NationStates Jolt Archive

J.K. Rowling outs Hogwarts character

NEW YORK - Harry Potter fans, the rumors are true: Albus Dumbledore, master wizard and Headmaster of Hogwarts, is gay. J.K. Rowling, author of the mega-selling fantasy series that ended last summer, outed the beloved character Friday night while appearing before a full house at Carnegie Hall.
ADVERTISEMENT

After reading briefly from the final book, "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows," she took questions from audience members.

She was asked by one young fan whether Dumbledore finds "true love."

"Dumbledore is gay," the author responded to gasps and applause.

She then explained that Dumbledore was smitten with rival Gellert Grindelwald, whom he defeated long ago in a battle between good and bad wizards. "Falling in love can blind us to an extent," Rowling said of Dumbledore's feelings, adding that Dumbledore was "horribly, terribly let down."

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

"Oh, my god," Rowling concluded with a laugh, "the fan fiction."

Potter readers on fan sites and elsewhere on the Internet have speculated on the sexuality of Dumbledore, noting that he has no close relationship with women and a mysterious, troubled past. And explicit scenes with Dumbledore already have appeared in fan fiction.

Rowling told the audience that while working on the planned sixth Potter film, "Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince," she spotted a reference in the script to a girl who once was of interest to Dumbledore. A note was duly passed to director David Yates, revealing the truth about her character.

Rowling, finishing a brief "Open Book Tour" of the United States, her first tour here since 2000, also said that she regarded her Potter books as a "prolonged argument for tolerance" and urged her fans to "question authority."

Not everyone likes her work, Rowling said, likely referring to Christian groups that have alleged the books promote witchcraft. Her news about Dumbledore, she said, will give them one more reason.
Link (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071020/ap_on_en_ot/books_harry_potter)

I can see why she would say that, some of her readers may be gay, and she may want them to have a character to relate to in her books. At least Dumbledor isn't flamboyant. Hehe could you actually see Richard Simmons or Elton John play Dumbledor?

You know, I actually would want to see that....

He's a fictional character.

The only fictional character I like enough to care about things like that is Samus Aran because Samus Aran kicks ass. And it'd be pretty hot if she were a lesbian. Imagination + Morph Ball + Naked Samus = Crazy hot fantasies!

pft, he's not gay, he's just British. Though the confusion is understandable

Link (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071020/ap_on_en_ot/books_harry_potter)

I can see why she would say that, some of her readers may be gay, and she may want them to have a character to relate to in her books. At least Dumbledor isn't flamboyant. Hehe could you actually see Richard Simmons or Elton John play Dumbledor?

You know, I actually would want to see that....

After readomg Deathly Hallows, I say she just made that up for some controversy.

Nowhere in the entire series do you see Herminie and Ron getting together.

Nowhere in the first half of the series do you see Harry even remotely intersted in Ginny.

she just wanted her happy "everyone is now one big family" type ending.

so I say she's making it up for publicity.

I knew Ian McKellen should have played him.

so I say she's making it up for publicity.
That's what I think. So one does have to wonder as to why the hell she feels the need to pump up a bit of publicity. It's not like her books needed any more.
Maybe she was just bored or on a tad too much medication when she was asked that question.

That's what I think. So one does have to wonder as to why the hell she feels the need to pump up a bit of publicity. It's not like her books needed any more.
Maybe she was just bored or on a tad too much medication when she was asked that question.
either that or she can't think of anything else to write...

either that or she can't think of anything else to write...

Or, y'know, it's true.

Seriously, I didn't guess myself (I always thought Lupin was gay until he shacked up with Tonks, though), but just because it seems odd doesn't mean that it's immediately false. I think there's some twitch homophobia going on there, probably.

Oh dear.. more food for the people that believe that "Voldemort is Jesus" and "Harry Potter the ant-christ".

Still, I applaud Rowling.

After readomg Deathly Hallows, I say she just made that up for some controversy.

Nowhere in the entire series do you see Herminie and Ron getting together.

Nowhere in the first half of the series do you see Harry even remotely intersted in Ginny.

she just wanted her happy "everyone is now one big family" type ending.

so I say she's making it up for publicity.

Uh...read Hallows again, mate. About 3/4 of the way through. Ron and Hermione do get together. Were you expecting some kind of sex scene or something? They do kiss, and the end shows them with kids. Why on Earth would any more be necessary?

EDIT: Read the series and can't spell Hermione? Suspicious.

Uh...read Hallows again, mate. About 3/4 of the way through. Ron and Hermione do get together. Were you expecting some kind of sex scene or something? They do kiss, and the end shows them with kids. Why on Earth would any more be necessary?

Even before Hallows there were plenty of hints.
I would have preferred a Luna-Harry pairing over Harry-Ginny though...

Even before Hallows there were plenty of hints.
I would have preferred a Luna-Harry pairing over Harry-Ginny though...

Me too, especially after the stellar job the young actress playing her did.

Uh...read Hallows again, mate. About 3/4 of the way through. Ron and Hermione do get together. Were you expecting some kind of sex scene or something? They do kiss, and the end shows them with kids. Why on Earth would any more be necessary?

EDIT: Read the series and can't spell Hermione? Suspicious.

hey, it's late. my fingers are tired... :p

fine... HERMY!!! :D

and shall we count how many times Hermione kisses Harry throughout the series and compare it with how many time she kisses Ron?

The point is, through books one-five there is NOTHING to indicate that Hermione and Ron are getting together. Suddenly book six has their little tiff over the dance, then book six she's moping around while Ron is snogging someone else... then book seven... WTF!!!

same with Harry and Ginney. They barely interacted in books 1 - 5 and suddenly he can't get her face out of his mind in books 6 and 7?

I blame that damn Dementor Mist... :mad:

Rowlings wanted an ending where all the main characters were in some way connected with the Weasleys, and she just wrote it out that way.

Even before Hallows there were plenty of hints.
I would have preferred a Luna-Harry pairing over Harry-Ginny though...

Name em. and I'll bet there will be near twice as much Harry-Hermione hints.

yeah, I loved how the actress portrayed Loony Lovegood.

Name em. and I'll bet there will be near twice as much Harry-Hermione hints.

yeah, I loved how the actress portrayed Loony Lovegood.

I can't name them, but I totally thought that harry-ginny were going to happen way before DH. And Hermoine-Ron I thought was going to happen from near the beginning, what with all the tension and the emotion between them.

hey, it's late. my fingers are tired... :p

fine... HERMY!!! :D

and shall we count how many times Hermione kisses Harry throughout the series and compare it with how many time she kisses Ron?

The point is, through books one-five there is NOTHING to indicate that Hermione and Ron are getting together. Suddenly book six has their little tiff over the dance, then book six she's moping around while Ron is snogging someone else... then book seven... WTF!!!

same with Harry and Ginney. They barely interacted in books 1 - 5 and suddenly he can't get her face out of his mind in books 6 and 7?

I blame that damn Dementor Mist... :mad:

Rowlings wanted an ending where all the main characters were in some way connected with the Weasleys, and she just wrote it out that way.

Uh...I don't recall any kind of romantic kiss between Harry and Hermione. Are you sure you're not hooked up to a fan fiction site and regurgitating someone else's fantasy here? Harry had the thing for Cho in books 4/5 and hints about Ginny are dropped in 5. Hermione has preferred Ron in subtle ways since book 3 when she grabs his hand in a fear reaction and blushes. The Ron-not-getting-the-hint and snogging Parvati (I think) for a few chapters happens in book 5. Harry thinking about Ginny is hinted at in book 5 when she's dating Seamus.

I can't name them, but I totally thought that harry-ginny were going to happen way before DH. And Hermoine-Ron I thought was going to happen from near the beginning, what with all the tension and the emotion between them.

well, the fact that in HBP, she had the couples being formed is probably where majority of the signs were.

but before that, the only clue was Ron and Hermione's argument about the winter dance and Ron's jelousy.

same with Ginny and Harry. After Harry breaks up with Cho, nothing until suddenly Ginny's face is all Harry can think of and that occures in HBP.

Before HBP, you have Hermione doing out of character things for Harry, Breaking rules, helping him cheat, infact there are more times in the book where Harry and Hermione are alone than Ron and Hermione.

and while you're thinking about it... YES, my sister followed the fandom and all the shippers for Harry Potter and she kept me informed of what they were up to dispite my not wanting to know :headbang:.

After readomg Deathly Hallows, I say she just made that up for some controversy. To each their own.

Nowhere in the entire series do you see Herminie and Ron getting together. I saw it from the beginning, it was so predictable.
They started out hating each others guts remember? It's like the third most cliche way of someone falling in love.

By book four it should have become obivious with Rons Jealousy.


Nowhere in the first half of the series do you see Harry even remotely intersted in Ginny. But Ginny is interested in Harry throughout most of the books. Having someone have a crush on you for years and years must have an effect.

she just wanted her happy "everyone is now one big family" type ending. Hmm, she killed off multiple fan favorites, real happy there.

so I say she's making it up for publicity.
Whatever Maybe you're just angry because none of the 'pairings' came out like you wanted them too.

