his own.If Dumbledore had found this same brilliance in a woman,he would have fallen for her too.So it would be wrong to categorise DD as gay as essentially he would have fallen for Griendelwald and only griendelwald regardless of his gender; as DD loved him as a human being,as a person.The romantic feelings would have flowed from that.

So it really not that DD is gay or straight as i don't think he could have been attracted to any other man or woman except Griendelwald and since his love for him never turned physical,DD remained celibate for life.It fits his character and his greatness that he never found a worthy equal to Love.It's sad but it makes sense.

i really think rowling made a huge mistake by catagorizing Dumbledore as gay.I was always very comfortable with the depiction of Dumbledore as a celibate person with no love life.Dumbledore knows the power of love but doesn't fall in romantic love himself because romantic love is only possible amongst equals and Dumbledore never had any equals, so he never had a romantic relationship with another man or woman.

Then in book #7 we find out about dumbledore and griendelwald's brief but deep friendship.This friendship took the form of Love for Dumbledore because for the first time he communed with a mind as brilliant as his own.I don't think the question of gender really arose here as Dumbledore would have fallen for griendelwald regardless of whether he was man ,woman or transgender;because what he loved about griendelwald was his ingenuity and brilliance that was so much like his own and which equalled and challenged his own.If Dumbledore had found this same brilliance in a woman,he would have fallen for her too.So it would be wrong to categorise DD as gay as essentially he would have fallen for Griendelwald and only griendelwald regardless of his gender; as DD loved him as a human being,as a person.The romantic feelings would have flowed from that.

So it really not that DD is gay or straight as i don't think he could have been attracted to any other man or woman except Griendelwald and since his love for him never turned physical,DD remained celibate for life.It fits his character and his greatness that he never found a worthy equal to Love.It's sad but it makes sense.

i really think rowling made a huge mistake by catagorizing Dumbledore as gay.I was always very comfortable with the depiction of Dumbledore as a celibate person with no love life.Dumbledore knows the power of love but doesn't fall in romantic love himself because romantic love is only possible amongst equals and Dumbledore never had any equals, so he never had a romantic relationship with another man or woman.

Then in book #7 we find out about dumbledore and griendelwald's brief but deep friendship.This friendship took the form of Love for Dumbledore because for the first time he communed with a mind as brilliant as his own.I don't think the question of gender really arose here as Dumbledore would have fallen for griendelwald regardless of whether he was man ,woman or transgender;because what he loved about griendelwald was his ingenuity and brilliance that was so much like his own and which equalled and challenged his own.If Dumbledore had found this same brilliance in a woman,he would have fallen for her too.So it would be wrong to categorise DD as gay as essentially he would have fallen for Griendelwald and only griendelwald regardless of his gender; as DD loved him as a human being,as a person.The romantic feelings would have flowed from that.

So it really not that DD is gay or straight as i don't think he could have been attracted to any other man or woman except Griendelwald and since his love for him never turned physical,DD remained celibate for life.It fits his character and his greatness that he never found a worthy equal to Love.It's sad but it makes sense.

i really think rowling made a huge mistake by catagorizing Dumbledore as gay.I was always very comfortable with the depiction of Dumbledore as a celibate person with no love life.Dumbledore knows the power of love but doesn't fall in romantic love himself because romantic love is only possible amongst equals and Dumbledore never had any equals, so he never had a romantic relationship with another man or woman.

Then in book #7 we find out about dumbledore and griendelwald's brief but deep friendship.This friendship took the form of Love for Dumbledore because for the first time he communed with a mind as brilliant as his own.I don't think the question of gender really arose here as Dumbledore would have fallen for griendelwald regardless of whether he was man ,woman or transgender;because what he loved about griendelwald was his ingenuity and brilliance that was so much like his own and which equalled and challenged his own.If Dumbledore had found this same brilliance in a woman,he would have fallen for her too.So it would be wrong to categorise DD as gay as essentially he would have fallen for Griendelwald and only griendelwald regardless of his gender; as DD loved him as a human being,as a person.The romantic feelings would have flowed from that.

So it really not that DD is gay or straight as i don't think he could have been attracted to any other man or woman except Griendelwald and since his love for him never turned physical,DD remained celibate for life.It fits his character and his greatness that he never found a worthy equal to Love.It's sad but it makes sense.

i really think rowling made a huge mistake by catagorizing Dumbledore as gay.I was always very comfortable with the depiction of Dumbledore as a celibate person with no love life.Dumbledore knows the power of love but doesn't fall in romantic love himself because romantic love is only possible amongst equals and Dumbledore never had any equals, so he never had a romantic relationship with another man or woman.

Then in book #7 we find out about dumbledore and griendelwald's brief but deep friendship.This friendship took the form of Love for Dumbledore because for the first time he communed with a mind as brilliant as his own.I don't think the question of gender really arose here as Dumbledore would have fallen for griendelwald regardless of whether he was man ,woman or transgender;because what he loved about griendelwald was his ingenuity and brilliance that was so much like his own and which equalled and challenged his own.If Dumbledore had found this same brilliance in a woman,he would have fallen for her too.So it would be wrong to categorise DD as gay as essentially he would have fallen for Griendelwald and only griendelwald regardless of his gender; as DD loved him as a human being,as a person.The romantic feelings would have flowed from that.

So it really not that DD is gay or straight as i don't think he could have been attracted to any other man or woman except Griendelwald and since his love for him never turned physical,DD remained celibate for life.It fits his character and his greatness that he never found a worthy equal to Love.It's sad but it makes sense.

i really think rowling made a huge mistake by catagorizing Dumbledore as gay.I was always very comfortable with the depiction of Dumbledore as a celibate person with no love life.Dumbledore knows the power of love but doesn't fall in romantic love himself because romantic love is only possible amongst equals and Dumbledore never had any equals, so he never had a romantic relationship with another man or woman.

Then in book #7 we find out about dumbledore and griendelwald's brief but deep friendship.This friendship took the form of Love for Dumbledore because for the first time he communed with a mind as brilliant as his own.I don't think the question of gender really arose here as Dumbledore would have fallen for griendelwald regardless of whether he was man ,woman or transgender;because what he loved about griendelwald was his ingenuity and brilliance that was so much like his own and which equalled and challenged his own.If Dumbledore had found this same brilliance in a woman,he would have fallen for her too.So it would be wrong to categorise DD as gay as essentially he would have fallen for Griendelwald and only griendelwald regardless of his gender; as DD loved him as a human being,as a person.The romantic feelings would have flowed from that.

So it really not that DD is gay or straight as i don't think he could have been attracted to any other man or woman except Griendelwald and since his love for him never turned physical,DD remained celibate for life.It fits his character and his greatness that he never found a worthy equal to Love.It's sad but it makes sense.

oops! my server's a bit sluggish today so i clicked multiple times sorry for the triple post :(

Don't be so enthusiastic about this, as it might be just another one proof for a common belief that “homosexuality = pederasty”. Think about it, many (if not most) believe, that gay men are attracted to boys, so they take jobs like teachers, pediatricians, workers in attraction parks and schools etc.
It could be (most likely it’s not, but can be described as such) a sarcastic and cynic joke – to say something really offensive straight in ones face in such way, that he does not even feel humiliated, because he’s to stupid to realise it.

Erin in post 143 said "It is NOT a sin to be gay." If the definition of being gay is practicing homosexuality then Erin is dead wrong, homosexuality IS a sin.

Here is what the scripture says in Romans:

Romans 1:16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel; it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who has faith, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. 17 For in it the righteousness of God is revealed through faith for faith; as it is written, “The one who is righteous will live by faith.”
18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and wickedness of those who by their wickedness suppress the truth. 19 For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. 20 Ever since the creation of the world his eternal power and divine nature, invisible though they are, have been understood and seen through the things he has made. So they are without excuse; 21 for though they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their senseless minds were darkened. 22 Claiming to be wise, they became fools; 23 and they exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling a mortal human being or birds or four-footed animals or reptiles.
24 Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the degrading of their bodies among themselves, 25 because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen.
26 For this reason God gave them up to degrading passions. Their women exchanged natural intercourse for unnatural, 27 and in the same way also the men, giving up natural intercourse with women, were consumed with passion for one another. Men committed shameless acts with men and received in their own persons the due penalty for their error.

Notice Paul's words describing mankind's depravity. "Their women exchanged natural intercourse for unnatural, and in the same way also the men, giving up natural intercourse with women, were consumed with passion for one another. Men committed shameless acts with men and received in their own persons the due penalty for their error." Paul understands clearly that homosexuality is a degrading, unnatural and lustful act. By biblical definition the homosexual act is not an act of love. It is a perverted act of lust. If one truly "loves" another person, the last thing they would want to do is degrade them with a shameful, unnatural act.

Later Paul lists the homosexual act of sodomy in a list of sins that bar one from eternal life.

1 Corinthians 6:9 Do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived! Fornicators, idolaters, adulterers, male prostitutes, sodomites, 10 thieves, the greedy, drunkards, revilers, robbers—none of these will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 And this is what some of you used to be. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God.

If one repents of his sin, is washed (that is baptized), sanctified and justified in Christ Jesus then the sin of homosexuality along with all other sin is forgiven. But a change in lifestyle is expected. Paul said that "is what some of you used to be." Do not be deceived Paul says, a practicing homosexual will not inherit the kingdom of God.

You may disagree with Paul if you want to but you do not have the authority to redefine the biblical understanding of sin.

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

I agree with you about Jesus, but what's the problem with Dumbledore? He's gay, not a pedophile.

Chris in post 141 said "every religion's mythology purports that their god created the universe." This is quite erroneous. Only the religions based on the Bible do. The concept of a transcendent God that functions outside of the time and physical dimensions of our universe is found only in the Bible.

He claims the flood and Genesis stories have been disproved. Again he is wrong. The Bible does not talk about a "global flood" and there is no evidence for such, but a "universal flood" that eradicated mankind situated in the mesopotamian valley where the Bible says mankind was, is substantiated by geological evidence.

The Genesis story itself, if properly read, does not vary at all with the latest scientific models except for natural evolution. 6000 years certainly cannot be supported by scientific evidence but the word "yom" translated "day" in Genesis 1 can have a variety of meaning one being "age". The day = age model harmonizes the biblical account perfectly with scientific evidence.

For more discussion on both the flood and Genesis accounts I refer you to the following site:

Chris also stated that a belief in the existence of God must require some kind of proof rather than faith. I tend to agree with him. But he seems to ignore that we already have that proof. An exquisitely designed universe that came into existence out of nothing can only be explained by an act of God. Even Einstein after he made the calculations for the General Theory of Relativity admitted he had proved the existence of God. No faith necessary.

Paul said the existence of God is plain because of the universe that has been made.

Romans 1:19 For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. 20 Ever since the creation of the world his eternal power and divine nature, invisible though they are, have been understood and seen through the things he has made.

All one need do to understand the existence of God is open their eyes. If one denies God, it isn't for lack of evidence or proof, it's because they want to continue in sin, perhaps the sin of homosexuality, which is the theme of this thread.

Even the resurrection of Jesus Christ is not something that requires faith. There were 12 official witnesses and 500 others who saw the risen Christ. We have the historical accounts, their written testimony. The resurrection is just as solid a historical fact as any other ancient history. Where faith is required is in the fact that if one joins the New Covenant their sins are forgiven and they receives eternal life. The forgiveness of sins is not something we can see. That's why we must have faith.

But the existence of God is a proven scientific fact and the resurrection of Christ is a proven historical fact. No faith is required for either of these.

Monkey in post 174 asks, "what's the problem with Dumbledore? He's gay not a pedophile."

True! But that's the point. Rowling has brought into her books a myriad of biblical allusions and from the outset her heroes, especially Dumbledore espoused biblical virtues. The fact that he is gay does not harmonize with his other attributes. Those of us who defended Rowling's books for their virtue and Christlike analogies now feel betrayed! The Dumbledore character is irrevocably corrupted. When we read, "Dumbledore is very fond of Harry" we now ask ourselves, "In what way?" It makes for unpleasant reading. How can we recommend the books now that we are sickened by Rowling's revelation?