In my case however it was EXACTLY how I figured it would be.

Having someone have a crush on you for years and years must have an effect.

Doesn't, trust me.

:(

That's what I think. So one does have to wonder as to why the hell she feels the need to pump up a bit of publicity. It's not like her books needed any more.
Maybe she was just bored or on a tad too much medication when she was asked that question.

Well, see thats the thing, her books are kind of off the map... *joking* I relaly do feel though, that she did just kind of throw taht out there, maybe she means it, but why specifically it would be true or not true does not seem to matter at all (unless she got angry fan mail form gay people who want to relate more orsomething... like the story, and human experience in general wouldn't be enough or something), oh well, the books are done with, and ultimately the sexuality of characters is not what ended up mattering except in the sole, rare case of Harry getting married in the Epilogue, by which time the actually Harry Potter series was completely finshed.

I knew Ian McKellen should have played him.

Should've waited for Stephen Fry to be old enough.

*predicts that Rowling is just trying to plot her next career move. From child fiction to gay fiction. And everyone's happy.*

It's interesting that some people seem so shocked, as if this came out of nowhere.

Of course Dumbledore's gay... we never see any mention of marriage, or love affairs--this from a guy who's very adamant about the power and nobility of love--and while it's understandable that this would be the case when he's 150, we hear so much about Dumbledore's past in Deathly Hallows that the fact starts to jump at you. (So does the fact that there are no gay characters in a book written by an adamantly pro-tolerance female author... there are obvious reasons not to make it explicit, but I figured that there was a good chance there were a few guessable ones in the background.)

And who, of course, helpfully pops up in the seventh book as a very plausible candidate for Dumbledore's affections? Gellert Grindelwald... who is described several times as quite handsome. So Rowling does tell us, in the end, about Dumbledore's romantic interests. She just doesn't tell us she's telling us.

Nowhere in the entire series do you see Herminie and Ron getting together.

Harry-Ginny, we could argue about, but Ron-Hermione is staring you in the face from Book Four.

After readomg Deathly Hallows, I say she just made that up for some controversy.

After reading Deathly Hallows, I somehow managed to guess both elements of her revelation.

Maybe it's because I'm prescient... or maybe it's because I'm open-minded and capable of recognizing the hints.

:rolleyes:

*predicts that Rowling is just trying to plot her next career move. From child fiction to gay fiction. And everyone's happy.*Well, one always expected Harry to end up in a gay bar.

Oh well... so much for my hope that Harry was gay so he wouldn't reproduce... but alas. :p

Harry-Ginny, we could argue about, but Ron-Hermione is staring you in the face from Book Four.
Book One if you understand the basic rules of relationships in fiction.

Oh well... so much for my hope that Harry was gay so he wouldn't reproduce... but alas. :pHe could still be.

Maybe this question could be answered by working out who isn't gay?

And fanfic writers around the world rejoice...

Huh. Makes sense, though.

it does make sense.

it makes the whole friendship thing work out better. not too too many young men ruin themselves over a good friend.

to the people who claim she "made it up"


DUH!

It's her character. She could say he was a tranvestite(sp?) and the reason he was gone at times was to pole dance for muggle businessmen and for her MADE UP character it would be true.




on another note. I sooo want to see my aunts reaction. at first she wouldn't read it because it was "evil witchcraft"(yes they are not just a pubicity stunt).

Um ok. Uhh...who cares?

Does it even matter?

He's a fictional character.

The only fictional character I like enough to care about things like that is Samus Aran because Samus Aran kicks ass. And it'd be pretty hot if she were a lesbian. Imagination + Morph Ball + Naked Samus = Crazy hot fantasies!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cL-mR79GErU

Back on topic - while there's nothing wrong with him being gay, it seems as if there's nothing gained plotwise from it. The fact that people couldn't tell from the books seems to me as if she made him gay just to make him gay.

If that makes sense.

Does it even matter?

Before the Grindelwald story? No. Now? I think so. I mean, there's a difference between someone being blinded by love and ambition or someone being blinded only by naked ambition. He's still letting himself be blinded, and not to good ends, but it's more understandable this way.

Before the Grindelwald story? No.

I disagree. The monotonous, suffocating heteronormativity of most mainstream fiction and fantasy is annoying enough that breaks from it, however downplayed, are worth noting and crediting.

I disagree. The monotonous, suffocating heteronormativity of most mainstream fiction and fantasy is annoying enough that breaks from it, however downplayed, are worth noting and crediting.
:p Good point.

I knew Ian McKellen should have played him.
Ian McKellen is gay?

Ian McKellen is gay?
Yes.

Uh...read Hallows again, mate. About 3/4 of the way through. Ron and Hermione do get together. Were you expecting some kind of sex scene or something? They do kiss, and the end shows them with kids. Why on Earth would any more be necessary?

EDIT: Read the series and can't spell Hermione? Suspicious.

They've been fighting since the beginning, and what about the Yule Ball? Didn't Hermione tell Ron off for not asking her to begin with?

And Ginny had a serious crush on Harry since the Chamber of Secrets!

Ian McKellen is gay?

Um, yes? And out for quite some time?

Ginny had a crush on Harry since the first book, when he met her at the station for the first time and she couldn't even talk to him.

And the Ron/Hermione thing was set up from just as early on. Of course any two friends who fight as much as those two are going to end up together in fiction. It is a very old trope.

I didn't see the Dumbledore thing though. And it does seem sort of tacked on, but that's ok, it makes no difference either way. Now I will have to go back and re-read the last book.

Um, yes? And out for quite some time?
I don't pay very much attention to celebrity gossip/their actual lives.

Pffft. Gay Harry would have been funnier/more controversial.

Nowhere in the first half of the series do you see Harry even remotely intersted in Ginny.

you're counting an 11 and 12 year old not being interested in a girl even younger against what happens between them in their later teens? really?

Yeah, in the words of some guy in my French class..pouuuurquuuoooooiiii?????

And in other news, who really gives a shit?

Yeah, in the words of some guy in my French class..pouuuurquuuoooooiiii?????

And in other news, who really gives a shit?

Fan fiction writers?

Yeah, but Harry got naked with a horse.

Doesn't, trust me.

:(

QFT :(

Fan fiction writers?

Harry's apparently straight, but that doesn't stop them from matching him with Draco... slash fan fiction has always been about ignoring the prescribed heterosexuality of characters.

Harry's apparently straight, but that doesn't stop them from matching him with Draco... slash fan fiction has always been about ignoring the prescribed heterosexuality of characters.

True, but they'd get more enthusiastic if their ideas turned out to be right.

Fan fiction writers?

Meh. I write fanfiction myself, and there are so many people out there who ignore sexuality, I don't even think they give a smeg.

True, but they'd get more enthusiastic if their ideas turned out to be right.

I don't know; part of the fun is the implausibility.

Hence Harry/Draco.

He could still be.

He is in my imagination... ;)

And fanfic writers around the world rejoice...

Not really. I mean, it's Dumbledore... you can't do much with him given the specs for his character.

Fan fiction writers?

You got a bone to pick with me, boy? ;):)

Harry's apparently straight, but that doesn't stop them from matching him with Draco... slash fan fiction has always been about ignoring the prescribed heterosexuality of characters.

No. It's also been about pairing up people who contrast each other well for yaoi fics. It makes for good meaningless sex. Plus you've got a lot more to work with because there is none of that inconvenient lovey-dovey sappy BS.

I don't know; part of the fun is the implausibility.

Hence Harry/Draco.

No, more like Draco/Harry, given the dominating personality that Draco possesses.

No. It's also been about pairing up people who contrast each other well for yaoi fics.

I didn't know that "also" meant "no".... ;)

It makes for good meaningless sex. Plus you've got a lot more to work with because there is none of that inconvenient lovey-dovey sappy BS.

Unless by "inconvenient lovey-dovey sappy BS" you mean "heterosexuality", I'm not sure what you mean... a good deal of slash fan fiction is heavy on the "lovey-dovey sappy BS."

Oh great, now they're going to ban the books from librarys for promoting homosexuality.

There was so little revealed about dumbledore, you could say anything about him and it would seem plausible. He could have been a pedophile, a prostitute, a cocaine addict, a compulsive gambler, a neonazi... wait I guess he actually was a neonazi.

Didn't see that coming.

OK, that proves it, either Rowling read WAY too much fanfic before she wrote book 7 or she hired a fanfic writing ghostwriter.
Am I the only one who though Hallows was fanservice-y?
I mean, the epilogue? Come on.
Even the arb storyline reminded me of various weird plotlines used by fanfic authors to go "this is how HP will end" and char X will get together with char Y.
I think someone should write the REAL ending to the series... Voldemort wins, everyone dies horrible painful deaths.

After readomg Deathly Hallows, I say she just made that up for some controversy.

Nowhere in the entire series do you see Herminie and Ron getting together.

Nowhere in the first half of the series do you see Harry even remotely intersted in Ginny.

she just wanted her happy "everyone is now one big family" type ending.

so I say she's making it up for publicity.
o.o Of course it's made up, it's fiction to begin with; she made up the stories, how is that any different from what she herself says about them?

That said however I haven't read the Harry Potter books (except maybe the first one, I think I remember I got my parents to read me the first one for school) and have only watched a couple of the movies, so I'm not really into the series; heck I haven't even read the posts in this thread very carefully anyway, but I just wanted to make that point about how we're dealing with fiction to begin with.

. wait I guess he actually was a neonazi.

What? No he wasn't.

And I saw this coming ever since I read about his and Gridenwald's "friendship." I knew there had to be more to that than just friendship.

I think someone should write the REAL ending to the series... Voldemort wins, everyone dies horrible painful deaths.

that isn't possible within the storyline developed in the earlier books

What? No he wasn't.

Technically speaking, his discussions with Grindelwald about wizard-Muggle relations occurred before there was a Nazi Party....

And I saw this coming ever since I read about his and Gridenwald's "friendship."

Good; I wasn't the only one.

And I saw this coming ever since I read about his and Gridenwald's "friendship." I knew there had to be more to that than just friendship.

i won't claim to have seen it coming, but i had some suspicion that it was being hinted at.

OMG GAY SATANIC BRITISHER WIZARDS!!! N00000000000000000ES JEEBUS hilp usss?!

I didn't know that "also" meant "no".... ;)

Unless by "inconvenient lovey-dovey sappy BS" you mean "heterosexuality", I'm not sure what you mean... a good deal of slash fan fiction is heavy on the "lovey-dovey sappy BS."

There are plenty of pairings where because the two males are friends that they become worse than hetero teens experiencing puppy love. That's what I meant. Nothing about heterosexuality.

There are plenty of pairings where because the two males are friends that they become worse than hetero teens experiencing puppy love. That's what I meant.

Oh, I see what you mean--you're making the distinction between "people who contrast each other" and people who don't. I misread you as talking about the special characteristics of slash as opposed to romantic fan fiction broadly speaking.

But I question the "because" there--like I said, there's lots of slash full of "lovey-dovey sappy BS", even with characters that contrast sharply. And the old romantic cliche of opposites attracting has a strong element of that in itself.

For me, it's just hard to believe that Dumbledore is actually GAY.

What? No he wasn't.

And I saw this coming ever since I read about his and Gridenwald's "friendship." I knew there had to be more to that than just friendship.As kids dumbledore and grindlewald wanted to violently take over the world so that they could rule over muggles. That is pretty naziish.

If you look at the wikipedia article about friendship, apparently friendships used to be stronger in the past. But I guess friendship was never really important enough to cause people to neglect their family.

Technically speaking, his discussions with Grindelwald about wizard-Muggle relations occurred before there was a Nazi Party....
Yes, but see below.

Good; I wasn't the only one.
Hai.


As kids dumbledore and grindlewald wanted to violently take over the world so that they could rule over muggles. That is pretty naziish.
Not exactly. Gridenwald's beliefs were certainly similar to Adolf Hitler's, but I don't think he would have gone so far as extermination. Also, Dumbledore disagreed with him many times and believed he was going to rule over Muggles for their BENEFIT, not because he was superior and they deserved to be ground under his heel. Plus I think he mostly went along with Grindenwald because he fell in love with him rather than fully believing in it. And the whole way through he had good intentions. I'd not call him a Nazi or neonazi or anything like that. I'd call him a good-hearted but ultimately misguided fool, which he was.

If you look at the wikipedia article about friendship, apparently friendships used to be stronger in the past. But I guess friendship was never really important enough to cause people to neglect their family.
Friendship can be just as strong today, but it wasn't just friendship between Dumbledore and Gridenwald. It was a deeper, more romantic love. Probably part of why Dumbledore was the only one who could take Grindenwald down during the Wizard version of World War II.

Oh for crying out loud, what the hell is wrong with the idiots saying "she just made that part about him being gay up"? I point out that "Of course it's made up, it's fiction to begin with; she made up the stories, how is that any different from what she herself says about them?" and yet they apparently ignore it. [paragraph edited to make it look a little calmer]

Hello? It's a fucking fairy tale, of course she made it all up. What, do the people in this topic think of it as some kind of history book or something? Am I supposed to expect some kinda rally where people say "her book was historically misleading, the reality is that Harry Potter used Din's Fire on Voldemort..." [paragraph edited to make it look a little calmer]

Kinda reminds me of an Albert Einstein quote, "only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not so sure about the former"

:headbang: Oh for crying out loud...

WHAT THE DAMN HELL IS WRONG WITH YOU IMBECILES?!?

I point out that "Of course it's made up, it's fiction to begin with; she made up the stories, how is that any different from what she herself says about them?" and yet you guys IGNORE it.

Hello? IT'S A FUCKING FAIRY TALE, OF COURSE SHE MADE IT ALL UP. What, do the people in this topic think of it as some kind of history book or something? Am I supposed to expect some rallies where people give speeches saying "the Harry Potter books are HISTORICALLY INACCURATE, yes we ALL KNOW there were three-headed monsters but let's not forget how J.K. Rowling left out how Harry Potter used DIN'S FIRE from ZELDA GAMES in the battle with Voldemort"

Kinda reminds me of an Albert Einstein quote, "only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not so sure about the former"
Of course I paid attention to you. I'm arguing from within the context of the Harry Potter universe and for something completely different.

No, more like Draco/Harry, given the dominating personality that Draco possesses.

I don't think so -- Draco's a coward by his true nature. In the boudoir, he'd be a bottom.

:headbang: Oh for crying out loud...

WHAT THE DAMN HELL IS WRONG WITH YOU IMBECILES?!?

I point out that "Of course it's made up, it's fiction to begin with; she made up the stories, how is that any different from what she herself says about them?" and yet you guys IGNORE it.

Hello? IT'S A FUCKING FAIRY TALE, OF COURSE SHE MADE IT ALL UP. What, do the people in this topic think of it as some kind of history book or something? Am I supposed to expect some rallies where people give speeches saying "the Harry Potter books are HISTORICALLY INACCURATE, yes we ALL KNOW there were three-headed monsters but let's not forget how J.K. Rowling left out how Harry Potter used DIN'S FIRE from ZELDA GAMES in the battle with Voldemort"

Kinda reminds me of an Albert Einstein quote, "only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not so sure about the former"

Jeez, pal, relax. It's a theoretical discussion about fiction. You no likey, you no read, m'kay?

Friendship can be just as strong today, but it wasn't just friendship between Dumbledore and Gridenwald. It was a deeper, more romantic love.

I believe Rowling said it was unrequited.

And what Dumbledore felt for Grindelwald sounds more like infatuation and ideation than true romantic love.

Jeez, pal, relax. It's a theoretical discussion about fiction. You no likey, you no read, m'kay?
Sorry, I'm just frustrated by the hypocrisy of people who say "Rowling made up the part about Dumbledore [or whatever the name is] being gay" as if it's not like she made up the whole damn story.

Of course I paid attention to you. I'm arguing from within the context of the Harry Potter universe and for something completely different.
I saw no response on your part; how was I supposed to know whether or not you acknowledged my point?

I believe Rowling said it was unrequited.

And what Dumbledore felt for Grindelwald sounds more like infatuation and ideation than true romantic love.
...true, true. He saw only what he wanted to see in Grindenwald and ignored the bad parts. That feels awfully familiar to me, actually...I think many of us have made similar mistakes.

Hayteria: Because I never gave any indication that I disagreed with you? You need to calm down. Getting all worked up is how you lost your last nation in that kerfluffle in International Incidents.

I point out that "Of course it's made up, it's fiction to begin with; she made up the stories, how is that any different from what she herself says about them?" and yet you guys IGNORE it.

perhaps because your point is both irrelevant and stupid? there's this great thing they've invented called internal coherence and consistency, which allows us to see if stuff makes sense, even in imaginary worlds. fascinating concept.

perhaps because your point is both irrelevant and stupid? there's this great thing they've invented called internal coherence and consistency, which allows us to see if stuff makes sense, even in imaginary worlds. fascinating concept.
Do magic spells make sense?

Do magic spells make sense?

in a world which has them, presumably, yes.

Because I never gave any indication that I disagreed with you? You need to calm down. Getting all worked up is how you lost your last nation in that kerfluffle in International Incidents.
What kerfluffle? What International Incidents? What are you talking about? I lost my last nation by not loggin in for long enough; I lost it on purpose.

As for no indication of disagreeing, fair enough, it's just that without a response I have no way of telling if you even considered my point at all, as for calming down, I edited that last post a bit, in fact I wasn't really as angry as I probably gave the impression that I was, I was just deliberately trying to be agressive in making my point about the whole idea of "Dumbledore" (or whatever the name) not "real"ly being gay if it's about a character who isn't even real.

Any good fictional movie or book makes sense on the context of the universe it's created. Bad stories break their own rules or come up with stupid rules, like the matrix sequels.

in a world which has them, presumably, yes.
So what makes less sense about a "world" which presumably has a gay Dumbledore?