You see, it's not the act of homosexuality or pedophilia that is at the root of the problem but rather the HEART THAT LUSTS! If Dumbledore is gay, then how can we not think he doesn't lust after Harry when he says he is very fond of him?

Quoting "naulon" on post #175:

"The concept of a transcendent God that functions outside of the time and physical dimensions of our universe is found only in the Bible."

What the hell are you talking about??! Maybe it's true in the microcosm of an universe that you call your life, but there are religions that believe in this kind of a Creator. Vedantism, for one. (That's "Hinduism" in Dumbass.) Ever considered Islam?? It, in my opinion, has the clearest and most well-rounded view of God than anything else I've come across. (Judaism comes close, but isn't flawless.) Or would that be heresy to look into these "savage" religions that are every bit as complex and profound as your own, if not more? Jesus Christ!

The interesting thing about the point of naulon, it's the fact that "The concept of a transcendent God that functions outside of the time and physical dimensions" it'never found anyehere in the bibble, where Yaveh is definitly a personal god, well settled in time a space. This argoument appeared only in later (very later) theological speculation.
Some can even argue that explaining the complexity of the universe with a sentien, even more complex being, it's rather pointless, and goes quite against the okham razor, thus having little or none scentific value, as an hipotesys.
Further, lust is common among man of both orientetion, and infere that dumbledore being gay, must lust after hanry is, as someone have already pointed out, as impling that being hetero must lust over hermione, or that prof. Mcongal must lust oer ron.
Then, after his crush wih tghee dark mage, apparently Dumbledore never indulged in romantic or herotic activity. That put himself, in the view even of the more righteous and fanatic beliver, amongst the repented sinner (ant the true christian, as far as i know, is not the one who does'nt knows sin but those who repent and abstain from it. So, dumbledore would be amongst those who Paul would have saved.
Finally an artistic consideration. Even if one considere homesexuality a sin, a good anc beliveble character as notthing to do with being perfect, stainless and monodimensional. Didn?t shadows, errors and imperfection cast a depth into positive character? Doesn't that make it more human. Good licterature, in my opinion, as notthing to do with reassuring morality tale.
(I apologise for my poor english)

Hey i can't understand wht d hell ROWLING want frm people does she want publicity or she's jst trying to make fun out of d brillint book she has written.In my opinion rowling shud mention it in at least 1 book bt she's making fun .she didn't evn mention it in d 7th book.And wht about d fourth movie in HP goblet of fire dumbledore did dance with minerva mconagal and i don't thnk dat gay have any kind of interest in women.......thn why d hell dumbledore danc with magonagal in d fourth book..........She' simply gonna mad

@147/148 : i love how you say you're all about love thy neighbor and only god gets to judge, and then write a really judgmental post.

@179 : i'm pretty sure you've never met a person you knew was gay.

Terencio, do you now agree with me that this is the dumbest thread ever? All the amateur theology, sentence fragments masquerading as literary criticism, misinformed intelligent design plugs, etc etc etc. My comments wasn't aimed at you or other actually Harry Potter fans, but at the Carnivorous Human Underground Dwellers who have stopped inbreeding long enough to post here.

HEY HOMOPHOBES: THIS WHOLE WEB SITE IS RUN FOR AND POPULATED BY HOMOSEXUALS AND "HOMOSEXUALISTS" (to borrow a great terms from the Watchmen.) IF YOU WOUND UP HERE BY ACCIDENT: CLIMB OFF YOUR GRANDMA, PUT YOUR BIBLE BACK IN YOUR WALMART-BRAND POLYESTER WINDBREAKER, AND TAKE YOUR CRAZY FUNDAMENTALIST MEMES SOMEPLACE WHERE PEOPLE VIEW YOU AS ANYTHING OTHER THAN IGNORANT MEATSACKS.

This calls into question all my beliefs about treasured science fiction and fantasy characters. Who else in the universe is in the closet?

I think Chekov and Scotty had a brief affair, but didn't talk about it after.

Hush hush thing, you understand.

His being gay was no real revelation to me. I thought Dumbledore had been in love with Grindelwald the first time I read the seventh book. What's the big deal? He's a great character; I don't care who he likes to snog.

I heard that Dumbledore is gay this morning, at university, from a friend of mine. The second I arrived home (drenched because it was pouring & I still don't drive) I googled him to find out the exact story...

And I incidentally hit on this blog & spent the best part of an hour reading (instead of constitutional law) what everyone thinks about Dumbledore, about gay people, about religion, about J.K.Rowling ... Interesting.

Seeing as all the counter arguments have been given, and I am not yet a lawyer, there is little for me to say, except that I was surprised when I heard that D is gay.

Not shocked, not horrified, not overjoyed, just plain surprised. No excessive emotion (except maybe curiosity) ... it's a BOOK, a STORY. It could have been a real life story, for that matter.

People live, people die, people LOVE. It always boils down to love, and Dumbledore loved. So, J K Rowling, well done, for the entire series, and I agree with you on your opinion of Dumbledore!!!

Peace :-)

Oh, and another incidentally - it's 7.25 pm where I live (Malta, little island in the Mediterranean Sea, independent, republic. I don't expect you to know it, look it up!!)

And I thought it was cool when the comment I posted came up showing 20.24 am hehehehehehe

We speculated on why author J.K. Rowling would out Dumbledore at this point in time and not earlier or later on our podcast, Feast of Fools.

Click here to listen to it.

For Rowling to make such a statement publicly is HUGE and can’t be underestimated as just an “outing” of a fictional character.

In many ways she is saying: “gay people are a critically important part of my world.” It’s the creator of the fiction saying one of the major protagonists is gay. Remember he’s also the headmaster of a children’s school.

It's a sad reality is that in many places still in the United States, school districts (who adore the Potter Books and their ability to encourage children to read) will fire a teacher based on their sexual orientation. So hopefully this will at least make them rethink their position on the issue.

Hilarious. J.K. is awesome. Dumbledore is a serious figure and if she backs him as being gay then she's sending a pretty positive message to the rest of the world: "Gay people are O.K.!"

I've been a mayor HP fan... till now... this is bull...

Homosexuality refers to enduring sexual and romantic attraction towards those of the same sex.

How would you like your kids to read a children's book where two men are in love with each other?

"Fox is a young boy, and it likes to stick it's pee pee into it's male friend bear's ass."

Great... wtf does sexuality has to do with a children's book? How could she say that? It is a children't book. She is so fucked up!

If it turned out that a character in a grown up book was gay I could care less. But this is bull!

She makes us believe more into Mcgonigal having relationship with Dumbledore than anything else... there was no mention of sex between any character... keeping it clean... as it should be for a children's book. Yet now she had to come out and say such a sleazy and dirty thing.

BTW it would be same if she said Harry was nailing Luna on the side - it is the fact that sex has no place in children's book that I can not believe she had to refer to.

On personal note:

I'm disgusted with gays as that's not natural. Sex = way to reproduce, same sex = no reproduction = unnatural. Simple as that.

I wish gays were a race instead of a cool new trend so you could all die off.

I don't know what the problem is. I'm a lesbian and I'm not offended. Why would Harry realise he was gay? Harry didn't know anything about Dumbledore's private life. I know nothing was mentioned in the book about Dumbledore being gay but nor was anything mentioned about the other teachers being gay or straight. I'm sure if a question was asked about, say, about Prof McGonagall's private life or, say, Prof Flitwick's life JKR would have replied. I don't see the problem at all. JKR has worked out the background on all of the characters in her book - there will be loads of stuff we don't know about them.

@189, obviously you have never met a gay person, or actually read the report. someone asked J.K the question, and she answered it true-fully, saying what she saw Dumbledore as. And technically, it still counts as racism, saying comments such as yours that are so anti-gay. Same as saying, No jews is good jews.

Why can't people have an open mind about this?

It's not like she called a press conference just to say that Dunbledore was gay.

Yeesh.

@49
why should we keep this outta children's books? they should know there is nothing wrong with being gay and coming outta the closet. it's for their own good anyways if they don't know this people will think of them as losers. anyways this is in no way important to the HP series. there is no point in telling us now. the books are done and over with and the movies suck

What's next? Winnie the Pooh was living with HIV?

Dumbledore, to me, is not gay.
He's not anything.

He's a guiding hand, and his sexuality doesn't come into play for me.

I am displeased with the way JKR "outed" him though. To me, it seemed like an afterthought. Like somebody said "Who does Dumbledore love?" and she didn't have an answer, so she made one up involving the the central relationship of DD's in book seven.

Though, I kinda did think that Elphias Doge was gay...but again, it was a non-issue for me.

I'm not sure if I'm pissed off because she made the character gay (I'm not a homophobe) or because in doing so, she ruined some mystic quality of the character.

I want my old, sage-like wizards to be asexual dammit.

My friends tend to say something in a super serious voice then wait for a reaction, then you realize that it might have been a joke. So one of my friends said "Dumbledore is gay, didnt you know that?" and i thought oh yeah she's just joking. But i went along with it, and said how it would make sense if he was gay... then the more i thought of it i was like DUH! I even had made a joke about it when reading the first book and it said his "partner," Nicholas Flamel.

I should have guessed. I really should have.

This is awesome. I assumed, but never thought she'd come out and say it. (Now, come on JK, tell the world the truth about Remus and Sirius!)

Really when I found out about this the first thing I said was "No really, I'm not surprised, I sort of always figured that anyway." Because can anyone REALLY imagine Dumbledore with a woman? I for one cannot. Dumbledore was always very secretive. I read in some article that the right wing Christian groups are freaking out (more than they usually do) about the fact that dumbledore is portraying to children that homosexuals can be kind-hearted and friendly. WAKE UP AND SMELL THE COFFEE CRAZY CHRISTIANS because I'll bet that some child Harry Potter fans are watching Ellen right now and WHAT DO YOU THINK SHE IS PORTRAYING? Nice and funny too? HOW CAN THIS BE?!? This is sort of like that Murphy Brown controversy and I'd like to remind everybody that Dumbledore is a FICTIONAL character and we are prying into his fictional personal life.

Just a comment regarding those who say homosexuality is un-natural...

natural means found in nature, therefore un-natural means not found in nature. Whereas homosexuality is found all over the show in nature, I read a study done where 14% of American Bighorn (type of sheep) rams would consistently prefer another ram to a fertile ewe. There have also been documented reports of homosexual dolphins, monkeys, apes etc. Homosexuality is natural, accept it.
Here's the link btw...
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2002340883_gayscience19m.html

regarding J.K.'s announcement, when I heard it on the radio I just thought "oh k, thats interesting" then didn't think anything more of it. People are going to all have their own interpretations of it, and preaching or arguing isn't going to change their minds.

just my two cents...

I'm extremely pro-gay, but I think it was a brilliant strategy to out Dumbledore only after the majority of copies of book 7 have been bought. For example, my next door neighbors love Harry Potter, and they let their 5 children read the books. However, these people are also exceedingly closed-minded Southern Baptists who believe that being gay is a one-way ticket to hell. They have done their best over the short lives of their young children to teach them that gay people are monsters worthy of zero tolerance. The fact that Rowling's revelation took place AFTER families such as these had bought, read, and fell in love with the book (as well as with the impossible-to-hate Dumbledore), forces the readers to rethink their views about homosexuality, and while the message may be lost on some already closed-minded adults, it will have a positive impact on the children who are now forced to step back and realize that unquestioningly accepting their parents' views would force them to hate one of the most lovable characters in the series.

Like everyone says it's a shock.
but i understand alot of people have alot of things they don't like about gays for some ludachris reason. But anyway-------she did it after so that her sales would still be good.

but banishing gays?
that seriously messed up.
they have it hard enough with people saying things like "gay" as a derogatory.
i mean how would you like someone to tell you that loving the opposite sex is wrong & you were streight? It just dosn't seem right.

BESIDES ITS A CHARACTER!
chill its not like "Paris Hilton has come out of the closet with Brittany Spears".

or maybe

"Kate Moss is really a man"

seriously.
actualy now that i think about even i am making a big deal about what a big deal it is. wow this is seriously SAD.

wow i was post 200.