So what makes less sense about a world which presumably has a gay Dumbledore?

nothing, provided the world's dumbledore wasn't already clearly established otherwise. the question, then, is whether gay dumbledore is in keeping with what is already established.

Not exactly. Gridenwald's beliefs were certainly similar to Adolf Hitler's, but I don't think he would have gone so far as extermination. Also, Dumbledore disagreed with him many times and believed he was going to rule over Muggles for their BENEFIT, not because he was superior and they deserved to be ground under his heel. Plus I think he mostly went along with Grindenwald because he fell in love with him rather than fully believing in it. And the whole way through he had good intentions. I'd not call him a Nazi or neonazi or anything like that. I'd call him a good-hearted but ultimately misguided fool, which he was.
That's true, but a lot of neonazis think racial segregation is for the greater good of everybody.

And Rincewind is a coward! How is this news!?

that isn't possible within the storyline developed in the earlier books

But I wish it was.
This is me after books 1 - 4: :rolleyes::)
This is me after books 5 & 6: :mad::(
This is me after reading book 7: :headbang::headbang::headbang::mp5:

She ignored enough of her pre-established stuff in the first six books anyway... might have gone the whole way. I felt like I was reading something in a foreign language with Hallows because it was SO disconnected from the series.

Dumbledore being gay was (strangely enough) always something I considered possible in the books, but in combination with the rest of the crap in 6...
Fanfic. I swear to my non-existent god. Read just like thousands of fanfics.

I felt like I was reading something in a foreign language with Hallows because it was SO disconnected from the series.

The whole "Hallows" thing did come out of nowhere.

But then, carefully planned, well thought-out plot has never been Rowling's strength. (Take the Time-Turner.)

Fanfic. I swear to my non-existent god. Read just like thousands of fanfics.

Parts of Half-Blood Prince did, a little. Deathly Hallows really didn't. (Except maybe Ginny's kiss.)

nothing, provided the world's dumbledore wasn't already clearly established otherwise.
... oh. Ok, fair enough, as I myself mentioned I'm not particularily familiar with the Harry Potter storyline, I didn't think something within it would come up that would contradict a gay dumbledore. Nonetheless, still, "she made it up" about dumbledore being gay still applies just as well to the alternate story, the one she also wrote, as she also made that one up, she made both up... to be fair, I guess I must have misinterpreted the way in which "made it up" was used. I really thought, beforehand, that it was public stupidity but I guess now I realize it's more logical than I previously thought... reminds me of the quote "we can only see with open eyes; we can only think with open minds"

For me, it's just hard to believe that Dumbledore is actually GAY.

Doesn't really change a thing.

Doesn't really change a thing.

As WYTYG pointed out earlier, it changes the character of the Dumbledore-Grindelwald relationship. At least a little.

Doesn't really change a thing.Yep, not readin the books either.

That's true, but a lot of neonazis think racial segregation is for the greater good of everybody.

Not exactly. They'll say that but what they really mean is that it's good for them to keep those nasty others away from them, whereas Dumbledore thought nothing of the sort.

What kerfluffle? What International Incidents? What are you talking about? I lost my last nation by not loggin in for long enough; I lost it on purpose.


I thought you were that Hataria or however it's spelled guy, the one who had some huge conflict with other people over their country...

Meh.

As for no indication of disagreeing, fair enough, it's just that without a response I have no way of telling if you even considered my point at all, as for calming down, I edited that last post a bit, in fact I wasn't really as angry as I probably gave the impression that I was, I was just deliberately trying to be agressive in making my point about the whole idea of "Dumbledore" (or whatever the name) not "real"ly being gay if it's about a character who isn't even real.

The issue is twofold:

A. Some find the idea hard to believe for personal reasons, be it homophobia or simply a dislike of the idea--these people can be ignored.

B. People who wonder if it truly fits within the context of the Harry Potter universe as set--these people can be listened to.

I am of the latter, and I also find it very easy to believe. As I said, I saw this coming ever since I read about the Grindenwald friendship.

As WYTYG pointed out earlier, it changes the character of the Dumbledore-Grindelwald relationship. At least a little.

Not really. Just increases our understanding of it. Shines a light on what was already there.

And fanfic writers around the world rejoice... *shudders*

a neonazi... wait I guess he actually was a neonazi. Funny how in the book he defeated his rival\crush in Germany in 1945.

I already can imagine the way such news will be reported in certain Christian sites : "Harry Potter teaches not only satanism, but also nazism and sodomy to your children!" and that accompanied by another call for burning Harry Potter books. I wonder if such declaration was intentional, considering Christians were mentioned again.

I already can imagine the way such news will be reported in certain Christian sites : "Harry Potter teaches not only satanism, but also nazism and sodomy to your children!" and that accompanied by another call for burning Harry Potter books. I wonder if such declaration was intentional, considering Christians were mentioned again.

I don't think it was intentional to stir things up per se, but Ms. (Mrs?) Rowling knows damned well such a thing would stir up controversy and is probably enjoying milking it for everything it's worth. I know I would.

pft, he's not gay, he's just British. Though the confusion is understandable

HAHAHAHA!

You win the thread.

The whole "Hallows" thing did come out of nowhere.

But then, carefully planned, well thought-out plot has never been Rowling's strength. (Take the Time-Turner.)
True. That was rather a little Dues Ex Machina.

Parts of Half-Blood Prince did, a little. Deathly Hallows really didn't. (Except maybe Ginny's kiss.)

I actually liked (well, hated, but it was good) HBP. I know some fanfic did read like it, because the events followed logically from the rest of the series. Or at least that's my belief.
Hallows, well, it just made me want to kill Rowling by reading it too her over and over again... the horrific letdown it was should cause her to die of shame.

I actually liked (well, hated, but it was good) HBP. I know some fanfic did read like it, because the events followed logically from the rest of the series.

Yeah, but some of the writing was just bad.

Hallows, well, it just made me want to kill Rowling by reading it too her over and over again... the horrific letdown it was should cause her to die of shame.

I actually liked Deathly Hallows; it's probably my favorite in the series. I'm not sure why some people have criticized it so harshly.

After readomg Deathly Hallows, I say she just made that up for some controversy.

Nowhere in the entire series do you see Herminie and Ron getting together.

Nowhere in the first half of the series do you see Harry even remotely intersted in Ginny.

she just wanted her happy "everyone is now one big family" type ending.

so I say she's making it up for publicity.

Ya think?

I doubt that Dumbledore is gay. She just wants to create publicity and maybe even piss off some Christian uptights. I say go for it. She's now my hero[ine].

Why would she want to create publicity? She has never sacrificed the integrity of her work to make publicity in the past. Everyone told her there is no money in children's fantasy, but she wrote the books because those are the books she wants to write.

Ya think?

I doubt that Dumbledore is gay. She just wants to create publicity and maybe even piss off some Christian uptights. I say go for it. She's now my hero[ine].

To be quite frank, that's a pretty stupid thing to say. Rowling says that Dumbledore is gay, therefore, he is gay. If an author gives his/her characters certain attributes, then they have those attributes. That's how fiction works.

I doubt that Dumbledore is gay. She just wants to create publicity and maybe even piss off some Christian uptights. .

How can you doubt Dumbledore being gay? Rowling's the author/creator of Dumbledore. If she said he was a transexual alien spawn of Satan we'd have to go along with her. He can, or at least could have been, anything she wants him to be.

How can you doubt Dumbledore being gay? Rowling's the author/creator of Dumbledore. If she said he was a transexual alien spawn of Satan we'd have to go along with her. He can, or at least could have been, anything she wants him to be.

I meant it as in, I think she was joking or is just making it up on the spot. I should have said: "I doubt that Dumbledore was originally gay".

To be quite frank, that's a pretty stupid thing to say. Rowling says that Dumbledore is gay, therefore, he is gay. If an author gives his/her characters certain attributes, then they have those attributes. That's how fiction works.
There we go, basically what I meant to say, worded more concisely and articulately than I put it. Thanks.

No, if the character was written as straight, and suddenly the author says he's gay, she is wrong. Even though she's the author, she would be lying. Since dumbledore's sexuality was unknown and the author says he's gay, that's fine. But if rowling tried to pass off harry potter as gay, it wouldn't work. If she rewrote all of the books so that it was believable that harry potter is gay, fine, he's gay.

Rewriting won't work if it's done stupidly though. George lucas claims that he wanted the star wars movies to look like this all along, and that they're better this way. Does anyone believe him? No. It doesn't matter if lucas created the movies, he's still wrong. The greedo scene is still not believable, and the dead anakin makes no sense.

No, if the character was written as straight, and suddenly the author says he's gay, she is wrong. Even though she's the author, she would be lying. Since dumbledore's sexuality was unknown and the author says he's gay, that's fine.

That's what I was trying to say, though I should've worded it differently.

That's what I was trying to say, though I should've worded it differently.

In what way was Dumbledore written as though he were straight in the first place, then? Not all gay people are flaming, you know.