=]

I have to disappoint gay and lesbian community and their adepts - Albus Dumbledore has never been homosexual, neither in his youth, nor in his mature years. On obvious reason: no matter how secretive he was, Rita Skeeter the author of his unauthorized biography, would gleefully drag this fact from the darkest closet of his past. Rowlings' revelation? She was just teasing the audience, but anyway Dumbledore does not belong her any more. He lives his own life.
However, anybody who likes closet secrets, may fantasize about Voldemort - his sexuality and troubled secretive youth leave enough room for any rainbow pictures. Good hunting!

Valery,

Sorry to say it to the Christian fundies. There are gay people in the world. They're not going away. Get over it. It's none of your business. People have a right to do what they want, especially gays who don't bother anyone. You have no right to infringe on people's sex lives. I sure don't care what you do in your room alone. You're no better behaved than any homo. No, kids aren't going to turn gay because one of their favorite wizards in a book is gay. Go bother someone else.

First, I'd like to say that I'm married with four children (straight).
This was brilliant!
Many fans (perhaps) torn between liking a character alone or that character's sexuality vs. a story. Imagine the Homophobes out there smashing themselves in the head! Had the haters known right off, they wouldnt have read the books. Of course failing to see that this character's sexuality has nothing to do with the main storyline(Harry's storyline). But imagine how that might effect some people. You'll have homophobes either hating this story, or the character, or loosening up when it comes to gay people.
What I really like is the possiblity that some homphobes out there now get a 3-dimensional image of a gay person. They are practically forced past a mental barrier on this topic. Now they somewhat know a gay person. So what that he might be fictional!
I personally think it adds to the story. and it drags things into the real life. Truelly, making some sort of impact. Now thats good writing. Good thinking.

-This is indeed a new one. I thought it was just an internet joke of some sort...but apparently its true.

It almost seems that J.K. Rowling is fishing for more attention to add to the books since there wont be any more coming in the future. It is almost like a big publicity stunt in one sense. If she planned it that way then I guess kudos for not making a sex tape...but shame on her for exploiting the public like that.

-If she truly believes Dumbledore is gay then that is fine as well. It is almost a refreshing twist on things in literature.

The problem is I dont think she really saw DD as gay. I think she just saw him as an extreme intellectual..not a man ruled by physical desires of flesh. This is how I always kinda pictured him because I know people like that. Why is it that there is only one strict definition of what it means to be a man?
-People def need to get over that and see that there are all kinds of traits that are not normally associated with "manliness" that dont discredit a man and make him gay.

Any gay person who thinks this revelation is a slap in the face is being short sighted.

Wouldn't you agree that we are all striving towards the day in which a person's sexual orientation is irrelevent to how we view them? Don't we all want to be appreciated for our other qualitities? Gayness shouldn't be an issue at all, right?

Well, JKR operated in just than manner. She explained who Dumbledore was in a way that showed his true character as a human being. The fact that he was gay was simply irrelevent.

Do you really want your gayness be a part of how the world sees you? I'd rather be judged on my other qualities. My sexual orientation shouldn't matter.

Geee. this are such great news. I personally like goats. Im eagerly waiting for the day us goatlovers get our chance at normality, can you imagine that! Dumbledore is a goatlover! What a beautiful and tolerance supportive thing would that be. I mean, as long as you love only one goat, it is true love right!

I can't believe you are all so surprised; personally i saw it coming from a long shot away. I mean JK uses some excellent symbolism to show he's a homo. Just look at his position at hogwarts. He is the Head-master. if that doesnt cry out gay idk what does.(feel free to steal that from me and tell your friends so you can seem clever too, even if you aren't)

stop that collin, it's people like you that make the world a bad place. Always making jokes to signal out a whole group of people and break them down. I'm glad rowling made dumbledore gay especially in a kids book. Kids should all growing up learning to accept or at least tolerate people who are different then them. Yes i know picking on a fictional charicter isnt mean but your not just picking on the fictionals but the reality of all gays. this is no different then a african american joke or a jew joke. All of it is propaganda that demotes a common group for the purpose of looking better yourself. You should be ashamed.

Yeah, I have to agree with Locke on this one, Collin.

I have always been a fan of slash fanfictions so Im actually happy that Rowling had outed and confessed that Dumbledore's gay.
Im not a homosexual nor a bisexual but a bit conservative heterosexual. But I do believe that the sexuality of a person is something that others should criticize. Discriminations against "bent" people and describing it as a sin, unnatural, disgusting and other degrading adjectives are something that really angers me.
Homophobia are close-minded people who can't seem to get the fact that homosexuality does exist and that criticizing it won't make it disappear. Sodomy might be a sin as the Bible states but still as human we are not entitled to be perfect little beings or should I say perfect little heterosexuals. What do you want the society to do? Crucify those who falls in love or be attracted to gay sex? Burn them alive while you read them every passage of the Bible that condemns homosexuality? Har har har. I might be a little extreme but this is how I see it. Dumbledore isn't just a gay. He's a great wizard and a father figure to Harry. Does being gay discredits everything he has done so far to ensure that good will prevail? It might be fiction for children and others might criticize that it shouldn't be read by kids, but I do believe that children should know the reality. The good side, the bad side and the gray shades in between. Closeting them from it is just isn't right. I mean this children might grow up into a stuck up nose hypocritical religious fanatics that I really hate. It would be a disaster.

I do hate that some people use morality and the bible as weapons to condemn things that they don't understand and don't dare to. I do believe though that whatever imperfections a human being has, only God has the right to judge.

I apologize for the typo error above.
The statement should be:
"But I don't believe that the sexuality of a person is something that others should criticize."

Well Sven, we're actually lucky no organized group has found this podium to preach from. Count your blessings if you're so inclined.
Miss Borg, I'm familiar with Malta. It's still illegal to get divorced there! The Pope goes to Malta to get lessons on Catholicism, and a LOT of the women there are built like comic book women and they appreciate foreign men. It's an english speaking little slice of vacation (read holiday) heaven. Great clubs, great beaches, and the chance to appear in major Hollywood movies. I highly recommend it, even if some of the population think all Americans are ignorant.
This wasn't much about Dumbledore, was it. Sorry Sven.

If J.K. Rowling wanted Dumbledore to be gay, either she needed to make it more apparent via more info in the story line (building it into his characterization) or, she should have shown the world how great of a writer she is…that is theatre of the mind. What separates a great writer from the rest is leading the your audience into believing what you want without straight-up telling them; make them believe it was their own revelation. This is not to say that Dumbledore would not have been allowed to be gay, however, it is hard to see what she is saying. The few potential links to the alleged sexual preference are weak at best, a mere grasping at straws if you will.
In Chronicles of Narnia, C.S. Lewis uses the character of Aslan as a portrayal of the Christians Savior, Jesus Christ. Lewis did not go on tour and at the end say, “Oh by the way, Aslan is Jesus and he will take you to eternal joy!” Whether Rowling wants Dumbledore or not, it was up to her to have portrayed this to the reader throughout the whole series, or even as a bomb-shell in the books, but the time for this has passed. If in another millennia archeologist unearthed her books, would they know for certain, or at all, this new life style of Dumbledore. For Rowling to make this claim now would be about as hard as saying Harry Potter is a female. The evidence is not there to support this claim, plus, validity for Rowling has been lost on the single grounds that she had to inform the world to this new claim.
The sub-theme is not valid, as is not present in the books, and it sure as hell is not valid just because she “always saw Dumbledore as gay.” (Rowling, 2007. Interview) We had to see him as gay as well for it to be true literary quality.
Please, all of you crazed Harry Potter fans, do not attempt to kill me for my condemning words for J.K. Rowling. I do understand your views as I am one of you. I still love and adore this series and do still hold Rowling in the deepest respect as a writer. I see her as pure genius in the writing of Harry Potter and thank her for sharing this world of excitement and magical adventure with us all.
Thanks to everyone who has posted in a clean and professional manner; to you I write.

@ 6
You're not too bright are you johnny,
read the above comments, she is talking about when he was YOUNGER

and i agree, she should have actually touched upon this topic in the books, children would have skimmed over it, however the huge number of adults that read the books would have noticed.

The site I wanted to refer readers to in post 175 is:

http://www.reasons.org/resources/apologetics/index.shtml

Sorry, looks like the html tag got deleted when it was posted.

I don't think JK Rowling implied in any way that because Dumbledore was gay he never found true love or that being gay implies that you can't find true love. Her statement seems to be more about the fact that his "greatest love was his greatest tragedy". That fully implies that he found love, it just didn't last and went wrong, not because he was gay but because just as in any other relationship people change and things turn badly when they end.

I think the fact that she chooses to out him after the series is over is a tactful way to make the point that sexuality is indeed a non-issue when you really get to know someone and find amazing qualities in them. Dumbledore represented wisdom, kindness, power, intelligence etc. and the all these things are not diminished because he is gay, it is simply another fact about him, much like wearing half-moon spectacles. Were she to have written that or implied it in the books, it may have colored less tolerant readers' perception of him and they may not have given the series a chance.

Is she pushing a political agenda? Yes. But how is that different from any other literature that pushes a political agenda? Even better that hers is in the form of a well written, intriguing, imaginative, witty series that both entertains as it educates. There are a lot of books out there which have an opposing view subtly written into their storylines, does that make them any less guilty of 'whoring out their characters' for the sake of a viewpoint as some people claim she is doing?

David in post 198 says that the term "natural" as something found in nature, and since homosexual behavior is found in nature among humans and other animals it's natural and we should accept it.

Animals kill, steal, eat their young and jump off of cliffs so I guess if humans do such we should just accept it because it's "natural". All of a sudden every stupid, insane and evil action in the world by virtue of it's existence is natural and therefore OK!

With such a definition of the term "natural" anything goes. There is no basis for right or wrong. Next stop... Anarchy!

Perhaps a better definition for "natural" are actions the Creator intended the animal to have. In that case, the American Bighorn and other animals from time to time get confused and do things that are unnatural for them.

When you take a dog for a walk they ignore other humans for the most part but get all excited, pull on the leash, bark or attempt to smell the butts of all the other dogs they see. Male dogs especially get excited over a bitch in heat. That's natural. Dogs do not naturally lust for sexual relations with humans.

But, they can be conditioned to act unnaturally. Male dogs that are used as sexual partners with women become conditioned to lust for women. When a strange women enters the room they instinctively attempt to hump the woman. Is it natural? No. But it's what the dog has been conditioned to do though it's experiences.

David would say that since there are dogs that lust for sexual relations with women it must be "natural". I would say dogs were never made by the Creator to have sex with humans, therefore its unnatural.

Who knows why some American Bighorn sheep and other animals end up conditioned to do things detrimental for the perpetuation of their species. But just because it happens doesn't mean it's natural for them. They weren't made to act that way.

Homosexual sex is not what was intended by the Creator for mankind either. It's unnatural. There is no justification for a claim that the anus exists for penal penetration. Just because some people become conditioned (like the dog described above) to lust for inappropriate sexual relationships does not make them natural.

Morality is another matter. David, how do you define morality? Or do you even believe morality exists?

Heres one for you, Christians.

How does someone else's sexual orientation really effect you? Are you going to die a horrible death because someone you know is gay?

I believe that J.K.'s outing Dumbledore was a good thing, and teaches tolerance.

Hey I'd just like to say chill.

I am a big HP fan, and though I was surprised that Dumbledore was gay, does it really matter? I mean, maybe the way J.K. said it was questionable, but seriously, being gay is just like someone preferring apples over oranges. It shouldn't change the way you see Dumbledore at all. In the books he is all about acceptance and understanding and compassion so isn't it weird that fans are saying that they don't like it?

Also, when people are saying that the way J.K. outed him was too forward, but when you think about it, many authors (and directors for movies) create back stories. To create such a huge world of characters for HP, J.K. would have to have some sort of back story, where everything is figured out, so to her it's just a fact. It isn't something she tiptoes around because she is used to it, not because she's insensitive or something like that. She was asked a question and when she replied, she was just stating a fact nothing more.

So just relax, it's probably not a political move or whatever, but just a plot progression for J.K. that's been revealed to the world that she didn't think the book needed to include.

Besides, if everyone who was outed was suddenly told they were doing it for political reasons, or for tolerance or whatever would probably just say 'I am what I am, and I can't change that'. It would be like me being told that my dislike of cheese is a symbol for my dislike of the dairy industry.

So everyone just chill and don't go in so deep into this; it's just the way dumbledore is (or was, considering he died in the 6th book).

@25: Lupin wasn't gay, but he did dabble in bestiality.

I think it's great that we all learned of Dumbledore's orientation. While it has absolutely no bearing on the plot, it makes sense that he's gay.. Before Deathly Hallows I always had assumed that his motivation to help mankind was that his wife was killed or something, but this makes a lot more sense. Now that we all know he's gay, does it change our opinion of him? I don't think so, I think it was JKR's clever way of pointing out that sexual orientation doesn't really matter, because all us readers see Dumbledore as fulfilling the wise old man motif and he acts as a symbolic hero and mentor, regardless of his sexuality.

Listen to the philistines howl when they're told the earth isn't flat. Just when we learn something that helps many things fall into place, people latch on to their tightly held delusions. Wake up and smell the potion, people. "Protecting" your kids from sexuality is a myth. Open your minds and take notice - gay teens are 60% more likely to attempt suicide than their straight peers. I pray you don't find this out the hard way.

I keep seeing comments along the lines of "Who cares if she announced Dumbledore's gay? It isn't announced in the books so it shouldn't effect how you like the books..."
That's exactly it. Everyone is caught up in arguing whether his being gay is right or wrong, ignoring entirely the fact that if it's not in the books it quite frankly doesn't "count." Next week she could come out and say, "Oh yeah, Voldemort actually raped Harry's mom before he killed her." Would that count because she said it? Even though there's NOT A SINGLE MENTION OF IT IN THE BOOKS? How about, "James and Sirius actually had their first sexual experience in the Gryffindor common room following the winter ball and too many butterbeers." Would that count if she said it? How about, "Professor Snape was actually a practicing Scientologist." Of course none of this counts. The books are all that we have of this fictional universe. Her statement in this world carries about as much weight as Harry Potter telling Hermoine that Tony Blair is in fact a homosexual. There is no evidence of it being true in this world just like there is no evidence of Dumbledore being gay in the Harry Potter world.

Crap, I forgot to add something. It would be great if she had actually written into the book that Dumbledore was gay. She tells an audience that Dumbledore loved Grindevald and it ended tragically, but the book really only states a friendship. She didn't need to be explicit. Just hint that he loved him stronger than a friend. Actually writing him as gay would have actually sent a message. Actually writing him as gay would be noteworthy and respect worthy. This is neither. This is a cheap stunt. This isn't canon and she should make a statement saying that as she never wrote anything about it, readers have the freedom to decide for themselves. Every single person here has probably written an essay or something and had a teacher ask what they meant by it. After explaining, said teacher then tells the writer that if that truly is what they are trying to say, they have to make it explicit in the text. That's true here as well. Good writing means not having to tell someone what you meant later.

As a Christian, I believe that homosexuality is wrong. I'm going to go ahead and say it. I don't hate gays. I believe that they are people who have the right to live and be free to do as they choose. I may not agree with their lifestyles, but judging them when I too am a sinner is simply not my place. I know a few gay people and, while I may not agree with them, I love and respect them anyway. And as for the Christians who scream at gays to change before the fires of hell consume them, put yourself in their position. You're only making them resent you by "preaching" in this manner.

I would like to say that making Dumbledore gay was a poor literary choice. It doesn't fit his character at all and throws off the image readers had in their minds since the first book. At least, it did in my mind. I don't have a problem with Rowling making a gay character. I do in the sense that these are children's books where sexuality shouldn't really be discussed, but that's another story. But gay people are real and are totally permissable in fiction. I think it was a very bad decision to make Dumbledore gay, though. I just doesn't suit him. I also think that if Dumbledore was gay and it was causing him such grief, he should have brought it up to Harry when they were between life and death. As far as I'm concerned, the books contain no direct evidence of Dumbledore's homosexuality, so I can continue to enjoy them as I did. Whether or not Dumbledore is really gay, I think is irrelevant. I think Dumbledore was best left straight, and that's how I'll read the books. That's all there is to it from my perspective.

jarta in post 211 asks us who are opposed to homosexuality a very important question. "What do you want the society to do?" (sic)

First of all, society needs to identify homosexuality for what it is, a sexual addition. It's not innate. Studies on identical twins who have the exact same genes show that homosexuality is not genetic. We find that if one twin is homosexual there is only a 50% chance the other one is too. If it was genetic we should see 100% correlation. Homosexuality is conditioned by homo-erotic experiences like rape, molestation and experimentation both wanted and unwanted often beginning in childhood. A person is usually introduced to homosexuality by another homosexual. Once sexual pleasure is attached to experiences with the same sex it becomes more or less permanently engraved in the psyche. Other types of sexual addiction are bestiality, pedophilia, necrophilia, promiscuity in its various forms and compulsive masturbation.

Secondly, society needs to admit that sexual addictions are unacceptable. Sexual addictions should not be embraced (like our culture is attempting to do) as viable lifestyle choices just as alcoholism and racism are not viable lifestyle choices. Children need to be educated and protected to prevent more of them from being abused and introduced to inappropriate sexual behavior. The media must make an abrupt about face and begin promoting morality in their programs rather then flaunt perversion.

Thirdly, those with sexual addictions need to be introduced to programs that can help them recover from their affliction. Addictions are difficult to correct. With the help of 12 step programs an alcoholic can quit drinking but they will never be able to drink like a normal person. They didn't become alcoholics overnight and they will most likely be susceptible to alcohol abuse all their lives. Similarly sexual addiction will be hard to deal with. Sex addicts need to be encouraged to make use of programs that help them to stop their addictive behavior and in some programs, recondition themselves.

Fourthly, society must criminalize addictive behavior that endangers others. This is tricky as punishment should be appropriate to the crime. Some societies execute sexual deviates. This is undoubtedly too harsh but a stiff fine might be in order to curb inappropriate sexual behavior. In cases where children are involved stiff penalties must be given. At any rate, society must not condone nor ignore sexual addictions including homosexuality.

Naulon, your "science" is flawed. Science seeks to disprove, not to prove a hypothesis, and the studies you are talking about are not reliable. The people attempting the research had an ax to grind. In addition, conditioned homo-erotic response is not reliable as causality. If you truly believe in science and empirical evidence from an objective view point, I will gladly engage in a private conversation and fact finding mission on the topic with you. This isn't the venue for this discussion though. You should be able to find me on yahoo. If however, you only like to use "facts" that have been pre-digested and pre-packaged to support your view without critical thought, please DON'T contact me. I'm not interested in hyperbole.

As for this blog folks, I don't think anyone has anything new to add. I would applaud anyone who does though.

Demoshtenes in post 219 asks Christians, "How does someone else's sexual orientation really effect you?

Personally, other than the disgust of having it thrown into my face every time I turn on my TV or watch a movie, perhaps not too much. My sexual conditioning has already taken place, fortunately heterosexual. But the last thing I want to see is my children, grandchildren, friends and acquaintances introduced to this self destructive behavior that will dog them all the rest of their lives and may prevent them from establishing a saving relationship with their Creator.

We are taught to "love our neighbor as yourself". If my neighbor is involved in self destructive practices it is my responsibility to try to help him even if he is adamant not to accept it. Condoning his behavior will do him nor society any good. Appeasement didn't do Neville Chamberlain or England any good and it won't do any good to be quiet here. We don't live in solitude. We live in a society in which our behavior influences everyone else. The act of homosexuality is never done alone. There must be a partner. It is introduced from partner to partner to partner. Like a disease it spreads as one homosexual introduces his perversion to another. Those caught in it's trap are steeped in guilt and disease though they'll do everything they can to deny it and whitewash it. The alcoholic always denies his problem until it practically destroys him. From the gutter where he is lying he says, "I'm OK, I can hold a drink. Who are you to tell me any different?" But he leaves a trail of heartbreak wherever he's been.

I've personally seen friends and families destroyed by homosexuality. Does it affect me personally, NO. Does it leave me heartbroken for them? YES! Should I speak out against it? DEFINITELY!

Rather than go into the dangers of homosexuality has for the individual myself, I'll refer you to a couple of sites out of many that do a pretty good job. The first one comes from a non-religious perspective and is part of a wider discussion of the topic, the second one from a Christian perspective.

http://usabig.com/autonomist/hijack/hijackhomobad.html#problems

http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c040.html

For those of you who have hit bottom with your addiction and you want help, I refer you to Homosexuals Anonymous, Sexaholics Anonymous and Exodus International. You can easily find them with a word search.

God bless!

Terencio,

Thanks for the invite but as a member of Sexaholics Anonymous I'm more interested in helping those who have hit bottom and really want help. You're still in the denial stage. If life experience doesn't tell you your homosexuality is destroying you, you won't be open to anything I or anyone else says about it. You'll pick and choose "the science" that will support your denial. You'll have to go back to your gutter till you come to your senses like the prodigal son. If you aren't a homosexual or have never experienced the despair of a sexual addiction you really got no business discussing the topic anyway.

Tsk tsk Naulon, I'm not gay. Never wanted to, and most unfortunately, I've never been propositioned. I fear I'm just not pretty enough or my character isn't scintillating enough. However, I think your response has shown YOUR close mindedness. You CAN'T have it both ways that either I AM a "deviant" and can't speak due to my affliction, OR I CAN'T speak because I don't understand the problem. Do you see the conflict in your reasoning? Do you know what circular logic is? I'm not trying to convert you, I just want you to recognize your own tactics. Science can ge judged upon it's test data, and its impartiality. I wouldn't try to pull a fast one on you, Naulon. We can check the accreditation of each source together. My hand is extended to you in the spirit of understanding, will you slap it away?

Naulon, I sincerely hope there aren't a whole lot of people in the world that share your views about homosexuality.

Obviously from your statement,s I can derive two things.

1) You, have never had a gay friend in your lifetime.

2) What you are expressly saying is that fear of gays translates into fear of God.

IF anyone agrees with me, please post.

Also, look at the first paragraph of post 226.

That is the point of view that is rational for Christians, not, screaming at gays to change their ways, but accepting.

Way to give into the media, ruined a perfectly good book by introducing this concept. These books are supposed to have a likeness to real life thats how we can relate to them, but this goes too far and ruins this timeless classic.

What a way to ruin a good series. I'll never be able to read them again. If it doesn't matter if Dumbledore is gay...then why mention it?

This fuckin' ruins it for normal people.

what kills me is that, as far as i can tell, the response to this announcement has been overwhelmingly negative from almost every side. a few points i'd like to make:

1. let's give j.k. rowling the benefit of the doubt and assume that she has been announcing irrelevant details about her characters because she knows these details and is excited about them, because she knows many of her fans want to know (they do), and because she's had to spend a considerable amount of time being very careful what she says about any of her books while they were still in publication.

2. if j.k. rowling had outed dumbledore in the books, it would have seriously increased the negative response to her books from the christian right. i knew a family who was extremely christian but they didn't buy into the whole "harry potter promotes witchcraft" bullshit and their kids read the books. this would not have been the case if they had an openly gay character. outing dumbledore after the series was actually kind of brilliant because now all these people who already know and love him as a character are going to have to accept the fact that he's gay.

3. this whole debate, i think, is just kind of ridiculous. the right is saying "oh no! now they're infiltrating children's books!" and the rest of you are saying "why didn't she out him sooner?" can't you just be happy she outed him at all? sure it's not exactly cutting edge, but it's a pretty big step for mainstream children's literature.

Naulus: How is a gay person different from you?

I applaud J.K. Rowling for having one of the "good guys" be gay. Who cares if it doesn't say it in the book? I don't really see where, in the midst of all that adventure, Dumbledore might have said: Hey, I'm gay!