The greedo scene is still not believable,

I addition it sucks.

And back to the bad jokes:

So what did he do to mister Riddle in the room of requirement ?

WTF does she need publicity for? That's such BS.

He's gay. Get over it.

WTF does she need publicity for? That's such BS.That woman needs all publicity that she can get.

He's gay. Get over it.Yeah, and Daniel Radcliffe has already dropped his pants for another production...

And why does she need "all the publicity she can get"?

And why does she need "all the publicity she can get"?She's an attention whore.

She's an attention whore.

OH NO A SUCCESSFUL WOMAN RUN AWAY!!!!!!!!!!!:rolleyes:

OH NO A SUCCESSFUL WOMAN RUN AWAY!!!!!!!!!!!:rolleyes:Appeal to the masses is not indication for quality. Cf. Christianity.

I am not concerned about "witchcraft". I have read all the Harry Potter books and found that they certainly don't encourage people to experiment in witchcraft. So that is not my issue here.

What does concern me though is this new revelation about Dumbledore, a so-called "role model" for Harry. Author JK Rowling has said he is gay. The author wants this queer to be a role model for kids! What sort of drug is she on? Soceity needs to stop this shameless endorsement of something so wretched as homosexuality. Shame on Rowling for making her main character a pervert and likely pedophile (why else does he seem to be so "into" Harry?).

so, what brings you out from under your bridge today?

There already is another thread about this non-issue.

I am not concerned about "witchcraft". I have read all the Harry Potter books and found that they certainly don't encourage people to experiment in witchcraft. So that is not my issue here.

What does concern me though is this new revelation about Dumbledore, a so-called "role model" for Harry. Author JK Rowling has said he is gay. The author wants this queer to be a role model for kids! What sort of drug is she on? Soceity needs to stop this shameless endorsement of something so wretched as homosexuality. Shame on Rowling for making her main character a pervert and likely pedophile (why else does he seem to be so "into" Harry?).

Ok, well, since his sexuality is not evident in the book and he never touched a kid, then your theory is a big steaming pile of bovine fecal material.

Really, step away from the knee-jerk OMG GAY EVIL AND ALL GAYS ARE PEDOPHILES forum and think for yourself.

Dumbledore took a lot of interest in harry because he was the only person who was really capable of protecting him from voldemort, and because he admired harry for not going nuts the same way dumbledore did when he was harry's age.

I love the Harry Potter books. Now that I've found out that Dumbledore is gay, I've decided to become gay too. I've also rejected Jesus as my person saviour and hate America.




Oh, I'm also a liberal, godless, baby-eating commie. Because of Harry Potter. I can do magic too. *waves phallic wand*
Look, I've transfigured two threads into one!

I am not concerned about "witchcraft". I have read all the Harry Potter books and found that they certainly don't encourage people to experiment in witchcraft. So that is not my issue here.

What does concern me though is this new revelation about Dumbledore, a so-called "role model" for Harry. Author JK Rowling has said he is gay. The author wants this queer to be a role model for kids! What sort of drug is she on? Soceity needs to stop this shameless endorsement of something so wretched as homosexuality. Shame on Rowling for making her main character a pervert and likely pedophile (why else does he seem to be so "into" Harry?).

You're attracted to Dumbledore aren't you? You can tell us, we won't tell anyone else, it can be our little secret. ;)

I am not concerned about "witchcraft". I have read all the Harry Potter books and found that they certainly don't encourage people to experiment in witchcraft. So that is not my issue here.

What does concern me though is this new revelation about Dumbledore, a so-called "role model" for Harry. Author JK Rowling has said he is gay. The author wants this queer to be a role model for kids! What sort of drug is she on? Soceity needs to stop this shameless endorsement of something so wretched as homosexuality. Shame on Rowling for making her main character a pervert and likely pedophile (why else does he seem to be so "into" Harry?).

I fart in your general direction! (http://youtube.com/watch?v=kFFeE7FbZms)

This is what harry potter does to children http://web.archive.org/web/20000815214418/http://www.theonion.com/onion3625/harry_potter.html

Great, a pedophile runs a school full of kids. Rowling truly has a sick mind.

Great, a pedophile runs a school full of kids. Rowling truly has a sick mind.

I'm sorry, but I'm going to have to ignore you now. Don't take it personally, you just suck.

Great, a pedophile runs a school full of kids. Rowling truly has a sick mind.

Eh, the zombie horses are worse.

Great, a pedophile runs a school full of kids. Rowling truly has a sick mind.
learn2read. Dumbledore is gay, not a paedophile.
Eh, the zombie horses are worse.

Quite.

Great, a pedophile runs a school full of kids. Rowling truly has a sick mind.

Sweet Jesus, will you knock it off for once? COUNTLESS times it's been linked to and stated here that the vast majority of pedophiles are STRAIGHT, okay? Show me any evidence that the Dumbledore character acted in any way inappropriately toward any student in such a fashion. Let me save you the time -- you can't. If you're personally averse to homosexuality, that's fine -- nobody's denying you your right to feel that way. However, when you make shit up and spread it like Hate brand peanut butter, you're acting like a childish, petulant jackass. Grow up, already.

Appeal to the masses is not indication for quality. Cf. Christianity.

There was never a mention of "quality". The post you quoted said "successful". Unless you wish to admit to conflating those two terms because of some personal gripe, your post is a non sequitur.

Great, a pedophile runs a school full of kids. Rowling truly has a sick mind.

Sadly, you have a point. But that was not headmaster Dumbledore that was...
headmaster Snape. That last scene with Harry "look into my eyes"... ewww. Projection of Lily or not.

learn2read. Dumbledore is gay, not a paedophile


At least 25% of homosexuals are full blown pedophiles, probably even more.

At least 25% of homosexuals are full blown pedophiles, probably even more.

One assumes you can source this and did not just pull it out of your arse ;) ?
Telling lies is after all equivalent to serving Satan.

At least 25% of homosexuals are full blown pedophiles, probably even more.

I defy you to cite a source for this nonsense.

At least 25% of homosexuals are full blown pedophiles, probably even more.

Source, please.

I ask as a formality because I know you won't be able to post one that isn't from some raving butter of a "we-speak-for-God" Web site.

In short, your problem is internal, junior. Don't try and invent stats for what is a personal bugaboo.

Awww, Theo ran off :(
Understandable. The knowledge that lying is a much bigger affront to God than homosexuality can be disturbing at first.

You're attracted to Dumbledore aren't you? You can tell us, we won't tell anyone else, it can be our little secret. ;)

Dumbledore's special wand. :)

Dumbledore's special wand. :)

and Theodosis X wants to do some magic with Dumbledore's special wand too. ;)

and Theodosis X wants to do some magic with Dumbledore's special wand too. ;)

I think we all want to. In a way, there's a little Dumbledore inside us all.

Interesting. I kind of got that vibe while reading the Deathly Hallows. So now it's official....Meh.

Christians will add it to their list on why the book should be banned and the world will go on.

and Theodosis X wants to do some magic with Dumbledore's special wand too. ;)

14 inches, rigid and... :eek:

Great, a pedophile runs a school full of kids. Rowling truly has a sick mind.

In The Deathly Hallows Snape is the headmaster, and for a great portion of Order of the Phoenix Umbridge, a female character, is the headmistress of Hogwarts. The deputy head of the school is McGonagall; she has also served as headmistress. So there is no proof that the school is indeed run by the type of person you claim it is.

If you had even read the books you'd know.

At least 25% of homosexuals are full blown pedophiles, probably even more.

And you're wrong.

http://www.thetaskforce.org/issues/parenting_and_family/questions

Are lesbian and gay individuals more likely to sexually abuse children?

No. The link between pedophilia and homosexuality is completely unfounded. A 1998 article in the Journal of the American Medical Association notes one study that determined that 90 percent of pedophiles are men, and that 98 percent of these individuals are heterosexual. Michael Stevenson, Ph.D., a psychologist at Ball State University, explains this statistic by noting that "gay men desire consensual sexual relations with other adult men. Pedophiles are usually adult men who are sexually attracted to pre-pubescent children. They are rarely sexually attracted to other adults." Stevenson observes that cases of pedophilia by adult lesbians are "almost non-existent." Two other major studies that examined the sexual orientation of convicted child molesters found that less than 1 percent in one study and 0 percent in the other were lesbian or gay. These studies were published in Pediatrics and Archives of Sexual Behavior, respectively, two peer-reviewed, widely respected academic journals. Preventing gay men and lesbians from becoming adoptive parents or foster parents does not protect children from sexual abuse. It simply perpetuates anti-gay prejudice.

Not good enough for you?

Then there's this.

http://www.internationalorder.org/scandal_response.html

Scroll down to: The Work of Dr. A. Nicholas Groth

Groth writes that the fixated offender, or pedophile, tends to select boys more often than girls, but for reasons having nothing to do with homosexuality:

In general, fixated child molesters are drawn to children sexually in that they identify with the child and appear in some ways to want to remain children themselves. It is for this reason that the trend for fixated offenders is to target boys as victims. . . . They see the boy as a projected representation of themselves. They feel themselves to be more child than adult – more boys than men – and therefore find themselves more comfortable (especially sexually) in the company of children. . . .