Also, is anyone on here Jewish? I am, but all I've seen are christian posters....

i'm a christian, and i couldnt give a flip who is gay. i dont judge anyone... i'm not the Almighty. Its too bad other christians give us a bad image. but seriously we are talking about fictional character who now all the sudden is gay? WHO CARES?!? the series is still terrific...

See, Erin is the kid of person Christians should be - Non-judgmental of other people.

The Bible acts as a guide for people through your life, it shouldn't become something enforced by law.

"making Dumbledore gay was a poor literary choice. It doesn't fit his character"

How does being straight fit his character? As far as I know, he never talked about being in love with a woman. And what if he had? Would you be angry that his sexual orientation was revealed?

"the books contain no direct evidence of Dumbledore's homosexuality"

What evidence do you need? That he went to dance clubs? Spoke with a lisp? Watched John Travolta movies? Shocking as it may seem, many gay people do not exhibit these ridiculous stereotypes.

I can't believe in this day and age, people still believe being gay is all about sexual activity. One can be a virgin his entire life and still be gay. It has every bit as much to do with love as it does sex.

All I have to say is... why does it matter if he is gay or straight? He is just as awesome as he was before. Sexual Orientation should not affect his awesomeness. Why is it like all of the sudden everyone is disappointed? As a gay man myself, I am quite proud to see that Dumbledore is gay. He is setting a good example for all gay people. Maybe he might be able to shatter a few stereotypes!!

I think this is A good thing, this is a real slap in the face for Christians tbh, Gay and they say it promotes witches,
Through she should have been more specific in the book..but then again, it would have ruined the books..

I feel that Dumbledore being gay is a fantastic thing ... J.K is an incredible writer and I think it heightens the books in many ways ... I have read all the books many times and knowing that he was gay doesn't change them ... It helps me to better understand them ... I think J.K is awesome and I think her being so confident about is inspiring … Dumbledore is am incredible character and him being gay doesn’t phase me at all … I wanna give many kudos to J.K for giving this significant bit of understanding.

I honestly believed that there was an implied relationship between Dumbledore and Madam Pomfrey. On several occasions, it seems to me, there were hints of affection. And in reference to the relationship of Grindelwald and Dumbledore, I saw the attraction of like minds, but it never seemed to me to be any implication of a sexual attraction.

Honestly does it really change anybodies life that a fictional character is gay?? To me if it was not important enough to mention in the book, who cares!!!??? The is the wonderful thing about books is that they are open to your own interpretation. Since there is nothing written about it Dumbledore can be whatever you want him to be.

Copout. Rowling had the chance to portray a paternal, intelligent, sensitive authority figure and instead decided to "explain" all those qualities by making him gay. Now all the poofs will want to take ownership of those qualities. Should never have been an issue.

LOL @ 246
She should've made Ron gay........that could be like having people accept homos more... XD
but old people are just....you don't wanna think about that....
straight or gay

she could write another and suddenly make up all this bullshit and explain any gay thoughts he might've had in the other books lol
like if harry was in the same room, she could write how he was staring at harry's ass xD

I personally think that it is wonderful that JKR announced Dumbledore's homosexuality. It is something that brings a very serious issue to the forefront of pop culture in a way that will enable confused youths to explore their feelings and emotions in a way that may not have been possible before.

The fact that very arguably the second most important character, and definitely the most mature and strong character of the novels, turned out to be a homosexual is a great message to everyone. Just because someone has a different background than you doesn't necessarily make him completely different.

I have recently seen how much bigotry and ignorance there still is in the world toward homosexuality (see Piedra Vista High School's Gay/Straight Alliance club in the Farmington Daily Times), and to allow youths to see that one can function in society no matter what their circumstances, is a beautiful thing.

Thank you JKR and Dumbledore

Terencio,

There are two studies on identical twins that I have read about and both show no more than 50% corollation where one twin is gay. The studies are cited by both sides of the argument. One side will say that 50% corollation suggests a genetic factor. Others will say that 100% corollation is needed to show genetic factors at work. Both sides will interpret the data in the way they want. For you to suggest that the research was invalid shows you too are guily of partiality. There are always differrent ways to interpret scientific data.

A different example of radically different interpretations of data is found in the interpetation of the fossel record. Naturalists interpret the data as evidence of naturalistic evolution. The Old Earth Creationist interprets it as evidence of a Creator intoducing new species into the world at specific times. The scientific data is the same, the interpretation is different.

What I was trying to say previously is that "denial" is part and parsel of addictive disorders. The alchoholic denies he has a problem for years before he finally admits he has a problem. He will believe every lie and half truth and use every excuse he can to justify his addiction. The same is true with the sexually addicted. They will do anything to justify their behavior. No matter what kind of scientific evidence is presented they will interpret it in a way to justify themselves. That is until their life experience brings them to their knees.

I myself have a sexual addiction. The objects of my lust do not take the form of homosexuality but I know what is means to be sexually obsessed and driven to perverted behavior. I wish it was different but over the course of my youth I was conditioned that way. After years of justifying myself, it wasn't until I almost lost my marriage, family and work that I came to my senses and in utter desparation cried out for help. In Sexaholic's Annoymous I found my answer as to why I am the way I am and how to deal with it so that I could stop my destructive behavior. I have many homosexual friends I have met in the program. I have heard their stories, understand their pain and seen them recover from their addictive disorder. But nothing can happen until you admit you have a problem. STEP ONE: Admit powerlessness over sexual behavior.

The problem of homosexuality isn't sexual orientation. It never has been. The problem is lust and sexual addiction of which homosexuality is just one expression. Had I had homosexual experiences my addictionwould have undoubtedly gone that direction too.

Some in the gay community will eventually come to their senses and seek the help they need. It's unfortunate that they will have to ruin their own lives and the lives of countless others before they can turn their lives around. But that's the nature of the "disease".

Unless you've had an addictive disorder yourself you will never understand what I am saying. Talking about it privately will be unfruitful, but someone out there might read this blog and be ready to seek help.

Have you ever wondered why people defend the gay lifestyle when they are not gay themselves? It's because they have other adgendas. If its OK to be gay then adultery, promiscuity, divorce, abortion and many other sexual sins can be excused as well. "If homosexuality is OK then who can be critical of what I'm doing?" That's why they attack the Bible. Their sin is listed. The question is what's your sin and how long are you going to deny it?

Rowling originally may or may not have considered Dubledore as gay. She may have lied. The fact that she waited till now to say so leads me to think she's is just trying to suck up to the PC crowd. At any rate one of my favorite characters in the Potter books can never again be seen as virtuous and it greatly lessens the enjoyment I had for the series. I used to buy Potter goods. Not anymore.

Now everytime Dumbledore says he's in a hurry to get back to the dining room because he can't wait to taste that delicious custard tart, I can't stop thinking, "and what other kind of tarts does he desire to taste?" Thanks a lot Rowlling!!

Naulon, you use any means to make your point, i.e. science, and then disregard it if it no longer supports your beliefs. Do you know what the scientific method is? You can't be reasoned with, I'm afraid. Your belief that you are doing good is an example. Your belief in the infallibility of the Bible is... unfortunate. Is it possible that not everyone in the world falls into the narrow profiles you seem to want to put them in? Are the peoples from lands who have never heard the gospel truly without guidance? Have they been so for the last 4000 years?
There are many beliefs in the world, and all of them have supported their cultures equally. Throughout history there have been many healthy functioning societies that didn't believe in your narrow moralistic view.
The old testament Law is for Jews only. It was never meant for gentiles, for you have never had a covenant with god. Now, you tell me, if you want to use the Bible as evidence or reason for your anti-homosexual stand, did Jesus come to abolish the Law? If you don't know what I'm talking about, please, as I said before, contact me on Yahoo. I'm a religious scholar, and will be very happy to help you look up chapter and verse. The truth shall set you free.
For all the rest of you, I'm sorry that our conversation is ruining this blog. However I can't in good conscience allow someone to use bad science or pseudo science to try and influence the general public.

You know what? I give up. People like Naulon simply cannot be convinced.

since Warner Brothers and Universal are doing a theme park based on Harry Potter( Dubledore the ride?)

I'm disappointed that JKR made this statement after the books were complete. I read these books with my son. They are children's books. A hidden agenda should not be attached to them after the series is completed. It should have been left for the reader to interpret. Other great children's authors allow their books to stand alone. I have no interest in ever reading these books to, or with, another child.

would you be saying that if JK announced Dumbledore was straight

Dumbeldore being gay doesn't bother be at all, but I do feel it's irrelavent to the story itself. Although, it was hinted in the final book. And as far as Naulon's comment...Why would someone choose to be a homosexual? It's not an easy lifestyle to live.

I probably sound super stupid and totally apologize.

Dumbeldore being gay doesn't bother be at all, but I do feel it's irrelavent to the story itself. Although, it was hinted in the final book. And as far as Naulon's comment...Why would someone choose to be a homosexual? It's not an easy lifestyle to live.

I probably sound super stupid and totally apologize.

"She was asked by one young fan whether Dumbledore finds 'true love.'
'Dumbledore is gay,' the author responded to gasps and applause."

Is it just me... maybe it is, but to me the wording of all that... it sounds like Rowling is saying that gay people can't find true love. To me, when I read that I hear in my head "Ms. Wowing (young fan can't pronounce Rs or Ls) Does Dumodow find twoo wuv?" and she replies "Don't be silly child. Dumbledore is gay, and gay people can't love. They just want to sex each other."

@257, that's why I, being gay, am offended by Rowling. For one, because of how Rowling says it - just like how you put it, like gays cant find true love. But also, because she's treating it like some novelty, or shock/draw factor.

The fact is...look, we're TALKING about her book! This keeps her in the limelight! That's the wonder of controversy. No news is bad news.

Rowling broadcasting added details after the end of the series is a nonissue. As an author, once you finish a book, you let it go. It takes on a life of its own in the eyes of the individual reader. Whatever she chose to not mention in her writing simply does not exist. She shouldn't get to clarify or add things after the fact.

Rowling broadcasting added details after the end of the series is a nonissue. As an author, once you finish a book, you let it go. It takes on a life of its own in the eyes of the individual reader. Whatever she chose to not mention in her writing simply does not exist. She shouldn't get to clarify or add things after the fact.

Rowling broadcasting added details after the end of the series is a nonissue. As an author, once you finish a book, you let it go. It takes on a life of its own in the eyes of the individual reader. Whatever she chose to not mention in her writing simply does not exist. She shouldn't get to clarify or add things after the fact.

Rowling broadcasting added details after the end of the series is a nonissue. As an author, once you finish a book, you let it go. It takes on a life of its own in the eyes of the individual reader. Whatever she chose to not mention in her writing simply does not exist. She shouldn't get to clarify or add things after the fact.

My apologies for the accidental multiple posts.

Some logic:

a) Dead people can't have sex.
b) If you aren't having sex, you have no sexual orientation.
c) Dumbeldore is:
i) dead, but more importantly
ii) a written, and fictious idea

It follows that Dumbeldore is not gay. (Or straight... or ANYTHING. To say 'Dumbeldore is...' is already incorrect. Dumbeldore is NOT. You people are talking about him like he is (or was) real!)

As an aside: I can tell that people are going to jump on my writing that "if you aren't having sex, you have no sexual orientation." Like the person who wrote about the guy who is gay, but a virgin his whole life. Unfortunatly that's not true. Gayness is Homosexuality. Homosexuality involves what? Sexuality. Virginity involves the lack of sexuality, and therefor lack of homo or heterosexuality. Virgins are neither gay, or straight. They are horny.

If there's something else that makes a person gay, then there's something ELSE that makes a person straight. But what is that (are those) thing(s)? If it's a hightened sense of fashion...that's just feeding to a stereotype, and besides, that then means any straight guy has a good sense of fashion is therefor gay. No no, that doesn't do. Gays and Straights can have all the same qualities... but when it comes down to the one thing that makes the difference, it's about sex, and who they want to have sex with. Why the classification? Because that's what we're classifying.. those who have sex with the opposite versus the same sex.

Having a "desire for a guy" doesn't make you gay... shocking, isn't it? It's true though. Look at the biggest, machoest of guys (though some would start claiming that often those guys are making up for latent homosexuality... but that aside) Guys can be very chummy, and express their feelings for each other in a more machoistic way, that can also be quite erotic when thought about. The other night I got drunk with my buddies and we wrestled. Wrestling is damn sexual. The private parts are all rubbing and what not, but in the end, one emerges victorious, and the other just needed a little bit more time. A guy can feel a desire for his guy friend, and it it's gay. It only becomes gay when that desire manifests itself in the act of homoerotic rubbing. But until the desire manifests itself in some sort of physical reaction, it's completely undecided whether it's the brotherly love you're feeling or the boiking love.

Is it wrong to be gay? Well, it all depends on what you're trying to achieve. If it's to have a straight life, then you're failing miserably. If it's to be gay... well, that's the way to go.

DUMBLEDORE'S gay...i guess micheal aint the only dog who likes to touch little boys.

ahahahaha.

seriously though...WTF????

Why the FUCK did Rowling not make him gay from the beginning? What was with the big surprise reveal?

I think its bitchy of her to lead us on and then suddenly pull the rabbit out of the BLOODY hat,

I kind of smile when I read the various statements of denial regarding the revealed sexual orientation of Dumbledore.

Harry Potter or any other fictional characters are created by its author, are born within his imagination and then described the best way he can.

Each fictional characther as Dumbledore, Harry Potter, Gandalf, Frodo, Paul Atreides, Andreas Bolkonsky, Hercule Poirot or whoever, is mainly an idea of its creator, a concept of who imagined it.

The way the author choses to describe it, doesn't alter the concept itself but only the perspective others have over it.

Based on this simple statement, how can some people who clearly rever this book series then say "She hasn't written, therefore I chose it to be real or not"? It's ridiculous and clearly denial unless you're assuming she is lying and that this new "revelation" was cooked to be a publicity stunt and that before this she never thought of him as an homosexual man.

In ancient Egypt there was the religious belief that an idea or thought had to be written in order to have meaning. I honestly thought we were through that but in any case, don't worry. I'm sure this publicity stunts will gather more than enough momentum to Rowling to write appendices, annexes, additional notes, whatever... and all will sell like hell regarding the mainstream cult of the series.

Terencio,

You said, I use science and then disregard it. No, the scientific studies I've read prove that homosexuality is not genetic. (Since the studies point to a conclusion you do not wish to accept you call them flawed. Exactly who's being objective and who isn't?) Sexuality is conditioned. One's experiences and choices determine how one is conditioned. For our discussion, scientific research isn't much help because science can only show how homosexuality develops. It cannot answer the question of whether it is moral or not. That's why I de-emphasize science (not discard it) in favor or personal experience. For the homosexual neither religion nor scientific studies will convict him that his behavior is immoral. He has to realize that by personal experience.

I do not know if the Bible is "infallible" or not. It's not a biblical word and I never use it. I believe that the Bible is inspired (God-breathed). 2 Timothy 3:16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17 so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work. I trust what the Bible says is accurate. It's prophetic accuracy defies the odds against coincidence and archeology has proved it reliable in historical matters. The scientific method itself may come from the Bible. The creation account in Genesis is written in the scientific method.

http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/audio/newevidence.htm

You must have missed the fact that the scriptures I quote that show homosexuality is a sinful practice in my previous posts were all New Testament passages. I have never referred to Old Covenant law which as you note is between God and the Jews. You haven't dealt with Paul's statements at all. You are kicking a straw man of your own making.

Certainly "the truth will set you free", but set you free from what? Set you free from the Old Covenant Law thus set you free to practice homosexuality? That's not what Jesus said. Look at it in context.

John 8:31 To the Jews who had believed him, Jesus said, “If you hold to my teaching, you are really my disciples. 32 Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.” 33 They answered him, “We are Abraham’s descendants and have never been slaves of anyone. How can you say that we shall be set free?” 34 Jesus replied, “I tell you the truth, everyone who sins is a slave to sin. 35 Now a slave has no permanent place in the family, but a son belongs to it forever. 36 So if the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed.

Jesus said, whoever sins is a slave to sin. If you hold to Jesus' teaching you will know the truth and it will set you free. It does not set you free to sin. It sets you free from slavery to sin.

Homosexuals are slaves to their lustful behavior. Indeed they can't quit. Following Christ's teaching will set them free. (Interesting how 12 step programs are all Bible based.)

You claim to be a "religious scholar" but no Bible scholar takes scripture out of context and makes it say the exact opposite. You'll have to do better than that.

JKR is on a spiral downward self destructive road. Was it too much for her to take the fame and love of all HP fans? For her to announce this it WILL screw the remaining movies to come AND the Disney World theme park coming in 2008. She tainted a character. We now know why Voldemort feared him - he was a homophobic!

So Naulon, you base your philosophy entirely on Romans? Also, I'll ask again, do you KNOW what scientific method is? I think not because you talk of studies PROVING homosexuality is unnatural, and any high school student knows that science doesn't prove anything, but merely disproves and leads us to stronger hypothesis. I'm not creating a straw man, I'm simply trying to pin you down to your so called facts. You are evading though. Do you fear my repudiation?

I'll tell you again, Naulon, that I have no ulterior motive. I am interested only in keeping dogma and fact separate when they diverge. I don't have a horse in your race. I'm not gay, and I do not belong to any of the Judeo-Christian-Islamic faiths. I don't live in your country, and I have no interest in your personal demons.

If you want to talk about science PROVING anything, there has to be a preponderance of evidence. In lay terms, there has to be so much data on a subject that to believe it false would be to question the method itself. No simple study that you cite can possibly be a preponderance of evidence on such a controversial issue. Neither I nor the scientific community at large would discount good data just because we were expecting a different result.

Please Naulon, if you don't understand science and the scientific method, spend an hour or two looking it up. Don't denigrate my ability to be objective just because attacking me is easier than attacking the science.

And again, please contact me elsewhere. We have moved FAR from discussing Dumbledore.

Terencio,

Proving, disproving, leading to a stronger hypothesis or weaker one....mere semantics. All this discussion and all you can object to now is what word I use? I rest my case.

Ha ha,

She did this just to piss off all the conservatives. I LOVE IT!

All the "turn the other cheek" "love thy neighbor" Christians will turn up in droves to spew their hate throughout the internet and the world because of this. I imagine her sitting back with a wry smile on her face.

naulon,

Your theory is interesting. I think I will condition myself to love penis. Then I will sit around sucking it all day long just to piss you off.

Obviously you have never met a self-loathing gay man who would wish nothing more in his life than to be straight like his brothers and sisters. Even though he was raised in the same conservative hateful environment as you were...

Well actually you probably have met a few... probably at truck stops while testing out your "wide stance"

Nick

Huahahaha..ridiculus, ridiculus...and its still amaze me how important dumbledore's sex orientation for a lot of people who read harry potter. He's just a character. It doesnt even affect the story.

JK. Rowling can say anything she like and gives any god damnstatus too her character that she creates by her own head. Even if dumbledore is half kangaroo, half dog, IT's HER RIGHT GUYS!!!

JK rocks!!

JKR went on to say that Hermione gives wicked head.

Okay. First...straight, no prob w/ homosexuals... enjoy their company.

I didn't suspect until book 7, but then thought it might be just me. But now, I have been thinking back and going...aha. Like...

Go back and read about how everone dressed. JKR gives a lot of descriptives to DD robes and he was a snazy dresser. His robes matched his eyes at times. He dressed like a man who is concerned with fashion and appearance. Few straight men are concerned with fashion and appearance. I don't want to stereotype, but that is a clue to me.

I agree that giving up his love over his sisters death and then having to put him in prison shows how much DD changed. He got over the power ideas of youth and put the greater good first.

It doesn't change my love of the books or my plans to read them to my son when he is old enough to pay attention.

As for JKR's "need to share": She created a vibrant full world with characters with full lives. All this could never be put into any book or books. But she knows tons of people want to know everything and she wants to share. She probably knows what Harry's first word was as a baby and exactly where Sirius went with Buckbeak to hide. She has a right to be proud of this massive creative accomplishment and share whatever she wants whenever. It's her world, her baby... let her share it how she wants!

Yes my puncuation sucks.. don't care. It's Friday and I am in a hurry.

I think the reason it's never mentionsed in the film is because J.K. Rowling is smart and chose not to let the books date themselves and instead the characters lived in a world where sexual orientation wasn't a hot subject and it didn't need to be mentioned because it's not a big deal. if onlt we could live in that world.

To many, Dumbledore will always be remembered as the manipulative old man he was revealed to be in Book 7. To now out him as gay really does bring paint a bad image of a community already under unfair scrutiny with respect to children. I can see the religious groups now salivating at the connotations that they will now be able to make between a gay person and the manipulation of young children in their care. JKR really did not help anyone with her statement.

I'm a little confused as to why JK Rowling thinks that gay men can't find true love... ?? "Will he find true love, sorry darling, no, he's gay". Maybe she's just a little backwards herself.

oh

my

gawd

I call it one of the most outrageous things i have heard from the potters series. She finishes the whole series and then randomly gets asked a questions and says dumbledore's gay. You never said it in the books but knew it all along. I feel you could have simply said he never found true love or because he was so busy doing everything never actually had time for a wife and kids.

As a 13 year old girl who grew up reading Harry Potter, I would first like to say that AnDi, you rock! I never really agreed with homosexuality, and I am still not to sure, but you gave me a whole new respect for the concept. Also I think it was good that Rowling made Dumbledore gay. It introduces the concept of homosexuality, with somebody kids grew up loving. Like said earlier, he is gay, not a child molester. Step off.

As a Christian, I have no problem whatsoever with DD being gay. The last book hinted at it, so it wasn't just something she made up afterwards.

I suspect that this may have been done partially as a gigantic middle finger to the Christians who don't like the books because of the magic. In which case, major props to JK.

Okay, JKR has broken the most important rule of writing, proving that no matter how great her books are, she's still a novice writer. This rule is, the author does not own her characters. She creates hints as to who her characters are. The reader then creates these characters in his own mind based upon those hints using the reader's own experiences. The reader owns the character within his own imagination because they live in his mind.

If one reader wants to imagine Dumbledore as gay, that is the product of that reader's imagination and it is valid for that reader. If another reader wants to imagine him as straight, that is just as valid.

For a writer to come up after the fact and declare details about characters that never made it into the books is a violation of the trust between author and reader. Smart readers don't like having characters dictated to them. It's insulting and smacks of arrogance. But then, JKR has become arrogant over the years. It's the natural product of quick success.

To those readers who like to pester JKR for every intimate detail that didn't make it into her books, I say, you have a brain, you have an imagination. Use it.

I frankly don't care one drop of spittle for what JKR says now that the Harry Potter series is closed. If it didn't make it into her books, well that's tough cookies for her. The characters she put into her pages live on in my imagination exactly as I imagined them. How she imagined them is completely irrelevant now.

I don't get the posts about sexuality having no place in a children's book....just say it- gay sexulaity. Harry mad crush on Cho was played out thru 2 books, then his feelings for Ginny, not to mention Ron and Hermione. All of those are clear indications of sexuality- should we drop those now?

it doesn't matter to me at all whether a character in a book is gay or straight or asexual for all i care.
the question i have is why? dumbledore's sexuality, homo or hetero, was never referred to in the books...if jk rowling is so insistant about this why didn't she mention it in the books? at all?
as much as i love hp, this recent little tidbit really annoyed me. maybe its just jk rowling who annoyed me on this one. i never thought she would lower herself to suck at the teat of the media (and controversy).
it really is kind of a slap in the face of gay people...it feels cheap.

She should have kept that to herself. There is no need to subject children to that sort of thinking. Kindly stop trying to inject your agenda into every little thing. Homosexuality is not normal. No matter how many times you scream and yell and repeat it, it's not. Stop trying to suppress my freedom to say it's disgusting.

@10
A youngster asked if Dumbledore, "who believed in the prevailing power of love, ever fell in love himself?"

"I always thought of Dumbledore as gay," Rowling replied.