Groth stresses that “these same individuals are uninterested in adult homosexual relationships. In fact, they frequently express a strong sexual aversion to adult males, reporting that what they find attractive about the immature boy are his feminine features and the absence of secondary sexual characteristics such as body hair and muscles.” The second type of offender, the regressed offender, is predominantly heterosexual. However, he may temporarily turn to boys or girls as a result of complications in his adult relations. Although regressed offenders are more likely to choose girls than boys as victims, writes Groth, what attracts the regressed male offender to boys are the feminine characteristics of pre‑ pubescents. Groth found no cases of boy molestation in which the offender had an adult homosexual orientation. Concludes Groth,

Homosexuality and homosexual pedophilia are not synonymous. In fact, it may be that these two orientations are mutually exclusive, the reason being that the homosexual male is sexually attracted to masculine qualities whereas the heterosexual male is sexually attracted to feminine characteristics, and the sexually immature child’s qualities are more feminine than masculine. . . . The child offender who is attracted to and engaged in adult sexual relationships is heterosexual. It appears, therefore, that the adult heterosexual male constitutes a greater sexual risk to underage children than does the adult homosexual male.

While the relations may indeed be homosexual in its nature it does not equate actual homosexuality.

From the same article.

However, the very scientists that are cited in support of the contention that gays are more likely to be molesters explicitly reject the idea that homosexuals pose a disproportionate threat to children. These scientists note that pedophilia is a separate orientation from homosexuality and that the vast majority of molesters who target boys have either no interest in mature males or are heterosexual men who are attracted to the feminine characteristics of pre-pubescent males.

And this is the last part of the conclusion, which goes on to cite Leviticus, which is an often used argument against homosexuality and the supposed issues of morality that surround it.

In particular, those who cite Leviticus 20:13 (“If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman . . .”) as an authoritative statement on the ethics of homosexuality should be asked whether they also accept the original understanding of that law, which is that there is no penalty for men who have sexual relations with boys under the age of nine years and one day. Or perhaps instead, proponents of Biblical morality can admit that there are times when moral codes can and must be modified in light of new knowledge and understanding.

Emphasis are my own.

I've found at least two links, surely you can find something other than Leviticus and other Biblical documents to substantiate your claims that homosexuality and paedophilia are linked.

I'm pretty sure you can find something, unless of course you're blowing out your ass.

Don't take this to mean I'm denying the possibility that there are homosexuals who do molest children, I'm saying that you're overstating the facts. Given the facts, you can clearly see that only 2% are indeed of this contention.

Further, the Catholic Church has participated in the concealment of such crimes, with the John Jay report citing as much as 4% of the total number of Catholic priests in America as being paedophiles.

Or perhaps you're choosing to ignore the Ferns Inquiry that found over 100 cases of child molestation in the diocose of Ferns.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Catholic_sex_abuse_cases (lots of goodies here for anyone else who would like to take the ball and run the whole nine yards).

There we go. Good enough for now. This is a start for those of you who wish to attack Theo's claims.

I think we all want to. In a way, there's a little Dumbledore inside us all.
im not gay! and if there was a little Dumbldor in all of us then that means you guys are ...well...gay!

im not gay! and if there was a little Dumbldor in all of us then that means you guys are ...well...gay!

Bend over and let's find out. :)

Bend over and let's find out. :)
egh you are sick,you know that

and if there was a little Dumbldor in all of us then that means you guys are ...well...gay!

no, it was totally just a one time thing. we were really drunk. it doesn't count...

egh you are sick,you know that

Yep. :)

Yep. :)
then post something funny that has nothing to do with gayness or Dumbledor

then post something funny that has nothing to do with gayness or Dumbledor

http://www.boomspeed.com/looonatic/dumblegay.jpg

:D

I am not concerned about "witchcraft". I have read all the Harry Potter books and found that they certainly don't encourage people to experiment in witchcraft. So that is not my issue here.

What does concern me though is this new revelation about Dumbledore, a so-called "role model" for Harry. Author JK Rowling has said he is gay. The author wants this queer to be a role model for kids! What sort of drug is she on? Soceity needs to stop this shameless endorsement of something so wretched as homosexuality. Shame on Rowling for making her main character a pervert and likely pedophile (why else does he seem to be so "into" Harry?).

Why does homosexuality seem to lead into pedophilia...gay men don't have kids... I would trust a homosexual male with my children before a catholic priest. And many people look up to the priest...in closing to each their own I guess.

im not gay! and if there was a little Dumbldor in all of us then that means you guys are ...well...gay!

Or bi. Or have been experimenting youths ;p

In any case, I would quite like to have the superior wizarding skill of my inside Dumbledore coming out of the closet right about now ;)

http://www.boomspeed.com/looonatic/dumblegay.jpg

:D
i said NO DUMBLEDOR, NO GAYNESS!

I'm not even going to bother arguing with all of you, as you are all ignorant liberal teens saturated in political correctness.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pro-pedophile_activism

Read this and you will see a certain disturbing level of connection between the queers and the pedophiles. Read all of it, and take note of the various gay groups involved.

I've posted other links and everyone here freaks about them being "biased". Well the links everyone here posts to defend the sodomites are quite biased too. The only reason the APA took homosexuality off the list of mental disorders is because the queer community was throwing a huge fit and the APA wanted to be "politically correct".

Gays and lesbians are a menace to children. The ideal nation would ban public homosexuality.:upyours:

I'm not even going to bother arguing with all of you, as you are all ignorant liberal teens saturated in political correctness.


I am?

Right on one count, at least, the liberal. I am, however, not ignorant, nor am I a teenager or saturated in political correctness.

You're not a good troll or a fun troll...you're just annoying and idiotic in the face of contravening evidence.

I'm not even going to bother arguing with all of you, as you are all ignorant liberal teens saturated in political correctness.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pro-pedophile_activism


Gays and lesbians are a menace to children. The ideal nation would ban public homosexuality.:upyours:

WWJDJH

I'm not even going to bother arguing with all of you, as you are all ignorant liberal teens saturated in political correctness.

So it is not because you know your statements lack basis ?

Do answer this one though:

Who does God hate more:
A. Gays and Lesbians
B. People that align themselves with Satan by lying.

If you answer A; do tell me why He is worthy of worship.

So it is not because you know your statements lack basis ?

Do answer this one though:

Who does God hate more:
A. Gays and Lesbians
B. People that align themselves with Satan by lying.

If you answer A; do tell me why He is worthy of worship.


God doesn't hate people, He hates acts.

I'm not even going to bother arguing with all of you, as you are all ignorant liberal teens saturated in political correctness.


1) I'm not a liberal

2) I am not a teen

3) I hate political correctness

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pro-pedophile_activism

Read this and you will see a certain disturbing level of connection between the queers and the pedophiles. Read all of it, and take note of the various gay groups involved.

I've posted other links and everyone here freaks about them being "biased". Well the links everyone here posts to defend the sodomites are quite biased too. The only reason the APA took homosexuality off the list of mental disorders is because the queer community was throwing a huge fit and the APA wanted to be "politically correct".

Gays and lesbians are a menace to children. The ideal nation would ban public homosexuality.:upyours:

And this post shows you to be a teenage fundamentalist christian who knows nothing of the real world.

I'm not even going to bother arguing with all of you, as you are all ignorant liberal teens saturated in political correctness.

As your entire posting history on these boards has been little more than anti-gay trolling and more-than-borderline flamebaiting, why don't you just take a few days off and bother somebody else.

Forumbanned, five days.

~ Frisbeeteria ~
NationStates Game Moderator
The One-Stop Rules Shop

God doesn't hate people, He hates acts.

Ugh tell me, the Book of Acts is the most boring Book of the Whole Bible.

As your entire posting history on these boards has been little more than anti-gay trolling and more-than-borderline flamebaiting, why don't you just take a few days off and bother somebody else.

Forumbanned, five days.

~ Frisbeeteria ~
NationStates Game Moderator
The One-Stop Rules Shop

Thanks Fris. This thread was civil. :) I'm glad it wasn't locked.

Actually, I was a bit surprised at reading her declaration, but not that much.

I mean, come on, there was something fishy about how much Dumbledore and Grindelwald seemed to be so much into each other.

All in all, I'm just a bit disappointed she didn't have the guts to make it more outright obvious in the books. Ah, well, she was probably held back by the taboo about kids being exposed to homosexuality. God forbid children be put face-to-face with examples of gay fictionnal character who are perfectly sane, have a strong grasp of morals, are positive role models who are willing to fight for the greater good. Because you know kids are all gonna want to grow up to be gay because of that. :rolleyes:

As your entire posting history on these boards has been little more than anti-gay trolling and more-than-borderline flamebaiting, why don't you just take a few days off and bother somebody else.

Forumbanned, five days.