Regardless of how Rowling explained or expanded on her post gay tagline to Dumbledore, she does not answer the question directly, and leaves room for an interpretive implication that gay love is different that hetero love. Being specific would have been: 'Yes, ironically and tragically his true love was Grindelwald.'

I dont think its important what was Dumbledore's sexual orientation.. if he was gay he was. Rowling is genious, bt i dont think it was the brightest idea from her to say this fact to the public this way...

Reading through some of these posts I'm actually ashamed of being human as I look through some of these totally close-minded posts. People saying being gay is a disease and all that rubbish- seriously, we're all people! We're all the same and if you are going on about how gay people need help and all that crap take it somewhere else where you can talk about it with other close-minded fools and away from us, people who don't want to look at your poison dripping all over the computer. Show some tolerance: you're embarrassing yourselves!

Homosexuals should be respected and accepted because like I said, we're all people! If they prefer people of the same sex, who are we to stop them? It's their life and if that's how they choose to live it, then so be it.

Besides, people who say Dumbledore being gay ruins the character, I agree with those who say it doesn't matter. This is like finding out someone in your family is gay- should you shun them after knowing them and loving them all these years? Seriously, just accept it.

also I agree with whoever it was that said to all the people that say children shouldn't be exposed to sexuality that harry & ginny, and ron & hermione getting together is like the same thing! Why does it suddenly all change if someone's gay? Anyway, I think parents are totally underestimating kids. When I was 10, 11 and 12 years old and probably before that, I was well aware of homosexuality. Parents- you can't cut them off from reality forever! Besides, little kids pick up way more information than people give them credit for. So take off the rose coloured glasses and realise that kids are gonna find out eventually, and instead of them finding out that you hid all this stuff because you thought they weren't ready, you should sit down and tell them, and promote tolerance, instead of them learning about it from friends at school and have people teach them that homosexuality is wrong. They should get the right example from you.

Anyway, like I said before, this is only a BOOK! A FICTIONAL book! I'm probably being hypocritical in saying this, but all this fuss shouldn't be made over a book! We should be able to just relax, and enjoy these books for what they are- fantastic and wonderful stories. Why is this whole Dumbledore being gay thing putting people off the books? That is totally wrong.

It's rather funny that some people find it easier to accept the suspension of disbelief of Dumbledore as a wizard (since magic is not real) but balk at accepting the fictional character as gay. After all homosexuality is a real phenomenon in nature, seen not just in humans but also many mammal and bird species.

As literature the Harry Potter books are pretty good novels. But they ARE FICTION. Readers should never take them to seriously, but just read them for enjoyment.

The idea that Rowling's post publication revelation that Dumbledore is gay is somehow tarnishing the books (or improving them) says more about the particular reader's prejudices and experiences than the books themselves. Does the fact that composer Aaron Copeland was gay make his music less powerful (or better) than the music of heterosexual composer Ralph Vaughan Williams? It would be ridiculous to say so.

Number one, I am on the same page with people who think it was stupid to throw something like this in outside of the books when not even one hint was made before. Number two, the fact that everyone at this event stood up and applauded baffles me. I am not anti-gay, but I am also not anti-straight either. So, why should everyone be soo happy that Dumbledore is gay? If she had announced that he loved some female character would everyone have been happy? This is just another case of the entertainment industry (film, print, stage, TV) pushing on the general public the idea that being gay is almost a cool thing, and that the other 90-96% of the world must be the ones who are "wrong". Again, I am not anti-gay but having all this crap pushed on me doesn't make me accept homosexuality anymore than I did before. If anything it makes me resent it. Now, if Dumbledore's sexuality was slowly established throughout the books, it would have made much more sense. For JK to just come out and say this smacks of her genuflecting at the alter of the liberal media guardians who now will heap their praise on her books (as if she needs help to sell more books) as just another example of great literary characters being gay.

and hear i thought it would be bad to kill your ex best freind think about your lover Damn Harry had it a lot easier.
HAs anyone seen any sign of Dumbles being a fruit?

Green @ 111: That is the biggest load of crap I've ever read! Homosexuality is not a choice! Many people have attempted suicide over their feelings. I know several gay people and some of them would prefer to be straight, just because they wouldn't get so much grief from disgusting people like you!

this is so funny! lets start the DDfGA (Dumbledore for Gay Assosciation) and HFOAD (Hetero Friends of Albus Dumbledore)... I would join them both!

this is so funny! lets start the DDfGA (Dumbledore for Gay Assosciation) and HFOAD (Hetero Friends of Albus Dumbledore)... I would join them both!

Homosexuality is a choice. Everyone knows that. No one is forcing you to have sex with men. You choose it. Stop whining about not being accepted. If you wanted to be accepted you'd stop having sex with your own sex. Problem solved. The rest of the world shouldn't have to make special allowances for you. Who the hell do you think you are? I'll never tolerate you and I will make damn sure my children don't either. And don't tell me to go away. I have just as much right to say whatever I want as you do.

@13
I don't see why sexual orientation is necessary in children's books.
Because of course, children are never sexual……, plus define children, define sexual. These books are read by teens and preteens. This isn’t Dr. Suess.

@15
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.
Ditto….even just one kid stuck in let’s say Kansas or Montana, where of course there are no gay people. (Just like in Iran!)

@18
….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?
Yup, that’s what he/she meant

@40
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.
See Tibet, where more than 1 million Buddhist have been “cleansed” from the Chinese population: Or Africa, ethnic cleansing by machete: Or, etc., etc., etc.

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?
Hm? Ron Wood? Now there’s a right lad. Weasley twins playing hide the wand? Draco’s two henchmen, no one else would have them. (oooh, that was mean)

@49
You got it rhian, because children are never sexual…..

@55
You sir, are as “dumb as a box of hair.”

@56
Thank you!

@71
…..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.
Oh boy, Hermione is going to be mad since DD is no longer undressing her in his mind. (also see @79 and @81 and @87)

@89
This one is great!

@91 and @92
You got it kids!

@109
Ah yes, another voice is heard…..Were you an alter boy and your priest chose the other kid? Did you have an uncle who chose your little brother for his “favorite” and ignored you? People who react with this much vehemence to gay people are always gay themselves and are afraid to come out of their closet.

@123
Perfect. I have often wondered how these people would react if everyone they knew, but didn’t know was gay, would suddenly disappear from their lives. They would be very shocked to know how many of us there are, and how our presence affects everyone’s life, now and in the past.

@126
The number of people here equating homosexuality with pedophilia makes me physically ill. Let’s see, I haven’t had sex with a kid since I was a kid… 

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? Of course, all straight men are after their friends’ daughters and their own nieces. Isn’t that the way it works. And don’t forget the straight women, can you say Mrs. Robinson.

And as for 109 -- I have a healthier sexuality than most people I know. I was never molested (nope, me either, not once) 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. Don’t do that, these are good books. If you want to hurl something, hurl that other great fictional series, “Left Behind.”

@135
There have NEVER been any scientists who could disprove anything in the bible.
I just wanted to ask which bible you were referring to. The one King James rewrote 92% of in the mid 1600’s. Or the Apocrypha, you know the one that’s missing 6 or 8 books no one ever mentions. How handy. I don’t like linear equations so I’m taking chapter 14 out of my Calculus book. Pfft! Let’s just use the Torah, that’s all we need, right. After all those are the most important books, right. Plus all 613 commandments would certainly keep us in line. How about the New Age Gender Neutral Revised American Living LDS King James Version (whew). How about the Qur’an, the Dhammapada, the Wiccan Handbook, the etc., etc., etc.
…..it's the only absolute truth there is.
Sorry, Blaze, there is no such thing as “absolute truth.” The only possible absolute path is agnosticism, because I don’t know the truth and you don’t either.

@137
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.
You go girl!

@141
Also, the flood and Genesis stories have both been disproven. Maybe a big flood during the last global warming episode, but that’s about all. It would have been just after the earth was a giant frozen snowball. Yup, it’s true, really happened, multiple times in fact in the last 4.5 billion years.
Also, the earth isn't 6000 years old. If you’re Native American your ancestors crossed the Bering Sea almost 18,000 years ago. Oops! The iceman found on top of the Italian Alps was dated to be 5700 years old. Another shot is heard. And genetic research has mankind at about 2000 generations or 100,000 years or so. Eeek!
Also, the earth is not the center of the universe. Not even close, not the center of the solar system, not the center of the Milky Way, only the center of our little carbon based lives.
Also, absolute truth requires absolute proof, and not faith. I have faith, I do….in absolute proof! Ha!

@175
…..the existence of God is a proven scientific fact.
When? How? By whom? I must have missed it, and I pay very close attention to such things.

@189
Homosexuality refers to enduring sexual and romantic attraction towards those of the same sex. Why yes it does……sigh I can see him now….my partner of 23 years!
How would you like your kids to read a children's book where two men are in love with each other? They don’t have too, they see it every day. They also men in love with women, women in love with women and women in love with men.
On personal note:
I'm disgusted with gays as that's not natural. Sex = way to reproduce, same sex = no reproduction = unnatural. Simple as that. Oh if only….
I wish gays were a race instead of a cool new trend so you could all die off. A cool new trend? Hm? You are clearly not familiar with human history: it’s not new and it’s not a trend. We have always been here and we always will be. Always.

@198
Just a comment regarding those who say homosexuality is un-natural...
natural means found in nature, therefore un-natural means not found in nature. Whereas homosexuality is found all over the show in nature, I read a study done where 14% of American Bighorn (type of sheep) rams would consistently prefer another ram to a fertile ewe. There have also been documented reports of homosexual dolphins, monkeys, apes etc. Homosexuality is natural, accept it.
Here's the link btw...
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2002340883_gayscience19m.html
If you follow the link and read the article you will see your tax dollars are studying the national Bighorn herd but the government will not comment on the focus of the research. Also look at research from Australia. And according to a Norwegian source, “Homosexuality has been observed in more than 1,500 species, and the phenomenon has been well described for 500 of them.” In fact, before mankind invented religion, it was no big deal among humans.

@203
Perfect!

@218
no justification for a claim that the anus exists for penal penetration.
This same voice is heard again….. People who react with this much vehemence to gay people are always gay themselves and are afraid to come out of their closet. Plus, my partner and I personally don’t participate in that particular sexual pleasure, much more oral and tactile oriented. Does that make us less gay?

@227
You again! Do you write this crap because you really believe it? See the above “box of hair” reference above.
Homosexuality is conditioned by homo-erotic experiences like rape, molestation and experimentation both wanted and unwanted often beginning in childhood. A person is usually introduced to homosexuality by another homosexual. Bull! I was never raped, molested or experimented on by anyone and I’m gay.
sexual addictions
You don’t quite have the concept of sex addict correct, though, do you? I had a boyfriend in college, another just out of college, and met my partner of 23 years after that. So, I have had sex with 3 people, and only 1 for the last 23 years. Does that make me a sex addict?

@229
And again….
If my neighbor is involved in self destructive practices it is my responsibility to try to help him even if he is adamant not to accept it. I don’t think so. Who are you to judge me? When you achieve perfection then you can talk to me. Until then, mind your own fucking business.

@235
What a way to ruin a good series. I'll never be able to read them again. If it doesn't matter if Dumbledore is gay...then why mention it?
This fuckin' ruins it for normal people.
Please define “normal people” for me. I defy anyone to define the word, “normal.”

So, all this uproar because some fictional character is gay and most of us didn’t even know until the series was completed. I guess it wasn’t that big a deal in the books then, right. Of course things like this always bring out the “Naulons” in our culture. No doubt he is also a member of the NRA and maybe even the New Nazi’s of America or something. Naulon, you are scary. Unfortunately there are lots of folks out there like you. And even more frightening is you breed and you vote, not that voting counts for much any more.

I don’t know about everyone else, but I have plenty to do just taking care of my own little corner of the world to worry about what you or anyone else, including DD, do in bed.

KEVIN SHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!! Naulon said he rested his case! Don't stir him up again or he'll start spitting his bile again! Nice post btw.