~ Frisbeeteria ~
NationStates Game Moderator
The One-Stop Rules Shop

Thank you.

Somehow I don't think Dumbledore's sexuality has anything to do with anything: At all.

Actually, I was a bit surprised at reading her declaration, but not that much.

I mean, come on, there was something fishy about how much Dumbledore and Grindelwald seemed to be so much into each other.

All in all, I'm just a bit disappointed she didn't have the guts to make it more outright obvious in the books. Ah, well, she was probably held back by the taboo about kids being exposed to homosexuality. God forbid children be put face-to-face with examples of gay fictionnal character who are perfectly sane, have a strong grasp of morals, are positive role models who are willing to fight for the greater good. Because you know kids are all gonna want to grow up to be gay because of that. :rolleyes:

While I agree with you in theory, I don't see the need to make his homosexuality transparent. His whole character is generally elusive and often veiled in sagely secrecy. For his sexuality to be obvious it would be contrary to the characteristics that make Dumbledore... well... Dumbledore. It would have taken away from his character for this to have been revealed. If his character had been fashioned differently such probabilities would have be plausible.

As your entire posting history on these boards has been little more than anti-gay trolling and more-than-borderline flamebaiting, why don't you just take a few days off and bother somebody else.

Forumbanned, five days.

~ Frisbeeteria ~
NationStates Game Moderator
The One-Stop Rules Shop

Pity. He was just beginning to sway me to his side too. Now I will be doomed to be a teen liberal pc gay lover forever. :(


;)

Even before Hallows there were plenty of hints.
I would have preferred a Luna-Harry pairing over Harry-Ginny though...

Whatever happened to her. . . was she mentioned in the last chapter, I forget.

I thought that Lucius was gay.

pft, he's not gay, he's just British. Though the confusion is understandable

Hey, HEY!!!

You can only say that about the French.

Actually, I was a bit surprised at reading her declaration, but not that much.

I mean, come on, there was something fishy about how much Dumbledore and Grindelwald seemed to be so much into each other.

All in all, I'm just a bit disappointed she didn't have the guts to make it more outright obvious in the books. Ah, well, she was probably held back by the taboo about kids being exposed to homosexuality. God forbid children be put face-to-face with examples of gay fictionnal character who are perfectly sane, have a strong grasp of morals, are positive role models who are willing to fight for the greater good. Because you know kids are all gonna want to grow up to be gay because of that. :rolleyes:

I don't really blame her though with as much flack as she was already taking from some Christian groups she probably did not want to rile them up.

It wouldn't have made sense for dumbledore to tell people he was gay. He was secretive and he didn't reveal anything about his personal life until he was asked when he was already dead.

Harry isn't very insightful about people's emotions, so it wouldn't have made sense for harry to ask if dumbledore was gay after he heard the story about him and grindlewald. If herminone suspected he was gay that would have made sense, but herminone didn't get to talk to dumbledore in the afterlife.

The only way for harry to discover dumbledore's sexuality that would make sense would be if he found a letter that dumbledore wrote to grindlewald or if harry saw something in the pensive he wasn't supposed to. And face it, both of those would be too creepy for a kid's book.

Dumbledore is NOT gay. No one would spend 20 years writing a book series and THEN when it's all complete and the gay issue is all in the news, say an important character is gay. It's a political move, pure and simple.

Dumbledore is NOT gay. No one would spend 20 years writing a book series and THEN when it's all complete and the gay issue is all in the news, say an important character is gay. It's a political move, pure and simple.

Errr. . . it doesn't matter, JK's the author. She can make her characters whatever sexuality she wants.

Dumbledore is NOT gay.

Yes, he is.

Even if your poor homophobic mind doesn't want to accept it.

No one would spend 20 years writing a book series and THEN when it's all complete and the gay issue is all in the news, say an important character is gay.

To the contrary, if you for a moment consider the situation, that is exactly what you would expect her to do.

Dumbledore/Harry erotica? ;)

Dumbledore is NOT gay. No one would spend 20 years writing a book series and THEN when it's all complete and the gay issue is all in the news, say an important character is gay. It's a political move, pure and simple.

Its a work of fiction not a real person dumbledore is exactly who she says he is no more no less. It does not matter why or how she made the character such just that she did

I don't really blame her though with as much flack as she was already taking from some Christian groups she probably did not want to rile them up.

Who cares what the christian nutjobs say? The normal, sane christians are the ones that matter, and they never had anything against the book. The opinion of the crazy ones who can't figure out fiction from reality really shouldn't matter to any of us.

Who cares what the christian nutjobs say? The normal, sane christians are the ones that matter, and they never had anything against the book. The opinion of the crazy ones who can't figure out fiction from reality really shouldn't matter to any of us.

Ehh the more ammo she give them the more chance they would have to at least hurt book sales

I don't agree with them but I know PLENTY of parents around here who would shy away from letting their kid read about about a "gay man" ... even ones who did not put stock in the witchcraft charges

I am not saying it is right just that I can see maybe why.

Ehh the more ammo she give them the more chance they would have to at least hurt book sales

I don't agree with them but I know PLENTY of parents around here who would shy away from letting their kid read about about a "gay man" ... even ones who did not put stock in the witchcraft charges

I am not saying it is right just that I can see maybe why.

I daresay Rowling doesn't really need the money for a few extra thousand sales anyway nowadays. But yeah, I understand why she did it. I just wouldn't have cared about them enough, personally.

Dumbledore is NOT gay. No one would spend 20 years writing a book series and THEN when it's all complete and the gay issue is all in the news, say an important character is gay. It's a political move, pure and simple.

Harry Potter hasn't been written for 20 years. Seriously, what the hell?

I daresay Rowling doesn't really need the money for a few extra thousand sales anyway nowadays. But yeah, I understand why she did it. I just wouldn't have cared about them enough, personally.

Oh no doubt ... hell I don't even care for the books much but I might have read them out of spite :-P lol

Still, you guys have no idea the amount of Ron/Harry or Harry/Draco fanfiction out there. It's scary.

Still, you guys have no idea the amount of Ron/Harry or Harry/Draco fanfiction out there. It's scary.

I do!

I do!

You do?

...


That sounds suspicious! :D

It's scary.

Why is it scary?

It's free entertainment for times of severe boredom... and the vast quantity ensures that there will be at least a few gems somewhere.

You do?

...


That sounds suspicious! :D

Nah, I just know how much slash there is.

Why is it scary?

It's free entertainment for times of severe boredom... and the vast quantity ensures that there will be at least a few gems somewhere.

Well, the Malfoy/Potter fiction is kind of pretty unhealthy. Sworn enemies and all. Talk about an abusive relationship...

Well, the Malfoy/Potter fiction is kind of pretty unhealthy. Sworn enemies and all.

Ah, but it shows the redemptive power of love....

Talk about an abusive relationship...

People have done it from that angle, too.

Dumbledore is NOT gay. No one would spend 20 years writing a book series and THEN when it's all complete and the gay issue is all in the news, say an important character is gay. It's a political move, pure and simple.

You've just proven you've never read the series.

Your claims are baseless conjecture.

Firstly, the first book of the series, Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone was published in 1997, with the last book of the series published in 2007. So, you're off by about 10 years. She only spent 10 years writing the series.

Secondly, as I stated earlier, for Dumbledore to make references to his sexuality either way would have be out of line with his character. His character was fashioned around elusive secrecy. He spends the entire series telling Harry only bits of information at a time, only to reveal everything after death.

Further, there are plenty of hints, though I'll admit the hints from my perspective suggested that Dumbledore may have been bisexual, but that's my interpretation. Either way, there are plenty of hints, the veiled secrecy being part of his character persona, as to the nature of his sexuality.

Still, you guys have no idea the amount of Ron/Harry or Harry/Draco fanfiction out there. It's scary.

Oh I think I do... I mean, I have written Malfoy/Potter fanfiction...

Well, the Malfoy/Potter fiction is kind of pretty unhealthy. Sworn enemies and all. Talk about an abusive relationship...

There is plenty of slash or yaoi fanfiction that capitalises on that type of relationship.

Who cares what the christian nutjobs say? The normal, sane christians are the ones that matter, and they never had anything against the book. The opinion of the crazy ones who can't figure out fiction from reality really shouldn't matter to any of us.

You are correct sir, but there is more humor to be seen in the "christian nut-job" camp. Before decrying the gay issue there was the wizardry and Wicca issue. Several Christian groups complained about the idea of dark magic and spellcasters being planted in their child's mind.

Let's examine some indoctrination regarding the same concepts as wizards and warlocks.

1. Jesus died, was buried, and came back to life all while moving a huge rock after 3 days.

2. Jesus turned water into wine.

3. Jesus fed a large group of people with his "magical" fish trick

4. Bringing people back to life

5. Curing blindness

6. And Finally, walking on water

Sure, we can't have our kids believing in wizards because that sort of thing would be rediculous!!!!!! Now read the bible where all sorts of illogical things happen and we expect you to believe them as part of your "faith." I'm not damning Christians here, being one myself, I'm damning idiots.

*snip*
See, you're one of the sane Christians I was referring about. I'm guessing your kids get to read Harry Potter as much as they want to.

The other, Nutjob(tm) brand Christians wouldn't let their kids read Potter because of the witchcraft issue to begin with, so how could having an openly gay character have any impact? They let their kids read it even less? :-p

No, with luck they would've bought to books, only to build pyres and burn the witchcraft right out of them. And that would have meant more money in Rowling's pockets, so everybody wins.

Uh...read Hallows again, mate. About 3/4 of the way through. Ron and Hermione do get together. Were you expecting some kind of sex scene or something? They do kiss, and the end shows them with kids. Why on Earth would any more be necessary?

EDIT: Read the series and can't spell Hermione? Suspicious.

Btw, anyone who has read the series knows that Ron and Hermione are bound to get together. Jealousy scenes at Yule Ball, Goblet of Fire, anyone?

No more Potter books or movies for any children in my care. And it's two movie tickets I won't be buying now.

Yet another arts type turns to the dark side, embraces the deviant agenda, and uses her influence to corrupt the minds of children.

Shame, J.K. Rowling. The Christian fundamentalists, with whom I'd heretofore disagreed, may have been right about you all along.

No more Potter books or movies for any children in my care. And it's two movie tickets I won't be buying now.

All because of this? Boy are you an idiot!

Yet another arts type turns to the dark side, embraces the deviant agenda, and uses her influence to corrupt the minds of children.{/quote]

Grow up!

[quote]Shame, J.K. Rowling. The Christian fundamentalists, with whom I'd heretofore disagreed, may have been right about you all along.

:headbang:

No more Potter books or movies for any children in my care. And it's two movie tickets I won't be buying now.

Yet another arts type turns to the dark side, embraces the deviant agenda, and uses her influence to corrupt the minds of children.

What exactly did she do wrong ? Should she have portrayed Dumbledore as a hideous childeating monster ? Would it have been better if Voldy had been gay ?

Edit: now that I think about it...
When Dumbledore was in love with another man, he did terrible things. One can even read the novel to state that he rejected that lifestyle before becoming the rolemodel...

Rowling in fact has written an extremely anti-gay thing here.

When Dumbledore was in love with another man, he did terrible things. One can even read the novel to state that he rejected that lifestyle before becoming the rolemodel...

Rowling in fact has written an extremely anti-gay thing here.

Obviously since she killed him! ;)

Obviously since she killed him! ;)

That is even a small detail...
Really, what Rowling tells us is that being gay can lead someone to do terrible things - but if you resist your feelings you can be a good man.

Not really pro-gay advocacy.

No more Potter books or movies for any children in my care. And it's two movie tickets I won't be buying now.
Good, because no one needs your kind of business.

Yet another arts type turns to the dark side, embraces the deviant agenda, and uses her influence to corrupt the minds of children.

Yeah, whatever, fuckwad. Just enjoy your little homophobia dance and ignore science that points to it being perfectly natural.

Shame, J.K. Rowling. The Christian fundamentalists, with whom I'd heretofore disagreed, may have been right about you all along.
Or maybe they're, you know, delusional, like you are.

Yeah, whatever, fuckwad. Just enjoy your little homophobia dance and ignore science that points to it being perfectly natural.

Careful Kyronea! This part could be considered flaming.

No more Potter books or movies for any children in my care. And it's two movie tickets I won't be buying now.

Yet another arts type turns to the dark side, embraces the deviant agenda, and uses her influence to corrupt the minds of children.

Shame, J.K. Rowling. The Christian fundamentalists, with whom I'd heretofore disagreed, may have been right about you all along.
I'm sure Rowling will be crying all the way to the bank.

Whether or not Dumbledore was a gay character from the beginning, it's a great move on Rowling's part to say what she said at this point. Christian fundie types love to squall about such things and act as though their dollars are worth more because they're pious or something, but the reality is that they'll just help generate more publicity for her.

That is even a small detail...
Really, what Rowling tells us is that being gay can lead someone to do terrible things - but if you resist your feelings you can be a good man.

Not really pro-gay advocacy.
I don't think anybody could see the Potter books as anything but EXTREMELY conservative when it comes to relationships. I mean, in the Potter universe everybody has met their (hetero) life-partner by the time they're done with high school. All the "good" characters end up in monogamous hetero unions with a pile of kiddies in the end. Single adults don't have sex or romantic relationships. And so on.

My wifes sister who LOVES Harry Potter just a little less than she loves her Mormonism will probably be devastated. She's one of those "gays shouldn't have the right to marry" types.

All because of this? Boy are you an idiot!

[quote]Yet another arts type turns to the dark side, embraces the deviant agenda, and uses her influence to corrupt the minds of children.{/quote]

Grow up!



:headbang:


You just figured this out about NewMit? I thought more highly of you Corny.

Obviously since she killed him! ;)If that ain't a message.

No more Potter books or movies for any children in my care. And it's two movie tickets I won't be buying now.

Yet another arts type turns to the dark side, embraces the deviant agenda, and uses her influence to corrupt the minds of children.

Shame, J.K. Rowling. The Christian fundamentalists, with whom I'd heretofore disagreed, may have been right about you all along.

:rolleyes: Oh gee... what a shame.

Too bad you can't think independently. I guess group-think saves you the time and effort of having to look at all the factors to make a relevant decision.

Point to evidence in the actual books of truly deviant behaviour. The only real deviant behaviour is the childish mischief and the rebellion against authority that takes place. There is far more rebellion against authority than there is of sexual relations. Then again, questioning authority in this context could be viewed as a true resistance; fighting to keep evil at bay.

In fact, one could define the disobedience of Potter et al as 'deviant behaviour' because as Snape puts it, Potter has a great distaste for rules.

I don't think anybody could see the Potter books as anything but EXTREMELY conservative when it comes to relationships. I mean, in the Potter universe everybody has met their (hetero) life-partner by the time they're done with high school. All the "good" characters end up in monogamous hetero unions with a pile of kiddies in the end. Single adults don't have sex or romantic relationships. And so on.

Then again, the house-elves were really into master/slave relationships and self-mutilation.

All because of this? Boy are you an idiot!




You just figured this out about NewMit? I thought more highly of you Corny.

nah. I already knew but yet I had to say it this time because he really is a nitwit.

When Dumbledore was in love with another man, he did terrible things. One can even read the novel to state that he rejected that lifestyle before becoming the rolemodel...

That's a stretch. Rowling is making a point about convenience, about believing what we want to believe, not about same-sex love specifically.

That's a stretch. Rowling is making a point about convenience, about believing what we want to believe, not about same-sex love specifically.

Possibly. But is a striking coincidence.
The weird thing is that Christians aren 't picking that up.

Still, you guys have no idea the amount of Ron/Harry or Harry/Draco fanfiction out there. It's scary.

And some it is very good (I like Resonant's stuff - esp Transfigurations). Lots and lots of all slash is crap though.

I don't think anybody could see the Potter books as anything but EXTREMELY conservative when it comes to relationships. I mean, in the Potter universe everybody has met their (hetero) life-partner by the time they're done with high school. All the "good" characters end up in monogamous hetero unions with a pile of kiddies in the end. Single adults don't have sex or romantic relationships. And so on.

I think that's not so much her being extremely conservative so much as it is a typical thing to happen in children's fantasy. Consider most Disney films, for instance.

Then again, the house-elves were really into master/slave relationships and self-mutilation.

Good point! Obviously she wants to corrupt the young with the hidden S&M message!

I think that's not so much her being extremely conservative so much as it is a typical thing to happen in children's fantasy. Consider most Disney films, for instance.
Fairy tales are typically very conservative. Disney is typically extremely extremely super duper conservative.

im not gay! and if there was a little Dumbldor in all of us then that means you guys are ...well...gay!
Yup. All of us. Gay as the day is long.
no, it was totally just a one time thing. we were really drunk. it doesn't count...
They don't count? Oh, well then one or two of us aren't gay yet.
Dumbledore is NOT gay.
Mrs. Rowling? Is that you?
No one would spend 20 years writing a book series and THEN when it's all complete and the gay issue is all in the news, say an important character is gay. It's a political move, pure and simple.
She's running for office? Trying to promote gay rights? No, she's just trying to drum up some interest in her books in between the movies.
Dumbledore/Harry erotica? ;)
Already existed before this. Rule 34.
No more Potter books or movies for any children in my care. And it's two movie tickets I won't be buying now.

Yet another arts type turns to the dark side, embraces the deviant agenda, and uses her influence to corrupt the minds of children.

Shame, J.K. Rowling. The Christian fundamentalists, with whom I'd heretofore disagreed, may have been right about you all along.
Please be joking. Please.
My wifes sister who LOVES Harry Potter just a little less than she loves her Mormonism will probably be devastated. She's one of those "gays shouldn't have the right to marry" types.

Well Dumbledore never did get married.

[QUOTE= "Harry Potter the ant-christ".[/QUOTE]

God of the insects. Cool.