@297
So, umm are you saying that you could choose to be gay? Because honestly I don't think I could. Being straight is not a choice. And neither is homosexuality.

Who cares? Why is it whenever there's a gay/non-gay character in a fictional element all the fag-o's have to be up in arms. I had to laugh when reading all the comments about the fag-o's who would no longer watch Heroes because NBC reversed their decision to have Claire's friend from season one be out of the closet.

Honestly, it's bloody entertainment. If you don't like it, too bad, we gave you Will & Grace, live with it.

Strangely,the "fag-o's" NEVER seem to be toting around arms to be up in... seems to be a mostly right wing response to upset. Good point though, I would like to ask how many people chiming in on this blog own firearms?

"That being said, it is a book of fiction, and entirely the authors creation. I think criticizing the content is logical, acceptable, and part and parcel with living an examined life, but critiquing the author herself is a bit silly. I mean, are you going to criticize me for having my dreams and fantasies? Thank the author for having the courage to share hers with you, don't denigrate her for having them."

Best damn response to this thread. The author is, as we all are, human. And a bit of a fangirl, though I say that in the nicest way. Isn't it not fun to talk with your fangirl friends about your favorite fandoms? I've been baffled for a while about how Harry Potter became so popular. I think it's a good story with good writing, but not great. Well, I think I know now. It IS simple enough for most people to understand, clever enough to get them to think -- But more than that, it's written by a woman who's not above prattling to her fans. It's just fun. :D

I think the way JK brushed over DD's sexuality in the books and later announced it is just how she thought would be most appropriate.
It is after all her story, her characters and her fiction.
This revelation is just something with which we can put some other sections of Harry Potter in context.
I don't see the whole thing as insulting to homosexuals at all.
If anything, some young gay adolescents will feel slightly better about themselves.
This should not be used as an excuse for religious people to push their hateful and discriminating ends.

Why can't people let the Dumbledore thing go? Everyone keeps saying 'it has no relevence to the story' but then go on to complain about it. Take your own advice -if it has no relevence to the story, then it should remain unchanged to you. It's not like some pixie went around the world, changing each and every book so Dumbledore became this Homosexual- Pedophile -sex crazed maniac who seduced his students, along with little ol' Harry, on the side of his 'fighting evil' career. He'd never have had the time.
Oh wait, maybe you all should go and check just in case it did change, then all you homophobes can begin your book burning club, and all you religious fanatics can have a witch hunt for JKR because she not only promotes witch craft (which I find ironic, seeing as how the Bible itself seems to hold enough magic but -oh- wait, those are MIRACLES aren't they?) but now also homosexuality! WHAT IS THE WORLD COMING TOOO!?!?!
First off:
*Homosexuality is NOT a choice, stopping saying it is. No one would WANT to be subjected to the stupidity and cruelty of you closed minded bigots.
*Homosexuality has been around for AGES, long before your precious Bible.
*Homosexuality is present in all aspects of the animal kingdom, not just Humans. Therefore it can not be against nature if nature itself is committing it right right? Go read Plato or Homer and actually learns something why don't you.

Also, you flock of sheep, following some dusty old Book that has been re-written a gazillion times is as ridiculous as someone following the Harry Potter series as though it were real! I mean REALLY.
Crap I should take it back, lest the Dark Lord himself take me down to Voldy land and repeatedly poke me with his stick for all eternity! The HORROR!

In the span of 300+ posts I have seen this message board response to an authors announcement go through nearly every major controversy or disagreement having to do with, Dumbledore, Homosexuality, rights of the author, relevance of fandom, religious beliefs, and marketing. I am personally amazed at the directions a discussion can take when people are able to speak their minds without having to face the people they speak to. Regardless of my opinion on the matter (I don't really care on way or the other) I think it's interesting that people who loved the announcement and those who claim to have hated it can still spend ages discussing it like it was the center of the world. They are her books so she can do with them what she will, period.
@305 Alexandra and the other people who were nice enough to share their enlightened opinions on modern day Christianity, where do you get off? Tolerance works both ways, I may not agree with the lifestyles of Homosexuals but that does not make me a bigoted small minded fascist. Yes I have friends who are gay, and I am also a Christian.
It seems to be becoming trendy to show how "tolerant" and "modern" you are by citing the Christians as examples of bigotry or hatred .Would you do the same if we were Wiccan, or Hindu, or Jewish, or Atheist? I get it you don't agree with what I believe, fine, now let it go and move on. Accept that we have a difference of opinion and then live you life. That's how tolerance works.
Props to Rowling for expanding on her characters, I hope to see more.

@306 Jon.
Well, my first time officially offending someone! Woot!
I agree with your comment actually, at least about being tolerant.
However, one has to understand that I have been subjected to enough crap from various religions that has made me bitter - and the whole bit about letting go and moving on? I will, as soon as everyone else can do the same towards MY beliefs.
I'm sick of hearing that I'm going to go to hell for not believing in God or for believing in the rights of Homosexuals etc. etc. etc... So until YOU (meaning all those who think their religion is the ONE and ONLY) can accept that we Atheists and people with other forms of beliefs have morals and opinions that differ, I'm not going to sit back and take it anymore. Because frankly, I've been tolerant enough in my life time to know it CAN'T go both ways.
We don't live in a dream world that's all candy-doodle, and sometimes people need a right smack in the head to see things a little differently.

@306 Jon.
Well, my first time officially offending someone! Woot!
I agree with your comment actually, at least about being tolerant.
However, one has to understand that I have been subjected to enough crap from various religions that has made me bitter - and the whole bit about letting go and moving on? I will, as soon as everyone else can do the same towards MY beliefs.
I'm sick of hearing that I'm going to go to hell for not believing in God or for believing in the rights of Homosexuals etc. etc. etc... So until YOU (meaning all those who think their religion is the ONE and ONLY) can accept that we Atheists and people with other forms of beliefs have morals and opinions that differ, I'm not going to sit back and take it anymore. Because frankly, I've been tolerant enough in my life time to know it CAN'T go both ways.
We don't live in a dream world that's all candy-doodle, and sometimes people need a right smack in the head to see things a little differently.

Sorry for the double post.
And anyways, I thought my 305 comment was more amusing than anything. People are so sticky.

I want to say that: JK meant no offence to gay people.
It is actually a matter of her choice of first words for the answer- she said that he is gay and was in tragic love with Grindelwald- it was the gay thing first and then the name. In the other case she could have answered simply :" He was in tragic love with Grindelwald" and that makes it clear he is gay. But answering this question with the truth that the love is Grindelwald demanded the revelation that DD is gay.
That is all. I am a big supporter of gay people- don' t take my word as an offence.

Everyone here is mean. Can't a man in America just express his point of view? I like pussy and hate fags. Whats wrong with that?

One time a gay man tried to convert me to gayness. He sucked my cock. I told him I still liked pussy and that his attempt to convert me failed.

Naulon 1 Fags 0

I love you,

Naulon

Lol.

If you were under 18, he was a pedo, not gay, and the only conversion possible was to make you a pedo. That probably didn't happen, so that would make it:

Naulon 0 Pedo 1

If you were over 18, and you let him, that would make it consenual and wait a minute, that would make you an apparent straight guy who got a freebie, and obviously the "conversion" didn't take. Maybe there's a problem with the conversion theory. Either way you got a freebie and he got another notch in his carved wooden dildo. (We all have them you know)

Naulon 1 (for the freebie)
Gay guy 1 (for the notch)

And while some folks here may be mean, I'm just the sweetest guy you will ever meet. I am. No, really.....

Hey Kevin,

If you ass slammed me, I would hate it. This is because I am straight. I propose an experiment. You bring over your most slippry lubes and toys and bang my gaping ass shaft.

If I moan or cum then I will pay you $5. If I don't then I win the argument.

Naulon

JK Rowling states in many of her interviews that she developed extensive character backgrounds on all the characters before she wrote the first book, and even though all this background did not make the book, she tried to keep true to her character’s character. I think this is one of the reasons her books were so good.
In previous interviews, and usually when asked specific questions, she often made insights into characters from the book, granted us hard-core fans a further look into Harry’s world. The only difference with this insight into Dumbledore’s sexual orientation is that it is controversial. The so-called righteous Christians found a new weapon against the “satanic” world of Hogwarts, because after all, most of those that preach this hatred do see homosexuals equal to pedophiles.
Most everything I have read seems to show that homosexual orientation is genetic, same as hair color, height, and so on. The logical conclusion to me is that if you believe in a biblical God, that God created homosexuals and heterosexuals. I would think the so-called righteous would be happy that at least Dumbledore had the “decency” to stay in the closet. Guess that would just not add to the hatred.
These righteous are always quick to point out how God feels about homosexuals and then provide scriptures to back it up. (This is similar to those who justified slavery in this country, after all, the bible obviously saw slavery as God approved – biblical law even points out how one can lawfully beat your slave to death – depending on how long they survive after the beating.)
I find it interesting how these righteous do tend to pick and choose which laws they will follow, as there are many in the bible. And for those who like to point out that those laws don’t apply to Christians because of something Paul said, I can only point out that Jesus said in Mark 5:17, "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.” One of Moses’ Top Ten List was to “Remember the Sabbath and keep it holy”. How many Christians follow that one today? How many even know that the Sabbath is actually Saturday? Sunday worship was a pagan ritual, made popular by Mithra, who was also born of a virgin on December 25th, and who was pictured with a halo.

JK Rowling states in many of her interviews that she developed extensive character backgrounds on all the characters before she wrote the first book, and even though all this background did not make the book, she tried to keep true to her character’s character. I think this is one of the reasons her books were so good.
In previous interviews, and usually when asked specific questions, she often made insights into characters from the book, granted us hard-core fans a further look into Harry’s world. The only difference with this insight into Dumbledore’s sexual orientation is that it is controversial. The so-called righteous Christians found a new weapon against the “satanic” world of Hogwarts, because after all, most of those that preach this hatred do see homosexuals equal to pedophiles.
Most everything I have read seems to show that homosexual orientation is genetic, same as hair color, height, and so on. The logical conclusion to me is that if you believe in a biblical God, that God created homosexuals and heterosexuals. I would think the so-called righteous would be happy that at least Dumbledore had the “decency” to stay in the closet. Guess that would just not add to the hatred.
These righteous are always quick to point out how God feels about homosexuals and then provide scriptures to back it up. (This is similar to those who justified slavery in this country, after all, the bible obviously saw slavery as God approved – biblical law even points out how one can lawfully beat your slave to death – depending on how long they survive after the beating.)
I find it interesting how these righteous do tend to pick and choose which laws they will follow, as there are many in the bible. And for those who like to point out that those laws don’t apply to Christians because of something Paul said, I can only point out that Jesus said in Mark 5:17, "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.” One of Moses’ Top Ten List was to “Remember the Sabbath and keep it holy”. How many Christians follow that one today? How many even know that the Sabbath is actually Saturday? Sunday worship was a pagan ritual, made popular by Mithra, who was also born of a virgin on December 25th, and who was pictured with a halo.

@297: Homosexuality is a choice? That is the most load of rubbish on this subject I've ever heard. People don't choose to be gay, it just happens. What about those people who commit suicide because they don't want to have the feelings their having towards the same sex? People who kill themselves because they can't help what they feel, but they get persecuted for it. I know gay people who say if they had the choice, they would be straight because life is easier and they don't get abuse hurled at them. Can you stop being straight? No, you can't help who you fall in love with. When people are confused about their feelings during teenage years especially, it is made all the worse by those people on this board who feel the need to insult them and cause them more upset than they need at a difficult time.

And a note to all the religious people on here who feel the need to preach the subject- how many of you really follow every single rule in your holy books? Last time I read the Bible, some of the things it told you to do were contradicted later. And talking about saving homosexuals immortal souls? Yeah, if you hate them they'd prefer you to say it, not hide behind fake sympathy for something they would enjoy a lot more than being forced into a relationship with someone of the opposite sex who they have no feelings toward at all.

Sorry Naulon,

I am totally monogamous, for 23 years in fact, and my partner and I don't enjoy that particular activity and so don't engage in it.

Thanks anyway, though.

Kevin